Battle of the Heavy Lift Rockets

schwit1 writes: Check out this detailed and informative look at the unspoken competiton between NASA's SLS rocket and SpaceX's planned heavy lift rocket. It's being designed to be even more powerful than the Falcon Heavy. Key quote: "It is clear SpaceX envisions a rocket far more powerful than even the fully evolved Block 2 SLS – a NASA rocket that isn't set to be launched until the 2030s." The SpaceX rocket hinges on whether the company can successfully build its new Raptor engine. If they do, they will have their heavy lift rocket in the air and functioning far sooner than NASA, and for far less money.

Comments

Competition is good.

[Z00L00K]

There have been way too little competition in this area the last decades. Considering that the Russian RD-180 engines designed in the 70's&80's are still seen as state of the art it is obviously a stagnant situation.

Re:Competition is good.

[petes_PoV]

engines designed in the 70's&80's are still seen as state of the art

But that's government "progress" for you. Compare 60 years of spaceflight technology from 1955 to 2015 (OK, the years were cherry-picked) and it's still basically the same: LOX/Kerosene or LOX/LH2 and some engines are bigger and some are smaller.

Now look at aircraft development from (another cherry-picked 60 years): 1910 to 1970. That went from wooden biplanes to the 747. Sure, there were a few "helpful" eras in between - like 2 major wars and lots more lesser ones, which kicked development up by several notches. But those developments were still the result of commercial companies, just as NASA contracts out work, today.

Re:Competition is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

does not compute. need input.

Re:Competition is good.

[tomhath]

Much of the progress in propeller driven aircraft happened during the 1930's by racers like Howard Hughes

Re:Competition is good.

[Ol Olsoc]

But that's government "progress" for you. Compare 60 years of spaceflight technology from 1955 to 2015 (OK, the years were cherry-picked) and it's still basically the same: LOX/Kerosene or LOX/LH2 and some engines are bigger and some are smaller.

It's short of amazing that you can attempt to attack the evul guvmint on this one. And be so mind bogglingly wrong at the same time.

There are many different types of engines out there. Aluminum perchlorate mixture engines, Hybrid nitrous oxide/polymer engines, some really interesting combos where the fuel is paraffin and with mixed other additives like Al, or Li. Hydrazine rockets, Ion thrusters, solar sails, there are hundreds of designs. Many of which haven't happened yet due to one or another limitation.

The Kero-LOX and Liquid Hydrogen-LOX rockets are just examples of the most powerful liquid fueled rockets.

Lot's of different types of rockets out there.

And lack of any new and more powerful engines that exist that exist are almost certainly not caused by jackbooted thugs, just itching to put loyal citizens in FEMA Death camps while installing a new world order. where we all pay 300 percent of our salary in taxes that go to urban thugs.

It is a matter of physics, which turns out to be remarkably resistant to the invisible guiding hand of the free market. We can build the biggest, bad-assed, Chuck Norris rocket engine that we can dial up the power the whole way to 11, but if we can't pump in the fuel quickly enough, or the resultant temperatures are beyond the melting point of any available material, And neither Grover Norquist not Ayn Rand can fix that.

Maybe the answer is in teaching Intelligent design in school?

Anyhow, I went off the deep end on your idea to illustrate just how silly the idea that the government is holding back progress on rocketry. Hopefully humorously, but that's for others to judge. None of the engines in use by the commercial outfits are some dramatic new design, and it's all physics and material design, not ideology. Now look at aircraft development from (another cherry-picked 60 years): 1910 to 1970. That went from wooden biplanes to the 747. Sure, there were a few "helpful" eras in between - like 2 major wars and lots more lesser ones, which kicked development up by several notches. But those developments were still the result of commercial companies, just as NASA contracts out work, today.

Re:Competition is good.

[khallow]

Anyhow, I went off the deep end on your idea to illustrate just how silly the idea that the government is holding back progress on rocketry.

Like the US banning private launch vehicles through to 1984? Or maintaining a launch oligopoly funded on the public dollar through to the last decade? Or paying a few tens of billions to develop a huge rocket while not paying a few billion to get someone like SpaceX to develop said rocket.

Re:Competition is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's government "progress" for you. Compare 60 years of spaceflight technology from 1955 to 2015 (OK, the years were cherry-picked) and it's still basically the same: LOX/Kerosene or LOX/LH2 and some engines are bigger and some are smaller.

It's short of amazing that you can attempt to attack the evul guvmint on this one. And be so mind bogglingly wrong at the same time.

tl;dr

It is a matter of physics, which turns out to be remarkably resistant to the invisible guiding hand of the free market. We can build the biggest, bad-assed, Chuck Norris rocket engine that we can dial up the power the whole way to 11, but if we can't pump in the fuel quickly enough, or the resultant temperatures are beyond the melting point of any available material, And neither Grover Norquist not Ayn Rand can fix that.

And what did Grover Norquist or Ayn Rand do for the physics of aircraft?

Oh, yeah. NOTHING.

You use the unchanging physics of rocketry as an excuse for slow progress in that field.

But you blithely ignore that aircraft physics hasn't changed either. Yet in a mere 25 years the US Air Force went from P-51s to being on the verge of F-15s. With no changes to the laws of physics, mind you.

That WHOOOSH!!!! must be a low-flying plane, eh?

Re:Competition is good.

[TubeSteak]

Or maintaining a launch oligopoly funded on the public dollar through to the last decade?

It took two world wars and one cold war to get us to where we are today.
Feel free to complain about the oligopoly, but don't pretend like Boeing, North American, and Douglas were going to build the Saturn V rocket on their own dime.

Or paying a few tens of billions to develop a huge rocket while not paying a few billion to get someone like SpaceX to develop said rocket.

"Or paying a few tens of billions to develop a huge rocket " to who?

Boeing is the prime contractor for the design, development, test and production of the launch vehicle cryogenic stages, as well as development of the avionics suite.

You had a three sentence post and two of them were full of ignorance.

Re:Competition is good.

[fustakrakich]

"Spaceflight" technology goes back to 1926.

And the 747 still burns kerosene. Progress in that respect has remained static since the first steam engine. However, think about the fact that man spent thousands of years on horseback, makes the present rate of progress look pretty good.

Re:Competition is good.

[khallow]

You had a three sentence post and two of them were full of ignorance.

I was disabusing the previous poster of some pretty misguided notions. I guess you need some help as well. I notice, for example, that you don't actually disagree, you just choose to characterize my short observations as "full of ignorance". Do you have a reason why you think so?

I'm quite aware how NASA operates - by writing large checks to private contractors who make sure the money gets spent in the right congressional districts. But that sort of activity hasn't resulted in a viable launch platform since the 70s, when the Space Shuttle was developed.

And rather than continue to do something that hasn't worked in around four decades (and really, the Space Shuttle and the Apollo programs were just money sinks) maybe we could look at things that do work, like SpaceX's approach?

Re:Competition is good.

[geogob]

Certainly not in Quebec, where he's going to get eaten for lunch.

Re:Competition is good.

[Type44Q]

just itching to put loyal citizens in FEMA Death camps while installing a new world order

Seriously... just because all that happened before (umpteen centuries ago... alright, a few decades, at least) and just because Fascism is clearly on the rise again... doesn't mean it's relevant to this topic, you know. :)

Re:Competition is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Physics didn't change for aircraft, no. Engineering did, however, begin in a different place. Because they started off in a different place on the tech scale than rockets, aircraft have seemed to have improved by leaps and bounds, when the reality is very different.

If you can find the paradigm shift from piston-engined propeller to jet turbine that will work for launch rockets, go ahead. Show us your miracle creations Lex Luthor, save the world. Stop wasting time toying with Superman.

Re:Competition is good.

[petes_PoV]

Anyhow, I went off the deep end on your idea to illustrate just how silly the idea that the government is holding back progress

unfortunately when you went off the deep end, you missed the pool completely.

This was never about government consipracy. It was simply that governments have no need of improved performance or improved efficiency - when they have (as near as dammit) infinite amounts of money available to "solve" the problem with.

The commercial aircraft makers, being subject to both competition and finite resources *had* to make things better to stave off their competitors who were in the same race for betterment and profit and to meet clients' expectations of improved performance: speed, reliability, payload capacity and lowered cost. Governments do not have those drivers, hence they have no need to improve the vehicles they use.

splash!

Re:Competition is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was simply that governments have no need of improved performance or improved efficiency - when they have (as near as dammit) infinite amounts of money available to "solve" the problem with.

Wrong! Efficiency and performance are major mantras in government, why they spend millions of dollars to make sure your nickels aren't wasted.

That is what the public demands, after all. Not that the corporations paid to do the work for the government care. It's not a problem, they'll just take more money, and if anybody doubts their graft, well, they'll bribe the head of NASA to fake a Mars landing for them.

Re:Competition is good.

[Ol Olsoc]

Like the US banning private launch vehicles through to 1984?

I'm not allowed to have an unshielded reactor in my backyard either. Fucking liberals.

Yours is just more of the Science as ideology. How about a couple minutes for you to understand exactly why it wasn't allowed.....playing that time passing song....

Times up, BZZZZT! - No it wasn't evul democrats or Beyonce flashing the Illuminati sign at a burning man festival. Not even free birth control for women.

1. Understand that the amount of energy let loose in even a small rocket launch is pretty impressive. So it sort of makes sense to limit especially early private launching, as failure was not only an option, it was pretty likely.

Note of course, if you support second amendment rights to own artillery and hand grenades, you might have an argument there. I mean come on - Just assault rifles does not make for a well armed militia. Sheesh - next thing you know, we won't allow little children to mess with fully automaitic weapons.

Sorry - had one too many cups of coffee this morning. But rocketry is dangerous work, kinda accidentally kills people once in a while. That's no biggie, but it might level a job creator's house, and then the economy will fail , you betchya.

2. There were some hatey people who wanted to kill us, thad they were launching these flamey explodey things. Perhaps we were a little afraid that we might accidentally set off World war 3 when an early private launch of our own, unfettered by government regulations, failed and wiped out a town?

Eventually though, we'd all settle back down and figure out the sticks and stones we were going to fight World War 4 with.

Or maintaining a launch oligopoly funded on the public dollar through to the last decade? Or paying a few tens of billions to develop a huge rocket while not paying a few billion to get someone like SpaceX to develop said rocket.

So what you are telling me is that for some odd reason, despite private rocket launches in their own facilities using their own rockets is now considered okay, and done on a regular basis, you are still in a white hot seething astrorage anger and feeling much butthurt because of the way it used to be a long time ago?

Do you have any newsletters about the evil radical-diabolical Communist Franklin Delano Roosevelt and how he is spreading soclialism from his gravesite? It's important to get that news out.

Think I'm making fun of you? You got that right.

Re:Competition is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Or paying a few tens of billions to develop a huge rocket " to who?

Boeing is the prime contractor for the design, development, test and production of the launch vehicle cryogenic stages, as well as development of the avionics suite.

TFA: "However, it is clear SpaceX envisions a rocket far more powerful than even the fully evolved Block 2 SLS â" a NASA rocket that isnâ(TM)t set to be launched until the 2030s."

The difference isn't private/gummint. All companies strive to make money.

The difference is in the objectives of the organizations involved. The objective of Congress is to get re-elected by keeping the pork flowing. The objective of Boeing is to take as long as possible to build anything because the longer it takes, the more pork flows in. Congress doesn't give a fuck if it ever flies. Boeing would be delighted if the project is funded to 2030, and even more delighted if cost overruns and delays pushed it out to 2050. Everybody has well-paid jobs for life!

The objective of SpaceX is Mars, bitches.

Musk needs an HLV long before 2030 if he is to live long enough to be able to retire on Mars. Because he is effectively self-funded, he not answerable to the whims of Congressmen and their pork allocations. Because he is interested in living long enough to see it fly, he is not interested in delaying things to pull as much pork out of the project as possible. He will build the fucking thing himself, and it will fly.

Re:Competition is good.

[backslashdot]

NASA should wait until July/August 2015 before proposing a new launch system. That's around the same time the New Horizons space probe NASA launched back in 2008 will be reaching Pluto. I believe, hopefully, that the pictures from Pluto will capture the imagination of the public and, by proxy, Congress. That way NASA can propose a totally Giga launch system and get it approved.

Frankly SLS is lame. We're going to be stuck with whatever launch system for a few decades -- possibly longer given politics, so we better get it right. We need to be looking to build something that can scale to sustainable colony establishment class stuff.

Re:Competition is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Shibboleth.

Obviously the problem is speech.

Re:Competition is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and I'll be glad to mail you a hankie. A nice pink one to go with your politics.

Re:Competition is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps that's because people are starting to figure out that the only thing worse than being ruled by fascists is being ruled by enlightened progressives.

Re:Competition is good.

[khallow]

How about a couple minutes for you to understand exactly why it wasn't allowed.....playing that time passing song....

It was because NASA needed funding for the Space Shuttle. It had nothing to do with safety. Merely, requiring private companies to post bonds prior to each launch covers your safety concerns without requiring a decade long ban.

Further, it's worth noting that many of the companies which by your reckoning can't be trusted to run a safe commercial launch vehicle are the same ones that were building and running NASA's Space Shuttle (as well as having decades of launch experience under their belts).

Further, it is monumentally stupid to claim that commercial launches can be confused with a nuclear attack. One launch isn't going to take out the USSR. For example, here's a story written shortly after the fall of the Shuttle monopoly.

Some of the agency's likely tactics are already evident. One strategem, reported by several observers close to the Shuttle/ ELV controversy, has been to apply pressure on contractors sup- plying major components to NASA to keep them from entering the ELV business. Although nothing has appeared in official docu- ments, it is said that NASA officials have suggested to possible private competitors that their contracts for Shuttle components might be endangered if these firms engaged in private launches. Another tactic has been to try to delay implementation of "full cost recovery," so that NASA could charge Shuttle customers less than the full cost of launches for long enough to capture the market, with the cost picked up by the taxpayer. This could close down production lines for a number of the components needed to construct and launch ELVs, making their later development far more expensive than would otherwise be the case.

What is most disturbing is that NASA's anti-competitive activities could undermine the President's broad initiative on space commercialization by undermining private sector efforts before they can acquire a firm financial footing. The agency would thereby undercut a number of key benefits for Americans that the initiative would otherwise yield.

The first thing you should do before writing stupid drivel is ask yourself, "Gee, is there really a problem here?" But no, you just had to get that anti-libertarian straw man in without regard for the history.

So what you are telling me is that for some odd reason, despite private rocket launches in their own facilities using their own rockets is now considered okay, and done on a regular basis, you are still in a white hot seething astrorage anger and feeling much butthurt because of the way it used to be a long time ago?

And you should too. Because history has a habit of repeating itself. What's going to happen when NASA has the SLS supply chain and SpaceX has the Falcon Heavy, a cheaper and more reliable competitor?

Well, that SLS supply chain, being better connected politically, are going to use their connections to sabotage SpaceX, just like Space Shuttle proponents did commercial space launch back in the 70s or the launch oligopoly did to various would-be competitors in the 80s and 90s.

They're already playing games with the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program which was an attempt by NASA to encourage commercial launch services, including SpaceX, to supply ISS with supplies and personnel. The number of competitors was reduced from six competitors to two by interference from Congress. There's also fishing expeditions for "anomalies" from recent Falcon 9 launches. Notice that nobody else was targeted by that demand for info

Re:Competition is good.

[nojayuk]

Most new airline designs are slower than 1970s models (and that's not including Concorde and the Tu-144 either), for fuel efficiency reasons. They're much more reliable and safer, can carry more passengers and freight further per tonne of fuel, cheaper to operate and cycle gate-to-gate, cleaner, quieter etc. but not faster.

Re:Competition is good.

[ppanon]

As someone pointed out, the physics of building rocket engines hasn't significantly changed in the last 60 years. That's why the F1 engine is still the most powerful rocket we've ever designed. What has changed are manufacturing techniques like sintering laser 3D printing techniques and computer modeling to allow us to build F1 engines that are slightly more powerful and a lot cheaper than what was built for Apollo. And yet somehow we don't build them. Why? Because there's no demand for it.

There has been a lot of demand for faster, more agile, and more fuel efficient aviation - from combat aircraft for wars to civil aviation in the face of rising fuel prices. That pressure isn't as significant for the launch market because: a) there are only so many safe, useful orbits for satellites where they aren't going to interfere with eachother (in terms of signal transmission - which is what many are used for) and a lot of them are already in use; b) fuel costs are a small portion of launch costs.

So the moral of the story is a) development happens according to demand and changing requirements/conditions and b) supply-side economics is BS - consumption is limited by demand.

Re:Competition is good.

[k6mfw]

And rather than continue to do something that hasn't worked in around four decades (and really, the Space Shuttle and the Apollo programs were just money sinks) maybe we could look at things that do work, like SpaceX's approach?

Apollo succeeded because the politicos (those in power) realized if Soviets land on the moon first, they will plant the Hammer and Sickle flag on the surface that will enslave the world in Communism (not really but that's what they thought). So with that in mind, do whatever necessary to prevent that from happening otherwise their goose is cooked (strong motivator like 25 years before when threatened by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan).

Then after what next? Shuttle was left over from more ambitious missions of orbiting stations, lunar bases, mission to Mars, etc. And it could have easily not happened. see Dale Myers on MIT OCW video in 2005 when he said at time it looked like last HSF by US would have been the Skylab missions, Apollo-Soyuz was not scheduled at that time (sorry too lazy to get link but it's on youtube). Nixon realizing many people laid off in states with lots of electoral votes (CA and FL) so give them a big program to continue, in 1972 he said to OMB stop objecting to NASA plans for Shuttle and approve it.

Fast forward to 21st century and progress made by SpaceX and others is result of wealth inequality. Few billionaires have some billions they can put into to what they want rather than meeting political objectives (war, votes, whatever).

Argue all you want, you still have to deal with the tyranny of the Rocket Equation.

Re:Competition is good.

[pitchpipe]

God damn I haven't laughed like that for a long time. :-D

Great post.

Re:Competition is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

> b) fuel costs are a small portion of launch costs.

This one I just couldn't let pass.

Even a small percentage increase in fuel efficiency results in a significant increase in the payload that can be boosted.

but there just have not been that many new rockets designed, especially in the very recent past when the new technologies have been available, so we haven't seen new designs yet.

The problem is the cost of certifying a new rocket design. That's why we are still mostly launching with cold-war era missle designs.

now that we are seeing the supply of Russian motors dry up, there will be some new designs being worked on. At least some of the companies are going to be experimenting with the latest manufacturing techniques

Re: Competition is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because NASA and its forerunner never did any research on wing design, engine design, crash survivability, etc. And certainly the space designs in computing and avionics were totally copied from private industry guided by the all knowing invisible hand of the free market.

You're not only a dumbass, but your ignorance of history would be astounding were it not so typical of people with your views.

Re:Competition is good.

[0123456]

Fast forward to 21st century and progress made by SpaceX and others is result of wealth inequality.

But wealth inequality is bad and stuff. The government should steal all Musk's money and give it to people on welfare so they can buy bigger TVs and stimulate the Chinese economy.

Re:Competition is good.

[0123456]

Even a small percentage increase in fuel efficiency results in a significant increase in the payload that can be boosted.

Which, as I said elsewhere, is irrelevant if that 'small percentage increase' doubles the cost of the engines. It's like putting a Lamborghini engine in a truck so you can pull more cargo.

Re:Competition is good.

[DanielRavenNest]

We need to be looking to build something that can scale to sustainable colony establishment class stuff.

A bigger rocket won't do that for you. A starter factory that can self-expand to a diverse production capacity will. Put one in Earth orbit that mines returned asteroid rock, and spits out fuel, habitats, and *another* starter factory. Send the second one to Phobos, and spit out fuel, habitats, and a *third* starter factory. Land that one on Mars, and remote control it from Phobos, and start building your colony. When enough stuff is ready, send the people down.

Being able to produce fuel and habitats at multiple locations on the way to Mars has a huge impact on the cost per ton and per person. A bigger rocket get you more tons to orbit, but what you really want is *smart tons* of payload, that reproduce many times their weight in orbital outputs.

Re:Competition is good.

[HanzoSpam]

With apologies to Ernest Lawrence Thayer

The outlook wasn't brilliant for the student march that night;
The quads were filled with rent-a-cops and not a picket sign in sight;
With Cooney busted for possession, and Barrows, the riot laws;
A sickly silence fell upon the supporters of The Cause.

A straggling few got up to go, in deep despair. The rest
Clung to that hope which "springs eternal in the human breast;"
They thought, If only Gay Ol Olsoc could be rallying that mob,
We'd put up even money now, with Ol Olsoc at the quads.

But Flynn preceded Ol Olsoc, as did also Jimmy Blake,
And the former was a no-good and the latter was a fake;
Forlorn, that stricken multitude discouraged by the odds,
For there seemed but little chance of Ol Olsoc's getting to the quads.

But Flynn let fly a bottle, to the wonderment of all,
And Blake, the much despised, set a bomb off in the hall,
And when the dust had lifted and men saw what had occurred,
Jimmy beaned the Dean of Students, while the bombed out library burned.

Then from five thousand throats and more there rose a lusty yell,
It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell,
A Harley roared up from the street, and was tearing up the sod,
And Ol Olsoc, Gay Ol Olsoc, was advancing through the quads.

There was ease in Ol Olsoc's manner as he wheeled into his place;
There was pride in Ol Olsoc's bearing and a smile on Ol Olsoc's face,
And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly gave a nod,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt `twas Gay Ol Olsoc at the quads.

Ten thousand eyes were on him as he gunned the throttle loud;
Five thousand tongues applauded as he signaled to the crowd.
And while the nervous officers grabbed the night sticks from their hips,
Defiance gleamed in Ol Olsoc's eye, a sneer curled Ol Olsoc's lip.

And now a can of tear gas came hurtling through the air,
And Ol Olsoc stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there,
Close by the haughty Ol Olsoc , the can unheeded sped --
"That ain't my style," said Ol Olsoc . "Break it up!" the coppers said.

From the streets, black with people, there went up a muffled roar,
Like the beating of the storm waves on a stern and distant shore.
"Kill them; kill the pigs!" shouted someone from the mob;--
And Ol Olsoc guns his engine, and wipes-out on the lawn.

With a fist of protest shaking, Ol Olsoc's visage shone;
He jumped back on his Harley; he bade the march go on;
The Harley takes off through the quads, 'till it hits a vicious bump;
And Ol Olsoc sails through the air, landing smack upon his rump.

"Fascists!" he screeched, "Capitalist, Imperialist, Racist, Sexist pigs!"
"If I must I'll ride a tricycle, but we'll have this march - you dig?"
They saw his face grow stern and cold; they saw his muscles strain,
And they knew that Gay Ol Olsoc wouldn't lose that bike again!

The sneer is gone from Ol Olsoc's lip; his teeth are clenched in hate;
He sniffs with cruel derision as he lets go of the brake.
And now he throws it into first, the clutch he now he lets go,
And now the air is shattered as the bike takes off - alone.

Oh! somewhere there's a campus town where they drum and chant all night.
They protest for the rain forest, and demand the polar bear’s rights.
And somewhere bongs are being passed, and somewhere radicals shout;
But there is no joy at Old State U -- Gay Ol Olsoc has Wiped Out!

Re:Competition is good.

[Duhavid]

"But those developments were still the result of commercial companies"

At least with respect to WWII, commercial companies produced the aircraft, but it was military and government leaders seeing a possible need for more advanced aircraft that lead to the advancements. With the possible exception of the B-17, industry was asked for the advancements, mainly to meet what the Germans ( and English ) were doing ( what the Japanese had managed came as a sharp surprise )

Re:Competition is good.

[Rockoon]

It took two world wars and one cold war to get us to where we are today.

Let me translate this for everyone:

"Yes, the government really did outlaw private space flight, and when the ban was lifted it still used its influence in order to raise barriers to entry to prevent competition with the oligarchy, but I think that it had a good reason to."

..and this true statement without the fucking spin is a far cry from negating any argument about how government held us all back yet again. The government did in fact hold us back.

The facts are that a private company can come along and get things done better and cheaper. If we were to believe the argument that the government does it better, then the government would have already done what SpaceX is doing. It didn't, therefore the government did not do it better. It had MANY decades to do so. Instead it prevented better from happening.

Re:Competition is good.

[Duhavid]

"plant the Hammer and Sickle flag on the surface that will enslave the world in Communism"

Command of space ( not necessarily the moon, but earth orbit for certain ) would be a huge strategic and tactical advantage.
If the Soviet Union had managed LEO or the moon, do you think they would have not used it?

Finland, 1939
Poland, 1939
China, 1941, 1945
Support for NKorea, 1950
Hungary, 1956
Support for NVietnam, 1961
Czechoslovakia, 1968
Afghanistan, 1979
One can argue Crimea, 2014, but that isnt "Soviet Union".

Re:Competition is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I was eight years old too once.

Re:Competition is good.

[k6mfw]

If the Soviet Union had managed LEO or the moon, do you think they would have not used it?.

Of course they would use it, like they used Sputnik and Gagarin to show superiority of communism and those were countered with NASA and Apollo. When these were successful, they were reduced (we abandoned going beyond LEO, and NASA struggles). Look at current "threats" which are not from USSR so the agency with one less A than NASA gets unlimited budget and authority, and can skirt the US Constitution.

Re:Competition is good.

[k6mfw]

oh man, that is a good one. perfect to troll and make people mad.

Re:Competition is good.

[phayes]

While I agree in large part, that little has changed in physics over the last 60 years, there is the one wrinkle of the soviet accomplishment in perfecting oxidizer rich engines as in the RD-180s. It took a lot of work finding materials that would stand up to high temp + high pressure oxygen and they deserve more praise than they got from the achievement.

Re:Competition is good.

[Ol Olsoc]

unfortunately when you went off the deep end, you missed the pool completely.

So tell us all about the likely age of Space travel with zero (read inefficient and bad) Government involvement. Where will we be?

Remember, none allowed, all free market. Every other nation does as it will, but all our efforts must be by private business.

Re:Competition is good.

[Ol Olsoc]

Oh! somewhere there's a campus town where they drum and chant all night. They protest for the rain forest, and demand the polar bear’s rights. And somewhere bongs are being passed, and somewhere radicals shout; But there is no joy at Old State U -- Gay Ol Olsoc has Wiped Out!

Wow. That's kind of cool, Hanzospam!

Re:Competition is good.

[evilviper]

Considering that the Russian RD-180 engines designed in the 70's&80's are still seen as state of the art it is obviously a stagnant situation.

Just wait until you find out how old screwdriver and pliers designs are...

The rest of the world does NOT resemble IT. Stability is a good thing. If you've got a 99% efficient rocket engine that's reliable and cheap to produce, you should stick with it as long as you possibly can. The real shame of the US space program is that we stopped making Saturn V's... If we had the production in place to keep turning those out, we wouldn't have to spend many BILLIONS of dollars to design and start production of a new SHLV.

Re:Competition is good.

[phantomfive]

fuel costs are a small portion of launch costs.

Really? What is the expensive part then?

Re:Competition is good.

[Ol Olsoc]

Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and I'll be glad to mail you a hankie. A nice pink one to go with your politics.

Upsets me? No. I liken you litmus testers as material for public ridicule. I'd be lost without idiots like you to make fun of.

Re:Competition is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

The facts are that a private company can come along and get things done better and cheaper.

So exactly what interrupted Musk's magic with Tesla's self destructing drive units on a car that the brain dead are forking out upwards of $100k for?

Re:Competition is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's face it. Lamborghini was originally a tractor manufacturer.

Re:Competition is good.

[Type44Q]

But that sort of activity hasn't resulted in a viable launch platform since the 70s, when the Space Shuttle was developed.

I'd argue that it didn't result in one then, either.

Re:Competition is good.

[LordLimecat]

Anyhow, I went off the deep end

And got modded insightful in the process, well done.

Re:Competition is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Using the word "government" here is completely unhelpful because it is much to broad. "Military industrial complex" or "Crony Capitalism" would be much more precise and accurate. Blaming government in general for the specific failures of some corrupted politicians is arguing in favor of anarchy.

Re:Competition is good.

[murdocj]

Hey, those guys are stealing our stolen money!

Re:Competition is good.

[LordLimecat]

wealth inequality.

If you look at census data, wealth inequality across gender and race has massively dropped, all while median incomes (adjusted for inflation) have nearly tripled.

Rather than just saying "you're wrong", id rather encourage you do look this stuff up before repeating it further. You've obviously heard if from somewhere, but there is an onus on you to make sure your own words are accurate.

Re:Competition is good.

[Fjandr]

I get tired of people failing to see the problems and instead shoehorning things into their favorite ideology.

Sadly, confirmation bias, especially where politics is involved, is not the exception. It's the norm.

Re:Competition is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm quite aware how NASA operates - by writing large checks to private contractors [...]

Then, you are aware that NASA has been writing checks to SpaceX as well?

> And rather than continue to do something that hasn't worked in around four decades [...] maybe we could look at things that do work, like SpaceX's approach?

Ummm... exactly?

Look -- I'm as impressed by what SpaceX has achieved as the next guy: basically, I'd describe the pattern as "taking as much unneeded complexity out of the process". But SpaceX couldn't thrive in an environment in which NASA and the government's space program didn't exist. It's a symbiosis (and Elon Musk is clear enough in acknowledging that; actually this clarity is one of his main strengths)

Re:Competition is good.

[camperdave]

fuel costs are a small portion of launch costs.

Really? What is the expensive part then?

Engine development/manufacture, mostly. The shuttle used 610 tons of oxygen and 100 tons of hydrogen which cost approximately $200,000 based on market prices. The cost of the solid rocket booster fuel is unknown, but one estimate is about $2,000,000. The cost to launch that bird was $450,000,000, so the fuel was half a percent of the launch costs.

Re:Competition is good.

[tragedy]

If the Soviet Union had managed LEO or the moon, do you think they would have not used it?

This is sort of a confusing sentence. The Soviet Union _did_ manage LEO in just about every way you can "manage" LEO. They also got probes, but not people, to the moon.

Re:Competition is good.

[tragedy]

I'm sorry, you're attacking Musk because car parts wear out eventually? And he's extending the warranty for some of those parts?

Re:Competition is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easy to tell the difference between a ballistic missile and a orbital trajectory after a short period of time. Ballistic missiles achieve a far lower speed then something going into full orbit.

Re:Competition is good.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

If you look at census data, wealth inequality across gender and race has massively dropped, all while median incomes (adjusted for inflation) have nearly tripled.

Why the sudden mention of race and gender? Is that because only white males invent rockets or something?

Re:Competition is good.

[deadweight]

I would give you about 9,000 mod points for this post if I had them.

Re:Competition is good.

[deadweight]

I can assure you the kerosene was about the cheapest part of the Apollo program.

Re:Competition is good.

[fuzzywig]

The commercial aircraft makers like Boeing and Lockheed are partly responsible for the high cost of space access. Who do you think has been lobbying to keep the SLS on the cards?

Re:Competition is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

The engine on a real car doesn't fail after a year like his electric piece of shit.

Plus the Elon musk slashdot circle jerk was proclaiming loudly that electric cars don't require maintenance. More intelligent minds knew better.

Re:Competition is good.

[khallow]

Fast forward to 21st century and progress made by SpaceX and others is result of wealth inequality. Few billionaires have some billions they can put into to what they want rather than meeting political objectives (war, votes, whatever).

Ok, so what? In other contexts, that's an interesting observation, say as an argument for wealth inequality. But I don't see it as having any relevance to the current discussion. NASA has a history of occasional interference with private enterprise particularly when NASA projects are threatened or embarrassed. And it remains that SpaceX in particular has demonstrated a much superior ability to design rockets and similar things than NASA does.

Argue all you want, you still have to deal with the tyranny of the Rocket Equation.

I remain puzzled by the point of your post. This so-called "tyranny" permits quite a bit. For example, it doesn't prohibit NASA from consolidating its operations and upping its space game - without even getting another cent in extra funding from Congress. The politics not the physics of the US space program more or less preclude that.

Re:Competition is good.

[khallow]

Look -- I'm as impressed by what SpaceX has achieved as the next guy: basically, I'd describe the pattern as "taking as much unneeded complexity out of the process". But SpaceX couldn't thrive in an environment in which NASA and the government's space program didn't exist. It's a symbiosis (and Elon Musk is clear enough in acknowledging that; actually this clarity is one of his main strengths)

So what do you think NASA does (well supposed to do, I guess, ignoring its role as yet another distribution system for doling out Other Peoples' Money)? And how does developing its own launch vehicle at somewhere around a factor of ten more than SpaceX can help NASA do that?

Re:Competition is good.

[Ol Olsoc]

It's easy to tell the difference between a ballistic missile and a orbital trajectory after a short period of time. Ballistic missiles achieve a far lower speed then something going into full orbit.

Yes, there are things that can seem obvious.

Now.

But back in the day, they were just sorting things out. Late 50's? Ask anyone about the difference between ballistic and orbital trajectory. Hell they were just finding out you have to restrain the rocket a few seconds to allow it to build up thrust. Perfectly good rockets rose a foot or so and fell back to earth. Went all kablooey, to use the technical term.

The moon almost accidentally triggered WW3 once.

As did a sounding missile launched in Norway. More germane to my point.

Citations, you ask? Here ya go: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/m...

When a mistake means we turn most of the world into radioactive charcoal, The libertarian rant of "I can't do rocket research in my garage, kinda pales.

People who hate government and blame it for every ill can some times become indistinguishable from anarchists.

Re:Competition is good.

[khallow]

Probably more because that's what gets measured. You know like the drunk who looks for his lost keys under the street lamp, because the light is better.

Re:Competition is good.

[khallow]

Using the word "government" here is completely unhelpful because it is much to broad. "Military industrial complex" or "Crony Capitalism" would be much more precise and accurate.

I take it you're unfamiliar with the terms "precise" and "accurate". Every government beyond a rather modest size has a military industrial complex. And crony capitalism doesn't even require a government.

Blaming government in general for the specific failures of some corrupted politicians is arguing in favor of anarchy.

Good thing we didn't do that then.

Re:Competition is good.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It's also completely useless, given that the inequality mentioned quite obviously refers to the time development of the function of wealth over population percentile brackets or how is that damned thing called in English.

Re:Competition is good.

[phantomfive]

Thanks for the assurance, but it didn't really answer the question lol

Re:Competition is good.

[k6mfw]

> Argue all you want, you still have to deal with the tyranny of the Rocket Equation.

I remain puzzled by the point of your post. [snip] The politics not the physics of the US space program more or less preclude that.

I probably jumped discussion too much, it refers to some people advocating commercial space that "it is easy" just like airplanes, emphasizing it's just a little harder. Actually it is difficult getting to LEO, SpaceX has made it lower cost when compared to "Arsenal Space" but still there is no cheap. So don't expect in 10 years from now going to LEO will be as straight forward as driving to Pittsburg.

We will have to see what next 10 years will bring, 10 years ago nobody expected us to be in a situation like we are now.

Re:Competition is good.

[LordLimecat]

Because it was the most common and most egregious example of income inequality. So if ~1% of the population now makes way more money than me, but everyone is making ~2x their purchasing power compared to 1950 and the gap for race and gender is way down, id call that a win; looking at the 1% case and ignoring the ~50% case is just being silly.

Re:Competition is good.

[tragedy]

The article you linked to didn't say that Tesla drive units fail after a year. It said that the warranty used to be 8 years or 125,000 miles and that they've just extended it. There were a few anecdotes provided, but the article itself admitted that the source was inherently biased. So, basically, car parts wear out and some cars are defective from the factory. True for cars whether they're gasoline, diesel, LPG, electric, etc.

Re:Competition is good.

[khallow]

Airplanes are far from easy and I would consider the more complex of them of similar difficulty as well, just due to the much greater reliability standards they have to meet. They are subject to the rocket equation as well.

Re:Competition is good.

[david_thornley]

What developing a relatively expensive launch vehicle can accomplish is to funnel Federal funds to the right states and congressional districts. This has been NASA's main problem for much of my lifetime.

It's also a good idea to have more than one heavy launch vehicle under development. Space-X has done some really impressive things, but they could fail to develop their heavy launch vehicle for any number of reasons. (I assume they can get one in service eventually, if it's not too expensive, but rocket engineering is really difficult.) There's much to be said for parallel development when you really want something.

Re:Competition is good.

[Talderas]

if you support second amendment rights to own artillery and hand grenades

Just tossing this out there but there were US citizens employed by the US government to act as privateers via letters of marque and reprisal. As privateers, they owned their own ship and its armaments which included naval artillery (cannons). Without the 2nd amendment protecting ownership of such weapons the US government would have been required to raise and fund its own standing navy. If you look at the war of independence and the war of 1812 the privateers were a huge boon. Nearly three times as many privateers as continental ships During the revolution the continental forces had 64 naval vessels commissioned but had issued over 800 marques and the privateers captures three times as many vessels as the continental navy. During the war of 1812 the US had 23 commissioned naval vessels but several hundred marques had been issued. The privateers captured eight times as many vessels as the navy.

Re:Competition is good.

[Lord Lemur]

US Persons
1950 GINI 0.47
2013 GINI 0.51

US Households
1950 GINI 0.38
2013 GINI 0.45

Worker productivity per hour has increased 400% (Fixed for Inflation) and wages have increased 200% (Fixed for Inflation). So, yes it is great that women and minorities can have opportunities, but that doesn't encapsulate the entire problem.

Re:Competition is good.

[khallow]

Then how about get someone else who also has a successful history of developing rockets? NASA already has a rather long history of failing to develop launch vehicles which the US hypothetically really wants.

Alternately, they could just not bother at all. Heavy lift isn't that important and one can run a vigorous manned space program (including colonization of Mars or whatever) on the large number of launch vehicles capable of launching 20-25 tons to LEO.

Re:Competition is good.

[rioki]

Fast forward to 21st century and progress made by SpaceX and others is result of wealth inequality. Few billionaires have some billions they can put into to what they want rather than meeting political objectives (war, votes, whatever).

But that is really Elon Musk's genius, he has the cash to spare and the vision to pull it through. This something that bugged the hell out of me, why do the Donald Trumps of this world not establish lunar or asteroid mining missions. They have the cash and the return will be huge, the only downside is the return will trickle down at best in a decade.

In addition the real marvel of SpaceX is not their technology; it is not really advanced, but their operational costs. Boing and Lockheed Martin are just milking government contracts; they don't really care about innovation. SpaceX is beating them hands down, because they wand and need to be on the leading edge and in the end this may be their ticket to market domination. Maybe Boing and Lockheed Martin will step up their game, but it will definitely not be easy shifting gears.

Re:Competition is good.

[Duhavid]

Is it that confusing? Command of LEO. Enough to militarily deny other access to LEO.

Re:Competition is good.

[tragedy]

The part where you said "If the Soviet Union had managed LEO or the moon, do you think they would not have used it?" is the confusing part. It's confusing because you seem to have written it from a parallel universe where the Soviet Union never "managed LEO". If by "managed" you meant using taking command of LEO militarily, then the sentence in question is a tautology and one wonders why you even wrote it.

Re:Competition is good.

[Duhavid]

In my previous post, I believe I clarified that I did mean command of LEO militarily, and I wrote it because it seemed to me that some confused the leadership of the Soviet Union with flower in their hair peaceniks who would never hurt a fly. Given that mindset, I didn't see it as a tautology.

Re:Competition is good.

[tragedy]

If the Soviet Union had managed LEO or the moon, do you think they would have not used it?

Where you wrote "do you think they would have not used it?", you were referring to your previous sentence, so the meaning was "do you think they would have not used it to gain a huge strategic and tactical advantage?" Which basically means "do you think they would have not used it to gain command of LEO militarily. So, if "managed" means "command of LEO militarily", then the sentence boils down to: "If the Soviet Union had gained command of LEO militarily, then do you think they would have not used it to gain command of LEO militarily. "If X, then do you not think X" is a tautology.

Re:Competition is good.

[ppanon]

I went through a couple of iterations of that post and hemmed and hawed about which way to go on the efficiency front, because there are pros and cons. As 0123456 points out, if you're trying to put things into orbit cheaply, a simpler and less efficient design can bring about big cost savings. On the other hand, as you point out, efficiency is really important if you want more delta-v to reach higher orbits.

Nasa was probably very focused on engine efficiency for two reasons 1) if you want to reach escape velocity for planetary missions, heck even geo-synch, then you need more efficient engines or more stages [with more chances one will fail] and 2) the US Armed Forces had a big hand in the design envelope of NASA launch equipment - most notably in the winged design of the shuttle to allow for high speed re-entry maneuvers - and the military wants efficiency because high delta-v is necessary to outrun/outfight hostiles.

Use of the shuttle for U.S. launches was mandated because the military wanted the private sector to help subsidize the super-expensive shuttle launch infrastructure. As competition from Ariane and Russia made that less viable to the point that the policy had to be abandoned, then US competition opened up for providing vehicles that better matched commercial needs, rather than military ones. It had nothing to do with public vs. private sector efficiency and everything to do with military requirements being imposed on all launches (including the majority of launches that had no need for those "requirements") and established players playing politics for legislative capture under the guise of national security.

Which is yet another reason why you should always be really suspicious whenever someone uses national security as rationale for black budgets and secrecy. It's really easy to abuse national security as a pretext for covering nefarious activities.

Re:Competition is good.

[Duhavid]

I would think it obvious I did not mean that.

Re:Competition is good.

[tragedy]

But you either meant that, or you meant something else by "managed". Hence why the sentence is confusing.

Define Heavy?

[danknight48]

Mr. Mueller then later updated his numbers at a follow-on conference to portray 6,900 kN of sea-level thrust, and 8,200 kN of vacuum thrust.

That took me 20 seconds to find.

Come on, its Slashdot, at least give us some technical information to back up the story.

Re:Define Heavy?

[Anonymous Coward]

More than 3 Kirstie Alley's or 5 Marie Osmonds?

Re:TAILS opens an official public mailing list

[danknight48]

TAILS opens an official public mailing list with archives!

Personally, I prefer Sonic.

My money is on SpaceX

[techfilz]

If anyone can get it done, it will be Elon Musk and SpaceX. They have the vision and agility that NASA lost in the sixties.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA never had agility. Vision sure, but the entire institution was intentionally designed to be scattered and resistant to change. It's difficult to be institutionally agile when you're operations are spread out into as many political jurisdictions as possible.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

They have a "vision" which is the free license of NASA's technologies, developed with public money.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

In October 2003 Mueller and his engineers sat in the SpaceX control bunker in Texas and fired up a Merlin on the test stand. During the 60-second run, the exhaust began to melt the metal in the engine’s throat. The heat also endangered seals that governed the flow of the propellant. If the engine had run any longer, it would have blown up. It took months to work out the bugs.

In October 2003! Do you still believe that SpaceX is really that "fast" and "agile"?

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

In October 2003 Mueller and his engineers sat in the SpaceX control bunker in Texas and fired up a Merlin on the test stand. During the 60-second run, the exhaust began to melt the metal in the engine’s throat. The heat also endangered seals that governed the flow of the propellant. If the engine had run any longer, it would have blown up. It took months to work out the bugs.

In October 2003! Do you still believe that SpaceX is really that "fast" and "agile"?

Compared to NASA?

Damn right.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[khallow]

In October 2003! Do you still believe that SpaceX is really that "fast" and "agile"?

They have demonstrated they are by developing two launch vehicles and several rocket engines in that period of time - for about a tenth the estimated NASA pricing of the task in question.

And I find it odd how you can't figure out that your quote is completely irrelevant to your implied assertion that SpaceX isn't "fast" or "agile". We would expect them to run tests. We would expect some of their tests to fail. This sort of thing is independent of how fast or "agile" they are.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way they can do that is by cutting corners further than the string of failures every one of their launches has already encountered.

Their first three commercial launches were failures. Of the subsequent eleven commercial launches, they've lost one secondary payload.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

They have demonstrated that rocket engine built from sticks, dirt and duct tape would fail, nothing more. And then it took over 9 years of former NASA employes work to build a functional rocket. The same amount of time that chinese or russians need. Oh; thats a great competition, no shit! But that's not fast or agile by any means. Mind my word, Elon will become the same greedy bastard (like everyone else in US when big bucks is involved) once he has NASA/ULA/etc funding overthrown.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[0123456]

You're replying to the Anti-SpaceX Nutter, who really appears to believe that every one of their launches was a failure. I'm guessing he thinks those satellites SpaceX launched are just faked in the Arizona desert.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[0123456]

NASA went from the first suborbital manned flight to putting men on the freaking Moon in eight years. They were pretty agile back then.

Now they're spending longer than that just building a rocket that largely uses existing hardware, and has no funded missions that would require it.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[cytg.net]

Well, when talent begins leaving NASA for SpaceX, then we know its in business...

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[khallow]

And then it took over 9 years of former NASA employes work to build a functional rocket.

No, it took 9 years from the end of 2003 to build two rocket vehicles and three rocket motors and conduct 9 launch attempts in that time - 5 of which were successful and 1 partially successful.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

You're replying to the Anti-SpaceX Nutter, who really appears to believe that every one of their launches was a failure. I'm guessing he thinks those satellites SpaceX launched are just faked in the Arizona desert.

They have had a string of failures.
ISS supply mission. Engine explodes. Fails to deliver secondary payload
ISS supply mission. Maneuvering thrusters fail.
Satellite launch delayed by helium leaks. First stage recovery failure.
Test rocket explodes.

If you could pull musks dick out of your mouth long enough you would notice a long line failures due to shoddy engineer practices caused by cutting corners.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

far sooner than NASA, and for far less money.

Now it's far cheaper than NASA.
A few years back Musk snake oil was aiming for the Chinese.
But with Russia kicking the snot out of Musk in ISS resupply flights, time to lower expectations and aim for the low hanging fruits.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

... and left to rot while politicians play pork barrel ping pong for years.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Issarlk]

Then Space-X will fail to consistently deliver payload, people will simply stop using their services, and you'll be happy. Relax. They are doomed.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[0123456]

They have had a string of failures.

Yes, they've consistently delivered their primary payload, and even the secondary payload would have been delivered to the correct orbit if NASA had let them.

But that's clearly a string of failures in Anti-SpaceX Nutter World.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure .... if you completely ignore all the fantastic failure of SpaceX to this day.

They still haven't managed one single flight without issues .... and completely lie about it every single time.

Rocket blows up: " it was proof that our emergency contingencies worked."
Capsule crash lands in the ocean: "it was just a test capsule. The crash was a scheduled part of the test."
Cargo fails to reach target orbit: "the cargo reached the minimal orbit"
Nozzles freeze solid: "they weren't that important"

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it is:

8 TOTAL FAILURES
5 PARTIAL success.

SpaceX hasn't flow a single flight with full success to this day.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[0123456]

Yes. Aside from delivering all their primary payloads, and only being unable to deliver one secondary payload because NASA said they weren't allowed to, SpaceX has been a complete failure!

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[HangingChad]

They have the vision and agility that NASA lost in the sixties.

I get smacked down here for suggesting that NASA is no longer the best agency for moving the space program forward. SpaceX soft-landed two boosters in the ocean and are ready for a land trial. They did that in their spare time. It would have taken NASA 10 years and $20 billion dollars to replicate that achievement. NASA also relies on contractors with obscene overhead rates.

SpaceX is living proof that NASA wastes billions.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[wagnerrp]

Did the satellite get delivered to its intended orbit? Then it's a successful launch. That makes twelve successful launches, one partial success (primary delivered, secondary failed), and three failures.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

ISS supply mission. Engine explodes. Fails to deliver secondary payload

Primary payload delivered to orbit, secondary lost due to a failed engine re-ignite. This is a partial success.

ISS supply mission. Maneuvering thrusters fail.

Supply craft docked to ISS. This is a success.

Satellite launch delayed by helium leaks. First stage recovery failure.

Primary payload delivered to orbit. This is a success.

Test rocket explodes.

Prototype failed. This is a test. This was not a launch ready first stage. This was not carrying a second stage or payload. This has no relevance.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Fjandr]

NASA has a much longer list of failures if you're including test rockets and launch delays.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Fjandr]

Talent isn't leaving NASA for SpaceX. The talent is never getting to NASA in the first place. A number of high-profile candidates courted by NASA have declined job offers in favor of positions in private space flight companies.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

ISS supply mission. Engine explodes. Fails to deliver secondary payload

Primary payload delivered to orbit, secondary lost due to a failed engine re-ignite. This is a partial failure.

ISS supply mission. Maneuvering thrusters fail.

Supply craft captured by ISS due to space x incompetence. This is a failure.

Satellite launch delayed by helium leaks. First stage recovery failure.

Primary payload delivered to orbit after huge delays cutting into profit ability. This demonstrates space x's need to cut corners in order to remain viable.

Test rocket explodes.

Prototype failed due to a production ready component unrelated to the test that could have easily gone off on any of the other flight and again caused delays of their flights cutting into profitability requiring space x to cut corners in the future.

Fixed that for you.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

The ONLY way space x can be profitable is if there are no delays. They have priced their launches far to low than reality will support. Any launch delay is unacceptable. So they will start to gamble with safety until they have a huge disaster killing lots of people.

By contrast, NASA dosen't require profitability. Delaying to do things right is perfectly acceptable.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

Space x is have killed a lot of people before that happens.

Re:My money is on SpaceX

[khallow]

No, it is 5 successes and 1 partial success out of 9 launches through to the end of 2013. Also, you claim 13 launches there not 9.

This is the Congressinal Rocket not NASA.

[trout007]

NASA never wanted to build this rocket. It was forces in them from Congress. Plus NASA doesn't build rockets it overseas other aerospace contractors.

Re:This is the Congressinal Rocket not NASA.

[TwoUtes]

That is it in a nutshell. NASA programs have always been subject to the whims of politicians. I'd bet that the next administration/congress cancels SLS after the next presidential election, and NASA will again look inept and directionless.

Re:This is the Congressinal Rocket not NASA.

[tomhath]

The rocket they really wanted was Constellation, but Obama cancelled that one.

Re:This is the Congressinal Rocket not NASA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well yeah, he couldn't have NASA follow a space plan with the other guy's name and party on it!

Maybe the next president will have his space plan start with "launch Congress into space", and then we'll actually get somewhere...

Re:This is the Congressinal Rocket not NASA.

[DerekLyons]

NASA will again look inept and directionless

Only to the clueless that don't realize that NASA is an organization that executes the policies of others subject to the funding whims of yet others. (I.E. pretty much everyone sadly.)

Re:This is the Congressinal Rocket not NASA.

[backslashdot]

Probably not, if the pictures of Pluto returned back by the New Horizons mission are still fresh on people's minds.

Re:This is the Congressinal Rocket not NASA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, if only Obama had been a REAL DEMOCRAT and decided to SPEND 200 BILLION Dollars on it.

But Obama can't even get the Tax part right!

Re:This is the Congressinal Rocket not NASA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he cancelled it. Space flight be for white folks. That's racist!

Re:This is the Congressinal Rocket not NASA.

[Bo'Bob'O]

And in it's place we got the commercial cargo and commercial crew programs, which have been highly successful so far. So much so that NASA is now looking to duplicate the process in other endeavors: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1407/27marstelecom/#.VANoxEi0b0c

Meanwhile the Orion capsule, which was the part of the constellation project that actually put humans on top of those rockets to get them into space, was kept. It's still over budget, under speced and years off from putting anyone in space.

Re:This is the Congressinal Rocket not NASA.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are completely wrong on that.

Re:This is the Congressinal Rocket not NASA.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was forces in them from Congress.

Congress exerted forces inside the rocket itself? How did they do that?

Plus NASA doesn't build rockets it overseas other aerospace contractors.

Do you mean NASA is overseas? or do you mean oversees other contractors? or are you missing a word between 'it' and 'overseas'?

Please English properly youse confusion us me!

Re:This is the Congressinal Rocket not NASA.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean Ares. The project was Constellation which included the Ares rocket and Mercury capsule. The capsule was on time and on budget and is still in production. The Ares rocket was 100% over budget, in 2008, and years behind when finally cancelled. The only test ever done on anything Ares related was old technology placed in Ares configuration. The Ares rocket itself wasn't set to even begin testing till 2014. Damn Obama and his overspending ways. Every other terrible pork project that's running billions over should be cancelled. But not Ares, for some reason. It was a big expensive rocket. Basically it was Saturn for the modern era, but unfortunately it kept the same 1 billion plus price tag. It got cancelled because there are better options. Sorry citizen of Alabama or Utah.

Re:This is the Congressinal Rocket not NASA.

[confused one]

Congress had already de-funded it once they realized how much it was really going to cost. He just killed a program that had been declared dead in the water before he took the oath of office.

Battle of pork

[Anonymous Coward]

Pork barrel NASA rocket to launch pork barrel NASA missions vs SpaceX building a rocket that is of no use other then for pork barrel NASA missions.

Just because the latter has less pork doesn't mean it's good.

Re:Battle of pork

[khallow]

Well, either rocket can be used for non-pork purposes. There's no physical limitation that prevents them from being used that way. But one of them is going to be well priced out of doing anything that doesn't have huge funding from some government, the congressional one versus one which can be priced to sell to groups other than governments, the SpaceX one. My take is a really cheap big rocket would have takers. Either bigger satellites, more delta-v, and/or launching more satellites at one time.

Why does it take so long?

[tekrat]

I mean seriously, look at the SLS, it's almost entirely composed of re-used space shuttle parts. It has the main engines on the bottom of the tank re-purposed from the shuttle. it has solid rocket boosters which already exist from the shuttle -- it entirely looks like it could be cobbled together in a few month's time because it uses almost entirely existing components.

So what exactly requires so many years to make it al work when it's all basically existing tech from the shuttle? I hate to say this, but this ain't rocket science.

Re:Why does it take so long?

[db48x]

Unlike in Kerbal Space Program, when you stack rocket components on top of each other you have to reengineer the bottom one to hold up the top one; they say that they're reusing the main tank, but that might be true in a narrow sense if they reuse the H2 tank inside the orange Space Shuttle External Tank. Then you have to engineer the manufacturing processes and factories for producing any new components (and there will be lots of those), plus the modified one (easier, but still plenty to go around), plus you have to engineer the test facilities for all the components, and you have to test the test facilities, and then test the components, and then test-launch the vehicle, etc. Don't forget to document everything, and to design training procedures so that you can hire new people to build these things, and test them, etc, etc. It actually is rocket science.

Re:Why does it take so long?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this any different from aviation and automotive industries?

Re:Why does it take so long?

[50000BTU_barbecue]

Market size.

Re:Why does it take so long?

[Drethon]

Similar engineering, orders of magnitude larger and more powerful.

Re:Why does it take so long?

[db48x]

For the most part it's a difference in magnitude. The speeds the rockets achieve are much higher than any airplane, let alone car, ever manages. The thrust of the engines is stupendous, the liquid H2 and O2 fuels are cryogenic, the flame temperatures in the engine are extreme. In fact, they're so extreme that the engines use precise control over the flow fuel and oxidizer entering the engine to create a layer of cooler gasses around the inside of the engine nozzle, so that it doesn't melt or ablate entirely away. Everything has to work in vacuum and at ambient air pressure and at max Q during flight.

All of this and more adds up to a much harder design problem, much more stringent test requirements, much tighter manufacturing tolerances, etc. The principle is the same, however; any change to one component of a system may require changes to every other component.

The one thing that all forms of engineering from (whether software, civil, aerospace, or other) have in common is the management of complexity. The automotive engineer designs the engine mounts in your car to accept a wide range of engines, so that they can manufacture several variants of the same car with different engines without having to redesign every component. Similarly, SpaceX has greatly reduced their cost and risk by reducing the complexity of their rockets; one way they did this was to use the same engine for both the first and second stages of their rockets (the first stage simply uses more of them). Another way was to avoid cryogenic fuels; they have a lower specific impulse (fuel efficiency), but a much greater space efficiency (liquid H2 is very light; that orange tank is huge, and 80% of it is for the H2 tank) plus you avoid having to deal with cryogenic fuels, and the complicated materials engineering that goes into designing the tanks to hold them.

If you want to know more, MIT has some great lectures on the subject, even ones suitable for non-engineers. A good one is An Electrical Engineering View of a Mechanical Watch . The description of this lecture only touches on superficial matters; Sussman's real point is that the means of abstraction present in an engineered system can be applied to any other engineered system, and that it's only by designing the right abstractions that engineers make continual progress in designing newer and better systems. He states this directly in the first two minutes, which is quite handy. You might also check out the video lectures for the Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs , the first lecture of which goes into much the same topics in the realm of software engineering.

Re:Why does it take so long?

[db48x]

I got distracted and broke my links. An Electrical Engineering View of a Mechanical Watch is at http://video.mit.edu/watch/an-..., and the SICP lectures are at http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/ele...

Re: Why does it take so long?

[kellymcdonald78]

While the "Shuttle Derived" messaging was used to sell the program, it's hardly anything but. The first few flights will use left over RS-25Ds from the shuttle program, but they are far too expensive for new ones to be built and throw away each flight, so the RS-25E and RS-25F engines needed to be developed. The 4 segment SRBs from the shuttle aren't powerful enough for SLS so they've had to develop a 5 segment SRB with a new type of solid fuel with a completely new grain. The casings are also being redesigned to be expendable. While the tank is shuttle derived, it needs a completely redesigned aft section to support the engines, plumbing is completely different, and the a new interstate to support the upper stage and payloads. It would have been cheaper and faster to start from scratch, but that doesn't keep the trough filled.

Re:Why does it take so long?

[petes_PoV]

So what exactly requires so many years to make it al work

It takes as long as it does, because that is the amount of time (or money: same principle applies) than is allotted to the project. Finishing sooner makes no sense as you'd just be working yourself out of a job earlier. There is also no pressing need to have such a vehicle. It's not as if there was a killer asteroid heading this way that would spell doom - and worse: upset NASA's carefully crafted timetables.

In that situation, where there was a deadline to be met (and not a vacuous political one), then yes: I daresay the prototype would be on the pad in a matter of months. With 2 or 3 more following close behind.

Re:Why does it take so long?

[PPH]

Because the primary contractor's business is cobbling stuff together designed and built by others.

Re:Why does it take so long?

[0123456]

Remember, this is the organization that needed half a billion dollars to put a dummy upper stage on top of a shuttle SRB and launch it into the ocean. There was a very brief period when NASA did cheap unmanned missions under the 'cheaper, faster, better' slogan, but that was long ago now.

Re:Why does it take so long?

[dotancohen]

That was not fair! I should have been done with my five-minute /. break an hour ago!

In other words, thank you for the Mechanical Watch link. That professor is amazing.

Re:Why does it take so long?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike in Kerbal Space Program, when you stack rocket components on top of each other you have to reengineer the bottom one to hold up the top one

I see someone has never experienced the joy of having their overmass upper stages crush the lower ones even before ignition, or had the lower stack boost through the upper part.

KSP, for great justice.

In short, don't patronize people, especially if you're going to mock them for misunderestimating something while you ironically making the same misteak. Irregardless of the facts and for all intensive purposes, that is.

Re:Why does it take so long?

[evilviper]

How is this any different from aviation and automotive industries?

It's almost like this is "rocket science" or something...

Re:Why does it take so long?

[db48x]

Yes, he is amazing. He gives half of those SICP lectures as well, trading off with Hal Abelson, another great engineer and lecturer.

Rockets suck

[Gothmolly]

They burn something like 99% of their takeoff weight just to get to orbit. Their biggest cargo is their own fuel.

Where's the research on mass drivers/railguns, or tethers, or any of the "scifi" types of propulsion?

Re:Rockets suck

[db48x]

A rocket is a mass driver, and all of the "scifi" types of propulsion break the laws of physics one way or another. Space elevators would be pretty nice, but we still haven't found a material strong enough. Carbon nanotubes are the current hope, but we can't make them long enough yet; they'd have to be very long indeed to make a strong enough elevator. Short nanotubes have to be glued together and then you're down to the strength of the glue.

Re:Rockets suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually the "glue" is the carbon nanotubes themselves. They don't form straight, and so defects at either end of the nanotube provide surface for them to link together, like how short fibers are spun into long thread. Of course, when you have nanotubes with defects, their strength is tremendously weaker than their theoretical maximum.

Re:Rockets suck

[DanielRavenNest]

Space elevators would be pretty nice, but we still haven't found a material strong enough

That is only true for Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's 1895 space elevator design, which is seriously out of date. A segmented elevator is perfectly feasible with current carbon fiber. This uses a small one in low orbit, and another small one in GEO. You use orbit mechanics to transfer from one to the other. The combined cable length is 50 times less than the original version. That makes it more economical, less exposed to impact damage, and able to be built incrementally.

Unfortunately, the only pictures you see in media articles are of the 1895 concept, so that's the one people always think of. We need to get public perception out of the 19th century.

Re:Rockets suck

[Anonymous Coward]

And you need to get your perception out of the 1960s. Space is dead, no one's going anywhere, ever.

Can't wait to see the BFR in a few years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Methane-fueled rockets burn brilliant blue. It will be a sight to see.

Re:Can't wait to see the BFR in a few years.

[Anonymous Coward]

BFR? Blue Fart Rocket?

Re:Can't wait to see the BFR in a few years.

[PPH]

BFR? Big F*ing Rocket?

Re:Can't wait to see the BFR in a few years.

[Anonymous Coward]

Big Fucking Rocket.
And yes, that really was the original codename.

No Competition Here!

[Irate Engineer]

NASA would be very happy to let SpaceX build a heavy lift booster for them. Really.

The only reason SLS exists is to keep the congresscritters from the former shuttle supply chain districts happy. That's it. NASA is desperately trying to keep funding going, and they ain't interested in pissing that money away on designing big dumb rockets, but politics says that they must to survive. Rockets are rapidly becoming a commercial technology, which is a good thing.

NASA would be very happy to buy rockets from Elon Musk and/or whoever else can put up competing articles. NASA would much rather be doing and spending its hard-fought budget on things that they do well, pushing the envelope on technologies for hard problems, like getting our asses to Mars, and science missions.

Re:No Competition Here!

[Animats]

The only reason SLS exists is to keep the congresscritters from the former shuttle supply chain districts happy. That's it.

Right. NASA also still has way too many "centers". Ames (except for the big wind tunnel) and Glenn (except for the test facilities at Sandusky) ought to go.

Re:No Competition Here!

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot more money for muslim outreach.

Re:No Competition Here!

[phantomfive]

NASA would much rather be doing and spending its hard-fought budget on things that they do well, pushing the envelope on technologies for hard problems, like getting our asses to Mars,/quote Elon Musk may very well beat NASA at that, too

Re:No Competition Here!

[Anonymous Coward]

gnome.org can handle that

Re:No Competition Here!

[Anonymous Coward]

And Russian outreach like Reagan said. And Muslim outreach like Bush did. Well, whatever, Obama's a commie nigger anyway. But, hey, we're not racists right?

Re:No Competition Here!

[confused one]

I've come to the conclusion that this may be the unspoken official plan. Congress is driving NASA to do what they're doing; but, the Administration is sort of sitting back quietly saying very little. Note how you don't hear much from the Obama administration about SLS; but, they keep pushing Commercial Crew. I think it is possible they're just waiting for SpaceX (or one of the other commercial contractors) to fill the void and provide commercial launch capability. NASA has leased launch facilities to SpaceX and Boeing already, including pads 39A and 40 at Canaveral. Heavy lift is the next logical step. Musk has made a lot of noise publicly and given the presentation to Congress and the Administration. They're taking him seriously enough that members of Congress are trying to derail his efforts to protect their constituency. I believe the Administration is giving them the same serious consideration, standing back and waiting to see if they can pull it off.

Delay is good. congress operating as designed.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been the better half of a century that we realized using chemical rockets to operate outside of Earths gravity well is a fools errand. I'm rooting for Musk, but he is 1 spectacular explosion away from irrelavancy. While we wait for the inevitable, I trust the Chinese will rediscover the idea of space stations and building stuff in orbit while we wait to discover a way to catch up with an entire universe that is fleeing from us as fast as theoretically possible.
Still, being only one (or two) generations removed from the most savage and disruptive warmongers the planet has ever seen is enough justification for any man of true freedom to use any meañs possible to get as far away from the king as possible. The truth is, I would rather die on Titan in 10 years than to have to endure the Marxist-Fascist coallition that the peasants of the world have deemed "good enough"
TL:DR - we're fucked.

Re:Delay is good. congress operating as designed.

[queazocotal]

'One spectacular explosion' - One explosion would be 92% reliability. (one failure in 12 launches)

Re:Delay is good. congress operating as designed.

[Anonymous Coward]

The shuttle failure rate was 2/135. And no, that wasn't even close to good enough. You obviously got modded up by retards. A failure of 1/12 should be enough to have you charged with criminal homicide with intent to cause bodily harm. God! How many of you pseudo educated dumbbastards are even remotely close to this industry? IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WONT COMMENT ON?
Mark my words Musk is going to kill several millionaires before this is over. And it will be over. If you think Pratt&Whitney and all the rest are going to roll over and die then you got more thinking to do.

  1 out 12 ! Holyfuckingshit.

Re:Delay is good. congress operating as designed.

[queazocotal]

The shuttle had several very near accidents in its run.
NASAs current criteria for man-rating would - for astronauts that fly six times a year be safer at work than:
A) Deep sea fishermen
B) Lumberjacks
C) Librarians.

Hint: It's not the first two.
(actual figures from US statistics).

Re:Delay is good. congress operating as designed.

[queazocotal]

one failure in 13 launches.

No miracles

[nojayuk]

There are no miracles in rocket engine design. The RD-180 has pretty much the best performance to be wrung out of a sea-level-to-altitude LOX/RP-1 motor in terms of efficiency. SpaceX is still playing catchup in that area, trading off the lower cost per Merlin motor for a lower Isp from a simpler design.

As for the Raptor the "new" liquid-methane/oxygen fuel mix it will burn has the potential to produce a higher Isp than the current mainstream LOX/RP-1 mix used in motors like the Merlin, the RD-180 etc. but it comes with downsides -- it means a redesign of the rocket structure to support fully cryogenic tankerage (although not requiring the sorts of extreme temps or processing LH needs), launchpad facilities for fuelling and defuelling rockets will need to be revamped, liquid methane is half the density of RP-1 so the tanks and the rocket structure need to be larger and heavier to contain equivalent amounts of fuel and so on.

Re:No miracles

[0123456]

Efficiency is irrelevant when fuel makes up about 1% of the cost of a launch and bigger tanks are cheap. When you're throwing engines away every time, and they make up a large fraction of the cost of a launch, a low-cost engine that burns 10% more fuel can be a massive win.

Government rocket engineers have been fixated on efficiency because they rarely have to worry about cost. They can just steal more money from taxpayers.

Re:No miracles

[Anonymous Coward]

Government rocket engineers have been fixated on efficiency because they rarely have to worry about cost. They can just steal more money from taxpayers.

Not quite it. It's hard to innovate in government because innovation means taking massive risks. Government is by far big enough to absorb that risk. The problem is that people will fly by, look at the failures when that risk didn't turn out well, and highly publicize how wasteful government is being by funding dead-end projects. Those thieves don't care about tax payer money! So no risk can be taken, so you get small improvements like increasing efficiency a little bit using the same over-all design. As a voter, you're the top leadership in government, and you're getting bad government because you're incompetent in that job.

Re:No miracles

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's precisely why we need wise, bold, centrally-planned economic control (with vision for the future!), just like what brought the Holodomor to Ukraine.

Oh, wait.

Re:No miracles

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "They can just steal more money from taxpayers." Glad to know you have the logic facilities of an 8 year old.

I'm quite sure that NASA rocket engineers are in the game for larceny.

Re:No miracles

[evilviper]

Efficiency is irrelevant when fuel makes up about 1% of the cost of a launch and bigger tanks are cheap.

Until the larger tank and extra weight then means you need an even larger (or more) rocket motor(s) to get off the ground and into orbit.

Re:No miracles

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I believe that methane was actually chosen (among other reasons) so that the stage (and the engines) could be more easily reusable: unlike kerosene, it shouldn't create an awful residue all over the fuel system.

Re:No miracles

[khallow]

I have to agree with the other replier. Blaming the public's need for accountability for the risk adverse nature of government is silly. It would be far worse without that accountability. Probably not Holodomor level malfeasance, but you certainly aren't considering the negative consequences of removing accountability from the decision-making process for a government entity.

Another thing to remember here is that risk taking isn't automatically a good thing. As the grand parent noted, because government doesn't care about the outcome, they can obsess over things like engine efficiency at any cost rather than building a viable and economical engine. That sort of fatally flawed decision making process isn't going to get any better just because you choose not to look at it or criticize it.

Re:No miracles

[ppanon]

When you're throwing engines away every time, and they make up a large fraction of the cost of a launch, a low-cost engine that burns 10% more fuel can be a massive win.

That depends on what orbit you're trying to reach and how much delta-V it requires. If you're trying to launch commercial satellites into low earth orbit or replenish the ISS (also in LEO), then you can throw fuel at the problem. When you try to reach geo-synch or past it, then efficiency is a must.

What SpaceX have done so far is pick the low to medium-height hanging fruit. Good for them. What's their capability for launching good sized comm-satellites into geo-synch? or Voyager/Galileo type interplanetary probes?

CBS news.com report...

[SternisheFan]

3 companies vie to build space shuttle successor

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ne...

Re:CBS news.com report...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the Space Shuttle Program was retired, Nasa has done a lot of nothing but make promises and then retract them due to their funding being pulled by tea party idiots and blaming it all on Obama. Im not really interested in whose fault all the idiocy is, I think Nasa is a shadow of what it once was and needs to get off of it's ass and do something useful. I blame Moronic assholes in congress, but of course those dicks are beyond reproach.

Boehner needs more orange oomph loopmpah Dye and it is all Obama's fault that he does not have it because the liberals need medical care!

Boehner and his ilk need to be fired, charged with treason, fired again and shot.. and then Nasa can start making plans once we deal with the idiots that are trying to screw the american people over and blame all their bullshit on Obama. This country, since 2008 makes me fucking sick.

Re:CBS news.com report...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the Space Shuttle Program was retired, Nasa has done a lot of nothing but make promises and then retract them due to their funding being pulled by tea party idiots and blaming it all on Obama. Im not really interested in whose fault all the idiocy is, I think Nasa is a shadow of what it once was and needs to get off of it's ass and do something useful. I blame Moronic assholes in congress, but of course those dicks are beyond reproach.

Boehner needs more orange oomph loopmpah Dye and it is all Obama's fault that he does not have it because the liberals need medical care!

Boehner and his ilk need to be fired, charged with treason, fired again and shot.. and then Nasa can start making plans once we deal with the idiots that are trying to screw the american people over and blame all their bullshit on Obama. This country, since 2008 makes me fucking sick.

This is the only intelligent comment I have read in this thread and needs to be modded up, but won't because slashdot is as fucking useless as the USA is since 2008

Space Era: Its Over!

[Anonymous Coward]

We are on the verge of a global energy & debt crisis. The Era of space flight is coming to an end. CapEx in Energy development is coming to a rapid decline. No one can afford $150 bbl Oil and the Oil companies are ending development of future projects need to offset depletion. Within 12 years the world won't be able to launch satellites.

Re:Space Era: Its Over!

[Dutchmaan]

Thank you for that very well documented argument. As soon as I'm done reading all the sources you posted, I'll get back to my morning coffee.

Re:Space Era: Its Over!

[Anonymous Coward]

There are tons and tons of documents about this. You never heard of Peak Oil before?

Here you go:
Steven Kopits: Oil Majors cutting CapEx Expendures and return money to shareholders:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLCsMRr7hAg

Core Labs (Analyzes Drill Core Samples for Oil & Gas Drilling) CEO declares Global Oil Production has peaked this year:
http://www.news-press.com/story/money/2014/08/24/oil-experts-say-demand-will-stay-high/14495861/

Re:Space Era: Its Over!

[Dutchmaan]

of course I've heard of peak oil, but if you're going to post your tripe, at least do a decent job of informing people of what you're trying to say instead of a bunch of chicken little hornblowing.

Re:Space Era: Its Over!

[Anonymous Coward]

If peak oil happens, withing 12 years the world will move to nuclear and treehugers will be getting a swift kick in the ass from basically everybody if they protest.

New rocket engine

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that long ago (perhaps last year) there was a news item about a new rocket design from Europe that, according to that new piece that I read, offer much powerful rockets while still save fuel

Do not have the link to that news item (maybe deleted) but if anyone still have the link, please post here

Thanks !

Re: New rocket engine

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're talking about Skylon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9uwmfuwYJ0

[muathukn]

I Don't no https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Nasaspaceflight.com

[jpfulton]

For those of you who visited the link, Nasaspaceflight.com has a very well-informed stable of posters, many of whom are professionals in the space industry, and there is the L2 section where you will find much that is not available anywhere else.

Other reasons for NASA's slow build time

[dayton967]

One thing people forget, is that the Private sector, can often do things a great deal faster as there is way less red tape. In the Public Sector, you have to have more justification on who you buy everything from, to contractors, everything. The public sector is greatly hindered by this in so many ways, to make sure everything is above board, and fully transparent, and it only gets worse as the economy gets worse, as the government wants an accounting for every last penny, because they believe the public really will care on which toilet paper is being used by government officials. Also if something is not on a standing offer for the government, it must go to be bid on by businesses.

Re:Other reasons for NASA's slow build time

[Anonymous Coward]

red tape: noun excessive bureaucracy or adherence to rules and formalities

Excessive bureaucracy can, and often does, exist in corporations just as in government. Government programs can be just as agile as private ones. Whereas, profit ALWAYS comes at the expense of the workers or customers.

Thrust also matters.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two measures of rocket engine performance: Isp and thrust-to-weight. RD-180 has about 10% higher Isp than the Merlin 1D, but the Merlin 1D has DOUBLE the thrust-to-weight of the RD-180, which is why they're putting together a rocket with it that can launch over 50 tons to LEO (the Atlas V is dependent on costly solid rocket boosters for many payloads, and even the proposed heavy configuration using three cores would launch under 30 tons to LEO). Thrust determines how big you can make your propellant tank, which determines how big your payload can be. When SpaceX bumped up the thrust they could get out of their Merlin, from the 1C to the 1D version, they also gained the option of stretching the Falcon 9, considerably increasing its payload capacity. SpaceX isn't chasing RD-180 performance, ULA is gnawing their fingers with envy at the Merlin 1D, which can even be throttled precisely enough to land the rocket!

Raptor is going to be the first real 21st century rocket engine, with 3d-printed parts and fluid bearings (rather than the primitive old ball bearings used in other rocket turbopumps). They aren't going to methane for the Isp boost (which would just not be worth it, considering the lower density), but because liquid methane can be self-pressurizing (no high-pressure helium system) and costs about one tenth of what RP-1 does. In addition, it's stored at very nearly the same temperature as the liquid oxygen, which simplifies thermal management. The full-flow staged combustion design is also not primarily for Isp (though it will provide a high Isp), but because of the low temperature of the working fluid, which means you can use cheap materials in the turbopump and it will last practically forever.

The reusable Raptor-powered BFR will likely cost less to operate than the reusable Falcon 9, with a longer service life. Even the manufacturing cost may be lower.

Re:Thrust also matters.

[nojayuk]

The thrust to weight ratio of the rocket motor only really matters near the end of a burn when the motor weight becomes a significant part of the total vehicle mass at that time after hundreds of tonnes of fuel and propellant have been expended. It's a good thing to have a lightweight motor but shaving a hundred kilos off the motor mass isn't as important as boosting the Isp by, say, ten seconds as that boost improves the performance all the way through the burn and has a much bigger impact on payload to orbit with given hardware. SpaceX have been working hard to improve Isp, of course -- the Merlin first-stage 1D motors are a lot better than the original flight motors they started their operations with and they now have optimised upper-stage versions of the 1D for vacuum with improved Isp figures.

I know other manufacturers have looked at methane-oxygen engines in the past but not progressed with them. Why they didn't I'm not sure. LOX/RP-1 has a good track record and decades of actual operation to work with (which SpaceX took advantage of), LOX/CH4 is more of a leap in the dark. Building a big LOX/CH4 motor as the first flight item is another big step and obviates the cheap multi-motor Falcon vehicle platform SpaceX have been developing over the past few years.

Re:Thrust also matters.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got that kind of backwards. At lift-off, thrust is everything, and poor Isp is a minor concern (in fact, all rocket engines have fairly poor Isp at lift-off due to the effect of air pressure). That's why so many launch vehicles have solid boosters (which generally have an Isp under 250s at sea level).

Empty mass is extremely important (another reason to use strap-on boosters, which separate themselves entirely shortly after lift-off). The variables in the rocket equation are specific impulse, initial mass, and final mass. The difference between initial mass and final mass is just as important as the specific impulse. You can no more go to orbit with a vehicle with insufficient mass ratios than you could with insufficient Isp.

More to the point, you're looking at high thrust-to-weight as a matter of "shaving off kilograms", but consider it as a matter of ramping up kilonewtons. Then it's a [i]very[/i] big deal. Increasing the thrust means you can stretch the tank and increase the payload pretty much in direct proportion to the increased thrust.

talent going to SpaceX

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a fair number of ex-NASA folks at SpaceX.
However, there's also a fair number who went, and then disappeared away from Space-X. The environment at SpaceX is pretty aggressive development schedule (work-life balance? As long as you're alive, you can work, stop your whining.). The NASA engineer who gets frustrated with the slow pace at NASA might find it fun at SpaceX. The engineer who likes working on lots of different things at NASA probably won't like it at Space-X.

Let's settle this!

[Anonymous Coward]

Point the rockets at each other, nose-cone to nose-cone, ignite them both and let's settle this once and for all; Mortal Kombat-style!

(or at least, Celebrity Deathmatch style)

This coin has two sides

[Anonymous Coward]

The Good: We could end-up with two extremely-capable heavy lifters that launch from separate facilities (excellent and complete redundancy) which could enable a bold new era of exploration. Just imagine the missions you could fly by having NASA park a mars transit vehicle in orbit and SpaceX dock a massive fuelled Earth departure stage to it, perhaps with the crew flying up to it aboard a DreamChaser launched on an Atlas (Maximizing the non-crew related weight the heavies could loft). Mars mission in three launches, possibly all on one day. These systems COULD all be used in concert with each other (more important givien that Obama's NASA is reducing to one pad (39B) and therefore will be incapable of using SLS alone for any significant deep space manned exploration (that would require multiple launches and it taked too long to refurb a pad to be able to do this with one pad).

The Bad: Morons might use this to convince congress to kill SLS (dreaming that the cash would be re-directed to SpaceX or elsewhere in NASA when the politicians whould actually be likely to shift it no non-space priorities). With a down-scaled and further funds-constrained NASA, SpaceX could then lose its main customer and never end-up actually being able to afford to build their giant. A similar scnario nearly happened when some people with an idea they called "Direct" advocated killing the Constellation program and funding their project instead - and the Obama admin DID kill Constellaion (and then proposed NOTHING to replace it, rather than the "Direct" project - which is partly how we got to the mess we are now in where congress is pushing SLS and Obama keeps trying to kill it).

The big problem with all this SpaceX fanboy stuff: SpaceX is cool but has demonstrated NO ability to keep to a launch schedule and has a history of claiming it will build and fly rockets that it never actually does build and fly. Remember Falcon1??? How many here remember Falcon5???? Does anybody here remember how many Falcon9s were supposed to have flown to ISS by now or how many tons they were contracted to deliver? (hint: more, and MANY more) Has everybody forgotten that Falcon9 Heavy was supposed to be operational by now but is still only on the drawing board? Do people forget that the current Falcon9 is VERY different from the Falcon9 that flew the first flights? Does even the new version meet the original promised performance specs for Falcon9? I like SpaceX and wish them well and LOVE the fact that they are putting flood lights on the lazy, bloated, over-priced and under-innovating traditional rocket builders BUT this does not change the fact that they have not provided any evidence yet that they will be able to build such a giant rocket, deliver it on ANY schedule, fly it on ANY schedule or have it perform anywhere near to the specs. IF SpaceX beats NASA into space with a super-heavy rocket it will likely NOT be because SpaceX has met its promises but rather because NASA and Boeing have wallowed in incompetence and slipped their schedules so badly that they end-up falling behind Musk (as opposed to Musk beating them by being excellent and speeding-up to overtake them). Sadly, THIS is the scenario that we have the evidence to support.

 

Re:This coin has two sides

[0123456]

Just imagine the missions you could fly by having NASA park a mars transit vehicle in orbit and SpaceX dock a massive fuelled Earth departure stage to it, perhaps with the crew flying up to it aboard a DreamChaser launched on an Atlas (Maximizing the non-crew related weight the heavies could loft).

Now imagine the missions you could fly by taking the billions of dollars that SLS launch will cost and flying dozens of Falcon Heavies instead.

If your goal is to explore and colonize the solar system, there is no rational case for SLS if Falcon Heavy works. It will launch a similar, or larger, payload for vastly less money, so launching anything on SLS is just burning cash that could have been spent on something useful.

Re:This coin has two sides

[Mysticalfruit]

Let me be the first to let you in on a secret... Rocket science is hard. Last time I checked, the Falcon9 is racking up an impressive reliability record. Yeah, he wants to launch lots of them... which would you rather have, a ramshackle build an launch as fast as you can damn the torpedoes, oh well if a couple blow up or a systematic engineering driven approach to build a simple, ultra reliable, reuseable launch system.

I don't know of a single launch system that's <i>ever</i> been on time. When managers sit down with powerpoint and make up launch schedules and total tons lofted, they're just blowing smoke.

The only evidence they've provided is the fact that they've been modifying the stannis testing facility to test their mega rocket engine. Oh and that they've been building parts and testing them... you know doing engineering things.

This is a natural progression. They started with the Falcon1, then the Falcon9, now this. Yeah, it's going to be a long road, but Musk has proven himself capable of getting shit done. Not at your unrealistic speed.

Do I think SpaceX will launch a HLV? Yes. Will it be on schedule. Yes, because SpaceX won't commit to a schedule until they've got something tested. Will it require some serious engineering? Yes.

Now, how will this effect the thing Nasa is working on? Who knows. I wish NASA would get out of the business of launching things and focus more on the things being launched.

but, but, Benghazi...

[publiclurker]

or some other boringly predictable rant.

Re:but, but, Benghazi...

[Ol Olsoc]

or some other boringly predictable rant.

Argh - I forgot that one. I do understand though, that the faith based physics rocket launchsite hereafter known as the "Palindrome" will be based at the Cliven Bundy Ranch.

It will consist of approximately 500 million Estes rockets inside a drainpipe all timed to go off at once. Coupled with a lot of prayer, this should go like gangbusters.

The first test pilot will be Mitt Romney's dog - the one that traveled on top of his station wagon.

Nah

[publiclurker]

spoiled children have been ranting about the grownups making them act right ever since the dawn of recorded time.

RD-180 age, not so old

[hkultala]

RD-180 flew it's first flight in 2000, and it's based on RD-170 which flew it's first flight in 1987.

So not designed in seventies.

AK-26 / NK-33 (used in Antares rocket) is the engine developed in sixties and manufactured in seventies.

Re:RD-180 age, not so old

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Talking about ancient engines...what about RL10? ;-)

F1 is not the most powerful engine

[hkultala]

RD-170 is more powerful than F-1. Though it's multi-chamber engine.

Space shuttle solid boosters are also much more powerful than both F-1 and RD-170.

F-1 is the most powerful single-chamber liquid-fuel engine.

Re:Competition is good. (BUILD BIG !!!)

[lucien86]

Dou! The thing is if you want to put all this stuff into orbit -self running autonomous factories and so on - the first thing you will need is a bigger rocket - a much much bigger rocket. (like 100 or 500 tons to GEO or more) What we really need for the expansion into space whichever way we do it is a rebuild and reimagining of something like the old 'Sea Dragon' project. If you want to move a lot of cargo (or hundreds of passengers) you need to build big.. Its Simple!!!

Two Rockets to Nowhere?

[Squidlips]

Even more motivation to defund SLS...