Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:07PM   Printer-friendly

Trump space adviser: Blue Origin and SpaceX rockets aren't really commercial: Scott Pace likens heavy-lift rockets to aircraft carriers.

In recent months, the executive secretary of the National Space Council, Scott Pace, has worked assiduously behind the scenes to develop a formal space policy for the Trump administration. In a rare interview, published Monday in Scientific American, Pace elaborated on some of the policy decisions he has been helping to make.

In the interview, Pace explained why the Trump administration has chosen to focus on the Moon first for human exploration while relegating Mars to becoming a "horizon goal," effectively putting human missions to the Red Planet decades into the future. Mars was too ambitious, Pace said, and such a goal would have precluded meaningful involvement from the burgeoning US commercial sector as well as international partners. Specific plans for how NASA will return to the Moon should become more concrete within the next year, he added.

In response to a question about privately developed, heavy-lift boosters, the executive secretary also reiterated his skepticism that such "commercial" rockets developed by Blue Origin and SpaceX could compete with the government's Space Launch System rocket, which is likely to make its maiden flight in 2020. "Heavy-lift rockets are strategic national assets, like aircraft carriers," Pace said. "There are some people who have talked about buying heavy-lift as a service as opposed to owning and operating, in which case the government would, of course, have to continue to own the intellectual properties so it wasn't hostage to any one contractor. One could imagine this but, in general, building a heavy-lift rocket is no more 'commercial' than building an aircraft carrier with private contractors would be."

I thought flying non-reusable pork rockets was about the money, not strategy. SpaceX is set to launch Falcon Heavy for the first time no earlier than December 29. It will have over 90% of the low Earth orbit capacity as the initial version of the SLS (63.8 metric tons vs. 70).

Previously: Maiden Flight of the Space Launch System Delayed to 2019
First SLS Mission Will be Unmanned
Commercial Space Companies Want More Money From NASA
U.S. Air Force Will Eventually Launch Using SpaceX's Reused Rockets


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:31PM (6 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:31PM (#594244) Journal
    I know a fast way to make Mars somewhat less ambitious and get rid of a strategic national liability at the same time. Way too many people are enamored of big rockets that are too expensive for actual use.
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:37PM (2 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:37PM (#594247) Journal

    They should just axe the entire SLS program, and split the money between SpaceX, Blue Origin, ULA, and some smaller players (giving it all to SpaceX would be more effective, but politically impossible). But the SLS is hard pork and it will be eaten. Maybe if the first SLS rocket in 2019 just explodes on the launch pad, it could be made to happen.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 08 2017, @10:17PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @10:17PM (#594270) Journal

      Sadly, I have to agree that an SLS explosion on the pad of its maiden flight would be the best way to kill SLS and more effectively spend taxpayer money on commercial launch providers that are far more efficient.

      But what would actually happen is that congress would double down on SLS.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:28AM

      by frojack (1554) on Thursday November 09 2017, @04:28AM (#594423) Journal

      It can be made to happen, but you better not be anywhere near it if it does, because being the first to suggest it makes you the first suspect.

      Still for just brute strength lifting capability, SLS is salvageable even if it can't return to the pad. (And who says it can't be modified to do so)? Musk is now working on Stage 2 return.

      We probably don't need 4 heavy lift launchers SLS, SpaceX, Blue, and what ever the Russian's are launching at that time.

      Why not put some big bucks in Runway to orbit solutions?

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:38PM (2 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday November 08 2017, @09:38PM (#594249) Journal
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 08 2017, @11:28PM (1 child)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 08 2017, @11:28PM (#594305) Journal
      Congress doesn't flinch at creating another trillion dollars in debt. NASA doesn't do a thing to defend itself from SLS. We won't get policies that make sense for at least a few more years and probably a lot longer than that.