Author Topic: Where does Falcon Heavy leave SLS? Should NASA abandon launch?  (Read 119123 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Let Falcon-9 block-II fly and demonstrate reasonable reliability over at least 2 years of routine operations.  Let the Falcon Heavy prototype fly and its' performance be more accurately estimated.

Will the Falcon 9 block II fly before the FH? Wouldn't it make more sense to test the new Merlin 1D on the test flight of the FH (before using it on a Falcon 9 mission)?
« Last Edit: 04/06/2011 02:42 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Let Falcon-9 block-II fly and demonstrate reasonable reliability over at least 2 years of routine operations.  Let the Falcon Heavy prototype fly and its' performance be more accurately estimated.

Will the Falcon 9 block II fly before the FH? Wouldn't it make more sense to test the new Merlin 1D on the FH?

Mr. Musk's confident predictions aside, Falcon-9 will have many times the launch rate of Falcon Heavy for some time.  It will be the reliability of the high-flight-rate Falcon-9 and SpaceX's ability to keep its CRS obligations that will be the test.  IMHO at least.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
If I were sitting in Congress, wanting to save money and progress in Space, and without a workforce constituency to worry about ...

You made two critical errors in that statement.

1. In spite of all the hysterics you hear from the Congress these days, the Congress is not interested in saving money. Both major political parties *love* to spend mony. But there's this Tea Party thing happening in the grass roots who think that Congress shouldn't be spending so much money. So the Republicans, specifically, are being called to task to reduce governmental spending by them - or else. Remember, it was a Republican President/Congress that completely depleted a trillion dollar surplus and spent the nation into an economic crisis. Both parties love to spend gobs of money and both parties will continue to do so as long as they can get away with it. But at least for now some of the grass roots Republican voters aren't letting their legislators get away with it. Don't equate the Republican call for spending cuts fool you. They are not really interested in the benefits that has for the economy. They are interested primarily in keeping their jobs. They are scared sh*tless of the Tea Party voter. That's the only reason they are being so anal about spending cuts - the *only* reason.

2. "without a workforce constituency to worry about"? The "constituency" that needs to be appeased is the voters, of both parties, who live in the states and districts where NASA currently spends money. They have jobs because NASA spends big dollars there. No legislator is going to even dare to tell them that he's killing their jobs so that the Congress can save money on building Elon Musk's BFG instead.

Sorry. Reality bites.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2011 02:47 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Let Falcon-9 block-II fly and demonstrate reasonable reliability over at least 2 years of routine operations.  Let the Falcon Heavy prototype fly and its' performance be more accurately estimated.

Will the Falcon 9 block II fly before the FH? Wouldn't it make more sense to test the new Merlin 1D on the FH?

Mr. Musk's confident predictions aside, Falcon-9 will have many times the launch rate of Falcon Heavy for some time.  It will be the reliability of the high-flight-rate Falcon-9 and SpaceX's ability to keep its CRS obligations that will be the test.  IMHO at least.

I agree but I was just wondering if the FH test flight will be the first time that a Merlin 1D will be used.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
so anal about spending cuts - the *only* reason.

2. "without a workforce constituency to worry about"? The "constituency" that needs to be appeased is the voters, of both parties, who live in the states and districts where NASA currently spends money. They have jobs because NASA spends big dollars there. No legislator is going to even dare to tell them that he's killing their jobs so that the Congress can save money on building Elon Musk's BFG instead.

Sorry. Reality bites.

Soon there won't be much workforce to worry about contractor wise. It probably does not take near as many people to develop SLS as to operate it.

Offline jimgagnon

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
"Don't worry about building launchers, let us do that. Scrap the SLS. You can save billions per year this way. You can spend this on moon bases and Mars missions and really get on with proper exploration. You just give me $2.2 billion per year (much less than you spent on the shuttle) and I'll put 1,000 tons per year into space for your exploration missions"

If I were in congress, I'd be tempted. Why not?
Ofcourse this is the most obvious thing to do in the eyes of a space enthousiast.

But the government will not divert money from launchers to BEO-spacecraft and landers, it will go to some other department than NASA.

Actually, Bolden's original FY2011 plan was to do just that: get NASA out of the launch business, and devote the funds from that into developing a space-only ship. In fact, they increased the budget.

Perhaps you feel that something strange and Machiavellian has been happening surrounding the Saga of Heavy-Lift the last few months? That maybe Bolden and Garver are dragging their heels deliberately about the issue, perhaps on instruction from above?! You could be forgiven for thinking so, I guess.

You win the award. I've been waiting for someone to say this; that's exactly what's happening. Since the space community wouldn't go with the FY2011 plan the easy way, it's getting shoved into it the hard way. By using all its powers, the Administration can delay SDHLV until the infrastructure and workforce are so depleted and the benefits of the alternatives so apparent that even Congress will have to agree.

Remember, to the policy makers the workforce is secondary. Congress only mandated SLS because of the constituents. Once workforce attrition really kicks in, the constituents are less of a concern. After all, compare 53mT for $100M vs. 70mt for $1B -- it's a no brainer.

Easy way or the hard way. Congress chose the path but the destination is the same. It's called playing bare knuckle politics with somebody who's good at it. NASA will be out of the launch business, it's merely a matter of when.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
so anal about spending cuts - the *only* reason.

2. "without a workforce constituency to worry about"? The "constituency" that needs to be appeased is the voters, of both parties, who live in the states and districts where NASA currently spends money. They have jobs because NASA spends big dollars there. No legislator is going to even dare to tell them that he's killing their jobs so that the Congress can save money on building Elon Musk's BFG instead.

Sorry. Reality bites.

Soon there won't be much workforce to worry about contractor wise. It probably does not take near as many people to develop SLS as to operate it.

And you think that workforce only votes when they are employed? If normal voting trends hold true, only about half the (employed) voters will actually show up at the polls. But let the hammer come down and the plants close, nearly *all* the (newly unemployed) voters and now threatened employed voters will turn out to throw the legislator who fired them out of their job. Trust me - the current legislators are all too aware of that fact. If SLS goes away, so do their political careers - gone. They are not going to embrace Elon if the price is the loss of their *own* job.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8

And you think that workforce only votes when they are employed? If normal voting trends hold true, only about half the (employed) voters will actually show up at the polls. But let the hammer come down and the plants close, nearly *all* the (newly unemployed) voters and now threatened employed voters will turn out to throw the legislator who fired them out of their job. Trust me - the current legislators are all too aware of that fact. If SLS goes away, so do their political careers - gone. They are not going to embrace Elon if the price is the loss of their *own* job.

Not really the workforce will move get new job and so forth. That changes how people vote and remember there are more non space workers in any state than space workers limiting their impact.  Those workers will not be able to contribute much funding politically. They may have a back lash but remember there are more non space states that get nothing from NASA spending than space states. This will slowly reduce funding for SLS.

If Elon is flying in 2015 and NASA is not likely to till 2018(quite likely) Pressure will grow to drop SLS and no President Republican or Democrat will support the spending just to keep a few employed.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4

And you think that workforce only votes when they are employed? If normal voting trends hold true, only about half the (employed) voters will actually show up at the polls. But let the hammer come down and the plants close, nearly *all* the (newly unemployed) voters and now threatened employed voters will turn out to throw the legislator who fired them out of their job. Trust me - the current legislators are all too aware of that fact. If SLS goes away, so do their political careers - gone. They are not going to embrace Elon if the price is the loss of their *own* job.

They might all turn out. But they might have moved to some other district or state by the time they do. I get the impression this happened in the 70s when Apollo was ended.

Also, if SpaceX has successful launches in 2013 and manages to be almost a factor of ten cheaper per kg than SLS projections, then that's going to put a lot of pressure on any potential SLS program, no matter how many jobs are at stake. I think the SLS would fold. Keep in mind that if SpaceX demonstrates a successful Falcon Heavy launch, they have a strong case for the Falcon X, which in its three core version, would have a payload of 125 tons.
Karl Hallowell

Online Chris Bergin

SpaceX answered this on their press release yesterday:

"Please note that Falcon Heavy should not be confused with the super heavy lift rocket program being debated by the U.S. Congress.  That vehicle is authorized to carry between 70-130 metric tons to orbit.  SpaceX agrees with the need to develop a vehicle of that class as the best way to conduct a large number of human missions to Mars."

So I'm not sure what this thread is about.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1049
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 0
And you think that workforce only votes when they are employed? If normal voting trends hold true, only about half the (employed) voters will actually show up at the polls. But let the hammer come down and the plants close, nearly *all* the (newly unemployed) voters and now threatened employed voters will turn out to throw the legislator who fired them out of their job. Trust me - the current legislators are all too aware of that fact. If SLS goes away, so do their political careers - gone. They are not going to embrace Elon if the price is the loss of their *own* job.

True. But by never deciding anything they are still causing precisely that outcome. Why should the newly-unemployed voters then decide to reelect them?

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
If I were sitting in Congress, wanting to save money and progress in Space, and without a workforce constituency to worry about ...

You made two critical errors in that statement.

1. In spite of all the hysterics you hear from the Congress these days, the Congress is not interested in saving money..........

2. "without a workforce constituency to worry about"? The "constituency" that needs to be appeased is the voters, of both parties, who live in the states and districts where NASA currently spends money. They have jobs because NASA spends big dollars there. No legislator is going to even dare to tell them that he's killing their jobs so that the Congress can save money on building Elon Musk's BFG instead.

Sorry. Reality bites.
1. If I were in Congress, I would be worried about the deficit. Your current Congress might be too incompetent to worry about the deficit. If so, they can come and get jobs in the UK Labour party.

2. In an ideal world, say 30,000 jobs would go from NASA launch operations. 10,000 would go and work for SpaceX, and 20,000 would go and do more useful NASA things like build Lunar Lander and Solar electric tugs etc.

Unfortunately the process of "destructive creationism" is rarely painless. But it does work and it does add value. Governments don't know about it though.

Offline Periander

  • Member
  • Posts: 70
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
SpaceX answered this on their press release yesterday:

"Please note that Falcon Heavy should not be confused with the super heavy lift rocket program being debated by the U.S. Congress.  That vehicle is authorized to carry between 70-130 metric tons to orbit.  SpaceX agrees with the need to develop a vehicle of that class as the best way to conduct a large number of human missions to Mars."

So I'm not sure what this thread is about.

They didn't say that NASA should be developing said super heavy LV. It could be supposed that they support the program only in so far as they believe that it would/should be put up for bid and that they would win the contract to develop it.

Online Chris Bergin

SpaceX answered this on their press release yesterday:

"Please note that Falcon Heavy should not be confused with the super heavy lift rocket program being debated by the U.S. Congress.  That vehicle is authorized to carry between 70-130 metric tons to orbit.  SpaceX agrees with the need to develop a vehicle of that class as the best way to conduct a large number of human missions to Mars."

So I'm not sure what this thread is about.

They didn't say that NASA should be developing said super heavy LV.

"SpaceX agrees with the need to develop a vehicle of that class as the best way to conduct a large number of human missions to Mars."

I must be missing something here ;D

Do you mean SpaceX didn't say "SpaceX agrees with the need FOR NASA to develop....?

I doubt that would be of any concern to NASA, or change their plans - which is what this thread is intimating.

We all need to be careful not to get drunk on SpaceX after what has been a very exciting week. I say that, cause I started feeling a bit tipsy yesterday :)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Joris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 3
"SpaceX agrees with the need to develop a vehicle of that class as the best way to conduct a large number of human missions to Mars."

I must be missing something here ;D

Do you mean SpaceX didn't say "SpaceX agrees with the need FOR NASA to develop....?

I doubt that would be of any concern to NASA, or change their plans - which is what this thread is intimating.

We all need to be careful not to get drunk on SpaceX after what has been a very exciting week. I say that, cause I started feeling a bit tipsy yesterday :)

He might mean that Elon said a HLV was needed, not that NASA was the one that needed to build it.

Still valid though, Falcon-Heavy is not a contester for SLS and therefore this thread should be renamed or it would be pointless.

JIMO would have been the first proper spaceship.

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
SpaceX answered this on their press release yesterday:

"Please note that Falcon Heavy should not be confused with the super heavy lift rocket program being debated by the U.S. Congress.  That vehicle is authorized to carry between 70-130 metric tons to orbit.  SpaceX agrees with the need to develop a vehicle of that class as the best way to conduct a large number of human missions to Mars."

So I'm not sure what this thread is about.
SpaceX would say that - they don't want more enemies.

But what ever SpaceX says, it's a valid policy question. If SpaceX are going to produce a 53 ton rocket, why should NASA spend several billion to produce a 70+ ton rocket.

The market isn't big enough for the NASA rocket by itself, let alone the NASA rocket and Falcon Heavy.

Wouldn't the best scenario be for NASA to exit the launcher business entirely, buy 1,000 tons per year or so from SpaceX (or anyone else who can offer better), and use the money saved to undertake space exploration?

It's just a question of whether said scenario can be achieved.




Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
...
"Please note that Falcon Heavy should not be confused with the super heavy lift rocket program being debated by the U.S. Congress.  That vehicle is authorized to carry between 70-130 metric tons to orbit.  SpaceX agrees with the need to develop a vehicle of that class as the best way to conduct a large number of human missions to Mars."

So I'm not sure what this thread is about.
What I put in bold is what this thread is about. NASA is not talking about "large number of human missions" to Mars. NASA is talking about one or two. In about two decades at the earliest. The implication is that a vehicle like Falcon Heavy should be adequate for the first few human missions to Mars, and much more than adequate for other, less ambitious missions.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
And you think that workforce only votes when they are employed? If normal voting trends hold true, only about half the (employed) voters will actually show up at the polls. But let the hammer come down and the plants close, nearly *all* the (newly unemployed) voters and now threatened employed voters will turn out to throw the legislator who fired them out of their job. Trust me - the current legislators are all too aware of that fact. If SLS goes away, so do their political careers - gone. They are not going to embrace Elon if the price is the loss of their *own* job.

True. But by never deciding anything they are still causing precisely that outcome. Why should the newly-unemployed voters then decide to reelect them?

No arguement from me there. The Congress isn't doing a darn thing worth recording in the Congressional Record. All they are doing is wasting their time, wasting our money and increasing the average citizen's disgust with our own government.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Joris

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 3
Wouldn't the best scenario be for NASA to exit the launcher business entirely, buy 1,000 tons per year or so from SpaceX (or anyone else who can offer better), and use the money saved to undertake space exploration?

The money might not go to NASA anymore, unfortunately.
Instead of doing more, they will have to do the same thing with less money.

Otherwise, that scenario would be great, IMHO.
JIMO would have been the first proper spaceship.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
If SpaceX are going to produce a 53 ton rocket, why should NASA spend several billion to produce a 70+ ton rocket?

Because the 70 ton rocket is only supposed to be the foundation for the 130 ton rocket. It's the 130 ton rocket that Elon is saying is necessary for Mars. I did notice that he did *not* say that the super heavy should be built by NASA, but neither did he say SpaceX would build it. He only said that class of lift would be necessary for Mars, leaving the question of ownership for a future discussion.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0