Author Topic: Will SpaceX Super Rocket Kill NASA's 'Rocket to Nowhere'? (op-ed at SDC) (Read 62043 times)

docmordrid · « **on:** 02/12/2014 04:50 pm »

Quite a provocative piece....

http://m.space.com/24628-will-spacex-kill-nasa-sls.html

Quote

Will SpaceX Super Rocket Kill NASA's 'Rocket to Nowhere'? (Op-Ed)

R.D. Boozer

Date: 10 February 2014 Time: 07:00 PM ET
>

Proponent · « **Reply #1 on:** 02/12/2014 05:50 pm »

Another thread based on this article was recently deleted. To prevent that from happening again, my I strongly suggest that any replies be tightly focused on the article and the arguments therein. Please be specific with comments and criticisms. Let's please avoid any emotional appeals or discussions of the author or of other people.

Elmar Moelzer · « **Reply #2 on:** 02/12/2014 06:10 pm »

Well, the article sums up a lot of my thoughts on the topic...

Comga · « **Reply #3 on:** 02/12/2014 06:27 pm »

Is there a transcription of Musk's appearance on "CBS This Morning" on Feb 3?
The article says tht Musk "mentioned SpaceX doing a manned flight around the moon, possibly including a landing"
These contradict what Musk has said before, particularly the landing.
Much of the article seems to stem from these assumptions, that SpaceX will be doing their own Moon program, and that SpaceX will do everything else that they say in the manner and on the schedule they are saying.
Other statements like "FH is more than powerful enough to send a manned SpaceX Dragonrider spacecraft on the loop around the moon" may be true, but omit the critical points, such as that Dragonrider is yet to be developed and there are no announced plans to add the proposed F9 astronaut access facilities to an as yet unannounced east coast FH launch pad.
Boozer has some logical conclusions, but these arguments are not sufficient.

R7 · « **Reply #4 on:** 02/12/2014 06:44 pm »

Quote from: Proponent on 02/12/2014 05:50 pm

Another thread based on this article was recently deleted. To prevent that from happening again, my I strongly suggest that any replies be tightly focused on the article and the arguments therein.

The reason for deletion might be the very nature and location of article itself. There's nothing in it that hasn't been discussed in-depth in various space policy, SLS and X-threads. Offering free discussion forum for some random op-ed tabloid-fluff on SDC may not rank very high when Chris is pondering justifications for server costs

NovaSilisko · « **Reply #5 on:** 02/12/2014 06:46 pm »

Quote from: Comga on 02/12/2014 06:27 pm

Is there a transcription of Musk's appearance on "CBS This Morning" on Feb 3?
The article says tht Musk "mentioned SpaceX doing a manned flight around the moon, possibly including a landing"
These contradict what Musk has said before, particularly the landing.

He definitely said that

55 seconds, "Maybe just to prove the capability"

Go4TLI · « **Reply #6 on:** 02/12/2014 06:54 pm »

I remember a time, not too long ago, when everyone that was against SLS was saying heavy lift is unnecessary for anything and everything we want to do.

That was the mantra. That was the talking point and that was the bandwagon.

Now, you can see many of the same people making those arguments have quietly changed the tune. Now heavy lift is necessary, because quite frankly, SpaceX (Mecca to so many and something to never be questioned) is discussing it.

Is the mantra now to be heavy lift is indeed necessary but only if it is a hypothetical "Super Rocket" and only from SpaceX?

Star One · « **Reply #7 on:** 02/12/2014 06:59 pm »

Quote from: Go4TLI on 02/12/2014 06:54 pm

I remember a time, not too long ago, when everyone that was against SLS was saying heavy lift is unnecessary for anything and everything we want to do.

That was the mantra. That was the talking point and that was the bandwagon.

Now, you can see many of the same people making those arguments have quietly changed the tune. Now heavy lift is necessary, because quite frankly, SpaceX (Mecca to so many and something to never be questioned) is discussing it.

Is the mantra now to be heavy lift is indeed necessary but only if it is a hypothetical "Super Rocket" and only from SpaceX?

Couldn't have said it better myself. If Space X says it's necessary then it must be needed appears to be how it goes.

Comga · « **Reply #8 on:** 02/12/2014 07:00 pm »

Quote from: NovaSilisko on 02/12/2014 06:46 pm

Quote from: Comga on 02/12/2014 06:27 pm
Is there a transcription of Musk's appearance on "CBS This Morning" on Feb 3?
The article says tht Musk "mentioned SpaceX doing a manned flight around the moon, possibly including a landing"
These contradict what Musk has said before, particularly the landing.

He definitely said that
55 seconds, "Maybe just to prove the capability"

That he does.
However, he is pretty casual and vague about it.
He also talks about "sending millions of tons to Mars" and people by "the middle of the next decade".
And we thought President Kennedy's goal was a challenge.
This is not the stuff on which to base the direction of national programs.

meekGee · « **Reply #9 on:** 02/12/2014 07:02 pm »

Heavy becomes viable when you're talking about SpaceXesque (!!!) cost, reusability, and SpaceXesque flight rates.

It didn't makes sense when it was expendable, STS derived, costs >$20B to develop, and flies once a year.

Now try saying it: SpaceXesque.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #10 on:** 02/12/2014 07:23 pm »

Firstly, I take a very dim view about this thread, as it's a pretty awful op-ed by an astrophysics researcher who's written it in return for an advert for his books.

A previous thread on this was killed as it was full of comments that rightly pointed out how poor this op-ed is and it was just another round of crap we've been through so many times it gives me a headache.

I'm going to allow this under strict instructions that if the quality of responses are not to the standard of this site, with an informed membership, I will kill it.

It'll serve a purpose by showing which members are informed and which ones need to be better informed (and/or haven't bothered reading articles we've produced on SLS and SpaceX).

*Chris Stern Face*

Rabidpanda · « **Reply #11 on:** 02/12/2014 07:33 pm »

Quote from: Go4TLI on 02/12/2014 06:54 pm

I remember a time, not too long ago, when everyone that was against SLS was saying heavy lift is unnecessary for anything and everything we want to do.

That was the mantra. That was the talking point and that was the bandwagon.

Now, you can see many of the same people making those arguments have quietly changed the tune. Now heavy lift is necessary, because quite frankly, SpaceX (Mecca to so many and something to never be questioned) is discussing it.

Is the mantra now to be heavy lift is indeed necessary but only if it is a hypothetical "Super Rocket" and only from SpaceX?

For SpaceX's goal of Mars colonization (whether or not you think they will succeed) I think heavy lift makes sense. For the kind of missions that SLS would perform I don't think heavy lift is the most cost effective option. But that is just my opinion.

Karloss12 · « **Reply #12 on:** 02/12/2014 08:15 pm »

In the article:

"FH will have been produced totally without funds from NASA,"

This is not correct.

Yes SLS is ridiculously expensive and yes the article is so low a quality that I would would actually call it a blog rant.

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #13 on:** 02/12/2014 08:16 pm »

FWIW, the biggest problem I have with this article is that Rick Boozer changes tack mid-way through the article. It starts by mentioning MCT and what I presume is Atlas-V Phase-3B. Then, suddenly, mid-step, he switches to talking about some hypothetical capabilities of Falcon Heavy in a very assertive way before quietly adding a disclaimer that his assertions are basically guesses as SpaceX have not mentioned such a mission or what the hardware and mass requirements would be.

Overall, it isn't the sort of writing that Chris would normally accept on this site. If it has value, it at least establishes in the mind of the reader that the NASA way is not the only way.

I suspect that Mr Boozer is not a fan of the cost scales of the biggest NASA projects. I base this both on his diatribe in the article against "pork-barrel politicians" and the prominent advert for his book on the same subject.

M129K · « **Reply #14 on:** 02/12/2014 08:17 pm »

Oh God no, not this article again.

No. SLS won't get canceled because of some unnanounced, unknown, unspecified launch vehicle which may or may not exist sometime in the future. To suggest otherwise is delusional.

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #15 on:** 02/12/2014 08:22 pm »

@M129K,

Agreed, the only alternative to SLS right now (IMHO at least) is some variation on the theme of EELV Phase 2.

[edit]
I think it's because SpaceX is 'hot news' in pop space circles right now. Consequently they've become shorthand for the entire commercial space sector. Me? I've always thought that ULA's ideas are of more immediate relevance (possibly using a BEO-hardened CST-100 as a crew return vehicle) in the event that SLS metaphorically crashes-and-burns. However, most people think "Falcon-9" and "Dragon" when someone says "commercial space" so SpaceX has to be the starting reference point.

IMHO again but any article that I were to write (should I write one) on the alternatives to SLS would start with ULA's EELV utilisation and upgrade proposals. The political and legal barriers would need some serious work to overcome but I suspect it would have been faster and cheaper.

meekGee · « **Reply #16 on:** 02/12/2014 08:35 pm »

Quote from: M129K on 02/12/2014 08:17 pm

SLS won't get canceled because of some unnanounced, unknown, unspecified launch vehicle which may or may not exist sometime in the future. To suggest otherwise is delusional.

That's 100% true.

But the question is what happens when ("if" is off the table now) SpaceX announced a known, specific, launch system along the lines Elon described.

It's ok to wait with the question until they do, but it's also ok to preempt it, based on what we know to date.

M129K · « **Reply #17 on:** 02/12/2014 08:35 pm »

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 02/12/2014 08:22 pm

I think it's because SpaceX is 'hot news' in pop space circles right now. Consequently they've become shorthand for the entire commercial space sector.

Pretty much. The current hype is "if x is expensive/bad/difficult/complex, it shouldn't be done, because SpaceX will do it better anyway", or "if y is good/less expensive/more flexible/simples, it still doesn't matter because it's still worse than SpaceX". There is no consideration for SpaceX's limited track record or limited current capabilities.

It's a hype, one which I personally hope won't last very long.

Oli · « **Reply #18 on:** 02/12/2014 08:37 pm »

The problem is not SLS, the problem is the lack of payload.

M129K · « **Reply #19 on:** 02/12/2014 08:37 pm »

Quote from: meekGee on 02/12/2014 08:35 pm

Quote from: M129K on 02/12/2014 08:17 pm
SLS won't get canceled because of some unnanounced, unknown, unspecified launch vehicle which may or may not exist sometime in the future. To suggest otherwise is delusional.

That's 100% true.

But the question is what happens when ("if" is off the table now) SpaceX announced a known, specific, launch system along the lines Elon described.

It's ok to wait with the question until they do, but it's also ok to preempt it, based on what we know to date.

Then they still have a lot to prove before it can be seen as a serious alternative to SLS.

Edit: I think I'm stepping out of this discussion because it'll probably be locked when I wake up anyway.