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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday August 03 2019, @07:07PM (1 child)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Saturday August 03 2019, @07:07PM (#875220) Journal

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

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @09:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 03 2019, @09:17PM (#875254)

    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?