SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An op-ed written by Lori Garver, a former deputy administrator of NASA, suggests cancelling the Space Launch System in favor of Falcon Heavy and BFR:
SpaceX could save NASA and the future of space exploration
The successful launch of SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket is a game-changer that could actually save NASA and the future of space exploration. [...] Unfortunately, the traditionalists at NASA — and their beltway bandit allies — don't share this view and have feared this moment since the day the Falcon Heavy program was announced seven years ago.
The question to be answered in Washington now is why would Congress continue to spend billions of taxpayer dollars a year on a government-made rocket that is unnecessary and obsolete now that the private sector has shown they can do it for a fraction of the cost? [...] Once operational, SLS will cost NASA over $1 billion per launch. The Falcon Heavy, developed at zero cost to the taxpayer, would charge NASA approximately $100M per launch. In other words, NASA could buy 10 Falcon Heavy launches for the coat of one SLS launch — and invest the remainder in truly revolutionary and meaningful missions that advance science and exploration.
While SLS may be a "government-made rocket", the "beltway bandits", also known as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Orbital ATK, and Aerojet Rocketdyne, are heavily involved in its development. The United Launch Alliance (Boeing + Lockheed Martin) have also shown that they can build their own expensive rocket: the Delta IV Heavy, which can carry less than half the payload to LEO of Falcon Heavy while costing over four times as much per launch.
NASA's marketing of how many elephants, locomotives and airplanes could be launched by various versions of SLS is a perfect example of the frivolity of developing, building and operating their own rocket. NASA advertises that it will be able to launch 12.5 elephants to LEO on Block I SLS, or 2.8 more elephants than the Falcon Heavy could launch. But if we are counting elephants — the planned Block II version of SLS could launch 30 elephants, while SpaceX's BFR could launch 34. Talk about significant.
Wait, what? 70 metric tons (SLS Block 1) / 63.8 metric tons (Falcon Heavy) = ~1.09717868339. 1.097 * (12.5 - 2.8) = ~10.6 elephants lifted by SLS Block 1 versus 9.7 for Falcon Heavy.
NASA documents list 12 elephants for SLS Block 1 (70 metric tons), and 22 for SLS Block 2 (130 metric tons). The author might have lifted some numbers from a Business Insider article that (incorrectly) estimates that 12.5 elephants can be lifted by Falcon Heavy, while SLS Block 2 can lift 30 elephants, and 34 for BFR. Perhaps we are dealing with a mix of adult and juvenile elephants?
Regarding the Falcon Heavy maiden flight, Lori Garver had this to say on Twitter about the Tesla dummy payload (which has attracted some criticism):
I was told by a SpaceX VP at the launch that they offered free launches to NASA, Air Force etc. but got no takers. A student developed experiment or early tech demo could have led to even more new knowledge from the mission. The Tesla gimmick was the backup.
However, the offer may have been informal, or made too close to the launch date. And Elon Musk himself guessed that the Falcon Heavy maiden launch had a 50% chance of succeeding.
While skeptical of Elon Musk's plans to get humans to Mars by 2024, she also says that NASA employees often dismissed the Falcon Heavy launch as "never going to happen".
Now it has happened.
Here's a refresher on the costs of SLS development:
- After successful Falcon Heavy launch, what about NASA's SLS?
- SpaceX Heavy Success will now publicly test US Government Spending Corruption
- Comparison of Current and Planned Heavy Space Launch Systems
- Boeing only has lies and empty promises about Mars so NASA will not cut off $4 billion per year for SLS rocket
- After wasting billions on SLS US government talk about claiming Spacex Heavy Launch intellectual property rights
- Spacex BFR ready by 2020 so kill Space Launch System and save $30+ billion
- Big permanent moonbase by 2021 using Spacex and Bigelow has been the obvious non-corrupt choice for years
- Only the costs of the Space Launch System are going to the moon
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @02:48AM (6 children)
As Obama was the one who pumped NASA's space budget into SpaceX, does this mean the tax payer will cease to fund this private corporation's space exporation?
It would only makes sense. The tax payer is receiving nothing out of this program except another commercial service for those who can afford it. Private media companies are also profiting as they have new news to publish and sell to the tax payer.
How many billions did Musk's car division lose last financial year?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @02:58AM (2 children)
Some call it "handouts", some call it "investment". Judging by the success, some might even call it a "successful investment".
And then there are those who're more than happy to stay in the hicks and let China and India explore and colonize space...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @06:18AM (1 child)
Hey, AC! Your post is in need of repairs! Not space worthy yet! Let me help.
There, FTFY. But wait, there is more!
My work here is done. No thanks necessary. See you on Mars Colony!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday February 11 2018, @06:30AM
Should have went with Tennessee or Kentucky. After all, SpaceX is building a spaceport down in Texas [wikipedia.org].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday February 11 2018, @03:07AM (1 child)
If the military wants to launch a satellite or NASA wants to send cargo or astronauts to the ISS, why shouldn't they use a private American company? NASA is currently dependent on the Russians to get astronauts to the ISS, and the United Launch Alliance, which has received a lot more government funding than SpaceX ever has, provides expensive satellite launches. The Air Force, NRO, etc. can't do their jobs without an American launch provider. SpaceX now provides these launches much cheaper than what ULA can, and are a better deal for the taxpayer even after factoring in any non-launch cost funding they got for R&D.
You should instead argue for defunding the Air Force, NRO, or the ISS program (which President Trump has committed us to for the duration of his first and second terms).
Oh no, DARPA is funding Nvidia [nextplatform.com]!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @03:33AM
NASA has pretty much NOT built any of their rockets. It has almost always been third party. RocketDyne, Lockhead, Martin, etc. NASA has basically done a lot of design assistance and LOTS of mangment. In recent times they have outsourced the design too.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 11 2018, @05:17AM
I'd take such a complaint seriously, if you would put in a word against SLS which is far more the corporate welfare handout. After all, SpaceX has never been on a cost plus contract. It gets paid for doing stuff instead of for having costs.