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

[meekGee]

When doing comparisons, it's easy to concentrate on the things that are comparable, like mass-to-orbit, or which year it will fly at.

But the bigger differences fall by the wayside.

1. SpaceX's SHLV is reusable.  That right there is much more important than the mass of the payload.

2. SpaceX's SHLV is designed to meet cost and operational goals.   SLS is politically designed, with most propulsion choices dictated by congress. (It's not that congress didn't learn from STS, it's that congress considers STS to have been a great success - by their metrics.) 

3. And then there's this: (From wiki)

During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18 billion through 2017, with $10 billion for the SLS rocket, $6 billion for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2 billion for upgrades to the launch pad and other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[55] These costs and schedule are considered optimistic in an independent 2011 cost assessment report by Booz Allen Hamilton for NASA.[56] An unofficial 2011 NASA document estimated the cost of the program through 2025 to total at least $41bn for four 70 t launches (1 unmanned in 2017, 3 manned starting in 2021),[57] with the 130 t version ready no earlier than 2030.[58] HEFT estimated unit costs for Block 0 at $1.6bn and Block 1 at $1.86bn in 2010.[59] However since these estimates were made the Block 0 was dropped in late 2011 and is no longer being designed,[25] and NASA announced in 2013 that the European Space Agency will build the Orion Service Module.[60]

I don't suppose anyone is suggesting SpaceX will spend $10B or anywhere near this on their SHLV, right?

[RonM]

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.

Good first post. Welcome to the forum.

You're probably right. I'd like to see SLS succeed, but I think there are too many budget issues including a lack of funding for missions.

[RonM]

When doing comparisons, it's easy to concentrate on the things that are comparable, like mass-to-orbit, or which year it will fly at.

But the bigger differences fall by the wayside.

1. SpaceX's SHLV is reusable.  That right there is much more important than the mass of the payload.

2. SpaceX's SHLV is designed to meet cost and operational goals.   SLS is politically designed, with most propulsion choices dictated by congress. (It's not that congress didn't learn from STS, it's that congress considers STS to have been a great success - by their metrics.) 

3. And then there's this: (From wiki)

During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18 billion through 2017, with $10 billion for the SLS rocket, $6 billion for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2 billion for upgrades to the launch pad and other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[55] These costs and schedule are considered optimistic in an independent 2011 cost assessment report by Booz Allen Hamilton for NASA.[56] An unofficial 2011 NASA document estimated the cost of the program through 2025 to total at least $41bn for four 70 t launches (1 unmanned in 2017, 3 manned starting in 2021),[57] with the 130 t version ready no earlier than 2030.[58] HEFT estimated unit costs for Block 0 at $1.6bn and Block 1 at $1.86bn in 2010.[59] However since these estimates were made the Block 0 was dropped in late 2011 and is no longer being designed,[25] and NASA announced in 2013 that the European Space Agency will build the Orion Service Module.[60]

I don't suppose anyone is suggesting SpaceX will spend $10B or anywhere near this on their SHLV, right?

I agree with most of your comment, but let's remember SpaceX hasn't proven reusable rockets yet. Even if the technology works, and it is looking like it will, the cost savings might not be there.

Still, even if they have to make their SHLV disposable like other rockets, it will probably be cheaper than SLS.

[sdsds]

Does the "lack of payloads" problem apply equally to SLS and BFR? Or is there something intrinsic in "MCT as the sole payload" that makes it fundamentally better than "MPCV as the sole payload?"

[RonM]

Does the "lack of payloads" problem apply equally to SLS and BFR? Or is there something intrinsic in "MCT as the sole payload" that makes it fundamentally better than "MPCV as the sole payload?"

For SLS, the issue is while the rocket is being funded, outside of a couple of Orion missions, there are no missions planned. Orion needs additional hardware to do anything more than just fly around the Moon. If Congress doesn't start funding missions soon, there will not be enough time to design and build payloads. Then SLS will become a rocket to nowhere.

For the SpaceX BFR, MCT is the payload. MCT is the entire mission vehicle for a Mars mission. While that's great, it's big problem is who is going to pay for it? Even Elon Musk isn't rich enough to fund the whole operation himself. So if SpaceX can't get NASA or anyone else to chip in some money, the BFR won't have any payloads. Once again, a rocket to nowhere.

SpaceX is in a better position. They got a plan and time to line up investors or customers for the MCT. NASA is running out of time since it doesn't look like Congress is interested in funding any of NASA's ideas.

[meekGee]

When comparing rockets to rockets, lack of missions should not be factored in.  It's not SLS's "fault" that it has no missions. 

What is true is that the same mindset that created SLS is also at fault for the lack of missions.  I dare say that if NASA was given a mission of "expand humanity's habitat" and no pork-originated concerns, then A) there would be no shortage of flights, and B) SLS would not look like it does now.

[rcoppola]

Well...a quick Google News search today on NASA will illustrate the displeasure of their latest %70 confidence of a Nov. 2018 70mt SLS launch commitment announcement and accompanying spend.

To be clear, I'm an SLS supporter for reasons I won't go into here. But, there is a reason SpaceX avoids SLS vs. BFR discussions. It's a political time bomb. What do you suppose will happen when that first FH lifts off, no longer a vague concept on some video animation. And it does so long before SLS for a fraction of the price. And lest anyone starts to think as you read this that it's not fair to compare a 70mt capable SLS with a (possible) 53mt capable (2nd stage BEO performance limited) FH, consider what the perception will be:

"If the FH at 53mt can be so inexpensively manufactured and operated, why is the SLS, with only 17 more mt so much more expensive to manufacture and operate, to the point that once your finished you don't have enough money to fly it and even if you could, no money to build the payloads it was intended to launch towards Mars?"

Elon and company will increasingly be asked and challenged to enter into a dialogue they currently are very uncomfortable with. But they will not be able to avoid it forever. We know they are incredibly respectful and appreciative of everything NASA has helped them to achieve. And for now, both NASA and SpaceX get to play in their respective BEO and LEO corners.

But the truth is, they are on a collision course and they both know it.

(I'm not applying blame for this, only the reality of where we are and what is very likely to come. You could make the argument that this looming collision could be a catalyst to increase funding in a way to protect parochial interests. Perhaps, perhaps not. Regardless it may be too late. The barbarians are at the gate)

[Oli]

"If the FH at 53mt can be so inexpensively manufactured and operated, why is the SLS, with only 17 more mt so much more expensive to manufacture and operate, to the point that once your finished you don't have enough money to fly it and even if you could, no money to build the payloads it was intended to launch towards Mars?"

FH's price is uncertain and Block 1B TLI performance will dwarf that of FH.

Still, I agree that FH is probably the biggest 'competitor' to SLS, much more so than a hypothetical BFR which would likely end up as expensive as SLS given a similar low launch rate.

[butters]

SLS may not be the most inspired design for a 21st century launch system, but its biggest problem is Orion.

Orion is not an SLS-class spacecraft for missions to Mars. It's a cislunar shuttle with 21-day endurance. We appear to be dead-set on never returning to the moon, and we struggle to define alternative exploration missions within Orion's limited capabilities.

SpaceX understands that a great big rocket requires a spacecraft to match. Nowhere in NASA's wildest dreams does anything like MCT appear on their roadmaps. Taking Orion on a mission to Mars is like taking a road trip in a Reliant Robin. It's not the best we can do on a limited budget. It simply won't do.

NASA is saying screw the moon, we're going to Mars. Could have fooled me, judging by the spacecraft they're developing. Looks like one third of NASA is going to Mars, one third is going to the moon, and one third is playing with asteroids. They could be going anywhere or nowhere, but it's pretty clear which one it is.

[Brovane]

Musk has the Tesla motors card to play for cash. So if the next generation Tesla car rolls out successfully (not quite a sure thing) than he will be able to fund the BFR development from around 2017 with about $1B annually with other revenue steams from Solar City, batteries sales and SpaceX launches.

The fly in that ointment is both Solar City and Tesla are publicly held companies with public shareholders.  They are not going to look kindly on Musk transferring money from the companies to pay for SpaceX.

The muck more likely scenario is that Musk hands over reins of Tesla and sells Tesla stock to fund development for SpaceX.  Musk owns 32% of Tesla and at current market cap that is worth over 10 Billion. 

[beb]

You'll learn something every day if you're not careful. I did not know that the IBM supercomputer Watson was named for the Company's CEO. I always wondered why they chose that name.

[rcoppola]

"If the FH at 53mt can be so inexpensively manufactured and operated, why is the SLS, with only 17 more mt so much more expensive to manufacture and operate, to the point that once your finished you don't have enough money to fly it and even if you could, no money to build the payloads it was intended to launch towards Mars?"

FH's price is uncertain and Block 1B TLI performance will dwarf that of FH.

Still, I agree that FH is probably the biggest 'competitor' to SLS, much more so than a hypothetical BFR which would likely end up as expensive as SLS given a similar low launch rate.

FH's price is certain to be a fraction of SLS although I agree with TLI as referenced by my comment of FH's limited 2nd stage capabilities as compared to the EUS of an SLS 1B.

But that's besides my intended point. As is the idea that FH is an actual competitor to SLS. The idea is...since it will launch years before SLS, it will be touted as "The worlds most powerful rocket since the mighty SaturnV".

In one sentence from one private launch event, they are now credibly placed not only along side NASA but ahead of them. That will be a first in the public's mind. Not easily expunged. That will change the paradigm in a very meaningful way. It's a powerful narrative. Such that, as time goes on and the BFR begins to crystallize, the lines of what only NASA could or should do become blurred beyond recognition. That is the collision I speak of and this article refers to. (Not to put words in CB's mouth.) But as Chris said, "Yeh, it had to be done."

(Add in Crew Service and the lines blur even more in the public eye. So by the time Raptor rumbles and the BFR stirs...)

[Coastal Ron]

"If the FH at 53mt can be so inexpensively manufactured and operated, why is the SLS, with only 17 more mt so much more expensive to manufacture and operate, to the point that once your finished you don't have enough money to fly it and even if you could, no money to build the payloads it was intended to launch towards Mars?"

FH's price is uncertain...

SpaceX lists the lower end Falcon Heavy price on their website - $85M for up to 6.4mt to GTO.  The last time SpaceX was quoting prices for the more capable version of Falcon Heavy with crossfeed (53mt LEO, 12mt to GTO) it was about $135M.

So no, the price is not uncertain.

...and Block 1B TLI performance will dwarf that of FH.

Maybe.  But is it needed?  What are the true needs for heavy lift at this time?  So far nothing larger than what Delta IV Heavy can carry is being proposed, so in that regard the full capacity of Falcon Heavy is not as compelling as it's low price is.  So capacity larger than Falcon Heavy is, as of today, unneeded.

Still, I agree that FH is probably the biggest 'competitor' to SLS, much more so than a hypothetical BFR which would likely end up as expensive as SLS given a similar low launch rate.

If SpaceX is building the BFR for their own needs, it is likely to be far less expensive than a government-owned, government-run transportation system - there is just too much profit that has to be paid for what is pretty much a fully contracted out service (SpaceX does far more in-house), plus if SpaceX can implement any level of reusability that will lower the costs even more.

Most likely this is a theoretical debate anyways.  By the time the SpaceX BFR starts flying the SLS could be shut down for lack of need (i.e. no funded big programs to support).

[Darkseraph]

If the problem with the SLS was that there was no money to do missions with it.....why do people think a SpaceX BFR wold be..any different? They don't even have a non-NASA customer booked for their DragonV2 and it's supposedly 2 years away from flying.

I hear people say, but it's reusable so it will be cheap! Well, they haven't reused even a single stage from an EELV class rocket, so that's not proven yet. We literally don't have the information to tell if that is cheaper yet. It's payloads are certainly not going to be cheap, even if they're reusable themselves. Keeping a dozen people alive on the way to and from Mars for about 3 years is unlikely to be cheap.

Even if it is relatively cheaper than SLS, that doesn't mean it will be a sustainable business to operate a single use mega-rocket. Elon's rough quote for launch price for a BFR a few years ago was 300 million, which isn't exactly chump change, and doesn't include any payload costs. Also, the money to develop the rocket, its spacecraft, and manufacturing facilities is not going to come out of the aether and will be more than a billion - an amount of money that they couldn't have possibly made in profit yet (not revenue)


What I'm getting a lot of on the internet is that, the rules that apply to every other company and government entity just don't apply to SpaceX because unicorns!

[Coastal Ron]

If the problem with the SLS was that there was no money to do missions with it...

That is the opinion of many that have expertise in government space exploration.

..why do people think a SpaceX BFR wold be..any different?

One of the concerns raised about the SLS is that NASA does not get enough budget to both build and operate the SLS, or even to operate the SLS and build the SLS-sized missions that justify it's existence.

But even absent the SLS and Orion programs, and regardless if NASA's budget levels stay the same, I don't think there is enough to truly need a full time HLV.  So at most maybe they would need the SpaceX BFR occasionally, but that would probably be long after it becomes operational.

They don't even have a non-NASA customer booked for their DragonV2 and it's supposedly 2 years away from flying.

OK, now you're confusing issues.  But they do have an agreement with Bigelow Aerospace to be one of the offered transportation options for their private space stations.  So yes, they do have a non-NASA customer "booked".

Also, the money to develop the rocket, its spacecraft, and manufacturing facilities is not going to come out of the aether and will be more than a billion - an amount of money that they couldn't have possibly made in profit yet (not revenue)

No doubt about it.  We have no idea how they will afford to do all of that.  But so far they have done far more with far less than anyone could have predicted 10 years ago, so just because we don't yet see how they will do things doesn't mean they don't have a plan.

What I'm getting a lot of on the internet is that, the rules that apply to every other company and government entity just don't apply to SpaceX because unicorns!

There will always be fanboi's for just about anything, so I suggest looking at the more rational supporters to discern what the expectations really are.  I'm a fan because of what they have been attempting to do, and what they have already accomplished.  And based on that I have the confidence that they have a pretty good idea what they are doing.

[Darkseraph]

I'm not confident of that, at all. Every price they've even quoted has increased. Nearly every date they've promised for a rocket to launch or become operational has been way off.

I have not seen their books, but from their quoted launch prices, the amount they've launched and the amount on contract, I don't see how they could afford to develop a BFR+MCT quickly even if workforces, materials, energy and machinery were all free.


The only realistic hope I can see for a SpaceX BFR is government buying the launches and/or paying for part of the development.


Also, Unless funds changed hands between Bigelow and SpaceX or a contract was signed for a flight to his station, which doesn't even have a launch date for itself - i don't think you can say a DragonV2 mission has been booked - unless that's like how Amazon offers products for pre-order that are just speculated to be in development

[A_M_Swallow]

Putting a BA-330 in LEO is likely to be one of the first customers for the Falcon Heavy.  The spacestation's checkout crew are likely to be early private sector customers for the SpaceX Dragon V2.0 (although they may use the CST-100).

[newpylong]

I'll believe in the SpaceX BFR when I see it.  One word, money. People to Mars in 10 years is fairy dust, just like it was when we first heard it 3 years ago.

[TomH]

Relative diameter of core and nozzle for Falcon and 10m BFR:


Would be interesting to see the 15m added!

[Vultur]

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. 

I think it would take some truly unexpected huge problem to not make Falcon Heavy dramatically more cost-effective. SLS's payload isn't big enough (IMO) to justify its cost if Falcon Heavy exists, even without an SLS-class-or-bigger SpaceX rocket.