The laws of physics have not changed for rocketry and it is not that SLS is technically obsolete, but bureaucratically and economically obsolete... It is a rocket out of time...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 08/15/2016 04:23 pmThe laws of physics have not changed for rocketry and it is not that SLS is technically obsolete, but bureaucratically and economically obsolete... It is a rocket out of time...An engine that takes years on the assembly line to build is obsolete. It is irrelevant in that context, that once built it still is a top engine.
Rockets, IMHO, are for launching things into space, not generate jobs with federal money.
Additionally, the [BFR] is not going anywhere, it is a jobs program. Not much has changed. It is like the 90's all over again.
Falcon Heavy? New Glenn? NASA chief says he’s not a “big fan”
On Tuesday, during a Q&A session at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics' Space 2016 Conference, Bolden was asked for his opinion on the emerging market for small satellites and launchers. He chose to respond instead with his thoughts on NASA's own rocket, the Space Launch System, and private-sector development of larger launch vehicles."If you talk about launch vehicles, we believe our responsibility to the nation is to take care of things that normal people cannot do, or don’t want to do, like large launch vehicles," Bolden said. "I’m not a big fan of commercial investment in large launch vehicles just yet."
This is the sum total of all that is known about the New Armstrong:"New Glenn is a very important step. It won’t be the last of course. Up next on our drawing board: New Armstrong." -Jeff BezosMusk has been hinting around at his MCT for years only saying a bit more than that about it.We don't even have a power point slide of them! I don't think admonishing Bolden for his skepticism of these ephemeral rockets is warranted. Not until the decision makers know more about them can they make decisions based upon them.
Speaking about NASA's SLS rocket and private developers last year, Garver said, "What we’re working with is more of a socialist plan for space exploration, which is just anathema to what this country should be doing. Don’t try to compete with the private sector. Incentivize them by driving technologies that will be necessary for us as we explore further.”
Quote from: woods170 on 08/15/2016 02:26 pmRockets, IMHO, are for launching things into space, not generate jobs with federal money. But that's just my opinion. With regard to SLS: it is already obsolete right now IMO. Tankage and avionics are state of the art. But the business ends feature propulsion systems based on 1970's technology. Yet the bl**dy thing is still costing tens of billions of US dollars to develop. Given that the US space industry is the best on the planet I really expected them to do better than SLS.In a theoretical ideal world rockets are for launching things into space. We don't live in a theoretical ideal world. If you want people to pay for it you have to provide secondary benefits to the people paying for it and their representatives in Congress. If you build the ideal rocket and it creates lots of well paying jobs for yourself, your family and your neighbors you are more likely to support it. NASA doesn't operate in a bubble. Jobs always will be a big consideration.
Rockets, IMHO, are for launching things into space, not generate jobs with federal money. But that's just my opinion. With regard to SLS: it is already obsolete right now IMO. Tankage and avionics are state of the art. But the business ends feature propulsion systems based on 1970's technology. Yet the bl**dy thing is still costing tens of billions of US dollars to develop. Given that the US space industry is the best on the planet I really expected them to do better than SLS.
Quote from: notsorandom on 09/14/2016 08:58 pmThis is the sum total of all that is known about the New Armstrong:"New Glenn is a very important step. It won’t be the last of course. Up next on our drawing board: New Armstrong." -Jeff BezosMusk has been hinting around at his MCT for years only saying a bit more than that about it.We don't even have a power point slide of them! I don't think admonishing Bolden for his skepticism of these ephemeral rockets is warranted. Not until the decision makers know more about them can they make decisions based upon them.So, what is his basis of not being a fan of commercial (private) investment in large launch vehicles? His words, not mine...
However, dismantling our current programs based on that alone would be grossly irresponsible. Bolden should at least be presented with a real proposal for these rockets before he is derided for not canceling everything in their favor. Besides according to Musk and Bezos this will happen and it won't take huge government checks to make it happen.
Quote from: notsorandom on 09/15/2016 02:31 amHowever, dismantling our current programs based on that alone would be grossly irresponsible. Bolden should at least be presented with a real proposal for these rockets before he is derided for not canceling everything in their favor. Besides according to Musk and Bezos this will happen and it won't take huge government checks to make it happen.This is the important bit. While private industry is great, its folly to rely entirely upon it to the exclusion of all else. Especially right now when we have some private rockets flying, no crew, and lots of dreams on the horizon. I would deeply hope that the NASA administration working with my tax dollars would not push to kill important government programs. Despite the subtext often implied here (Government BAD and can only waste- only private companies should do anything!), I'm very grateful that NASA is operating conservatively.Some will always want to tear it all down, advocate for NASA to be a ground-only research outfit, or disband it entirely. I can't think of a bigger disaster to happen to our space program than privatizing without putting due thought into everything, much less plunging an entire region of the country into recession so that one's favored company can have it all. For once I actually feel grateful for congress not running headlong into something.I know this is unpopular to say here, (at least judging by the content of the posts), but I suppose its important to remember that not everyone follows those values that we see inside this internet bubble.
Falcon Heavy per launch cost? less than 200M, possibly way lessNew Glenn per launch cost? unknown but likely same ballpark
Congress should keep funding SLS and Orion until Musk or Bezos have their rockets operational. There is no guarantee they will succeed. Once NASA has the option to purchase SHLV flights from private industry, then Congress can rethink their plans.
Quote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 03:29 amCongress should keep funding SLS and Orion until Musk or Bezos have their rockets operational. There is no guarantee they will succeed. Once NASA has the option to purchase SHLV flights from private industry, then Congress can rethink their plans.I might conceivably agree if:1. NASA had truly established the need or at least the desirability of an SLS-class launch vehicle (if anyone believes such has already been established, please show me where); and2. ULA had been asked to bid on a such a launch vehicle but SLS was found superior for sound engineering reasons. In the past, ULA has suggested it could build an EELV-based heavy lifter for single-digit billions of dollars, and such a thing would likely be cheaper to operate than SLS because of it commonality with other launch vehicles.Otherwise, with a burn rate of $2+ billion a year, SLS is a ridiculously expensive insurance policy to cover a risk that may not exist.
Since both Musk and Bezos are trying to build large rockets, one can assume they both believe missions built up from smaller modules are not practical.
Quote from: RonM on 09/15/2016 01:53 pmSince both Musk and Bezos are trying to build large rockets, one can assume they both believe missions built up from smaller modules are not practical.SpaceX has said explicitly that Falcon Heavy is adequate for NASA-style Mars missions, i.e., sending a few people per decade to Mars.MCT is for colonizing Mars, something which NASA has no plans to do.Just a Blue Origin's New Shepard is for sending large numbers of tourists on suborbital flights, I would guess that its larger vehicles are intended to handle much larger volumes of traffic than anything NASA dreams of.
Quote from: notsorandom on 06/06/2014 01:58 pmThe consensus is that an HLV of some sort is needed for Mars. Even SpaceX agrees with that.What SpaceX has said, in a press release [just after the first Falcon 9 launch issued at the unveiling of Falcon Heavy, is Falcon Heavy is adequate for anything short of frequent human missions to Mars: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.I don't think a mission every few years, which seems to be the very best one could possibly hope for in the universe of NASA's SLS-based DRMs, qualifies as "frequent." "a large number." Even more to the point, SpaceX says:Falcon Heavy was designed from the outset to carry humans into space and restores the possibility of flying missions with crew to the Moon or Mars.By the way, I'd be grateful if anybody can find that press release -- I've looked, but I can't find it. I thank forum member libs0n for pointing me toward these quotes.
The consensus is that an HLV of some sort is needed for Mars. Even SpaceX agrees with that.