from the sudden-outbreak-of-common-sense? dept.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/what-is-going-on-with-nasas-space-launch-system-rocket/
In a remarkable turnaround, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine on Wednesday said the space agency would consider launching its first Orion mission to the Moon on commercial rockets instead of NASA's own Space Launch System. This caught virtually the entire aerospace world off guard, and represents a bold change from the status quo of Orion as America's spacecraft, and the SLS as America's powerful rocket that will launch it.
[...] During a hearing of the Senate Commerce committee to assess America's future in space, committee chairman Sen. Roger Wicker opened by asking Bridenstine about Exploration Mission-1's ongoing delays. The EM-1 test flight involves sending an uncrewed Orion spacecraft on a three-week mission into lunar orbit, and is regarded as NASA's first step toward returning humans to the Moon. This mission was originally scheduled for late 2017, but it has slipped multiple times, most recently to June 2020. It has also come to light that this date, too, is no longer tenable.
"SLS is struggling to meet its schedule," Bridenstine replied to Wicker's question. "We are now understanding better how difficult this project is, and it's going to take some additional time. I want to be really clear. I think we as an agency need to stick to our commitment. If we tell you, and others, that we're going to launch in June of 2020 around the Moon, I think we should launch around the Moon in June of 2020. And I think it can be done. We should consider, as an agency, all options to accomplish that objective."
The only other option at this point is using two large, privately developed heavy lift rockets instead of a single SLS booster. While they are not as powerful as the SLS rocket, these commercial launch vehicles could allow for the mission to happen on schedule.
[...] One heavy-lift rocket would launch a fully fueled upper stage—most likely a Delta Cryogenic Second Stage or the Centaur upper stage currently used on United Launch Alliance rockets. Then, a second heavy-lift rocket would launch an Orion capsule and its service module into orbit, and these two vehicles would dock. The fueled upper stage would then inject Orion into a lunar orbit.
Bridenstine did not name rockets during the hearing, but it seems almost certain that at least one of them would be a Delta IV Heavy, built by United Launch Alliance. NASA used this rocket to launch a version of the Orion spacecraft to an altitude of 3,600km in 2014. Both United Launch Alliance and SpaceX—with its Falcon Heavy rocket—would be invited to bid on the second launch.
The SLS is the Space Launch System. It's a heavy launch vehicle that's been funded by NASA and contracted out to Boeing with more than $14 billion spent on it so far. It's been in development since 2010. If and when it's completed launches are expected to run $500 million. It's designed to be mostly an incremental improvement over the Apollo program from 50 years ago which includes no reusability as well as reliance on solid rocket boosters; A solid rocket booster uses solid fuel that—once ignited— cannot be stopped.
SpaceX's alternatives are fully reusable and rely on liquid fuel engines which can be throttled on or off at will. The Falcon Heavy is operational today and runs $90-$150 million for a launch. Their development has been almost entirely privately funded as well.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24 2019, @06:53PM (3 children)
Come on March 2019 and no update on progress
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @06:24AM (2 children)
This (to my knowledge) has had 0 coverage by mainstream news outlets even though it's probably one of the single most important space stories of our time. This is such a big deal because we're talking about a difference in technology on the order of a decade depending on whether we pander to deeply connected special interests, or use the most logical and efficient tools already at our disposal. In a way it's practically a litmus test for government vs private industry viability for modern space. In particular since the 1960s both our government and private industry have changed radically.
We have long since had the technology, in principle (of course in need of refinement, testing, expansion), to get humans to Mars. In other words there's nothing that's effectively like a 'no we can't because we simply can't do [x] yet.' But all of this has been set aside in pursuit of mostly frivolous affairs. I fully appreciate that our meddling in the Mideast is crucial to the stability of the petro-dollar which in turn stabilizes our economy, but even if you accept that - the hardware we're building is far too refined for those ends, yet not refined enough for symmetric warfare. Take the F-35 program for instance. It's expected to cost more than $1.5 trillion [jsf.mil] over the remainder of its life expectancy, about $27 billion a year - literally more than NASA's entire annual budget.
For what...? If we're talking asymmetric warfare where you're attacking a mostly incapable opponent then bleeding edge technology isn't helping. As Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/etc illustrate the problem is not destroying the nation - we can bring democracy to nations by turning their entire infrastructure and governmental systems to rubble in a matter of days to weeks. The problem is then dealing with the millions of people who are pissed at you and somehow refuse to let you just march through town waving flags and singing the national anthem. I can't imagine why they might be so angry.
Symmetric warfare? You need a staging or launching point. You have two options: air strips on land, or on an aircraft carrier. Both suffer the same problem. A modern aircraft carrier has approximate specs along the lines of ~40mph travel speed, 4.5 acre size, 5000 souls on board, $10 billion baseline cost, tens of billions in additional costs from planes/armaments/technology. And lacking any means of disguise, it can be eyed from literally thousands of miles away. Against a developed nation that's not a weapon, it's a sitting duck that's one of the highest value targets in existence. Air strips suffer similar issues, though are less high value. Aircraft dominated the wars of times past, and will continue to dominate in asymmetric warfare. But in symmetric warfare? And I'm only referencing completely conventional modern responses. Things like Kinetic Bombardment [wikipedia.org] make stuff like airstrips and carriers even more absurd. Maybe the more salient point is that modern war against a developed nation isn't going to produce a winner, just two losers. And I haven't even said the word nuke yet.
So that tangent aside, it may simply be the case that governments are no longer capable of big picture long-term civil projects like space development. And I think the current issue of SLS vs e.g. Falcon Heavy/Starship/etc is a perfect illustration of this. One thing that makes this issue so distinct is that there is literally 0 justification for the SLS. It's just a bad idea. You're not even throwing good money at bad since the ideal outcome isn't even a desirable goal anymore. The one and only reason the SLS exists at this point is because of a government that's putting pork ahead of progress. If government can't make the right decision here, I think there's 0 chance of the government, at least the US government, of being able to develop, let alone maintain, a successful non-military space program.
-Anonymous Coward in Space
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday October 25 2019, @02:26PM (1 child)
> no longer capable
Why? What changed?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @06:28PM
We no longer have any national unity. We have become incredibly divided and tribal.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.
Can you imagine if such a phrase was uttered now a days? Let alone from a democratic and very liberal politician! Without unity we don't see things we achieve as things that we achieve, but as whatever 'tribe' happened to achieve them. To a degree Kennedy also suffered from this during his era. Part of the reason that Nixon nixed the space program was because of a feud he had with Kennedy after losing to him in 1960 by the smallest of margins. Apparently even Kennedy's death was insufficient to sate the hate.
So where did this come from? I think it started happening the moment Kennedy was killed. LBJ, Kennedy's VP, was a racist - a real racist. And he's also the man who passed the Civil Rights Act. Whether his supposed [snopes.com] utterance is true or not, that logic was no doubt a major factor in his decision. And I think that mindset is something that has become part and parcel of politics in modern times. Decisions are no longer about philosophy or national benefit, but about the individual and the party. National progress, unity, and identity seems to be something mostly lost to history. We see this in both how we act as well as in the politicians we select. For instance did you know that it wasn't until 1977 [thoughtco.com] that former presidents even started accepting speaking fees after leaving office? Before it was seen as something likely to impugn one's honor and the integrity of the office.
But now a days we don't even blink when a former president sells himself off for millions of dollars in "speaking fees" to the same groups he gave hundreds of billions in bail-outs to while in office. After all he's out of office, so this payday could have in no way affected his decision-making while in office, right? Even on a macro level, do all democratic politicians truly believe that creating a dependency of tens of millions of individuals on the government just to be able to pay for food is "progress", or do some perhaps feel it's not necessarily a wise idea but nonetheless enjoy the very dependency it creates resulting in a reliable voter base? Similarly for republican politicians and abortion. Flip Romney being a sufficient answer on the latter.
So where does space fit in this mess? I don't think it does. Whichever side put it forth would be vehemently opposed by the other side. If republicans do it, democrats will claim you're racist because it could go to feed starving babies. If democrats do it, republicans would lash out at excessive spending to no end from democrats who would literally have their heads in the sky. In either case since the political tides tend to change every 8 years, any long-term plan would get trashed and forced to start from scratch over and over - exactly as has been happening for decades now.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Thursday October 24 2019, @07:14PM (5 children)
SLS (Senate Launch System) is not struggling. It is performing extremely well bringing in all those lovely pork dollars.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 24 2019, @08:28PM (4 children)
Whatever happens, it will be more for political reasons than technical ones. Pork can flow in mysterious ways, and NASA has a long history of using private contracting and management firms to consume theirs - it's not surprising that the launch vehicle itself is getting "outsourced to private industry" as popular as that is in the polls lately. Kid yourself not, NASA will have their nose just as deep into the development process as they do when they are acting as general contractor on the subs building "their" rocket.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 24 2019, @10:14PM (3 children)
I really doubt that NASA have had rocket (or parts) production capabilities on its own
Bottom line, it's defined as an agency (i.e. service provider mainly).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday October 24 2019, @10:25PM (2 children)
Even Apollo had the vehicles provided by private firms, Lockheed Martin IIRC for the lander.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Friday October 25 2019, @05:59PM
The lunar lander was built by Grumman. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module [wikipedia.org]
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @08:08PM
Grumman.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday October 24 2019, @07:15PM (2 children)
I predicted this in a joke in July 2018. [soylentnews.org]
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday October 24 2019, @09:18PM
Just replace the appropriate words with "SLS" and most of it carries over to the present day with little fuss. Then again, most of it would have carried over to the Space Shuttle system in the 1970s. Certain parties seem to have a lot of difficulty learning from experience.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday October 24 2019, @10:18PM
And eye wheel point out you may have been rite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24 2019, @08:31PM (14 children)
BoeingSLS. Actual research is being cut to support the most expensive rocket (n)ever built.(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday October 24 2019, @09:25PM (10 children)
The Starship era could make up for it with:
...and more.
The ongoing waste is a tragedy, but there is pretty much nothing we can do to stop it.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday October 25 2019, @12:07AM (9 children)
I mostly agree, and am really rooting for Starship to come to fruition quickly and with a minimum of pain (Though I do kind of want to see at least one Super Heavy explode spectacularly...just because)
I think you're asking for trouble with modular telescopes though. Modular means it must be assembled in orbit, which means people in clumsy space suits (or even clumsier robots) performing ultra-precise assembly. It could be done - I'm sure it will be done eventually, but we've got a long way to go before it's anywhere near as easy as designing an origami folding mirror array.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Friday October 25 2019, @12:41AM (4 children)
I do kind of want to see at least one Super Heavy explode...
AFAIK Starship doesn't have a launch escape system. I do not want to see the consequences of that decision.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday October 25 2019, @01:04AM
Pad abort with explosive Super Heavy could be tested sooner than you think™: https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-elon-musk-starship-pad-abort-capability/ [teslarati.com]
Starship escape system nowhere to be found: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/33837/what-are-spacex-starship-bfr-proposed-abort-modes [stackexchange.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday October 25 2019, @02:43PM (2 children)
Starship *is* the launch escape system. Super Heavy is the high-power launch system (first stage). In event of problems Starship jets away in front of the (potential) fireball, just as the Dragon capsule would from the Falcon 9.
Now, if Starship itself blows up during a non-test flight (especially with passengers) that'd be a tragedy - but launch aborts during the second stage are generally pretty dicey on any current rocket - if they're even possible.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Saturday October 26 2019, @03:15AM (1 child)
I'm skeptical of that. It's very different shooting a fully loaded second stage off in atmosphere than landing an almost empty stage in atmo. The turbopumps are going to be offline, the MVAC engines aren't going to be chilled, etc.
That doesn't make it impossible, just a hard engineering problem. One of the other replies mentioned that they've bandied the idea around, but aren't concrete on it yet.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday October 26 2019, @08:13PM
How long is the second stage riding inert before separation? A few minutes? I imagine most bits will be primed and waiting to go regardless. Of course - that'd be the vacuum engines, you'd probably want to keep the atmosphere engines primed too for escape. That'd also mean you could fire all six for escape, roughly doubling the available thrust during those critical first seconds, before shutting off the vacuum engines to get better control.
They're designing Starship to be able to fly fully-loaded suborbital (and maybe orbital with only a tiny payload) on its own, so it shouldn't have any problem providing the thrust needed to land safely. Especially since unlike the Falcon 9 (if Starhopper is any indication) it will be able to throttle down low enough to hover, and thus land at an arbitrarily low speed. It's hard to overstate just how huge a safe landing options envelope that creates. It could even just hover to burn off fuel if it really needed to.
And control is actually easier with a heavier vehicle - more rotational inertia means greater stability. A slower response means more time to accurately characterize and correct for any problems.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday October 25 2019, @12:54AM (3 children)
IIRC, one of the astronauts who built or serviced Hubble said they were willing to risk death to do it.
Building or upgrading a giant space telescope is arguably one of the most important things an astronaut could do in space. And we apparently insist on having humans traveling to space stations in low Earth orbit or lunar orbit. So while they are there, why not assemble a telescope or two? Or a hundred.
Falling back on "big, dumb, and cheap" is another option. Put docking adapters on big telescope body segments holding frames with sections of segmented mirrors. Link them together. Assembly complete.
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/niac/2018_Phase_I_Phase_II/Modular_Active_Self-Assembling_Space_Telescope_Swarms/ [nasa.gov]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday October 25 2019, @02:59PM (2 children)
Finding people willing to risk death for a good cause is easy. Heck, in the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima disaster several retired nuclear engineers and technicians came forward to volunteer to go in and stabilize things, knowing full well it would be a death sentence. Better they chop a few years off the end of their life to save their nation from the long-term aftermath.
Finding administrators who will allow them to do so is an altogether different problem. When people die in the line of duty, *especially* volunteers who knew what they were signing up for, it makes the administration look bad. "Working stiffs sacrifice life to fix administrator's screwups" plays well in the media for all the wrong reasons.
There's also the likely blowback - an astronaut may understand why a telescope is worth risking your life over. Joe Sixpack is more likely to just see a man die trying to fix some egghead's science toy. And that jeopardizes funding for future missions - especially once it's spun by political opponents to the program.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday October 25 2019, @03:17PM (1 child)
The spacewalks weren't the real risk with the final Hubble servicing mission. It was the use of the Space Shuttle. A vehicle that left 7+7 astronauts dead, not in space, but in Earth's atmosphere.
We are continuing to send people to the ISS, despite risks that can't be entirely minimized, as well as events like the Soyuz MS-10 accident in 2018.
You get a crew on ISS or LOP-G. They can fiddle around with hydroponic planters and mice experiments. But they should also be assembling giant space telescopes. The bigger, the better. The more, the merrier.
But if it can be done autonomously, that's great too. Dragon capsules can autonomously dock with ISS. I'm optimistic that some kind of modular telescope could be assembled autonomously.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday October 26 2019, @09:35PM
Hmm, ISS as our preliminary orbital assembly platform? I wouldn't mind seeing that at all.
Of course then you'd need to boost the things into their desired orbit... But that could be an excellent testbed environment for developing and using "orbital tugboats", both chemical and ion drive. Even if you initially use them just to ferry stuff in and out of the exclusion zone, so that you don't have a lot of untrusted propulsion systems firing off nearby.
Be an excellent place to work on telepresence robotics too. Autonomous systems are nice, especially for repetitive tasks - but I suspect we're a long way away from really versatile ones. I really think an upper-torso VR telepresence robot, mounted on a robot arm or whatever else makes sense, will be a great way to put human versatility to work in open space, while human frailty can be kept safe within nearby habitats, or even down on Earth for low-orbit work where the communication lag is relatively low.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 24 2019, @10:41PM (2 children)
The current leader wants glory over science.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 24 2019, @10:51PM
Hasn't been different ever. FWIW, Bridenstine the present head of NASA is probably the most anti-establishment of NASA leaders to date. It's still not a priority to Trump.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 18 2019, @08:43AM
NASA has been about glory over science for decades.
Lots of money[1] for talking about and play-acting[2] over Mars and the Moon but how much for actually doing scientific tests on whether Moon or Mars gravity would be enough for humans and their favorite animals and plants?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuge_Accommodations_Module [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_fy_2019_budget_overview.pdf [nasa.gov]
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2018_budget_estimates.pdf [nasa.gov]
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HI-SEAS#Missions [wikipedia.org]