Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday August 03 2019, @01:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the fill-'er-up? dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

The SLS rocket may have curbed development of on-orbit refueling for a decade

Nearly a decade ago, when Congress directed NASA to build a large rocket based upon space shuttle-era technology called the Space Launch System, the agency also quietly put on the back burner its work to develop in-space refueling technology.

It has long been rumored within aerospace circles that funding for NASA's efforts to develop so-called propellant depots, and the capability to store and transfer cryogenic rocket fuels in orbit, was curbed due to the threat it posed to the SLS rocket and its prime contractor, Boeing.

After all, if smaller, cheaper rockets could launch rocket fuel and stash it in low-Earth orbit for staged missions to the Moon or beyond, why should NASA spend $2 billion a year annually to develop the SLS rocket? Why not just use that money to buy commercial launches, starting with the Delta IV Heavy and later the Falcon Heavy, and build an exploration program around existing capabilities? It would likely be quicker and cheaper.

Now, thanks to comments on Twitter by George Sowers, a physicist in the middle of this controversy, we have confirmation of sorts. In the early and mid-2010s, Sowers was leading the advanced programs group at United Launch Alliance (ULA), the rocket company co-owned by Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Propellant depots were among the technologies he was working on. Sowers is now a professor at the Colorado School of Mines.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @02:32PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @02:32PM (#875144)

    After all, if smaller, cheaper rockets could launch rocket fuel and stash it in low-Earth orbit for staged missions to the Moon or beyond, why should NASA spend $2 billion a year annually to develop the SLS rocket?

    Because launch windows for specific orbits are too limited for emergencies so you're going to need something like the SLS anyhow.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @05:05PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @05:05PM (#875193)

    SLS, if it ever flies, will be the most expensive rocket ever. The only reason the program exists is the sweet, sweet pork, and like all pork spending other programs get cut to feed it.

    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Saturday August 03 2019, @08:48PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 03 2019, @08:48PM (#875245) Journal

      Or other programs get cut simply because they might threaten to erode its need or relevancy.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 2) by Ken_g6 on Saturday August 03 2019, @11:29PM

    by Ken_g6 (3706) on Saturday August 03 2019, @11:29PM (#875282)

    "Emergencies"? What kind of thing do you think is going to be launched in an "emergency"? More importantly, how fast do you think a SLS rocket could be prepped to launch anything in an "emergency"?

    SpaceX rockets might be reliable enough to launch with 24 hours notice within a decade. If we're really lucky that will include Super Heavy/Starship, which would put SLS out of business anyway.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @08:11AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 04 2019, @08:11AM (#875423)

    why are launch windows for specific orbits too limited?
    I would understand limitations for visiting other objects in the solar system ("mars won't be this close for another 4 years").
    but for Earth orbit up to and including geostationary a launch window shows up roughly everyday.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday August 05 2019, @04:34AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday August 05 2019, @04:34AM (#875787) Journal

    Because launch windows for specific orbits are too limited for emergencies so you're going to need something like the SLS anyhow.

    Seems to me it's more like fire fighting with a Labor Day parade float that only exists once a than a credible solution. I guess we'll schedule our emergencies for that once every year or two that the SLS will be around to deal with them