Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Tuesday April 02 2019, @06:45AM   Printer-friendly
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."


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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday April 02 2019, @09:57AM (3 children)

    by bradley13 (3053) on Tuesday April 02 2019, @09:57AM (#823535) Homepage Journal

    "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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @11:42AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 02 2019, @11:42AM (#823558)

    They can no longer justify throwing money at a system that may never be finished.

    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

      by bradley13 (3053) on Tuesday April 02 2019, @12:25PM (#823574) Homepage Journal

      "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

    by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Tuesday April 02 2019, @10:11PM (#823819) Journal

    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]

    The US Senate will have much to say about this budget before it is done. In years past, the Senate Appropriations Committee, under the direction of its chairman Richard Shelby, has plussed up the administration budgets for NASA's SLS rocket.

    The Alabama senator reiterated as much last week during a session of the Space Transportation Association. Another speaker was Jody Singer, the director of Alabama's Marshall Space Flight Center, where the SLS rocket is managed.

    "As chairman of the appropriations committee, I have more than a passing interest in what NASA does. And I have a little parochial interest, too, in what they do in Huntsville, Alabama," where Marshall is located, Sen. Shelby said. "Jody, you keep doing what you're doing. We'll keep funding you."

    Shelby and his staffers will no doubt understand the implications of the president's budget and what it would mean for the utility of the SLS rocket. If enacted, these changes could spell the beginning of the end of the SLS rocket, especially if it experiences further delays. This will be one budget battle that is interesting to follow.

    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]