8 ms·

China appears to be accelerating development of a super-heavy lift rocket

87 points by AliCollins 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
- fenk85 8y ago
  I doubt there be another space race * The US is not able to provide clean drinking water (Flint) or basic healthcare * the current anti-science administration would not even care to engage in a space race unless it enriches the Russian mafia/Putin who controls the Puppet in Chief * how would it be financed? selling more debt from China
maxxxxx 8y ago
I find it interesting how rocket development speed seems to have slowed down. It took the US a little more than 10 years to go from barely being able to launch any rocket to the Saturn V. With all the experience we have now it still takes more than 10 years to develop a new heavy lift rocket. Considering that usually everything is late this rocket will probably fly after 2030.
- martin-adams 8y ago
  Sometimes I wonder if it's slow like that to recoup the investment of the existing rockets in use. You don't want to make them obsolete too soon until it's make a profit.
  - WhompingWindows 8y ago
    One piece of evidence may be to look at the falcon series. I wouldn't say they slowed development of the series so that they could use their older, already established versions. In fact, they designed block 5 to be even better on re-usability, which would increase profit margins by decreasing cost of refurbishment. At the same time, they rendered many of their pending falcon heavy flights unnecessary, as they continually incrementally improved the falcon's payload capacity and thrust. If anything, that may have been a boon economically, because using FH for those same launches would require waiting many additional months to receive that revenue. So, overall, I'd say SpaceX specifically was pushing towards better margin products pro-actively, rather than dragging their feet on R&D to milk an older cash cow.
- TkTech 8y ago
  The space race was a one-time oddity. During it's peek NASA used nearly 4.5% of the federal budget[1]. The Soviets poured so much into it, it practically bankrupt them. The military wanted better ICBMs, the government wanted to win the race. No one ever dreamed of making it profitable. SpaceX for comparison only relieved about 100m a year[2], or 0.0026% of the federal budget. Boeing and other groups have similar funding for their space programs. They also, as a commercial company, must be profitable (or try) which isn't as easy as it sounds. Rocket development is slower even with better modern tooling because we just don't put any money into it anymore. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA [2] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-annual-budget-of-SpaceX https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-annual-budget-of-SpaceX
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    That makes sense. I guess with enough money we could develop a rocket much faster.
  - bloopernova 8y ago
    As someone who grew up in the 70s and 80s, I still yearn wistfully for the space race's unity and determination of purpose. It's hardly appropriate for HN, but I wonder how differently the world would look if NASA had received a much larger budget. Probably taken from the US Military's allocation, how much would the loss of half of the US Navy have affected world politics and conflicts? Or what would the USA look like without the Iraq war of 2003 onward? (I'm trying to be as neutral as possible in my language here, I don't want to start a flamewar about US and geopolitics!) I doubt we'd have gotten further into space as some of us would like, but I do think we'd have already proven that asteroid mining can work, and some people would be living multi-year tenures on the Moon. Whether we'd have bootstrapped our way to mining and using nuclear materials in space is doubtful, but certainly possible. (in other words, building nuclear rockets that have never been close to Earth's biosphere, which would open up large parts of the Solar System for human exploration)
    - mdorazio 8y ago
      Check out this amazing plan from Rockwell produced in the 80s to see what that might have looked like [1]. I have a print out of it I like to look at once in a while to remind me what could have been possible if we had different priorities. [1] http://i.imgur.com/ntBHE.png http://i.imgur.com/ntBHE.png
- taneq 8y ago
  To be fair, that was just scaling existing tech without regard for cost. You can make a lot of 'progress' in a short time that way if your pockets are deep enough. If you were looking at $/kg to orbit I'd suspect that we've made far faster progress recently than ever before.
- Rooster61 8y ago
  The development of the Saturn V rocket in reality took much longer than 10 years if you factor in previous research. Many of the principles that made that rocket fly were hashed out by Nazi German engineers working on the V2 rocket, specifically concepts developed by Werner Von Braun. After the war, he was integrated into what would eventually become NASA, and after helping develop the Jupiter line of rockets which the Saturn line was based on, ended up being appointed as the project chief behind the Saturn V. It's quite morbid that the technology that put man on the moon was originally intended to destroy life (developed by a particularly odious political regime no less), but that's how it turned out.
  - baq 8y ago
    Both rockets and knives are tools. Granted, rockets had more money to back up the military intent instead of scientific or exploratory, but at least they're here for the curious to use and not just for the generals.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  It took 10 years to go from Falcon 1 reaching orbit to Falcon Heavy reaching orbit.
grecy 8y ago
That's the first I have heard of SLS being ready as early as 2021. I wonder, when it comes online will NASA stop using SpaceX & ULA for space station supply/people missions?
- rgallagher27 8y ago
  Doubtful, the price of SLS is way too high for routine ISS supply missions
- sp332 8y ago
  Last month, the official date for the SLS was June 2020. https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/work-begins-on-rocket-engines-for-sls-flights-a-decade-from-now/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/work-begins-on-rocke... In 2017 they were saying it would be ready by 2019. Before that it was 2018. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/senior-official-nasa-will-delay-first-flight-of-new-sls-rocket-until-2019/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/senior-official-nasa...
- simonh 8y ago
  That would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Not many payloads destined for the ISS come in at 100 tonnes, especially crew capsules. SLS is an evolution of the heavy lifter from the Constellation programme, which included a separate intermediate rocket for crew and cargo missions to LEO, but that role was since filled by the Commercial Crew and COTS/CRS programmes.
- rtkwe 8y ago
  There's no real reason to stop using SpaceX and ULA unless they're going to start sending MUCH more to the ISS than those rockets can handle. SLS is really expensive per launch.
  - baq 8y ago
    Both the BFR and the New Armstrong, based on what is currently known about them, will be able to lift something better than the ISS (e.g. a Bigelow habitat) to orbit in a single launch for considerably less than either ISS or SLS.

87 points by AliCollins 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

fenk85 8y ago
I doubt there be another space race * The US is not able to provide clean drinking water (Flint) or basic healthcare * the current anti-science administration would not even care to engage in a space race unless it enriches the Russian mafia/Putin who controls the Puppet in Chief * how would it be financed? selling more debt from China

maxxxxx 8y ago

I find it interesting how rocket development speed seems to have slowed down. It took the US a little more than 10 years to go from barely being able to launch any rocket to the Saturn V. With all the experience we have now it still takes more than 10 years to develop a new heavy lift rocket. Considering that usually everything is late this rocket will probably fly after 2030.

martin-adams 8y ago
Sometimes I wonder if it's slow like that to recoup the investment of the existing rockets in use. You don't want to make them obsolete too soon until it's make a profit.
- WhompingWindows 8y ago
  One piece of evidence may be to look at the falcon series. I wouldn't say they slowed development of the series so that they could use their older, already established versions. In fact, they designed block 5 to be even better on re-usability, which would increase profit margins by decreasing cost of refurbishment. At the same time, they rendered many of their pending falcon heavy flights unnecessary, as they continually incrementally improved the falcon's payload capacity and thrust. If anything, that may have been a boon economically, because using FH for those same launches would require waiting many additional months to receive that revenue. So, overall, I'd say SpaceX specifically was pushing towards better margin products pro-actively, rather than dragging their feet on R&D to milk an older cash cow.
TkTech 8y ago
The space race was a one-time oddity. During it's peek NASA used nearly 4.5% of the federal budget[1]. The Soviets poured so much into it, it practically bankrupt them. The military wanted better ICBMs, the government wanted to win the race. No one ever dreamed of making it profitable. SpaceX for comparison only relieved about 100m a year[2], or 0.0026% of the federal budget. Boeing and other groups have similar funding for their space programs. They also, as a commercial company, must be profitable (or try) which isn't as easy as it sounds. Rocket development is slower even with better modern tooling because we just don't put any money into it anymore. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA [2] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-annual-budget-of-SpaceX https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-annual-budget-of-SpaceX
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  That makes sense. I guess with enough money we could develop a rocket much faster.
- bloopernova 8y ago
  As someone who grew up in the 70s and 80s, I still yearn wistfully for the space race's unity and determination of purpose. It's hardly appropriate for HN, but I wonder how differently the world would look if NASA had received a much larger budget. Probably taken from the US Military's allocation, how much would the loss of half of the US Navy have affected world politics and conflicts? Or what would the USA look like without the Iraq war of 2003 onward? (I'm trying to be as neutral as possible in my language here, I don't want to start a flamewar about US and geopolitics!) I doubt we'd have gotten further into space as some of us would like, but I do think we'd have already proven that asteroid mining can work, and some people would be living multi-year tenures on the Moon. Whether we'd have bootstrapped our way to mining and using nuclear materials in space is doubtful, but certainly possible. (in other words, building nuclear rockets that have never been close to Earth's biosphere, which would open up large parts of the Solar System for human exploration)
  - mdorazio 8y ago
    Check out this amazing plan from Rockwell produced in the 80s to see what that might have looked like [1]. I have a print out of it I like to look at once in a while to remind me what could have been possible if we had different priorities. [1] http://i.imgur.com/ntBHE.png http://i.imgur.com/ntBHE.png
taneq 8y ago
To be fair, that was just scaling existing tech without regard for cost. You can make a lot of 'progress' in a short time that way if your pockets are deep enough. If you were looking at $/kg to orbit I'd suspect that we've made far faster progress recently than ever before.
Rooster61 8y ago
The development of the Saturn V rocket in reality took much longer than 10 years if you factor in previous research. Many of the principles that made that rocket fly were hashed out by Nazi German engineers working on the V2 rocket, specifically concepts developed by Werner Von Braun. After the war, he was integrated into what would eventually become NASA, and after helping develop the Jupiter line of rockets which the Saturn line was based on, ended up being appointed as the project chief behind the Saturn V. It's quite morbid that the technology that put man on the moon was originally intended to destroy life (developed by a particularly odious political regime no less), but that's how it turned out.
- baq 8y ago
  Both rockets and knives are tools. Granted, rockets had more money to back up the military intent instead of scientific or exploratory, but at least they're here for the curious to use and not just for the generals.
greglindahl 8y ago
It took 10 years to go from Falcon 1 reaching orbit to Falcon Heavy reaching orbit.

grecy 8y ago

That's the first I have heard of SLS being ready as early as 2021. I wonder, when it comes online will NASA stop using SpaceX & ULA for space station supply/people missions?

rgallagher27 8y ago
Doubtful, the price of SLS is way too high for routine ISS supply missions
sp332 8y ago
Last month, the official date for the SLS was June 2020. https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/work-begins-on-rocket-engines-for-sls-flights-a-decade-from-now/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/work-begins-on-rocke... In 2017 they were saying it would be ready by 2019. Before that it was 2018. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/senior-official-nasa-will-delay-first-flight-of-new-sls-rocket-until-2019/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/senior-official-nasa...
simonh 8y ago
That would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Not many payloads destined for the ISS come in at 100 tonnes, especially crew capsules. SLS is an evolution of the heavy lifter from the Constellation programme, which included a separate intermediate rocket for crew and cargo missions to LEO, but that role was since filled by the Commercial Crew and COTS/CRS programmes.
rtkwe 8y ago
There's no real reason to stop using SpaceX and ULA unless they're going to start sending MUCH more to the ISS than those rockets can handle. SLS is really expensive per launch.
- baq 8y ago
  Both the BFR and the New Armstrong, based on what is currently known about them, will be able to lift something better than the ISS (e.g. a Bigelow habitat) to orbit in a single launch for considerably less than either ISS or SLS.