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

[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.