Will SpaceX Super Rocket Kill NASA's 'Rocket to Nowhere'? (op-ed at SDC)

[docmordrid]

Quite a provocative piece....

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

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]

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]

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

[Comga]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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

[M129K]

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.

[veblen]

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.

I do not understand the necessity for this thread it is just MCT Redux to me, but since we are here:

Reams and reams of internet pages devoted to sustainable space architectures and "the business case for..." and then bam! Mars Colonial Transport, sometimes described as lifting 300mT. The 300 mT variant and the excitement it elicited from the SpaceX amazing people as the BFR got bigger and bigger, wooo hooo, you could feel the heat coming off the pages lol!

[Chris Bergin]

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

Yep! And ironically - and totally not related to this op-ed - one of my articles will cover this payload/flight rate question.

[meekGee]

It's the difference between a complete "colonial" system that includes an appropriately large and purpose-designed launcher, and a rocket pushed by Senate/Congress in order to keep STS component manufacturers happy - irrespective of any mission, plus a mission and a half to "justify" SLS.  It's an old story we've hashed out before, and watched unfold before too.

It is most definitely not "it's ok because it's SpaceX".  If you're not seeing these very fundamental differences, then you're not paying attention.

[veblen]

It's the difference between a complete "colonial" system that includes an appropriately large and purpose-designed launcher, and a rocket pushed by Senate/Congress in order to keep STS component manufacturers happy - irrespective of any mission, plus a mission and a half to "justify" SLS.  It's an old story we've hashed out before, and watched unfold before too.

It is most definitely not "it's ok because it's SpaceX".  If you're not seeing these very fundamental differences, then you're not paying attention.

No: the solar system is going to be conquered by small rockets launching frequently, correct?

[meekGee]

It's the difference between a complete "colonial" system that includes an appropriately large and purpose-designed launcher, and a rocket pushed by Senate/Congress in order to keep STS component manufacturers happy - irrespective of any mission, plus a mission and a half to "justify" SLS.  It's an old story we've hashed out before, and watched unfold before too.

It is most definitely not "it's ok because it's SpaceX".  If you're not seeing these very fundamental differences, then you're not paying attention.

No: the solar system is going to be conquered by small rockets launching frequently, correct?

The emphasis is on "launching frequently". 
Large rockets have better mass efficiency, and in some ways are simpler.
It's just that if your mission only requires one launch per year, this kills all the advantages. And if your development cost is north of $20B, that's even worse.

But otoh, if your plan requires a high launch rate of the big rocket, than the rocket is "small enough".  Especially if it's also reusable.

So there's almost nothing in common between SLS and FM, and it's perfectly reasonable to see SLS as a problematic rocket and FM as appropriately sized.

[Coastal Ron]

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?

While it may seem like the argument was against any form of heavy lift, if you look closer you'll see that it is focused on the need for "government-owned heavy lift".  And there are two factors that go into that issue:

1.  As of today, there is no defined need for launchers that are more capable than what our existing commercial launchers can supply.  Delta IV Heavy and Atlas V 552 can lift everything that is currently funded, and Falcon Heavy would be able to double the amount of mass to orbit.  So the government building an HLV does not solve any known problem, and probably delays funding for space exploration projects that could be launched on those existing launchers.

2.  When the need does arise for the ability to lift more mass than existing launchers can handle, or payloads physically larger than what existing launchers can handle, our existing space industry can build and operate the larger launchers.  ULA has long publicized their upgrade path for Atlas and Delta, and SpaceX has quoted prices for what they think they can offer.  The government has no special skills in building and operating launchers, so if anything a government-owned, government-run launcher will consume more money than private industry would.  Where is the advantage?

That is how I have heard the debate.

[R7]

Great first post Ron and welcome to the forum!

I'd add another factor in the discussions:

SLS is viewed as problematic because people agree that there seems to be no sufficient funding for very many realistic payloads/missions.

MCT is hailed as cost-effective solutions to a "mission" to ship 80,000 people to Mars. Annually. It happens just because Elon said so. The existence of said 80,000 with at least $500,000 a pop is taken for granted and provisions for actually settling them on Mars appears from thin air. If asked for more credible funding details the response is groan and twitching.

[JMSC]

The main problem with this story is really has a lot more to do with the lack of mission and payload for SLS than it does with SpaceX's MCT.  Congress will not cancel the SLS because SpaceX has something better on its drawing board, that it promises will be ready 10 or 15 years in the future.  However, it will cancel the SLS if every currently planned mission for it can be done for much much cheaper by a Falcon Heavy or evolved ULA EELV.  The current missions for SLS and Orion such as a manned circumlunar flight,  the proposed asteroid retrieval and visit, or the L2 Gateway could all be done with Falcon Heavy or improved ULA launchers.  The only real take away is that if SLS advocates in Congress want to make sure the SLS is built and has a future in the 2020s they need to do an end run around current budget rules and fund an Altair lander equivalent or a payload that requires the SLS capabilities.  As far as SpaceX goes, I'm not really sure how they play in the article other than to say there are acceptable alternative's for the currently planned missions for SLS.

[Robotbeat]

See my sig...

[Lar]

See my sig...

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

Because congress is so awesome at obeying the law...

[Elmar Moelzer]

Critics of the SLS are critical of it not because of the fact that it is a heavy lift LV but because it is a very expensive heavy lift vehicle. The missions that have been envisioned (not even fully planned and scheduled) for it could be done cheaper and sooner with existing options provided by ULA (see ULA study on that) and even more so with the Falcon Heavy once it becomes available. Now Elon Musk wants to colonize mars on a grand scale which is a very different mission from exploration. Now, I am not sure that developing a super heavy lifter for this purpose is the right thing to do at this point. I would much rather see him focus the money, time and energy on the development of enabling technology and cheap, routine access to LEO, at least for now. But this is Musks vision and his money and he might have plans that we don't know about yet.

[john smith 19]

Hmm.

Yes this article is a tad provocative.

It also relies on several  massive assumptions. 

1) Spacex will develop a 130 tonne+ rocket before even FH has launched. That is a very large act of faith.

2) The Legislature will decide to cancel SLS and redirect NASA to implement an exploration programme using purchased vehicles from either Spacex or ULA.

3) The legislature will re direct the rest of the funds to a technology development programme.

So to answer thread title, "maybe." But as the issues keeping SLS alive are (IMHO) nothing to do with its stated purpose I'd put it's chances at <25%.

[beancounter]

I personally don't think this article has contributed in any worthwhile way to the SLS debate.  As Chris mentioned, the various issues have been thrashed out in far more depth on this forum that can possibly be included in this one, rather shallow article.  It does appear simply to be more a marketing strategy than anything else.
Cheers.

[Oli]

ULA has long publicized their upgrade path for Atlas and Delta, and SpaceX has quoted prices for what they think they can offer.  The government has no special skills in building and operating launchers, so if anything a government-owned, government-run launcher will consume more money than private industry would.

Paper rockets are always cheaper.

[Robotbeat]

ULA has long publicized their upgrade path for Atlas and Delta, and SpaceX has quoted prices for what they think they can offer.  The government has no special skills in building and operating launchers, so if anything a government-owned, government-run launcher will consume more money than private industry would.

Paper rockets are always cheaper.

Rockets that actually fly right now are still cheaper even if you ignore the paper rockets.

[JAFO]

In fact, FH will be the most powerful rocket to fly since the Saturn V moon rocket.

Dumb question: Is FH more powerful than Energia?


Thanks.

[Avron]

Right now  in reality no .. we have not seen a FH.. Anyone can put anything on paper.. it don't count against something that is or was very real ..  Like my AH that is four times/faster/heavier/ cheaper/powerfull whatever than FH

[Robotbeat]

Energia was probably significantly more powerful than Falcon Heavy. I don't think we should always take Musk without a grain of salt. (You could weasel your way out by saying that it always seemed to require a big burn by the payload, or perhaps that it never was really operational.)

[su27k]

Of course the article lacks details, that's why the guy wrote a book (with references), I haven't read the book so I couldn't comment on its quality, but you can't fault him by saying the article is too short. And somehow he mentioned his book is seen as a bad thing? How come?

If you really want to debate with him, read his book and the references, then come back and tell us which part of the book is wrong, and which reference is wrong. I'm pretty sure a public debate can be arranged with him on TheSpaceShow.

And yes, I see the article as marketing too, but not just for the book, it's for the idea he believes in, I don't see anything wrong with this, if you support SLS you can write a book too.

The fundamental problem here is not heavy lift, it's not even SLS, it's how NASA's budget should be used. If you don't trust FH will fly or Elon's quote on MCT price, that is fine. Nobody knows for sure if SpaceX can do it, or if ULA can build heavy lift for $6 billion, but I think their credibility requires us to at least consider the possibility that a heavy lift can be built at a lower cost. If you accept this possibility, then the natural way forward is to have a competition, let's get everyone's card on the table, with their credibility on the line, fixed price, and see who wins. If SLS supporters truly believe it's the only way to get heavy lift capability, then they have nothing to worry about, right? Of course this idea is not mine, a respected forum member raised it months ago: http://selenianboondocks.com/2013/11/a-modest-proposal-the-cots-approach-to-slsorion/

[RocketmanUS]

Will Congress fund missions for SLS class payloads for the next 10 to 20 years?

Even if this Congress does start to fund such payloads that require large launchers like SLS it does not mean the next Congress will. Even if the next Congress or after them funds large payloads they could always use a commercial HLV if available.

It really should go to a vote to the people this election year to see if they want SLS or not ( it's their money and space program ).

FH would be smaller in size and mass of payloads compared to SLS. However it would be capable ( or other possible commercial launcher ) to support what we need in the next 10 to 20 years from now. That giving time for commercial to build their own HLV.

It is not really about SLS vs SpaceX's FH or BFR. It's about if Congress would keep funding useful payloads to support enough launches for SLS.

I don't think Congress will cancel SLS if FH launches this year and BFR probable won't launch til after SLS would.

There is more to a space program than the launcher, much more in the missions. Articles focus on SpaceX to much when there are others also making or attempting to make to launcher.

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

Yep! And ironically - and totally not related to this op-ed - one of my articles will cover this payload/flight rate question.

I'll have to read that article then. Will be interesting to see what Congress has in mind for SLS payloads and when. Commercial however just might pass them by and that might just be what some members of Congress hope for.

[93143]

There is a mission for SLS.  Congress has made it clear that the immediate goal is the moon, same as with Project Constellation and the previous NASA Authorization Acts.  The international partners have made it clear that they're on board with this.

Or rather, that NASA is not on board with them, because Obama said we're not going back to the moon and the Administration refuses to discuss it (and spouts nonsense about how we'd be going "back to square one" if a lunar mission were announced, as if SLS and Orion weren't blatantly two of the three pieces necessary for such a mission).

Under these circumstances, naturally none of the mission-specific hardware is on any sort of fast track.  And of course there's not money for it, because Congress can't exactly appropriate money for a project that the White House refuses to let NASA do.

And without an agreed-upon, funded mission, naturally it is impossible to come up with a plan to fly more often.  SLS isn't all that expensive to launch if you already have the system in place, and the current manifest is nowhere near the maximum flight rate that could be supported even with the minimal infrastructure they're setting up.  But if you don't have something to launch, why would you launch?  A solid near-term mission and some decent funding for it would make SLS a lot less useless.

Hopefully this situation changes in a useful way after 2016...  or sooner, though I wouldn't hold my breath...

Critics of the SLS are critical of it not because of the fact that it is a heavy lift LV but because it is a very expensive heavy lift vehicle.

Last I heard, NASA had not done any estimates of operating costs - so we're still working with old STS and CxP numbers.  For those to be valid, one would have to assume that the entire "affordability" push will come to nothing.  So it isn't really fair to say that SLS is a "very expensive heavy lift vehicle" because we don't know what it will cost.

ATK is talking about efficiency improvements on the order of 40%, and if I recall correctly that's implemented, not projected for the advanced boosters (which would be another 40-50%, assuming something like the Dynetics boosters don't prove even cheaper).  Plus the recovery and refurbishment costs are deleted.  Aerojet Rocketdyne is talking about consolidating production lines by 60%, and using new technology like selective laser melting to manufacture parts for 35% of the traditional cost and in a few days instead of a month.  Not to mention the SSME Block III manufacturability improvements, which were quite dramatic and never implemented, but which are no-brainers for RS-25E.  The core manufacturing process is far beyond what was used for the ET, with much more sophisticated automation and massively reduced part counts.  These are not small improvements, even leaving aside the draconian "right-sizing" that limits the flight rate to a couple of launches a year in order to save on fixed costs.

Even NASA management is trying to (or says they're trying to) minimize overhead and red tape.

The marginal cost to launch SLS Block 1 wouldn't be much more than $300M in modern dollars even if no affordability improvements were implemented; the actual system should be less.  This doesn't rely only on my calculations from the 2011 budget availability scenarios document; it also roughly agrees with what simple deltas on DIRECT's Jupiter numbers show.  (Make no mistake - SLS, leaving aside the advanced boosters, is a Jupiter.  It's just one of the bigger ones.  DIRECT produced estimates for what they called "Stretched Heavy" configurations, but never publicized them.)

That infamous $500M per launch target number was never said (at least not by NASA) to be a marginal cost.  It's actually not entirely impossible that it was supposed to be a total cost.  The statement was simply launch cost in the context of a flight rate - one flight per year, IIRC - and followed by a comment about this "more efficient flight rate" being necessary to achieve the cost goal...

...

Even if you're talking about development costs, the numbers aren't quite as stark as people are making out.  SLS Block 1B is not $20B; it's probably closer to $12B if I understand correctly (though that might be a couple billion low if I don't understand correctly).  But that's including the $4B or so that has already been spent on it, and the billions more that would be spent before a cancellation and switchover could be got through Congress and implemented.

If you include currently-projected ops costs during several years of doing nothing with Block 1 while trying to develop Block 2, yes, you'll get past $20B pretty easily...

As for the competitors, I'm pretty sure the $2.5B number from SpaceX didn't include the main engine (another $1B or so), and I know it didn't include a high-energy EDS or its engine.  The number was for a frankenrocket that used ganged crossfed cores with a Falcon 9 upper stage.  And their stated $300M launch cost probably didn't include fixed ground infrastructure costs at LC-39, which is where they wanted to launch from (and apparently still do).  A real BEO HLV would be more, even leaving aside costs incurred by NASA to cancel SLS and switch horses.

Regarding ULA, last I checked you couldn't get even Phase 2 for $5.5B, because you need ACES (ie: Phase 1) first, which is a $4B project by itself even without the depot option.  (Phase 2 should be only a few billion on top of Phase 1; I honestly don't know where he got $5.5B, unless he just added together the historical development costs for the Atlas V and Delta IV.)  And that takes you to the end of the low-hanging fruit; to get a real SLS-class HLV you need to do Phase 3, which is much more expensive.  IIRC SLS Block 1B is cheaper, even if you include sunk costs.

I know there are other options besides an SLS-class HLV, but this post is long enough as it is.  Besides, the issue is not that the government can't afford missions with SLS, but could afford them with something else.  The differential cost of SLS, even if it is positive in a given instance, is miniscule in the context of federal discretionary spending, never mind the whole budget.  The issue is that the government does not choose to fund those missions.  Replacing a rocket that they do choose to fund with one that they don't is unlikely to help, unless very carefully handled.

...

I'm not denying that a clean-sheet, cost-optimized SpaceX super heavy, if it gets built, could be significantly cheaper for NASA to use than a government-procured, oldspace-built legacy technology rocket like SLS, even if the Mars colonization idea falls through.  There should be no need to misrepresent the numbers to try to make it look more obvious than it is.

If you really want to debate with him, read his book and the references, then come back and tell us which part of the book is wrong, and which reference is wrong.

The problem is that the article is riddled with statements that are demonstrably false or misleading.  It's not that he's bringing new facts we've never heard of.  Quite the opposite - we've heard this stuff before, and we know what's up.

[su27k]

The problem is that the article is riddled with statements that are demonstrably false or misleading. 

Please enlighten me, which statement is demonstrably false? I read through 3 pages of discussion, nobody actually presented anything concrete.

It's not that he's bringing new facts we've never heard of.  Quite the opposite - we've heard this stuff before, and we know what's up.

So? His audience is not you, he is trying to appeal to the general public and raise the awareness of this issue. Seeing the US is still a democracy, and Congress is controlling NASA's spending, I think this is the correct way to move forward.

[93143]

The problem is that the article is riddled with statements that are demonstrably false or misleading. 

Please enlighten me, which statement is demonstrably false? I read through 3 pages of discussion, nobody actually presented anything concrete.

It's not that he's bringing new facts we've never heard of.  Quite the opposite - we've heard this stuff before, and we know what's up.

So? His audience is not you, he is trying to appeal to the general public and raise the awareness of this issue.

You said we needed to read his book before challenging him.  We aren't the general public.  If I read an article that says SpaceX offered to come up with an SLS replacement for $2.5B (misleading) or that ULA could do 140 tonnes for $5.5B (false), or that BAH said SLS will probably only stay on schedule/budget for 3-5 years (misleading), or that if SLS/Orion were cancelled NASA could use the funds for X (debatable, but probably false), or that Falcon Heavy will have been produced "totally without funds from NASA" (false), or that "NASA" wanted to use smaller rockets before Congress forced SLS on them (misleading/false), or that Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket since Saturn V (false), or that the MCT would be a good replacement for Orion (silly), I don't need to read a book to know that the article is not totally unbiased and reliable.

[jongoff]

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? 

Go4TLI,

I'm actually bugged by the same trend. I still think that HLVs (launchers much bigger than say 30-50mT to LEO) are not the right way to go any time soon (ie in the next 10-20yrs). But I've seen the same phenomenon that you've mentioned--where a lot of anti-SLS people now seem to be all in favor of Elon's theoretical HLV.

You may disagree with me on the utility of HLVs, but at least I try to be consistent. :-)

~Jon

[jongoff]

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.

But do we really know if the SpaceX approach will scale well up to the sizes you guys are throwing around?  Personally I doubt it--I personally think you start running into dis-economies of scale long before that point. I think their reusability work is far more important than building HLVs.

~Jon

[Hauerg]

I think this is a matter of perception. SLS may be seen as something that might fly something like 0.5x to 2x per year. And we all have experienced that any programm with such a flight rate has serious problems regarding $ and safety.
Elons Überrocket might or might not happen. But if it happen nobody expect its to fly once per year.

So IF Elons builds us that rocket and the spaceship, it might be the road to our Heinlein future.
IF SLS flies it still the rocket to nowhere because of (un)affordability.

I never was against HLVs per se. Only against those that cost 3000000000.- annually even when not flying at all.

[su27k]

The problem is that the article is riddled with statements that are demonstrably false or misleading. 

Please enlighten me, which statement is demonstrably false? I read through 3 pages of discussion, nobody actually presented anything concrete.

It's not that he's bringing new facts we've never heard of.  Quite the opposite - we've heard this stuff before, and we know what's up.

So? His audience is not you, he is trying to appeal to the general public and raise the awareness of this issue.

You said we needed to read his book before challenging him. 

That statement is made against people who think the article is too short to offer anything useful, while at the same time object him mentioning his book, and dismiss him just because of his profession. So it probably doesn't apply to you.

We aren't the general public.  If I read an article that says SpaceX offered to come up with an SLS replacement for $2.5B (misleading) or that ULA could do 140 tonnes for $5.5B (false), or that BAH said SLS will probably only stay on schedule/budget for 3-5 years (misleading), or that if SLS/Orion were cancelled NASA could use the funds for X (debatable, but probably false), or that Falcon Heavy will have been produced "totally without funds from NASA" (false), or that "NASA" wanted to use smaller rockets before Congress forced SLS on them (misleading/false), or that Falcon Heavy is the most powerful rocket since Saturn V (false), or that the MCT would be a good replacement for Orion (silly), I don't need to read a book to know that the article is not totally unbiased and reliable.

Well that is your opinion, but unlike him you didn't actually offer any references to backup your claim, even your longer post is just educated guesses ("Last I heard, NASA had not done any estimates of operating costs", is this really true? If so, from my layman's prospective that's a red flag right there).

[93143]

Well that is your opinion, but unlike him you didn't actually offer any references to backup your claim

I checked his references.  They don't, in general, prove what he says they prove.

I'm not going to look up all the information I've seen over the years that enables me to say he's off side (mostly because I've spent all freaking day on this thread and I need to get some research done).  I'm just saying I have in fact seen it.  All of this has been hashed out in detail on this forum over the past few years.

I know this is bad practice; sorry about that...

Though some of it is pretty common knowledge, or even demonstrated by his references...

even your longer post is just educated guesses

Some of it, yes.  But by no means all of it.  I thought it was pretty clear which parts were known data and which ones were extrapolations or approximations.

("Last I heard, NASA had not done any estimates of operating costs", is this really true? If so, from my layman's prospective that's a red flag right there).

Yes, it's true, in the sense I meant (heh).  They said as much publicly.

NASA did preliminary estimates of operating costs before the project started.  They used STS and CxP numbers, and according to my calculations, in a comparatively budget-rich environment they came up with a fixed cost of about $2B for Block 2 including KSC ground systems, and $300M per flight of a Block 1 equivalent.  Orion was $700M total cost at one flight per year.  (All 2011 dollars, derived by me from the numbers in the August 2011 ESD Integration document.)  These agree as well as could be expected with DIRECT's numbers for similar scenarios with a broadly similar vehicle (the J-246).

If their use of STS and CxP numbers means what I think it does, that's the ceiling, assuming no affordability measures at all.  The only way to go from there is down.  And since the affordability measures are still in work (and the preliminary SLS configuration roadmap is obsolete), NASA has not updated the conservative preliminary estimates with real SLS data.  Or hadn't, last I heard...

[su27k]

I know this is bad practice; sorry about that...

That's alright, we all have day jobs to do, my original post is not directed at you, it's against people who dismiss the article without even looking at it (for example, the lack of payload, he mentioned it on paragraph . I certainly do hope someone would write a counter book to provide a balanced view, but even better would be for NASA to run a competition so that we can actually see what the real cost/benefit analysis is, it would save a whole lot of guess work.

[Coastal Ron]

("Last I heard, NASA had not done any estimates of operating costs", is this really true? If so, from my layman's prospective that's a red flag right there).

Yes, it's true.  They said as much publicly.

NASA did estimates of operating costs before the project started.  They used STS and CxP numbers, and according to my calculations, in a comparatively budget-rich environment they came up with a fixed cost of about $2B for Block 2 including KSC ground systems, and $300M per flight of a Block 1 equivalent.  Orion was $700M total cost at one flight per year.  (All 2011 dollars, derived by me from the numbers in the August 2011 ESD Integration document.)  These agree as well as could be expected with DIRECT's numbers for similar scenarios with a broadly similar vehicle (the J-246).

If their use of STS and CxP numbers means what I think it does, that's the ceiling, assuming no affordability measures at all.  The only way to go from there is down.  And since the affordability measures are still in work, NASA has not updated the estimates.

From what I understand SLS Key Decision Point C, which is a NASA report that is supposed to be released soon, will identify the SLS lifecycle cost estimate.  Instead of debating estimates, I'll wait for the report to come out.  Something to keep in mind though is that the per/launch costs will depend greatly on how much Congress let's NASA buy long lead material.

For instance, in 2007 the Shuttle program added a contract modification to an existing External Tank (ET) contract, and that brought the cost of the final 17 ET's to $173M each.  Also in 2007 NASA extended an existing contract for Solid Rocket Booster sets (SRM), bringing those to a cost of $81M/set.  So for each Shuttle flight just those two components cost $254M - but only because they were purchased in large volumes.

The current flight rate for the SLS is undetermined, but if it only flies once every year or every other year, then it's hard to see how any cost efficiencies can be gained for massive custom components.

You previously mentioned that you thought a ULA HLV would be far more expensive than the SLS, but why would you think that?  What are the cost drivers that you think will make a ULA rocket the same size as the SLS significantly more expensive, especially when ULA has economies of scale that NASA can never get?

For instance, ULA launches a dozen rockets a year, so they can spread their overhead costs across far more launches than NASA can, and they also buy far more material than NASA ever likely will.  Assuming the SLS and a ULA HLV are close to the same mass, and rockets are mainly large tanks, it only makes sense that volume purchasing and overhead costs will influence overall costs far more than "design" (I'm assuming that's what you think the SLS advantage is).

Lastly, any talk about cost for a government launch system has to include development cost, so you can't ignore the $30B of U.S. Taxpayer money that is required to launch the first SLS.  If it launches more than once then the total cost can be amortized, but even if the SLS flew for 30 years like the Shuttle that would be $1B/year that would have to be added to fully account for the real cost of using the SLS.

[KelvinZero]

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?

This deserves to be it's own topic, IMO It is more interesting and well defined than the article. (I also think there were some very good replies)

I don't think Elon's monster rocket works in any context I have seen up to today. Absolutely it is probably the best size for moving thousands of people to mars every year, and maybe ten years is quite credible, if someone was buying.

More on topic with the title: "Will SpaceX Super Rocket Kill NASA's 'Rocket to Nowhere'", one thing that has occured to me right from the beginning is that you don't actually need a rocket to do that, only the perception of one. I think the demand for a 130 ton rocket will vanish as soon as SpaceX becomes a more credible source of one than SLS. This alone could be a valuable outcome and certainly justify some cheap words.

[M129K]

Critics of the SLS are critical of it not because of the fact that it is a heavy lift LV but because it is a very expensive heavy lift vehicle.

Not necessarily. There's a truckload of people who will tell you HLVs aren't needed, with criticisms ranging from "it's cheaper to use current rockets" to "HLVs are a cancer which should be exterminated and are the reason we don't have cheap space access". There is no unified criticism with regards of SLS.

[93143]

Something to keep in mind though is that the per/launch costs will depend greatly on how much Congress let's NASA buy long lead material.

Why does that matter?  It takes a certain amount of money to keep the lights on at MAF, and a certain amount of money to actually produce a core.  And SLS launches are likely to be scheduled pretty far in advance.  Given that government contractors are not allowed to be opaque about their profit margins, that should be pretty much the whole story.

And we know that the SLS facilities at MAF are being extensively "right-sized", as well as heavily automated using sophisticated manufacturing technology, to reduce the cost of making cores at a low rate.  ATK and Rocketdyne are doing similar stuff, and the preliminary advanced booster effort is along the same lines.

[Also, I'm pretty sure your number for Shuttle tank costs is way high.  Someone must have gotten some wires crossed with those contract numbers.  Historical costs from the '90s were supposed to be around $90M in 2007 dollars (NASA New Start) for the SLWT, and in 2007 and 2008, SSP was paying about $300M per year for the ET line item.]

You previously mentioned that you thought a ULA HLV would be far more expensive than the SLS, but why would you think that?  What are the cost drivers that you think will make a ULA rocket the same size as the SLS significantly more expensive, especially when ULA has economies of scale that NASA can never get?

I didn't say exactly that.  I said a ULA HLV was unlikely to get down to $500M per launch total cost, which isn't a number I would have assigned to SLS at one flight per year if NASA hadn't done so first.

I was thinking of a CBO report in which an Atlas super heavy roughly equivalent to EELV Phase 3 was pegged at over a billion dollars for each test launch, not including other development activities, and presumably over and above any fixed costs shared with the rest of the EELV program.  However, this is probably apples to oranges with the SLS "affordability" target, so I'll remove my comment.

...

Still...  while the Decatur facility is already running and thus costs can be shared, the production line is significantly underutilized, so the proportion of fixed costs borne by the super heavy may not be "right-sized" unless it launches at a fairly reasonable rate.  And since the plant is already running, it could be difficult (if perhaps somewhat less necessary) to do a clean-sheet modernization effort like what's happening at MAF, even without the Air Force objecting to NASA messing with its stuff.

If ULA went with Phase 3B, they'd have MAF in on the game as well as Decatur, plus the engine suppliers.  If SLS ends up with (say) the Dynetics boosters, on the other hand, that's just MAF and Canoga Park for major subassemblies.

ULA might have to come up with a home-grown version of the RD-180, which could add significantly to ongoing costs.  Then again, they might not.  (But man, that is a lot of RD-180s on a Phase 3, especially a 3B.  SLS just has two big dumb boosters providing most of the liftoff thrust.)

Also, a ULA super heavy would have to launch from LC-39, so it wouldn't be able to share any launch infrastructure with the smaller EELVs unless they switched to LC-39 too...

I don't see volume purchasing of raw materials as a significant factor at this scale.  If you're making a heavy lifter at all, you're already getting the bulk price...

Lastly, any talk about cost for a government launch system has to include development cost, so you can't ignore the $30B of U.S. Taxpayer money that is required to launch the first SLS.

...you mean $7.65-8.59B, according to an estimate of cumulative spend to IOC published near the end of 2012.  And a significant chunk of that has already been spent.

Of course if you go past Block 1 (and you should, at least to Block 1B), that's somewhat more.  The 1B upper stage should be about $4B if it uses ACES-style advanced cryo stage technology, or less if it doesn't.

Other options have development costs too.  You basically cannot do BEO exploration with existing launchers.  Something has to be added.  And the more you add to the launch system, the less complicated and squished your in-space architecture gets, especially for distant targets.

Keep in mind that Congress wants to fund SLS, whereas the same cannot be said of the alternatives.  Considering how tiny its budget is in the grand scheme of things, I think this is a significant mitigating factor with respect to its development cost.

[JBF]

There is a mission for SLS.  Congress has made it clear that the immediate goal is the moon, same as with Project Constellation and the previous NASA Authorization Acts.  The international partners have made it clear that they're on board with this.

Or rather, that NASA is not on board with them, because Obama said we're not going back to the moon and the Administration refuses to discuss it (and spouts nonsense about how we'd be going "back to square one" if a lunar mission were announced, as if SLS and Orion weren't blatantly two of the three pieces necessary for such a mission).

Under these circumstances, naturally none of the mission-specific hardware is on any sort of fast track.  And of course there's not money for it, because Congress can't exactly appropriate money for a project that the White House refuses to let NASA do.

This is wrong. Congress can appropriate money and order NASA to spend it in a specific way. They do it all the time for various programs. As long as the President doesn't veto the bill it has to get done.

[93143]

Are you suggesting Congress just totally ignore the White House and NASA Administration (which answers to the White House) and force NASA to go to the moon?

No.  Everybody has to be on board with this.  They're getting more than enough pushback just with SLS alone, and the only reason it isn't worse is that Obama has put his stamp on SLS by specifically rejecting the moon mission.

Besides, Congress isn't a monolithic entity as far as NASA's direction and funding are concerned, and they haven't shown a particularly strong tendency to appropriate large quantities of cash that aren't in the President's budget request...

I suppose they could do it, but they probably won't.  On the bright side, we finally have a budget this year instead of a CR, so maybe they'll surprise me...

[Proponent]

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.

It's not just your opinion, RapidPanda, it's SpaceX's view.  After the first Falcon 9 flight, SpaceX put out a press release which included a closing sentence or two to the effect that really big rockets made sense for frequent human Mars missions but not for anything less demanding.  I've been trying to find the press release, because, as another forum member remarked at the time, it was amusingly passive aggressive.

The bottom line is that SpaceX is not inconsistent in pushing Falcon Heavy for medium-term missions while calling for a much larger rocket for Mars colonization.  That doesn't necessarily mean that SpaceX is correct, but it is not being inconsistent, and it has not changed its tune.

[Proponent]

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"

And it's pretty clear Musk is talking about flying the moon mission before developing the MCT.  Boozer implies the opposite order, though it may just be sloppy wording, when he says "Musk further mentioned SpaceX doing a manned flight around the moon, possibly including a landing.  Following those events, he said, SpaceX would use the huge rocket for trips to Mars."

[JBF]

Are you suggesting Congress just totally ignore the White House and NASA Administration (which answers to the White House) and force NASA to go to the moon?

No.  Everybody has to be on board with this.  They're getting more than enough pushback just with SLS alone, and the only reason it isn't worse is that Obama has put his stamp on SLS by specifically rejecting the moon mission.

Besides, Congress isn't a monolithic entity as far as NASA's direction and funding are concerned, and they haven't shown a particularly strong tendency to appropriate large quantities of cash that aren't in the President's budget request...

I suppose they could do it, but they probably won't.  On the bright side, we finally have a budget this year instead of a CR, so maybe they'll surprise me...

That's the power of the purse.  If enough of congress really wants to do something they can force it through. The problem is not enough of congress really cares which is why we have a rocket but no mission.

[Dave G]

And it's pretty clear Musk is talking about flying the moon mission before developing the MCT.  Boozer implies the opposite order, though it may just be sloppy wording, when he says "Musk further mentioned SpaceX doing a manned flight around the moon, possibly including a landing.  Following those events, he said, SpaceX would use the huge rocket for trips to Mars."

My guess:  Musk has the whole plan in his head, and when he talked about the moon, he mixed different phases of that plan.  In other words, FH would go around the moon but not land, but MCT may land on the moon to prove the capability before going to Mars.

[Proponent]

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.

Yeah, I think Boozer would make his point better if he didn't mention MCT at all.  He would be better of just focusing on the indications that ULA and SpaceX have given that they could develop an SLS-like capability at considerably lower cost.

[dcporter]

(For the record, it's possible to be skeptical of the SLS program without being against all HLVs.)

[Proponent]

(For the record, it's possible to be skeptical of the SLS program without being against all HLVs.)

Yes, and it seems to me that Boozer is in that category.  He seems to take the need for an HLV as a given.

I'm neither for nor against HLVs.  I am for choosing objectives and then selecting the best means of achieving them.  Even that basic step is absent in the current space program:  Congress just mandated the HLV, but has had little to say about it's for.

[Proponent]

Are you suggesting Congress just totally ignore the White House and NASA Administration (which answers to the White House) and force NASA to go to the moon?

No.  Everybody has to be on board with this.  They're getting more than enough pushback just with SLS alone, and the only reason it isn't worse is that Obama has put his stamp on SLS by specifically rejecting the moon mission.

Besides, Congress isn't a monolithic entity as far as NASA's direction and funding are concerned, and they haven't shown a particularly strong tendency to appropriate large quantities of cash that aren't in the President's budget request...

I suppose they could do it, but they probably won't.  On the bright side, we finally have a budget this year instead of a CR, so maybe they'll surprise me...

There is precedent:  Congress shoved Orion/SLS down the administration's throat.  But I don't think it's really true that Congress has its heart set on going to the moon.  A few representatives probably do, but look what happened when they raised the subject with Adminstrator Bolden in a House space subcommittee meeting last spring (if you want, I'll find the video on the House website).  Three space-state representatives, Lamar Smith and two others whose names escape me at the moment, told Bolden they wanted to go the moon.  Bolden replied, quite sensibly I believe, that NASA would need a lot more money to do that.  Two of the three representatives look dumbfounded, as though it had never occurred to them to consider the cost.  Smith, on the other hand, just carried on as though he hadn't heard.  This is hardly the reaction of a House that's resolved to go to the moon.

EDIT:  "it's heart" -> "its heart".  Argh, you'd think by now I'd have learned to rite goode inglush.

[mb199]

I have said this before and I will say it again SLS and Orion never fly. Has and still is a make work project.

[guckyfan]

And it's pretty clear Musk is talking about flying the moon mission before developing the MCT.  Boozer implies the opposite order, though it may just be sloppy wording, when he says "Musk further mentioned SpaceX doing a manned flight around the moon, possibly including a landing.  Following those events, he said, SpaceX would use the huge rocket for trips to Mars."

My guess:  Musk has the whole plan in his head, and when he talked about the moon, he mixed different phases of that plan.  In other words, FH would go around the moon but not land, but MCT may land on the moon to prove the capability before going to Mars.

I would guess that too. Simple slip in wording. Not an announcement they will develop a dedicated moon landing capability before MCT.

[Proponent]

I have said this before and I will say it again SLS and Orion never fly. Has and still is a make work project.

Hate to single you out -- for I've been guilty of the same thing on occasion -- but might I suggest that this post does not advance the discussion.  It just bluntly states a point view without any justification.

[mb199]

I have said this before and I will say it again SLS and Orion never fly. Has and still is a make work project.

Hate to single you out -- for I've been guilty of the same thing on occasion -- but might I suggest that this post does not advance the discussion.  It just bluntly states a point view without any justification.

No worries, but the fact is NASA does not have the money to fly this thing.

[Robotbeat]

Orion will fly within a year. It's quite possible Orion may survive but SLS be canceled.

[Coastal Ron]

Other options have development costs too.  You basically cannot do BEO exploration with existing launchers.  Something has to be added.  And the more you add to the launch system, the less complicated and squished your in-space architecture gets, especially for distant targets.

The 450mt ISS is proof that we can build large structures in space without an HLV, and I'm not aware of any factors that would limit building even larger structures using the same techniques.  We can do BEO with existing launchers, and likely for far less than if we were to use the SLS.

Keep in mind that Congress wants to fund SLS, whereas the same cannot be said of the alternatives.  Considering how tiny its budget is in the grand scheme of things, I think this is a significant mitigating factor with respect to its development cost.

Well, some in Congress want the SLS, but it would be a stretch to say that everyone in Congress has that opinion.

As to alternatives, Congress doesn't need to fund alternatives if we use existing launchers.  NASA will have access to a 53mt launcher soon, and it won't take an act of Congress.  And if it turns out NASA has a need for a high number of larger payloads that need to get to orbit, then they can open up the requirement to competition.  Both ULA and SpaceX have floated numbers for their HLV's that are far lower than what we're spending on the SLS.  You'd be surprised what the capitalistic system can do if given the opportunity.

In any case the debate about the SLS exists mainly because currently there is no defined need for an HLV.  If there were missions being funded that had SLS-sized payloads we wouldn't be having this discussion, so that means we're spending money on an HLV far too early.

So instead of defending the SLS, I think SLS supporters should be directing their efforts to get Congress to pony up the big bucks to actually USE the SLS.  That would silence SLS detractors more than debating why existing launchers are inadequate for mythical missions.

[Robotbeat]

...

As to alternatives, Congress doesn't need to fund alternatives if we use existing launchers.  ...

This.

[Star One]

Orion will fly within a year. It's quite possible Orion may survive but SLS be canceled.

I think there is a lot of weight in this view.

SLS needs Orion more than Orion needs SLS as there are other ways of evolving a booster to carry it that involves neither SLS or Space X. I am sure if needed ULA could step up to the plate in this respect. I've sometimes wondered if the evolved SLS upper stage could be transferred to an evolved form of the D4H.

[Robotbeat]

Orion will fly within a year. It's quite possible Orion may survive but SLS be canceled.

I think there is a lot of weight in this view.

SLS needs Orion more than Orion needs SLS as there are other ways of evolving a booster to carry it that involves neither SLS or Space X. I am sure if needed ULA could step up to the plate in this respect.

Orion is already flying on Delta IV Heavy, and Delta IV Heavy can fly people, with the right process. The relative difficulty of this process is debated nearly every time this idea is brought up, and is off topic on this thread.

[Elvis in Space]

Right now SLS is it's own best friend by staying roughly on time and budget. As long as this continues and it's congressional sponsors can point to the "success" of the program it will be much more difficult to kill. For the moment SLS exists and Spacex "Super Rocket" does not. That may change a great deal before SLS flies but keep in mind that the reason for SLS existence is political not need. It won't be engineering, the relatively small budget, or need that keeps SLS around but politics. If Spacex somehow is able to replace SLS position in the political process then SLS has something to worry about. Not likely before that.

[Robotbeat]

I disagree. There are a lot of people working on SLS who really believe in it. It's not just political.

[Elvis in Space]

I disagree. There are a lot of people working on SLS who really believe in it. It's not just political.

I agree with you but they didn't start it and they don't fund it. They will also have no voice in killing it.

[Robotbeat]

I disagree. There are a lot of people working on SLS who really believe in it. It's not just political.

I agree with you but they didn't start it and they don't fund it. They will also have no voice in killing it.

I will hop on the bandwagon harping on Congress with the rest of you, but it's important to note that the Congress folk who support SLS themselves /are/ partially motivated by the people in their district who really believe in SLS.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I will hop on the bandwagon harping on Congress with the rest of you, but it's important to note that the Congress folk who support SLS themselves /are/ partially motivated by the people in their district who really believe in SLS.

Well, I do know from direct quotes by Shelby (and I think I remember some of the others), where they prided themselves in having secured SLS contracts for their districts. E.g. senator Shelby bragged about having inserted last minute wording into a bill that essentially required the SLS to use solid rocket boosters developed by ATK ( think that this only applies to the first version of the SLS though, I cant quite remember how it went). Either way, I think a lot of people believe in the economic value the SLS has for their districts. I think that a lot less people believe or even care about the value the SLS has for space exploration. I also want to point out that there are senators that are not in favor of the SLS, like senator Rohrabacher who called out the SLS supporters on occasion. IIRC, there was a quite huge debate involving a paper released by ULA that shows how the same missions that were envisioned for the SLS at the time could be done sooner and cheaper with existing launchers.

[Rocket Science]

If congress really believed in SLS they would have funded a program including a Lander, either Lunar or Mars and shoved it down NASA’s throat irrespective what the current administration views are. They would just do it as they have with SLS. The fact that they haven’t leaves a big “blank” for you to fill in since this isn’t a space policy thread... This is a disservice to the good people working on it and Elon’s musings should not be defining NASA’s direction...

[Proponent]

Other options have development costs too.  You basically cannot do BEO exploration with existing launchers.  Something has to be added.  And the more you add to the launch system, the less complicated and squished your in-space architecture gets, especially for distant targets.

For the first sentence to be true, the elasticity of the word "basically" must be rather formidable.  We have, just as one example, Mike Griffin's warning to Congress about China going to the moon with a Delta IV-class rocket (the Long March 5).  Certainly things need to be "squished" if BEO is to be done on small rockets rather than larger ones, but what's needed is a comprehensive trade study of the options.  So where are the professional trade studies justifying SLS?  We can point to trade studies that have compared SLS with depots and come out in favor of the latter.  We can point to claims by ULA and SpaceX that they can build HLVs for less than the cost of SLS (which I'd say is Boozer's main point).  But when it comes to coherent studies favoring SLS over alternatives, there seems to be professional silence.  I even opened a thread a while ago to collect such studies, but not much turned up.

PS.  You yourself are the most persuasive and most articulate SLS booster I'm aware of, and I do mean that as a compliment.  But, like me, you're an amateur on this topic.  If the pros actually have a case to make, why are they leaving it to you?

[Elvis in Space]

I disagree. There are a lot of people working on SLS who really believe in it. It's not just political.

I agree with you but they didn't start it and they don't fund it. They will also have no voice in killing it.

I will hop on the bandwagon harping on Congress with the rest of you, but it's important to note that the Congress folk who support SLS themselves /are/ partially motivated by the people in their district who really believe in SLS.

I understand what you are saying and that is all true. I believe SLS will continue as long as those who support it represent the best possible way to get votes. SLS is a government funded project with no currently funded mission. If Elon comes along with a better performing booster it won't threaten SLS unless it carries votes with it somehow. If Spacex somehow requires resources being used by SLS then things might change only if Spacex has the political constituency to make it happen. You also have to ask if SLS is a "rocket to nowhere" then what is  Spacex actually going to replace? Spacex has the mission. Not NASA.

[Star One]

Orion will fly within a year. It's quite possible Orion may survive but SLS be canceled.

I think there is a lot of weight in this view.

SLS needs Orion more than Orion needs SLS as there are other ways of evolving a booster to carry it that involves neither SLS or Space X. I am sure if needed ULA could step up to the plate in this respect.

Orion is already flying on Delta IV Heavy, and Delta IV Heavy can fly people, with the right process. The relative difficulty of this process is debated nearly every time this idea is brought up, and is off topic on this thread.

I am not sure how you're defining discussion of this as being OT considering the issue of alternative launchers is one of the points raised in the original article?

[Elmar Moelzer]

What bothers me so much about the SLS is that the supporters of the SLS in congress, try everything to destroy commercial crew. One example is Shelby who was among the senators arguing to reduce commercial crews budget over and over again (while maintaining funding for the SLS) causing delays in the program. Now they are arguing that commercial crew might be too late for the ISS, if it does not get extended. Of course the same argument could be brought against the SLS/Orion as the much touted "alternative to commercial crew" , which seems to be the only mission in the books for it right now.
Btw, here is the study on a moon mission architecture without the SLS by ULA:
http://ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf

[Elmar Moelzer]

Also recommend these two studies for cost comparison commercial- SLS:
https://www.newspacewatch.com/docs/IAC-12.D3.2.3.x15379-NASAStudy.pdf
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/21.jul2011.vxs.pdf

[JMSC]

There is a mission for SLS.  Congress has made it clear that the immediate goal is the moon, same as with Project Constellation and the previous NASA Authorization Acts.  The international partners have made it clear that they're on board with this.

Or rather, that NASA is not on board with them, because Obama said we're not going back to the moon and the Administration refuses to discuss it (and spouts nonsense about how we'd be going "back to square one" if a lunar mission were announced, as if SLS and Orion weren't blatantly two of the three pieces necessary for such a mission).

Under these circumstances, naturally none of the mission-specific hardware is on any sort of fast track.  And of course there's not money for it, because Congress can't exactly appropriate money for a project that the White House refuses to let NASA do.

This is wrong. Congress can appropriate money and order NASA to spend it in a specific way. They do it all the time for various programs. As long as the President doesn't veto the bill it has to get done.

Good point, but one small correction to make.  As long as the President doesn't veto the bill and Congress funds the program with annual appropriations.  Unlike Social Security there is no mandate to spend any money on SLS, like every other discretinary program Congress mandates SLS still must be funded by annual appropriations.  So you could in the future have a law mandating NASA build SLS, but without any appropriated funds to do so the program will just join thousands of other Congressionally mandated but unfunded programs.   Congress also loses interest all the time in various programs and just stops funding them after a while.

[Lurker Steve]

I disagree. There are a lot of people working on SLS who really believe in it. It's not just political.

I agree with you but they didn't start it and they don't fund it. They will also have no voice in killing it.

I will hop on the bandwagon harping on Congress with the rest of you, but it's important to note that the Congress folk who support SLS themselves /are/ partially motivated by the people in their district who really believe in SLS.

I understand what you are saying and that is all true. I believe SLS will continue as long as those who support it represent the best possible way to get votes. SLS is a government funded project with no currently funded mission. If Elon comes along with a better performing booster it won't threaten SLS unless it carries votes with it somehow. If Spacex somehow requires resources being used by SLS then things might change only if Spacex has the political constituency to make it happen. You also have to ask if SLS is a "rocket to nowhere" then what is  Spacex actually going to replace? Spacex has the mission. Not NASA.

The problem is that Elon's Super Rocket isn't going to get built without some sort of NASA funding.

There is no commercial reason for a SBFR rocket to exist this century, unless you think you can sell private trips to Mars for what that mission is going to cost. And once SLS exists, there is absolutely zero need for NASA to fund some sort of replacement.

[Lobo]

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.

This is true...

Until such a time there might be a flying rocket with performance in excess of SLS.  That's easier said than done, but if it -were- to happen, then I don't see how SLS doesn't get cancelled.  I don't know that it's supporters could adequately defend it from it's detractors if there was a lower priced alternative flying.
It's main reason for support is congressional jobs, which is why RAC-1 was chosen over RAC-2, and Shuttle Derived was originally chosen out of ESAS.  To retain the maximum amount of existing Shuttle-era jobs in certain districts.
CxP's and then SLS's secondary support is of a nationalistic nature.  The USA would be going back BLEO and using the biggest rocket in the world to do it.  USA!  USA!  (And I don't really disagree with that, I'm a cheerleader too).

A SpaceX BFR that exceeds SLS's performance for significantly cheaper, makes those two positions more difficult.  While there will still be jobs in districts to be defended, that becomes harder if there is a significantly cheaper alternative (but no so mcu if SpaceX's rocket is close in price to SLS...it would have to be a good deal cheaper).  It's more difficult to argue that -these- jobs over here need to be protected for siginifcantly more money, when those [SpaceX] US jobs over there that the switch would create aren't as important.  It would make the political arguments more difficult, and give ammunition to the detractors.

And if it's a US-built rocket that's the largest in the world, then the Nationalistic angle is pretty easily transferred to it. 

So yes, I think if a SpaceX BFR were to fly, exceed SLS's capacity, and be significantly cheaper...at that point I think it woudl be the death knell for SLS.  But all of that has to happen first...or at least be imminent...before SLS would be cancelled.

(As an aside, depending on how fast such a SpaceX BFR could fly, or become imminent to fly, powers that be could be looking at the DUUS and defer it's development until they see if SpaceX can field a BFR.  Be a waste to develop that stage if SpaceX is about to fly something even bigger.  Much less the Adanvaced booster upgrade development.   But I think we'll see Block 1 fly at least a few times before there's any legitimate talk of cancelling it.)

[aero]

IMHO it is years to soon to have this debate. No matter how you slice it, SLS is way ahead of MTC. For whatever reason, congress and America (to some degree) want to stay in space with a bigger rocket. It makes absolutely no sense to stop working on America's rocket (the SLS) in the hope that sometime in the future someone else will build the rocket for us. In a few years, if someone else has such a rocket completed or nearly so, then this debate is useful but until then to many things can go wrong.

It has already been argued that other rocket companies could upgrade their rocket for any perceived SLS mission but you should listen to your own arguments. It goes something like, "If NASA would just get out of the rocket business and become a "Sugar Daddy" for rocket companies, all would be well." No it would not! I could go on ...

[Robotbeat]

I disagree. There are a lot of people working on SLS who really believe in it. It's not just political.

I agree with you but they didn't start it and they don't fund it. They will also have no voice in killing it.

I will hop on the bandwagon harping on Congress with the rest of you, but it's important to note that the Congress folk who support SLS themselves /are/ partially motivated by the people in their district who really believe in SLS.

I understand what you are saying and that is all true. I believe SLS will continue as long as those who support it represent the best possible way to get votes. SLS is a government funded project with no currently funded mission. If Elon comes along with a better performing booster it won't threaten SLS unless it carries votes with it somehow. If Spacex somehow requires resources being used by SLS then things might change only if Spacex has the political constituency to make it happen. You also have to ask if SLS is a "rocket to nowhere" then what is  Spacex actually going to replace? Spacex has the mission. Not NASA.

The problem is that Elon's Super Rocket isn't going to get built without some sort of NASA funding.
...

You don't actually know that.

[Elvis in Space]

I wonder if we might look at current events for some ideas. Spacex has launched only two commercial comsats but the BFR in Europe, Ariane, is under review and much discussion is taking place about it's future. Would we have thought for certain that Spacex would inspire such concern five years ago? Might this be a parallel situation five years from now with SLS?

[RanulfC]

Orion will fly within a year. It's quite possible Orion may survive but SLS be canceled.

Just a "technicality" but an Orion-like "test" vehicle is supposed to fly within a year, and a more "robust" and "closer-to-the-real-thing" is supposed to fly within a year of that. However neither is actually an "Orion" spacecraft from what I understand. They are "test" articles, lacking systems and capabilities of the actual Orion.

I would be very surpised if SLS gets cancled, it is obvious that those in Congress who want it have enough support and influance to push it through. Barring some major "power" changes in Washington (which currently doesn't look like its going to happen) those influances will remain even if SpaceX were to go ahead and build their "Super Rocket" in the very near future. It and its "capability" are NOT what segment of Congress supporting SLS want or need and therefore it should be obvious that having it (or not) will not influance that support.

Since Orion is supposed to ride on the SLS, (and being honest its "final" version being as massivly over-built and over-mass as it will be it really can NOT fly on any other launcher) has the same "backing" supporting it since this gives a "clear" mission for the SLS: Flying the Orion.

The two are now so politically interlinked that I don't see how their Congressional supporters could find a viable way of canceling either program without canceling the other as well.

While I dislike the SLS, it is not really because it is an HLV. (I fully understand the "need" for an HLV and especially a government HLV) I dislike it because of the political motivations that surround it and the fact that those same motivations are causing programs like CCDev/Depots/etc to be seen and treated as "threats" to its development. I specifically dislike the "fact" that this attitude has been transfered to and taken up as "cause" for non-political SLS supporters as well, leading to a general atitude of "SLS vs Everything Else" as the basis for rejection of any and all "opposing" ideas.

I dislike and disagree with the development and production of the Orion spacecraft. Its stated "purpose" being that it and its "capabilities" are required for BLEO operations is misleading at the low end, completely false at the high. Those "capabilities" assume and support an expendable, unsustainable program that follows the example of the Apollo type program rather than any more practical program. Orion is supposed to return directly to Earth from a Lunar or Mars transfer orbit, which only makes "sense" if, as in Apollo, you discarded and "expended" all your OTHER assets used during the mission. The "mission" it is going to be designed for and "capable" of assumes NO other in space assets or infrastructure being involved. In that case it makes "sense" to drag your "command  module" all over because it is also your only means of returning to Earth at the end of the mission. But that is the ONLY case where such a mission makes "senes" at all! And such a program ignores the capability and utility of the HLV launcher to build and support in-space infrastructure in favor of using the HLV as "simply" a launch vehicle for Orion and its expendable mission specific payloads.

Having said all that I am fully aware that as the "program of record" SLS and Orion will continue to have support both inside and outside of Washington, and that there is a distinct lack of empathy for "wasting" money on in-space infrastructure, since it is more "practical" to focus on the "mission-goal" and build only the capabilty to do THAT mission.

We've been there and done that before. And in the end the "legacy" of Apollo was American HSF "stopped" in 1975 and went on "hold" while we developed the Space Shuttle. @7 Years later the Shuttle was "operational" but had nowhere to go. 16 years after THAT we finally started construction on the ISS. Apollo left us with the "legacy" of having put men on the Moon and returing them safetly to the Earth and nothing else. No Moonbase, no space station, no follow up. Because of Orion it is all to easy to see "SLS/Orion" going down the same path because it is being promoted for and promising to do exactly the same thing.

And it seems to me that most of the "supporters" of SLS/Orion see nothing wrong with this and in fact are delighted by the "idea" because "obviously" it worked for Apollo...
But it did NOT "work" for Apollo, and it would seem "obvious" to me that such a paradigm will not work for SLS/Orion either.

Randy

[Robotbeat]

It's as much Orion as SpaceX's Dragon was when launched on the second Falcon 9 flight.

[RocketmanUS]

I disagree. There are a lot of people working on SLS who really believe in it. It's not just political.

I agree with you but they didn't start it and they don't fund it. They will also have no voice in killing it.

You know if they are working on it then they are paying taxes on that money earned.
You know if the are a U.S. citizen then they can vote this year ( house up for election and 1/3 of the senate ).
So yes they get a voice, can write and or call their Congressman and tell them what they want of SLS.
Can write or call news media to have their voice heard.

Pre Challenger  they were to be able to have 24 launches. So there could be up to 24 SLS block II launches. That would mean other nations to supply the payloads and or commercial. Commercial will not want to deal with government launcher or it's price per launch.

With so many different concepts for BLEO programs Congress will only have enough funds for one and no more than 12 launches a year. For real BLEO programs we will need more than 24 launches a year. Commercial launcher will be the only way we can get higher than 24 launches and get the price down to $120M or less per launch in the 130mt+ range.

For the money Congress will have SLS will be only robotic BLEO exploration with maybe a few Orions around the moon.

If Congress does remove SLS then it could focus on developing other things than a HLV. They can roll the dice and what for commercial HLV(s). Congress can't afford Lunar or Mars base , but could afford an exploration mission(s) to Mars helping up the possible commercial Mars endeavors. That is if it is a commercial HLV with per launch cost of $120M or less for 130mt+ payloads to LEO.

We need to focus more on what we want for space exploration ( crew and robotic ) and how we can accomplish these goals. Then we can write Congress, other space agencies, and commercial. Without goal(s) it won't matter what launcher we get if we don't have a solid plan for it. At least SpaceX is focused on Mars while serving customer needs/wants. 

[aero]

No Missions?

"If we build it, they will come."

[RanulfC]

I will hop on the bandwagon harping on Congress with the rest of you, but it's important to note that the Congress folk who support SLS themselves /are/ partially motivated by the people in their district who really believe in SLS.

Well, I do know from direct quotes by Shelby (and I think I remember some of the others), where they prided themselves in having secured SLS contracts for their districts. E.g. senator Shelby bragged about having inserted last minute wording into a bill that essentially required the SLS to use solid rocket boosters developed by ATK ( think that this only applies to the first version of the SLS though, I cant quite remember how it went). Either way, I think a lot of people believe in the economic value the SLS has for their districts. I think that a lot less people believe or even care about the value the SLS has for space exploration. I also want to point out that there are senators that are not in favor of the SLS, like senator Rohrabacher who called out the SLS supporters on occasion. IIRC, there was a quite huge debate involving a paper released by ULA that shows how the same missions that were envisioned for the SLS at the time could be done sooner and cheaper with existing launchers.

The ATK thing was Hatch, (Orin Hatch, R-Utah) not Shelby. Rohrabacher is a "wild-card" he's been the main one to try and "contrast" just about anything OTHER than SLS-Orion to doing the SLS-Orion missions. It has NOT helped any of the "alternatives" cases. (ULA and NASA both downplayed the "alternative" aspects of using existing launchers and depots BECAUSE they didn't want to get the hard-core SLS supporters riled up in OPPOSITION to alternatives existing BESIDE the SLS arthitecture. Rohrabacher on the hand seemed determined to ensure that opposition was implaced for ANY suggsted alternative) Rohrabacher has been all over the place with support/opposition to NASA and HSF in general. If you recall he railroaded the cancelation of the "TransHab" program at NASA, then followed up by trying to have all the program data "destroyed" after the shut down and opposed the sale of the information to Bigelow. His "justification" during the hearings held over the TransHab program was opposition to anything that MIGHT be usable for Lunar or Mars exploration missions as the "funding" could be better spent on Solar Power Satellite work instead.
In addition he was VERY anti-SpaceX until recently. He had the FBI investigate Elon Musk so many times they eventually told him they would waste no more money on "investigations" of claims from his office until and unless he presented something FIRM and admissable in court as justification.

Actual "Congressional" opposition to the SLS/Orion is very weak and unorganized, however there are "cracks" in the SLS/Orion support as well. During the last election several "groups" from Florida, and Alabama were funding efforts in Utah to have Hatch opposed/lose the Repubican primary as had happened to Bennett previously. Most political groups in Utah however were well aware that takng Hatch out of Washington would lose ALL of Utah's senority positions in Washinton and none of them were in favor of doing that at this time.

At the same time in Washington the "debate" about replacing the SRBs with LRBs was going on and the suggestion had come up to do a "fly-off" between the various concepts. Once Hatch was reelected the talk pretty much died out quickly. So "they" don't exactly have a "united-front" anymore either, but a far more "firm" one than the opposition has.

Randy

[newpylong]

I disagree. There are a lot of people working on SLS who really believe in it. It's not just political.

I agree with you but they didn't start it and they don't fund it. They will also have no voice in killing it.

I will hop on the bandwagon harping on Congress with the rest of you, but it's important to note that the Congress folk who support SLS themselves /are/ partially motivated by the people in their district who really believe in SLS.

I understand what you are saying and that is all true. I believe SLS will continue as long as those who support it represent the best possible way to get votes. SLS is a government funded project with no currently funded mission. If Elon comes along with a better performing booster it won't threaten SLS unless it carries votes with it somehow. If Spacex somehow requires resources being used by SLS then things might change only if Spacex has the political constituency to make it happen. You also have to ask if SLS is a "rocket to nowhere" then what is  Spacex actually going to replace? Spacex has the mission. Not NASA.

The problem is that Elon's Super Rocket isn't going to get built without some sort of NASA funding.
...

You don't actually know that.

Please provide an example of a private corporation spending in excess of billions of dollars on something with no clear way of regaining that investment.

Unless SpaceX wants to go out of business as quick as they went into business, Falcon 9 flights alone will not support the expense of a BFR. To think otherwise is delusional.

I agree with you regarding the people actually working on the SLS program. Political will aside, there is a tremendous amount of pride, and effort by a lot of people working hard day in and day out to see this thing finished. Opinion of why it exists should not detract from that.

[RocketmanUS]

No Missions?

"If we build it, they will come."

If they can afford the launch price. Or Congress will pay for the launch.
This is why others have been looking to commercial for new launch vehicles, big cost reduction and more launches per year.

If we have both SLS and commercial will SLS fight for payloads? Or government just pay the higher price for SLS launches for their launches.

Keep in mind for what is being visioned for the future of human space flight we will need much more than 24 HLV launches a year, much more!

I disagree. There are a lot of people working on SLS who really believe in it. It's not just political.

I agree with you but they didn't start it and they don't fund it. They will also have no voice in killing it.

I will hop on the bandwagon harping on Congress with the rest of you, but it's important to note that the Congress folk who support SLS themselves /are/ partially motivated by the people in their district who really believe in SLS.

I understand what you are saying and that is all true. I believe SLS will continue as long as those who support it represent the best possible way to get votes. SLS is a government funded project with no currently funded mission. If Elon comes along with a better performing booster it won't threaten SLS unless it carries votes with it somehow. If Spacex somehow requires resources being used by SLS then things might change only if Spacex has the political constituency to make it happen. You also have to ask if SLS is a "rocket to nowhere" then what is  Spacex actually going to replace? Spacex has the mission. Not NASA.

The problem is that Elon's Super Rocket isn't going to get built without some sort of NASA funding.
...

You don't actually know that.

Please provide an example of a private corporation spending in excess of billions of dollars on something with no clear way of regaining that investment.

Unless SpaceX wants to go out of business as quick as they went into business, Falcon 9 flights alone will not support the expense of a BFR. To think otherwise is delusional.

I agree with you regarding the people actually working on the SLS program. Political will aside, there is a tremendous amount of pride, and effort by a lot of people working hard day in and day out to see this thing finished. Opinion of why it exists should not detract from that.

BFR needs private funding for it, the people who want the Mars colony or those who will have payloads in that class. So private investment.

[Robotbeat]

Falcon Heavy (with cross-feed, etc) is a significant investment and is in a class more than commercial needs are right now, even more than national security needs. It is not being developed with NASA funds.

[Robotbeat]

...
Unless SpaceX wants to go out of business as quick as they went into business, Falcon 9 flights alone will not support the expense of a BFR. To think otherwise is delusional.
...

Where did I say anything like that? All I said is that it's not a certainty that NASA funds would be necessary for SpaceX's BFR.

By the time any of this is relevant, SpaceX will have revenue from Falcon Heavy, as well. If there are a significant number of customers for 53t to LEO, then a single-core, fully reusable (two-stage) variant of the BFR should be able to service those needs for cheaper than the expendable, tri-core, effectively-three-stage Falcon Heavy.

Also, did Falcon 1 flights solely support the development of Falcon 9? Nope. The initial money was from private sources for Falcon 9's development, helped along by firm-fixed price contracts for delivering a service.

Also, Falcon Heavy is being developed right now and already has customers signed up, with either money-down or contractual (and bankable) commitment which can be used for capital.

SpaceX doesn't need NASA's money. Certainly not to pay directly for development ala SLS. SpaceX's BFR's chances /would/ be improved if NASA agreed ahead of time to buy launches on the BFR for a competitive, fixed price. NASA (indirectly) bought a Delta IV Heavy to test Orion, and a single-core, reusable BFR launch may be offered for less than that. Remember, NASA is required /by law/ to use commercial launch services where they exist (yes, there are loop-holes... but remember Orion-on-Delta is flying within a year).

[Robotbeat]

A very reasonable outcome to all this is that SpaceX could replace Falcon Heavy launches with reusable, single-core BFR launches. There are lots of national security payloads that wouldn't fit on a Falcon 9, so a single-core-variant BFR may have a good 6+ launches a year just for DoD launches. Add in another 6 commercial launches (from Ariane V and Proton class payloads that are too big for Falcon 9) and you could have a dozen such launches a year, enough to make partial-reuse make sense and enough to fund operations of such a vehicle. SpaceX would be able to credibly compete for any SLS-class payloads in the same way that Falcon 9 allows them to credibly compete for Falcon Heavy class payloads.

[M129K]

Falcon Heavy (with cross-feed, etc) is a significant investment and is in a class more than commercial needs are right now, even more than national security needs. It is not being developed with NASA funds.

It's the only realistic way for SpaceX to use the current F9 platform in a way that makes it competitive in the GTO market, even if modified to be reusable (F9 would lose most payload when reusable). There's definitely a reason for the vehicle to be developed, and there's a reason for them to perform the upgrades to 53 metric tons.

It's not really a billion dollar development project either.

[Elmar Moelzer]

The ATK thing was Hatch, (Orin Hatch, R-Utah) not Shelby.

It was both. ATk also has production facilities in Huntsville Alabama. Marshall space center is also there.
Anyway, I can bring plenty of articles regarding Shelby's anti commercial crew and pro SLS activities. Rohrabacher is indeed a mixed bag, but he was right on that issue. The fact that ULA and others were hesitant to be confrontational about SLS and their studies does not make their studies any less valuable for the discussion.

[newpylong]

...
Unless SpaceX wants to go out of business as quick as they went into business, Falcon 9 flights alone will not support the expense of a BFR. To think otherwise is delusional.
...

Where did I say anything like that? All I said is that it's not a certainty that NASA funds would be necessary for SpaceX's BFR.

By the time any of this is relevant, SpaceX will have revenue from Falcon Heavy, as well. If there are a significant number of customers for 53t to LEO, then a single-core, fully reusable (two-stage) variant of the BFR should be able to service those needs for cheaper than the expendable, tri-core, effectively-three-stage Falcon Heavy.

I should have included FH along with F9. The revenue increase for FH vs 9 is marginal, as both are dirt cheap. Profit must be be even thinner. What 53 ton customers do you have in mind? I see 0. The only thing remotely would be Bigelow and his 330 will fit in on EELV and his 2100 needs SLS. Furthermore, it is a huge assumption that an unknown BFR will be cheaper for commercial customers than FH, especially the size that Musk has described.

Also, did Falcon 1 flights solely support the development of Falcon 9? Nope. The initial money was from private sources for Falcon 9's development, helped along by firm-fixed price contracts for delivering a service.

Private sources? Ever heard of COTS? No SpaceX COTS in 2006 = no Falcon 9.

Also, Falcon Heavy is being developed right now and already has customers signed up, with either money-down or contractual (and bankable) commitment which can be used for capital.

see section 1.

SpaceX doesn't need NASA's money. Certainly not to pay directly for development ala SLS. SpaceX's BFR's chances /would/ be improved if NASA agreed ahead of time to buy launches on the BFR for a competitive, fixed price. NASA (indirectly) bought a Delta IV Heavy to test Orion, and a single-core, reusable BFR launch may be offered for less than that. Remember, NASA is required /by law/ to use commercial launch services where they exist (yes, there are loop-holes... but remember Orion-on-Delta is flying within a year).

So far it's evident that they do, and will continue to need NASA's money, especially for ventures as big as joyrides to Mars.

SpaceX is no longer a small company. They have a big workforce, a lot of property, and need to pay for it somehow. There is simply not enough coin to go around making BFRs for the fun of it.

[Lurker Steve]

The problem is that Elon's Super Rocket isn't going to get built without some sort of NASA funding.
...

You don't actually know that.

Name 1 rocket that SpaceX will fly without NASA funding some portion ?

[Robotbeat]

Falcon Heavy (with cross-feed, etc) is a significant investment and is in a class more than commercial needs are right now, even more than national security needs. It is not being developed with NASA funds.

It's the only realistic way for SpaceX to use the current F9 platform in a way that makes it competitive in the GTO market, even if modified to be reusable (F9 would lose most payload when reusable). There's definitely a reason for the vehicle to be developed, and there's a reason for them to perform the upgrades to 53 metric tons.

It's not really a billion dollar development project either.

It would be much more than a billion dollar development project if LM or Boeing were doing it.

[Elmar Moelzer]

What 53 ton customers do you have in mind? I see 0.

GEO sat customers. The 53 tonnes are to LEO. The payload to GTO is a lot smaller.

[M129K]

Falcon Heavy (with cross-feed, etc) is a significant investment and is in a class more than commercial needs are right now, even more than national security needs. It is not being developed with NASA funds.

It's the only realistic way for SpaceX to use the current F9 platform in a way that makes it competitive in the GTO market, even if modified to be reusable (F9 would lose most payload when reusable). There's definitely a reason for the vehicle to be developed, and there's a reason for them to perform the upgrades to 53 metric tons.

It's not really a billion dollar development project either.

It would be much more than a billion dollar development project if LM or Boeing were doing it.

Irrelevant. When you talk about how much SpaceX puts into their projects, it's pointless to say "well x would require much more".

[Go4TLI]

Falcon Heavy (with cross-feed, etc) is a significant investment and is in a class more than commercial needs are right now, even more than national security needs. It is not being developed with NASA funds.

It's the only realistic way for SpaceX to use the current F9 platform in a way that makes it competitive in the GTO market, even if modified to be reusable (F9 would lose most payload when reusable). There's definitely a reason for the vehicle to be developed, and there's a reason for them to perform the upgrades to 53 metric tons.

It's not really a billion dollar development project either.

It would be much more than a billion dollar development project if LM or Boeing were doing it.

Irrelevant. When you talk about how much SpaceX puts into their projects, it's pointless to say "well x would require much more".

It is a nonsensical argument.  There is no data from Boeing and LM to say that.  This is just another attempt to gush on SpaceX, at the expense of everyone else, in order to solidify the common belief on the internet that SpaceX is to deliver us all to the promise land.

The reality is SpaceX expects their people to work around 60 hour weeks while paying them a competitive 40 hour week salary.  This obviously has impact on competition.  It's great when one has a generally younger workforce than others.  But that workforce will get older, and will likely want more out of life than work if general human behavior is to be expected .  It could lead to burn-out and other issues as well.   

I'm not going to trash SpaceX for this because it is working for them now.  However, I think it is fair for everyone to know that is likely a future risk. 

[GalacticIntruder]

No one knows the finances of SpaceX, their balance sheet and cash flow, etc. We know what the government pays them, but we don't know what the commercial launches bring in, and we don't know what private capital they attract, and what is for ROI and what is basally billionaire play money. (IMO, Elon and friends routinely internally fund a lot)

MCT is not for profit or revenue generation, at least not the first several missions, that is clear by Elon and Gwynne. MCT will be much larger and way more ambitious than anything NASA is planning and a much more aggressive timeline as well. And it is not a flags and footprints mission for 4 Astronauts-Cosmonauts. It is also going to happen whether or not it is has any backing of NASA, other than technical help.

SLS block 1 will fly test missions in 2018-2020. That is all but set in stone. FH and MCT does not alter that.

What happens after that test run, and for Block 1A and BLock 2 for BLEO missions is the only question that should be debated. That is true regardless of what SpaceX physically creates. If MCT is actually built and is on schedule for the 2020's, then it does seem SLS Block upgrades, and all NASA hope missions are pointless.

5-10 billion dollar, 10 year, internally funded MCT is highly plausible. Once you start talking about the usual Mars missions that everyone has thought of, the numbers become too large for SpaceX or any private company. Also its the main reason Congress refuses to fund such large missions.

Elon may have a mantra of 'build it and they will come" and "here is an offer you cannot refuse" and "the train is leaving without you". I HOPE IT WORKS. That is my opinion on the matter.

[bob the martian]

At the time SLS was announced, SpaceX were still getting the first F9 off the ground. Given their record to that point, it would have been ludicrous to seriously suggest giving them money to build a BFR of this scale.  As far as I'm concerned, SpaceX still haven't really proven themselves yet.  After another half-dozen more successful F9 launches and a few Heavy launches, then we'll talk. 

But what kills me about the article is that it seriously suggests we should again do to NASA what we've been doing since Apollo; tell NASA to do X, and when they start making progress in that direction ask them why the hell they're doing X and not Y instead.  NASA's finally, after 30+ years, committed to building a launcher that could send people back into deep space.  And from what I understand, the SLS program is reasonably well-managed despite the cost.  So now that they're getting ready to bend metal, scrap the whole thing and start over using nothing more than a notional drawing on an old PowerPoint slide. 

[john smith 19]

What 53 ton customers do you have in mind? I see 0.

GEO sat customers. The 53 tonnes are to LEO. The payload to GTO is a lot smaller.

True. I think the rule of thumb is to knock about 1/3 off the payload.

But that still leaves you with a commsat about 35 tonnes.

You might like to look at Arianespaces efforts to get a single large payload on Ariane 5.

[Lurker Steve]

MCT is not for profit or revenue generation, at least not the first several missions, that is clear by Elon and Gwynne. MCT will be much larger and way more ambitious than anything NASA is planning and a much more aggressive timeline as well. And it is not a flags and footprints mission for 4 Astronauts-Cosmonauts. It is also going to happen whether or not it is has any backing of NASA, other than technical help.

Error 1: Everything is profit driven. Also, why would NASA offer technical help again


What happens after that test run, and for Block 1A and BLock 2 for BLEO missions is the only question that should be debated. That is true regardless of what SpaceX physically creates. If MCT is actually built and is on schedule for the 2020's, then it does seem SLS Block upgrades, and all NASA hope missions are pointless.

5-10 billion dollar, 10 year, internally funded MCT is highly plausible. Once you start talking about the usual Mars missions that everyone has thought of, the numbers become too large for SpaceX or any private company. Also its the main reason Congress reuses to fund such large missions.

Well, you got the funding level right.

Where does that money come from ?

Remember, it needs to fly at least 3, if not more missions, to qualify for the absolute lowest risk NASA missions. I assume HSF missions would probably require more. Who is paying for these non-existent missions to even get this e-paper rocket even considered by a government agency ?

[Elmar Moelzer]

True. I think the rule of thumb is to knock about 1/3 off the payload.

But that still leaves you with a commsat about 35 tonnes.

You might like to look at Arianespaces efforts to get a single large payload on Ariane 5.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy
FHs payload to GTO is 21 metric tons due to the low Isp upper stage.

[M129K]

What 53 ton customers do you have in mind? I see 0.

GEO sat customers. The 53 tonnes are to LEO. The payload to GTO is a lot smaller.

True. I think the rule of thumb is to knock about 1/3 off the payload.

But that still leaves you with a commsat about 35 tonnes.

You might like to look at Arianespaces efforts to get a single large payload on Ariane 5.

It's usually closer to 1/2. Ariane 5 is 10 tons GTO, 21 tons LEO, A5ME is 23 tons LEO and 12 tons GTO.

[mrryndrsn]

What 53 ton customers do you have in mind? I see 0.

GEO sat customers. The 53 tonnes are to LEO. The payload to GTO is a lot smaller.

True. I think the rule of thumb is to knock about 1/3 off the payload.

But that still leaves you with a commsat about 35 tonnes.

You might like to look at Arianespaces efforts to get a single large payload on Ariane 5.

It's roughly 30-40% of the LEO payload, with the high end being for a hydrogen-burning upper stage. So maybe 15 tons for Falcon H.

Murray Anderson

[Elmar Moelzer]

Nope and nope, FHs GTO payload is 21 metric tons according to SpaceX:
http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy

[M129K]

Nope and nope, FHs GTO payload is 21 metric tons according to SpaceX:
http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy

I know, I was merely correcting his rule of thumb.

[TrevorMonty]

The block1 SLS needs to be completed to enable Orion and crew to do BLEO missions, what ever they maybe. Any missions that require larger payloads could be done with multiple launches of mixed LVs. Eg use D4H &FH to place HW in space and fuel it, then launch SLS with Orion.

[Robotbeat]

The block1 SLS needs to be completed to enable Orion and crew to do BLEO missions, what ever they maybe. Any missions that require larger payloads could be done with multiple launches of mixed LVs. Eg use D4H &FH to place HW in space and fuel it, then launch SLS with Orion.

Orion can be launched on either Delta IV Heavy or Falcon Heavy. Probably Atlas 552, if you had to.

[Chris Bergin]

I can't believe we got to eight pages (most of it being the same old, same old - as I expected) all as a result of a crap op-ed. Absolutely shocking.

Thread locked.