SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the bang...zoom...straight...to-the-moon dept.
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
NASA chief says a Falcon Heavy rocket could fly humans to the Moon
[...] Until now, it was thought that only NASA's Space Launch System could directly inject the Orion spacecraft into a lunar orbit, which made it the preferred option for getting astronauts to the Moon for any potential landing by 2024. However, [NASA Administrator Jim] Bridenstine said there was another option: a Falcon Heavy rocket with an Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage built by United Launch Alliance.
[...] This plan has the ability to put humans on the Moon by 2024, Bridenstine said. He then emphasized—twice—that NASA's chief of human spaceflight, William Gerstenmaier, has yet to bless this approach due to a number of technical details. His reservations include the challenge of integrating the Falcon Heavy rocket in a horizontal position and then loading Orion with fuel in a vertical configuration on the launchpad. The Falcon Heavy would also require a larger payload fairing than it normally flies with. This would place uncertain stress on the rocket's side-mounted boosters.
"It would require time [and] cost, and there is risk involved," Bridenstine said. "But guess what—if we're going to land boots on the Moon in 2024, we have time, and we have the ability to accept some risk and make some modifications. All of that is on the table. There is nothing sacred here that is off the table. And that is a potential capability that could help us land boots on the Moon in 2024."
(Score: 2, Funny) by DECbot on Tuesday April 02 2019, @07:05AM (9 children)
Strap yourselves in boys, this is Discount Cargo Rocket Lines, where our cargo nearly always gets there. Today's destination: the moon! Don't mind the panels looking like they're about to fall off the rocket. They hardly ever interfere with the launch, and if the landing does gets rocky, don't worry about it. It won't matter if the boosters blow up, 'cause you'll already be on the way to the moon! We'll be getting a firm launch date as soon as we hear back from the construction crews tasked to rebuild the launch tower after last week's prelaunch mishap.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @07:19AM
Falcon heavy will be NASA's workhouse, NASA has always used the lowest bidder.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 02 2019, @05:14PM (6 children)
FH currently has a 100% launch success rate, though only a 66.6% booster recovery rate.
Both numbers that their competitors would kill for.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:27PM (5 children)
When evaluating SpaceX for Moon missions, there's a couple of approaches you could take:
1. Falcon Heavy is heavily based on the proven Falcon 9, so it is probably safe to use that and relatively straightforward to human rate it.
2. Falcon Heavy has flown just once (soon to be three times in the next couple of months), so a more exotic rocket could be evaluated, such as Starship or Falcon Super Heavy. Falcon Super Heavy would add two additional F9 cores, potentially allowing for greater payload capability for lunar missions (although sending humans + LOP-G modules on the same rocket is unlikely). BFR would be the best option, but it could require at least another 2 years of work before it starts lifting payloads to LEO, and it would need a bunch of successful missions before NASA would put humans on it.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:58PM (4 children)
Falcon Super Heavy would look awesome, with a Soyuz-style Korolev cross of four boosters and four simultaneous landings (or two times two if that helps the mission profile).
But the payload fairing is definitely too small to single-handedly achieve the Moon mission, and stacking much more weight up there might just be structurally impossible, even with better vacuum ISP.
Did Elon trash that big drum yet ? The answer might have been four (or 6!) F9-as-FH-side-boosters strapped around an empty 9-meter shell, with the human-rated capsule and the moon lander at the top (because not-a-shuttle).
Sounds crazy, but with enough struts...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 02 2019, @11:43PM (3 children)
That's what I was thinking, though I forgot the words "Korolev cross".
Feasibility would probably come down to the stresses exerted on the center Falcon Heavy core/booster, and that component has been made significantly stronger [teslarati.com]:
Bonus: Air Force funded research into using Raptor engines for Falcon 9/Heavy upper stage [wikipedia.org]. This could be a path to squeezing a little more performance out of the whole rocket.
As you say, the payload fairing volume is a limiting factor. Payload fairing concerns should be thoroughly eliminated by Starship, although I still hope we see a 12-meter diameter rocket [wikipedia.org] in the future.
If you're talking about Starhopper, it has been used for several tests already [teslarati.com] and will be used for hover tests, just without the nosecone. It should probably be considered a big, dumb test platform for the Raptor engine. The orbital version of Starship is already under construction and will hopefully fly this year.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday April 02 2019, @11:58PM (2 children)
No, that [arstechnica.com].
Sadly, i think I read it has been destroyed because of the stainless steel change.
I can't help but wonder what results one would get by making an empty 9m cylinder with this drum, just to link enough F9 cores to throw something really big at the moon (people + lander+ gateway), before return each of the 4/5/6 boosters back to the ground..
Probably less efficient than Super Heavy, but that launch would redefine the word Awesome.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday April 03 2019, @12:34AM (1 child)
Yes, it was destroyed and there are photos:
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-all-in-steel-starship-super-heavy/ [teslarati.com]
Ars comments speculated that there are good reasons to scrap it:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/rocket-report-spacex-scraps-costly-tooling-vandenberg-lull-starliner-slip/?comments=1&start=40 [arstechnica.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday April 03 2019, @12:48AM
Yup, that's the one I had read. :_(
Back of the envelope math says you can fit 8 5m F9 around a 9m core (made of carbon fiber and really a lot of struts). 72 engines takeoff... drool...
Can we get another billionaire to commission that? Either shatter all launch records, or make a $500M fireball ...
It would "just" need a bit of engine control software, and one hell of a launchpad. The rest is ready to send us to the moon/Mars/Saturn by the end of the year. That's how you do quick-turn reuse, NASA !
/dreaming
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Wednesday April 03 2019, @03:41AM
The irony of the situational sort is that this is still more reliable than the NASA Space Launch System which has yet to fly anything and probably won't achieve Falcon 9 levels of reliability and safety should they manage to get it going.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday April 02 2019, @09:57AM (3 children)
"it was thought" - gawd, only a bureaucrat could say something like that. Who thought that? Probably no one real...
What we're seeing is NASA preparing the ground for a major change: They can no longer justify throwing money at a system that may never be finished. Heck, it was never meant to be finished - it's just a pork distribution project. But when commercial companies are passing them in capabilities, in actual working hardware, for a fraction of the cost? There's a point where the embarrassment just gets too great. So the bureaucrats are preparing the ground for the inevitable announcement that SLS will be cancelled.
It will be interesting to see if the Congresscritters try to rescue their pork. They might, for example, require the military to continue SLS development. The military can claim more secrecy for its programs than NASA ("national security" or some such twaddle), so it might serve to hide the pork for another few years.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @11:42AM (1 child)
Since NASA doesn't run rocket building facilities, I hope you don't blame them for the neverending systems.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday April 02 2019, @12:25PM
"Since NASA doesn't run rocket building facilities, I hope you don't blame them for the neverending systems."
Blame NASA? Well, not exactly. Congress hands NASA the SLS money, and tells them how to spend it. I used to work in USAF procurement, and I know exactly how this goes down: you want your program to get funding approval, it is understood that subcontracts must be issued in as many Congressional districts as possible. The prime contractor takes care of this, and anyway, they're the ones with the lobbyists in direct contact with Congress. Your role as a procurement bureaucrat is to make sure that all the i's are dotted and all the t's are crossed. On a good day, your project will actually make real progress. That's great and all, but never forget that actual progress is not important to either the prime contractor or to Congress.
Is that NASA's fault? Not really. It's a fundamental flaw in a system where politicians get to spend other people's money with virtually no constraints. I also don't know what the solution is. The only thing I can suggest is getting the purse strings out of the politicians' hands. Maybe you could let the people who pay taxes should - in proportion to their tax bill - vote on major government spending programs? Dunno, but the current system is clearly broken...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:11PM
Congresscritters are assuredly going to try to rescue the rocket:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/nasas-new-budget-raises-questions-about-the-future-of-its-sls-rocket/ [arstechnica.com]
Most of the public doesn't know about the SLS so they are likely to get away with it as things stand. Somebody would have to start a fight over this that makes headline news in order to get attention. Possibly by using the Boeing angle or finding some dirty emails related to SLS.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @12:45PM (3 children)
This horizontal versus vertical stuff needs to be sorted out.
There are probably good technical reasons for either, but one must choose.
Assembly on the pad seems less that optimal.
Perhaps X could figure out what it takes to deliver a booster vertical in the VAB and then get the whole stack to a pad.
Me thinks with this many different folks coordinating, some early test launches would be wise to focus everybody on the right page.
The overall recalibration seems refreshing, but this mix of suppliers, will require NASA to be able to manage integration. (make day to day incremental choices for what to do)
Will be interesting to see a new generation of NASA folks step up to provide this old school NASA capability.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:38PM (2 children)
SpaceX's horizontal integration eliminates the need for a big expensive VAB. I took a tour in 2017 learned facts . . . and um . . . stuff. Biggest building in the world. The stripes on the flag are as big as the road to the building. Weather happens inside building. I also saw the construction on the SLS pork launching pad and the Orion. In short: tour was, as Londo Mollari says: a thousand monuments to past glory.
Oh, wait . . . !!! Here's an idea . . .
What about using SpaceX's Dragon 2 capsule instead of Orion? Or use Boeing's Starliner capsule, which as I understand, CAN mate to a Falcon Heavy.
Now we get rid of both SLS AND Orion in one go!
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @07:28PM
"SpaceX's horizontal integration eliminates the need for a big expensive VAB."
But don''t we already have the VAB with 4 bays sitting mostly idle?
Did the NASA Chief say this on April 1st?
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:16PM
It may be possible to deliver astronauts to the Moon using Falcon Heavy, but SpaceX would prefer to use BFR (Starship). That's why their recent and upcoming tests are so important.
In a pinch, Falcon Heavy could probably deliver astronauts and LOP-G payloads to lunar orbit, but lunar surface is much more uncertain. BFR would be the right tool for that job.
Hopefully we see orbital testing of BFR this year, because it would be excellent to see articles like TFA (and many others that you read about SLS) forced to mention BFR and not just Falcon Heavy.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @01:42PM (1 child)
Pork comes with a declared purpose.
A taxpayer may not understand if the purpose is good,
but he sure can see if the execution is below par for government work.
(Not exactly a high bar to clear.)
Eventually, if that goal doesn't happen, some adjustment should be expected.
Burnt pork seems a concept Sen Shelby's voters could embrace given a suitable substitute is provided.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:20PM
Whatever the declared porpoise, and whether burnt or not, would the FAA certify the pork as airworthy?
(from my journal...)
You cannot have your Pork and eat/fly It too.
If the SLS flies, it will be so expensive that it will quickly implode the program.
In order to keep the program, the SLS must perpetually be in a state of delay, which will cancel the program.
Everyone knows pork does not fly.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Username on Tuesday April 02 2019, @01:56PM (2 children)
We used a Saturn V to get to the moon 50 years ago. Whats wrong with using it again? Unless they come up with an electric rocket, seems like wheel reinventing. Geez, this SLS can only match or do a little better than a 50+ year old rocket. On paper. Just imagine a Saturn with newer materials and cnc machining.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @02:28PM
Someone addressed this question in detail
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIfeS3OumY [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:28PM
Pork is known as the other white meat. Especially in a disasterous advertisement that would not have played well in Northern Iraq / Kurds, but I digress.
In 1987, Newsweek had an issue, with the cover being Lost In Space. The issue was about how the US Space Program had lost its way. The Shuttle was still grounded. The space program is a huge mess. The issue goes on about various plans to reinvigorate the US Space Program and stop flying in circles around the Earth.
Someone suggests, how about bring back the Saturn V program? Boeing's answer: we could NEVER do that! That could take ten years! People are gone, some no longer alive. Some of the plans may no longer exist. Etc.
As Newsweek pointed out: Original Development Time: 3 years.
(Now that 3 year figure is from my old and not always reliable memory, although I was able to point out my source of recollection quite handily enough for anyone to independently verify.)
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 02 2019, @04:03PM
From TFA . . .
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.