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: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 11 2018, @01:43AM (12 children)
First, I think, "hell no, you don't defund something just because something else works!" Having more than one way of accomplishing a task is a good thing, right?
But, then, the SLS is heavily tax funded. Falcon is not, or at least far less so. (if the Falcon is funded by way of any contracts with the government, then yes, it is at least partly tax payer funded) If the taxpayer funded version of a heavy lift vehicle can't compete with the non-taxpayer funded version - then it's not worth keeping around.
Yeah, go ahead and defund it. Some of us taxpayers get tired of paying for shit that does no one any good.
A MAN Just Won a Gold Medal for Punching a Woman in the Face
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday February 11 2018, @01:59AM (3 children)
The most simple analogy to approach this would be the Intel vs. AMD issue.
Intel were dominant, prices were high. AMD put its dick in the mashed potatoes and thus had a high following of converts.
If the ULA were smart, they would buy out SpaceX. If for some reason that couldn't happen, then a disruption of market would occur. It could happen gracefully, or there could be assassinations and/or sabotage. Never underestimate the capacity for humanity to realize goals regardless of cost.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday February 11 2018, @02:33AM (2 children)
Elon Musk is a multi-billionaire, and is probably willing to sink more money into the company if it can ensure smooth BFR development and a human presence on Mars. Aside from hating and shaming ULA, SpaceX is also a private company so there's no chance of a hostile takeover. When will SpaceX go public? After it regularly flies to Mars, according to Musk.
ULA's winning move could be to license SpaceX's technology. Musk could do it in a few years when the full BFR is almost ready to fly and lose none of his company's lead, get some extra money to help R&D along, and further his goal of making humanity a multi-planetary species.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tibman on Sunday February 11 2018, @05:06AM (1 child)
I think he'd license the tech if it helped move humanity off the Earth.
Here's what he did for electric car tech:
https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you [tesla.com]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday February 11 2018, @09:36AM
Man, that must be some wicked coat.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Sunday February 11 2018, @02:20AM (1 child)
Musk has said he no longer thinks Falcon Heavy will ever carry humans. He's still not confident of that rocket, even if he got lucky the first time out of the gate. He's betting on the BFR. I'm betting he knows something we don't.
SLS is the one rocket for the whole mission approach. I suppose BFR is as well.
But that is no longer necessary. We can build stuff in space. We can launch pieces.
It doesn't all have to go up at once.
Falcon Heavy might be the optimum size. Or maybe BFR is.
I'd rather see SLS aim for a different target. One where there is no private sector customers.
Soft-landing habitats and supplies on the moon or mars.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Sunday February 11 2018, @02:42AM
https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/5/16975850/spacex-falcon-heavy-launch-elon-musk-tesla-questions [theverge.com]
As planned, BFR would replace both Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy since it would be fully reusable. Getting Falcon Heavy human-rated would likely be a waste of time since Falcon 9 can already do the manned flights that are guaranteed to pay out in the near term: the crewed missions to the ISS. If BFR is ready somewhere between 2022-2026, most of NASA's manned activity will still be at the ISS, except for four crewed SLS missions [wikipedia.org] during that time period to build the Deep Space Gateway. Bringing us back to the topic of the article, cancelling SLS.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @03:54AM (4 children)
What are the long term percentages?
If spaceX falcon blows up every x shot at the cost of 1 rocket + Y where Y is the cost of the lost sat(s) and that is less than the more safe-but costly NASA flights then sure. There are no passengers at risk.
However, we do lose out on data that would be gained when safety is paramount from eliminating the more costly launches.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 11 2018, @05:23AM (3 children)
Launch frequency is a big deal when it comes to safety and reliability. The more often that you do something, the better you are at doing it. I don't believe NASA can safely operate SLS precisely because it launches so infrequently. Long term NASA loses a vehicle every 20 years. I think that would be true whether they launch that vehicle once every two years or twice a month (after the teething issues are worked out).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 11 2018, @08:26AM (2 children)
I don't remember how many space shuttles we launched, before they started blowing up. IMO, we were using flawed technology, but got really really lucky with it. Thus, the first part of my reaction. Maybe we shouldn't defund the SLS, because that tech may prove to be more reliable, in the long run. I don't really believe that, but we can't know what we are going to learn tomorrow, or next year, or in the next ten years.
A hundred years from now, people living out there are going to look back, and laugh at our primitive technology.
A MAN Just Won a Gold Medal for Punching a Woman in the Face
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 11 2018, @05:25PM
Launch frequency kills that argument. They aren't launching often enough to become more reliable. They aren't launching enough even to show that their current approach (massive simulation studies) is safe enough to use in designing rockets. This is not academic. They played the same games with the Space Shuttle, including a ridiculous estimate of the likelihood of failure prior to the first Shuttle accident (destruction of Challenger at launch and the loss of seven astronauts). The physicist, Richard Feynman participated in the official review of why the Challenger accident and had this [nasa.gov] to say:
[...]
Note incidentally, that these are the same solid rocket motors on the SLS system, just a bit longer ("five segment" instead of the Space Shuttle's "four segment"). The failure rate on them is lower than it was in 1985, but it's still probably not 1 in 1000. Now, consider carefully the following paragraph (emphasis added):
Here, we see ignored the power of launch frequency and learning from experience. How are we to get highly reliable rockets, if they aren't launching often enough to see those "difficulties, near accidents, and accidents"? SpaceX last year launched 18 times a year. In twenty years, at that rate, they would see 360 launches. If there was a 1 in 100 chance of failure, they would likely have 3-4 accidents to learn from in order to reduce that likelihood of accident much further. Meanwhile the SLS would have only launched maybe 20 times (likely considerably less!) in that time. So it would be more likely than not to not see those elevated risks.
And here's where institutional learning effects play a role. When accidents don't happen, the organization is likely to cut corners and old experience eventually leaves. We already saw this happening with NASA. Prior to each Shuttle accident, they had grown complacent and somewhat sloppy, mostly at the management levels. Close calls get ignored because hey, it didn't blow up last time. SpaceX can't afford to get that sloppy because they would collect a lot of lost payloads (and perhaps dead people) real fast, if they did.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 11 2018, @05:28PM
Not counting Enterprise, the Challenger disaster was the 25th flight of the shuttle program.
And it didn't "blow up", rather it was torn apart by the resulting aerodynamic forces after one of the SRBs partially detached from the orbiter.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Sunday February 11 2018, @10:04AM
Also, the SLS can currently only lift one elephant, and it's white.