Battle of the Heavyweight Rockets - SLS could face Exploration Class rival

[Proponent]

Great article! One question though - is there a commonly accepted definition for "exploration-class rocket" (or a list of rocket 'classes' in general) or is that just another term for SHLV?

And what does "SHLV" mean anyway, since Augustine used it to mean anything larger than Delta IV Heavy?

[su27k]

Even though it's likely to end up being both substantially more capable than SLS at a substantially lower cost, somebody still has to pay for the thing, and it's hard to see much demand for a 200mt-class vehicle.

mt-class is misleading, what's important is the price, not the perceived over capacity. People used to think there's not much demand for computers either, but that's because the computer back then costs a fortune, once the price is lowered we found plenty of ways to use the ever increasing computation power.

We are talking about the biggest rockets to ever be made. Both bigger than the Saturn V. SLS has billions of dollars allocated to it and supporting its development. SpaceX's BFR has how much?

NASA Air Force Cost Model estimated the cost of developing Falcon 9 as between $443 million and $4 billion, the actual cost is $400 million.

The MTC is not a trivial thing to produce at all. It is possibly going to be even more tricky than the BFR. I wish SpaceX luck as I am sure we all do but to believe their rocket and payload will be ready by the end of the decade seems wishful.

I don't think the article included payload in the "end of the decade" prediction, most likely it's just a test flight of the BFR itself. The timeline is SpaceX optimistic timeline, but I don't think it's wishful thinking. MSFC and contractors built Saturn V in 7 years using half a century old technology, and they were starting with the equivalent of Falcon 1. SpaceX will be fielding a team with F9/FH/Merlin experience, and equip them with 21st century technology and 50 years of spaceflight knowledge gained by NASA. What should be asked is not why SpaceX can do this so fast, but why a SD HLV is so slow and costly when they already have the bloody engines.

[redliox]

Good topic to discuss!

It probably will be some time before SpaceX can get on par with SLS, since Falcon Heavy hasn't flown just yet.  However, especially if the worst fears about SLS manifest, Falcon Heavy could prove to be more cost effective that SLS at the least.  So, operationally, FH could undermine the glory rocket of NASA.

My opinion on SLS v.s. SpaceX BFR: less of a competition and more of a possible successor to SLS.  Given SpaceX is still working on FH, still developing Dragon2, starting to test Raptor engine components, and doing napkin drawings of BFR....come 2018 the only thing they might have up and running is a prototype engine.  They'll make progress to be sure, but I would give them a conservative estimate of 2025 of a full rocket schematic if not a working SHLV.

The SLS, presuming a realistic and neither pessimistic or optimistic course, could provide a decade's worth of flights.  Arguments might begin to pile up about a simpler design with smoother operations, at which point a decision could be made on evolving SLS or switching to a commercial alternative.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

This

What should be asked is not why SpaceX can do this so fast, but why a SD HLV is so slow and costly

Thanks for another great article Chris.

Of course SpaceX are likely optimistic on their timescales but each step forward with FH and Raptor makes it harder for the inevitable conclusion of the SLS programme to be ignored. I expect the next couple of years are going to be fascinating, exciting and frustrating in equal measure!

[UberNobody]

I'm somewhat hopeful that Elon can utilize billionaire friends and Tesla stock when the time comes for serious funding.  Reusability, Falcon Heavy, and Raptor testing are all being done with just SpaceX profits.  Imagine what a $500m/year cash injection could do for BFR development.

[mlindner]

The MTC is not a trivial thing to produce at all. It is possibly going to be even more tricky than the BFR. I wish SpaceX luck as I am sure we all do but to believe their rocket and payload will be ready by the end of the decade seems wishful.

I don't think the article included payload in the "end of the decade" prediction, most likely it's just a test flight of the BFR itself. The timeline is SpaceX optimistic timeline, but I don't think it's wishful thinking. MSFC and contractors built Saturn V in 7 years using half a century old technology, and they were starting with the equivalent of Falcon 1. SpaceX will be fielding a team with F9/FH/Merlin experience, and equip them with 21st century technology and 50 years of spaceflight knowledge gained by NASA. What should be asked is not why SpaceX can do this so fast, but why a SD HLV is so slow and costly when they already have the bloody engines.

Great point. This really states nicely that makes it rather confusing where all the money is going. The engines exist. Why are multiple billions USD required to design the tanks, structure and flight system that attaches to them?

[CitabriaFlyer]

This was a very enjoyable article Chris. Very proud (as a US taxpayer) of what our folks at MFSC have accomplished with the STS/SLS work over the years and very proud to live in a country that can attract an immigrant like Mr. Musk who can start a company like SpaceX.  I agree with the reader who thinks of the Raptor Rocket as a potential successor to SLS.  I think NASA should press on and fire off 3 SLS 2018-22 (EM-1, Europa Clipper, and asteroid redirect.)  Further missions could be bid to whichever BFR can provide the best mix of mission assurance and costs.

[Burninate]

The MTC is not a trivial thing to produce at all. It is possibly going to be even more tricky than the BFR. I wish SpaceX luck as I am sure we all do but to believe their rocket and payload will be ready by the end of the decade seems wishful.

I don't think the article included payload in the "end of the decade" prediction, most likely it's just a test flight of the BFR itself. The timeline is SpaceX optimistic timeline, but I don't think it's wishful thinking. MSFC and contractors built Saturn V in 7 years using half a century old technology, and they were starting with the equivalent of Falcon 1. SpaceX will be fielding a team with F9/FH/Merlin experience, and equip them with 21st century technology and 50 years of spaceflight knowledge gained by NASA. What should be asked is not why SpaceX can do this so fast, but why a SD HLV is so slow and costly when they already have the bloody engines.

Great point. This really states nicely that makes it rather confusing where all the money is going. The engines exist. Why are multiple billions USD required to design the tanks, structure and flight system that attaches to them?

Alternately: Trusting the people responsible that it costs tens of billions USD to build the infrastructure, to design these things and tool up the factories to produce them through the correct Congressional districts, why aren't we planning on producing more of them?

It feels more and more like Congress believes its constituents want space exploration, but Congress for its own reasons wants to covertly, deliberately delay/sabotage/limit any programs in that direction, regardless of whether it does or does not spend money.   Maybe to make sense of this you have to infer a war between Congressmen who have a stake and Congressmen who do not, with a resultant stalemate.

[Chris Bergin]

Oh cool! I'm glad you all seem to have liked it!

So to answer a few:

Proponent - I said the Flexible Path used, spoke and preferred HLVs. I said the Augustine Committee discussed the Flexible Path. So that's what I was getting at. The 200mT is from the Flexible Path, not the Augustine Report. But that was an interesting post of yours, so we're all winners

Zed_Noir - Yeah, we think 12.5m and 15m - with Single Core - as part of the options. We went with 10m in the article, given Tom M is the only SpaceX official to give a diameter, but I'll add a word or two to the line to cover what is what we've also heard on that.

---

Oh and "Exploration Class" - I just thought that sounded good! Not an official class.

[R7]

"SLS could face Exploration Class rival extinction"

There, fixed that for you Chris

It feels more and more like Congress believes its constituents want space exploration, but Congress for its own reasons wants to covertly, deliberately delay/sabotage/limit any programs in that direction, regardless of whether it does or does not spend money.

[opinionated pessimism]
Congress knows that distributing space bucks around keeps constituents happy and that few people in the process give a hoot about the rate of actual results. Therefore perpetual gravy train suits all.
[/opinionated pessimism]

[sudden optimism]
except SpaceX, yay!
[/sudden optimism]

[Barrie]

[opinionated pessimism]
Congress knows that distributing space bucks around keeps constituents happy and that few people in the process give a hoot about the rate of actual results. Therefore perpetual gravy train suits all.
[/opinionated pessimism]

I do think that NASA and its contractors do the best science and engineering development they can within the remit they are given by due political process, in spite of goalposts doing quantum leaps in random directions. (An idea I got from Clementine...er, which wasn't a NASA mission...)

Chris, thanks for a neat article, it brought back some bits of plot I'd lost!

[Rocket Science]

Oh cool! I'm glad you all seem to have liked it!

So to answer a few:

Proponent - I said the Flexible Path used, spoke and preferred HLVs. I said the Augustine Committee discussed the Flexible Path. So that's what I was getting at. The 200mT is from the Flexible Path, not the Augustine Report. But that was an interesting post of yours, so we're all winners

Zed_Noir - Yeah, we think 12.5m and 15m - with Single Core - as part of the options. We went with 10m in the article, given Tom M is the only SpaceX official to give a diameter, but I'll add a word or two to the line to cover what is what we've also heard on that.

---

Oh and "Exploration Class" - I just thought that sounded good! Not an official class.

Great article Chris! So many proposals, so many convolutions... I’m looking forward to someday seeing these two BFRs on the pad, putting the gloves on for the “flight of the century”...

[mike robel]

Nice Job Chris.  Being as I am hopeless addicted to the Saturn V, its a pity you didn't stick it in the article with a shot of its ultimate version, a towering thing with stretched S1C and SII stages, a 33 foot payload shroud, and 4 260 inch liquid strap ons with 2 F-1s each, for a total of 13(!) F-1s for the vehicle.

Cool!  Is that the 24(L)?

Yes. 

[edkyle99]

I just don't see SpaceX developing a giant rocket unless someone besides SpaceX pays for it. 

 - Ed Kyle

[majormajor42]

I just don't see SpaceX developing a giant rocket unless someone besides SpaceX pays for it. 

 - Ed Kyle

who is paying for FH? reusability? who paid for the upgrade to Merlin 'D'? who is paying for the Raptor development (surely in the millions) to date?

define 'someone besides SpaceX'? Obviously you could mean the gov't but are SpaceX investors considered 'others'?

[kerlc]

Battle of SHLVs is akin to a battle between giant robots. Wasteful? Yes. Impractical? Definitely. Glorious to watch? You bet your calculation-covered napkins it is.

Great article, Chris!

[Jcc]

Maybe I'm being idealistic and naive, but I can envision a scenario where NASA commissions some BFR flights along side SLS to go to Mars, and/or to build a station at EM L2, a station in Mars orbit, etc. BFR launches habs, and station sections built to a larger scale than was previously done (fewer launches required, cost-effective). SLS/Orion then carries the crew to them, and the story is that SLS/Orion are the critical and irreplaceable components that justify a 4x price tag per launch.

There is no market for SHLV except if you do these BEO exploration/colonization missions, then we need all the SHLV capacity that can be produced, and then some.

[AndyX]

Loved the article. A lot of things I didn't know about these big rockets too!

[Lar]

I just don't see SpaceX developing a giant rocket unless someone besides SpaceX pays for it. 

 - Ed Kyle

I just don't see IBM developing System/360[1] unless someone besides IBM pays for it.

AND.. I am absolutely right. Someone besides IBM DID pay for it... Many someones, in fact... All of IBM's customers up to that point paid for it in part, because IBM "bet the company" on System/360, keeping essential products going to generate revenue while an all out effort to build a revolutionary computer system was launched by "steely eyed computer men"[2] the likes of which the world has never seen assembled on one project.

The analogy here is obvious. Watson had a vision. He bet the company on it. He assembled an awesome team. He kept the home fires burning for years while IBM as a whole executed against the vision. IBM almost went under while System/360 was being developed but won through in the end. There were naysayers and those who bet against Watson. They were reasonable and prudent.

And wrong.  Watson's vision carried the day.  And IBM went on to great glory.  System/360 was the greatest product IBM ever made. Its legacy lives on to this day. 

Now, you might say that Mars is a BIT more expansive of a vision than unifying architectures and making a line of machines that can live on essentially forever.   Well guess what... Bigger visions inspire MORE heroism among those who see the dream.

Betting against Musk and SpaceX is foolhardy at this point unless you get good odds.  The MCT and the BFR that launch it will be paid for by retained revenue. Contracts might speed things up but they are not needed.

Disclaimer: I am an IBMer and I am very proud of what my predecessors did while I was in short pants. And I am happy to still be alive to see what SpaceX is achieving. I drank the koolaid.

1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_System/360
2 - The chief architect of System/360 was Gene Amdahl, and the project was managed by Fred Brooks, responsible to Chairman Thomas J. Watson Jr. The commercial release was piloted by another of Watson's lieutenants, John R. Opel, who managed the launch of IBM’s System 360 mainframe family in 1964.(from WP)  ... you might have heard of those guys? Fred Brooks later wrote Mythical Man Month, Gene Amdahl launched Amdahl, and John R. Opel went on to be CEO of IBM.

[Zython]

The SLS rocket will not survive the multi-year Congressional funding battle, for a variety of reasons including the impending squeeze on the US government discretionary budget. 

It will make some early development flights, but the thing as now envisioned will never become an operational flight system in regular service.

I see a lot of opinions expressed here on this forum.  Thought I'd add my opinion for the record.