Slashdot Mirror
NASA 'Will Eventually' Retire Its New Mega-Rocket if SpaceX, Blue Origin Can Safely Launch Their Own Powerful Rockets (businessinsider.com)
NASA is building a giant rocket ship to return astronauts to the moon and, later on, ferry the first crews to and from Mars. But agency leaders are already contemplating the retirement of the Space Launch System (SLS), as the towering and yet-to-fly government rocket is called, and the Orion space capsule that'll ride on top. From a report: NASA is anticipating the emergence of two reusable and presumably more affordable mega-rockets that private aerospace companies are creating. Those systems are the Big Falcon Rocket (BFR), which is being built by Elon Musk's SpaceX; and the New Glenn, a launcher being built by Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin. "I think our view is that if those commercial capabilities come online, we will eventually retire the government system, and just move to a buying launch capacity on those [rockets]," Stephen Jurczyk, NASA's associate administrator, told Business Insider at The Economist Space Summit on November 1. However, NASA may soon find itself in a strange position, since at least one of the two company's systems may beat SLS back to the moon -- and possibly be the first to reach Mars.
NASA should reallocate the billions of dollars which are being spent on a launch system which nobody expects to be useful or affordable and instead use those billions to put out RFPs for milestone missions that will further incentivize those private industry projects to get off the ground. NASA clearly cannot afford to just blow money on SLS and also pay to perform the space missions that would be required to do useful things in space.
NASA should be moving the ball forward, not reinventing the wheel for every mission.
Just saying. Because "if those commercial capabilities come online" doesn't mean the same as "when those commercial capabilities come online". It means he doubts that they will come online.
Which honestly is just reasonable. Especially BFS (SpaceX) as a fully and quickly reusable spacecraft that at the same time is a high-performance low-mass second stage still is more of a dream than a plan. Yes, SpaceX is building some tank components as test articles, they have fired the first engine prototypes but everything else (from reentry aerodynamics to heat shield) is an ongoing R&D effort, not something you just have to build and fly. They're still changing the design all the time, with Musk teasing a "radical change" just a few days ago. They will only really start building this thing when the design is fully nailed down and it doesn't look like that at all.
Anyway, the silent agreement between all the old players still seems to be "I will believe it when I see it" and they will be happy with that for quite a few years I guess.
Corporations already build the SLS for NASA. Do think NASA has a production facility somewhere? Their point is, the SLS corporations are charging ridiculously high prices compared to the commercial rockets.
Everyone involved with the SLS project have shown nothing but sheer incompetence. The "shuttle-derived launcher" concept dates back to the 80s. Shuttle-C in '87, NLS in '91, Constellation in '05, Jupiter in '08, and finally SLS in '10. They're cobbling together existing engines (literally raiding the Shuttle parts bin), existing boosters (from a Shuttle upgrade that was designed and built but never flew), scaled-up tanks, and an off-the-shelf upper stage. The only really new thing is the Orion capsule, which is somehow the component closest to being flight-ready.
SLS is never going to fly more than once. They might do a single test flight just to "prove" the money wasn't wasted, but no, the money was wasted. They're still a year and a half out from their uncrewed first test, and I all but guarantee it will be delayed.
BFR design started in 2012. Brand-new engines, using a fairly novel propellant (methalox) and cycle (full-flow staged combustion). They started testing them in 2016. "Hop" tests of the upper stage are supposed to start next year, with the scheduled first flight in 2020, and first crewed flight in 2023. That schedule will probably slip as well (this *is* SpaceX), but at this point it's a question of who's going to slip more: the people who went from an overgrown hobby rocket to the biggest launch company on the planet in a decade, or the ones who've spent thirty years talking about taking Shuttle parts and building a normal rocket with them?
See?!! Orin Hatch retires and this happens!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Cancelling SLS is long overdue - but without it, what is NASA's mission when it comes to space? This is a bigger question than most people think it is. SLS is a continuation of NASA's traditional support and funding of industry developed boosters. When the first Falcon 9 landed successfully, I would argue that this piece of NASA's ongoing mandate just became obsolete. Another part of NASA's history is supporting the ISS, I hope that in a few years ISS will become more commercial and government support will become less of an operator and more of a customer of ISS resources.
So, what is NASA's mission when it comes to space?
Deep space probes will continue being something NASA builds and supports. From the big hardware perspective they should be looking at things that industry isn't and utilizing their government connections. I would argue that one of the things would be nuclear engines for deep space travel - a very high isp engine (let's target 10x current engines or 5,000+s) mated to an interplanetary "taxi" would significantly reduce travel times to Mars, asteroids and outer planets with great utility, even if it only provided transport for unmanned probes.
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
The American taxpayer should never be in the business of enriching for profit companies.
Here is the logical endpoint of your position: The government must make its own computers, tools, cars, and even pulp its own paper.
Quite obviously that all is insane - so why do you carry that same philosophy to space flight, where a number of private companies can deliver space flight more cheaply AND safely than NASA can?
The very nature of what NASA does means private companies will always be superior, because they will be handling vastly more launches which means they need to be reliable in a way NASA has never had to be, along with volume that reduces costs in a way NASA cannot match.
NASA can play some useful roles in helping with launch facilities but at this point it makes ZERO sense for NASA to be building rockets, they should be building more advanced spacecraft that can reach space on commercial space delivery systems.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Seems like a great idea to outsource to third parties for everything.
If it's less expensive why not? I mean, I suppose you could decide to let the taxpayers keep all of their money and not spend anything, but once you've decided to spend, find the least expensive option.
I'm sure that you change your own oil, do your own electrical wiring, grow all of your own food, prepare your own medications and remedies, assemble your own furniture, and so on, but the rest of us poor bastards are going to need to outsource a lot of what we do to third parties. We beg your understanding on this matter.
Given the fact that the Private Sector is doing so well developing these systems, NASA should step back and be setting standards for such critical systems such as Life Support, Power, Communications, Docking facilities, etc.
How the private companies get people and stuff to space can be left up to them. But once it's up there, these things must be interchangeable between vendors for routine and emergency situations.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
The SLS is a completely new system. It's currently discussed to scrap the demo flight and put crew on the very first flight of an unproven rocket.
Falcon 9 is fully man-rated. Try reading the news!
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
It's currently discussed to scrap the demo flight and put crew on the very first flight of an unproven rocket.
No it's not. Trump asked them to do that (and with them wasting so damn much time I actually agree with him) but of course they were all like, "No! We can't do anything that might jeopardize our plans to delay this program indefinitely!"
NASA's manned space program is a make-work project on a massive scale. They have no intention of ever launching anyone.
SLS is not completely new. It is basically a rehash of Space Shuttle (STS) engines. The only reason it is still around is Congressional support bought and paid for by the STS/SLS contractors.
SLS is a boondoggle just like the Space Shuttle was a boondoggle. We should be supporting a competitive commercial launch environment, not building a one-launch-a-year pork project that will probably turn in to a no-launch-ever pork project.
And while I don't work on launch systems, I am a NASA systems engineer, so I do consider myself an expert.
Of course, you ignore that SpaceX is completely blowing off the engineering rigor that NASA demands for human spaceflight. It's easy to get the congress to tell USAF to pencil whip shit, we'll see if NASA will do the same thing with people onboard.
Jesus... NASA lost two space shuttles full of astronauts for all their engineering rigor.
And I even fixed your spelling of "engineering".
Big Falcon Rocket (BFR)
See you need to be rich so you can name your own stuff.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
You know that every single rocket that NASA has ever launched was built by a corporation under contract, right?
Every.
Single.
One.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
I have told it!
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
It is long past time that NASA got out of the business as a design and launch agency and become more of a regulatory agency like the FAA. NASA should have a probe and research but they should let the active launches go to private companies.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Seriously, FH is already a bigger launcher than New Glenn in terms of mass. And SX can build a bigger hammerhead to handle larger volumes if needed.
Though I guess having all 3 running would be reason enough for SLS to drop out.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Design is ready, it just needs certification flights. Middle of next year IS close for these kinds of things.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Not only can't they fly "a few times a year", but as I understand it, they wouldn't even have the capability to build more than two per year without some serious investment in manufacturing capacity.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
You mean the NASA Michoud Assembly Facility? Actually THEY DO.
But yeah the building is allocated to different private contractors to do the actual work.
I think the facilities there themselves are important to retain because they're strategically located if you want to ship large components from anywhere connected to the Mississippi, assemble them, and ship them to Florida. Still, yeah, SLS sucks.
Ever heard of the Redstone Arsenal? At one point US government employees actually designed the systems although the work was often outsourced to contractors.
At one point US government employees actually designed the systems although the work was often outsourced to contractors.
although the work was often outsourced to contractors.
outsourced to contractors.
contractors
And who were those contractors? Jim's welding shop down the way, or big aerospace corporations?
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.