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

[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.