SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @06:20PM (3 children)
Charles Bolden was the exact man you want on paper: masters in technical fields, high ranking decorated marine general, and of course an astronaut who commanded multiple successful missions. But he seems to have been a man that was easily manipulated by politicians. I do not think he was corrupt. He probably believed every word he said, but it made him set upon the wrong direction over and over again. The new head administrator is probably the worst choice on paper. A professional republican politician with an MBA and no scientific background whatsoever.
But he seems to actually be getting things done and clearly is already familiar with the political games people play. This is really positive news on that front. Right now the Senate Launch System is weighing down NASA like a prisoner's ball and chain. Get rid of it and along with enthusiastic leadership and a genuine interest in human spaceflight and we could see big things happening imminently.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Saturday August 03 2019, @06:26PM (2 children)
Agreed. Bridenstine could be doing more, but he seems to have planted the seed of SLS's doom by suggesting that Falcon Heavy could be used for some missions instead. It's up to SpaceX to diligently do the work on Starship on their current fast roadmap and make FH/Starship vs. SLS into an actual political issue when the time is right. FH is good but Starship is needed to truly kill and bury SLS.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday August 03 2019, @07:07PM (1 child)
To expand on this idea: The vast majority of Americans haven't heard of SLS. Many more may have heard of Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy, since launches are live streamed and the Falcon Heavy maiden flight and "Starman" in particular were heavily publicized. Although many people in the know have complained about SLS and LOP-G for years, there was no way for criticism to gain traction outside of nerdy circles. If SpaceX completes Starship around the same time SLS is/was supposed to start flying, they will be able to knock down all arguments for SLS's existence. At least with SLS vs. Falcon Heavy, it can be argued that you need SLS for the larger payloads. Expendable Starship will completely dwarf SLS's capabilities, and reusable Starship could also do so (likely similar or better payload to LEO*, and if it can refuel in-orbit, it destroys SLS everywhere beyond LEO).
Elon Musk can do what he needs to do to attract media attention and shine a light on the pork rocket. SpaceX may also ramp up lobbying [opensecrets.org] efforts to counter the Beltway bandits.
*Hopefully we get new payload numbers at that Starship design update event in the next couple of weeks. 150 tons to LEO became "100+ tons" last year. But there has been talk about adding more engines to Starship and Super Heavy, so it's likely to become more than 100 tons. SLS Block 1's payload to LEO has also been revised upwards, but it's still at 95 tons... expendable.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @09:17PM
isn't SLS the name of the golf club where builders of imaginary rockets and people funding it with public money play together?
it is rumored to be fertilized with pig manure. also there is talk about expanding the golf course to a "SLS heavy" after something called a "starship" is build?
seems "public money" has a special field surrounding it, being attracted to the biggest and deepest sink hole the fastest way possible?