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

[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.