5 ms·
>just shy of the SLS's 70,000 kg. Is the SLS system even worth it anymore? They are using repurposed 1970's shuttle era technology at massively inflated costs.
by aphextron 9y ago
>just shy of the SLS's 70,000 kg.
Is the SLS system even worth it anymore? They are using repurposed 1970's shuttle era technology at massively inflated costs. To be fair, no one could have possibly foreseen the quantum leap in rocket technology SpaceX has made over the past 8 years since the SLS was designed. But it's beginning to seem more and more like a government welfare program for Boeing rather than an effective launch system.
- dotancohen 9y agoBoeing and ULA became complacent without competition. The same would likely happen to SpaceX if Boeing didn't have a heavy launch vehicle to rival the Falcon Heavy. Like most things associated with manned space exploration, the tangential benefits of keeping Boeing and USA in operation far outweigh the direct cost and direct benefit.
- crush-n-spread 9y agoRegarding SpaceX potential complacency, I think Elon's insanity would prevent that from ever happening. The problem with Boeing and ULA is that they don't have Elon at the helm, just lobbyists and conservative engineers. Better to give all the money to SpaceX and let SpaceX's momentum get us to Mars even faster IMO.
- Ericson2314 9y agoLet's...not rely on that? Bad gamble as a tax payer.
- crush-n-spread 9y agoYou can think what you want. But if you're perceptive and think really hard about the individuals at the front of companies, and you've spent time thinking about Elon Musk, it's really clear that he will never stop until someone assassinates him. The guy had a dad who psychologically tortured him, he got thrown down stairs by gangs of blacks in apartheid South Africa, and he completely detached himself from any social connections when he was 17 by moving to Canada. The guy's only reason to live is to fulfill his dreams that he gained from reading every single science fiction book that existed. Anyway you can think what you want but I know that he's not like the other CEOs that are career CEOs. He's on a mission fueled by intense hardship and retribution
- planteen 9y agoNobody lives forever. Assassination isn't the only possibility for untimely death when you are around rockets. If Elon passes away, is it possible the successor will "milk the cow" without funding R&D? Yes. Putting all eggs in one basket is unwise.
- simonh 9y agoFunding hugely expensive non-reusable technology, based on 70s Shuttle components, from traditional cost-plus contractors is not the way to put pressure on SpaceX. That will come from Blue Origin, and almost certainly the Russians and Chinese. It's unlikely they will sit by and leave reusability a US/SpaceX exclusive capability.
- Symmetry 9y agoI wouldn't bet on Russia and China still has a lot of catching up to do. If we're talking about putting stuff in orbit cheaply I wouldn't rule out India but there are also a host of companies with small rockets that show some promise. And ULA has a good story about their work on in-space reuse of rockets even if they aren't going to be reusing boosters any time soon.
- simonh 9y agoI'm actually quite bullish about Boeing, Lockheed and the other big space contractors even if SpaceX and BO (ho, ho) do eat their lunch on boosters. If access to space costs peanuts, companies and governments are going to want to put a heck of a lot more stuff up there. That means someone is going to have to build it all. Even if SpaceX themselves have no interest in going to The Moon, they're not going to say no to a contract to put a Lockheed/ Boeing/ etc NASA funded Moon mission into orbit for them.
- greglindahl 9y agoIt's worth noting that Boeing's satellite division already did a special design of an all-electric-propulsion GEO satellite, which can launch 2 at a time on Falcon 9 and reduce launch costs even further. They've sold and launched 2 pairs so far.
- lambdadmitry 9y agoStrike Russians from that list. Angara isn't ready yet and not heavy at all, there are no other launchers in the works and the industry is in shambles.
- nickik 9y agoWhy would you fund the SLS then? That makes no sense. If they want to keep ULA around they should tell them to hurry up on the Vulcan Rocket. Then they can throw them a couple of flights.
- woodandsteel 9y ago>Boeing and ULA became complacent without competition. The same would likely happen to SpaceX if Boeing didn't have a heavy launch vehicle to rival the Falcon Heavy. So are you saying Musk would just sit back and collect money from Falcon Heavy for the rest of his life? No, he is planning to go to Mars, so SpaceX is going to advance the technology as fast as it can. Were you really unaware of that? Or perhaps you work for ULA.
- grinich 9y agoSpaceX innovation has come from grit and many changes to manufacturing optimization. I wouldn't call it a quantum leap since the engine designs are effectively the same as 50 years ago. Not saying Merlin isn't impressive (it's amazing) but chemical rocket technology really hasn't changed at a fundamental level. Creating methane on a non-Earth body and using that to launch spacecraft would be a different story. ;)
- kuschku 9y agoCorrect. SpaceX engines are very old, unsophisticated designs — SpaceX prefers to spend more time on the rest of the rocket. If you want to see the most advanced rocket engine on the planet, look at Arianespace's Vulcain instead. But it can't be used for vertical landings in the current version.
- ge96 9y agoWhat about Aerospike engines? haha nah, those things are just weird though wedges instead of delhaaval nozzles
- nickik 9y agoWhat are you talking about Vulcain is just a hydrolox gas-generator cycle. SpaceX Raptor engine, BlueOrigin BE-4, Space Shuttle Main Engine and a number of others are far more impressive then the Vulcain.
- kuschku 9y agoI give you Raptor and BE-4, but Vulcain is definitely a lot more interesting than Merlin and the Space Shuttle engines.
- nickik 9y agoWhy? SSME is the highest performance engine ever, it a fuel rich staged combustion. Marlin is mostly interesting because of its thrust-to-weight ratio, but there I might agree with you.
- lmm 9y agoBear in mind that the Falcon Heavy was supposed to fly 2-3 years ago. At this point I'm starting to wonder whether it ever will.
- thomassnielsen 9y agoThere are many reasons for the delay, one of which is Elon Time™, but the previously mentioned improvements to F9 and being able to launch many payloads with it instead is also among them. As to when it will fly, I expect by the end of the year. They have finally begun static firing actual rocket cores recently, including the heavily redesigned (and another reason for delays) center core.
- Symmetry 9y agoI was pessimistic a few months ago but they've got Falcon Heavy cores on test stands now so it shouldn't be long now.
- greglindahl 9y agoThis is part of it: “Falcon Heavy is one of those things that at first it sounded easy,” Musk said. “We’ll just take two first stages and use them as strap-on boosters. And like, actually no, this is crazy hard, and required a redesign of the center core, and a ton of additional hardware. It was actually shockingly difficult to go from a single core to a triple-core vehicle.” http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-falcon-heavy-with-two-flight-proven-boosters-this-year/ http://spacenews.com/spacex-to-launch-falcon-heavy-with-two-...
- nickik 9y agoIt has literally been built and tested. The hardware is ready and just waiting for the launch pads. The major reason why Falcon Heavy was delayed for so long is that they were able to make major improvements on the F9. It would not have made much sense to work on a more complicated rocket when there was so much potential in F9. Falcon Heavy was developed for a pittance compared to the SLS. Even if its delayed another 3 years the SLS would not make a lick of sense.
- gozur88 9y agoSpaceX has managed to get such a big boost to the F9's performance, they can already do much of what they originally intended to do with Falcon Heavy. Is it really going to be cheaper to loft sats with a reusable FH when a disposable F9 will do the trick? I'm skeptical.
- nickik 9y agoThe SLS was never worth it. It is a program so absurdly expensive that its hard to even come to grips with the numbers. However, in defense of the SLS 70000kg is the minimum requirement, the rocket will lift more like 80000kg. Even now it would be cheaper to cancel it. For just the the SLS budget of the next 2 years SpaceX could easily build them the BFR. They could have three different super-heavy boosters from three different companies for the price of the SLS. > To be fair, no one could have possibly foreseen the quantum leap in rocket technology SpaceX has made over the past 8 years since the SLS was designed. It was foreseen. They wanted to gather proposals both from inside and outside of NASA because NASA had already realized that it might be much cheaper. They had evaluate how much SpaceX had spend on development and concluded that they would have spent about 10X more. Non of these investigation were pushed and the SLS 'proposal' was selected. Interestingly another group inside NASA (the only other proposal) want to go back to the F-1 engine. > But it's beginning to seem more and more like a government welfare program for Boeing rather than an effective launch system. It was always that. Since its inception everybody called it the Senate Launch System. NASA actually did not want to build it, the Senate forced them and specifically required them to use specific tech. Its nothing but a 20+ Billion pork program.
- valuearb 9y agoIt's hard to imagine they'll build bigger versions that the 70,000 kg one. They are way behind schedule on the first version, and still don't have a compelling mission commitment. There is no doubt they could send some pretty large payloads to Mars with the SLS, esp. the later block designs. The question is whether congress is going to commit to the tens of billions to build those designs and actually launch manned missions to other planets or the moon with them.