5 ms·

If SpaceX and friends can reliably launch cargo and eventually humans into LEO, why can't NASA focus on what to put into space, rather than how to get there? I'

by zrail 15y ago

If SpaceX and friends can reliably launch cargo and eventually humans into LEO, why can't NASA focus on what to put into space, rather than how to get there? I'm sure I don't understand the mechanics of it, but wouldn't it be possible to put up a few smaller cargo carriers containing fuel and pieces of a trans-mars ship and assemble it in orbit?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
timroman 15y ago
I think the problem is that the things NASA wants to send into orbit are much larger than what the commercial space industry is planning to send into orbit. That's why NASA is taking the lead and building a vehicle specifically designed for large loads rather than people or satellites.
- Udo 15y ago
  I disagree. Commercial launch systems are just beginning to unfold and for example SpaceX has already announced plans for heavy lift versions in the very near future. Contrast this with the SLS, which is the umpteenth attempt at rediscovering how the mysterious and ancient Saturn V worked, and which will probably be cancelled within three years without ever producing something that can actually get off the launch pad. Programs like these are completely superfluous and most people involved know it. NASA is not even hiding what this project is for: it's a job program, says so right there in the article. And when they say "jobs", they don't refer to real companies like SpaceX or even themselves, they mean huge defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
krschultz 15y ago
The proposed payload for the NASA SLS is 64,000kg-120,000kg while the Falcon 9 is 10,450 kg. The proposed payload for the Falcon Heavy is 53,000 kg. So to match 1 SLS launch you are looking at 6-12 Falcon 9s (which have flown) or 2-3 Falcon Heavy launches (which have not flown). I don't think it's a stretch to say that using Space X would be significantly cheaper to get the same weight up there because the design work is already done. You probably would want to use the Falcon Heavy because you don't want to piece together 10 different things, but that is just 3 Falcon 9s strapped together which I can't imagine is as expensive as designing a new launch vehicle from scratch. You are absolutely right that at this point NASA needs to get out of the launching game. Use the tax money for payloads whether that is a manned mission or robots.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  "So to match 1 SLS launch you are looking at 6-12 Falcon 9s (which have flown) or 2-3 Falcon Heavy launches (which have not flown)." It is my impression that SpaceX anticipates doing exactly that sort of thing.
  - FrojoS 15y ago
    Elon Musk has said in public, that they hope to build an ultra heavy lift vehicle which would be more powerful than the Saturn V.
    - berntb 15y ago
      That is a direct competition to this new NASA job program. And will probably cost 10-20% per lbs to orbit? So NASA now has incentives to kill SpaceX, since they'll never be able to compete (except with political weight)? :-( Edit: OTOH, I guess NASA will never make the SLS fly anyway...
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- jsmcgd 15y ago
  Exactly. Is this not very similar to the program that was recently cancelled? Reading this actually made me quite angry, and I'm someone who is a fan of new technology, especially new space technology. What new ground is being covered here? "President Obama challenged us to be bold and dream big, and that's exactly what we are doing at NASA". I have to disagree. This looks a lot like NASA is about to reinvent the Saturn V. Surely it's best for NASA to completely draw a line and vow to never develop any more (conventional) launch vehicles. In orbit assembly presumably is exactly the kind of thing they should be investigating. Unless of course they plan to do all their deep space exploration via a single rocket launch?
drzaiusapelord 15y ago
Sure, but something that can assemble things in space (as well as raw materials) is going to be heavy and if its heavy its going to need a heavy launcher. Fuel is heavy too. At the end of the day, you need a powerful rocket to do the heavy lifting. NASA doesn't want to turn into an agency that just gives seed money to SpaceX and wants its own heavy human-rated lifter and capsule. Not to mention, there's political will for NASA to continue being in the launch business and for good reason. SpaceX could land a monopoly on heavy launches and could raise its prices, get bought by a foreign power, go bankrupt, use shoddy designs, or who knows what else. edit: really -2 moderation? Downvoting for disgreeing now? Wow HN.
- krschultz 15y ago
  It's not seed money, it's buying from a private contracter. The Air Force doesn't build planes, it buys planes. The Navy doesn't build ships, it buys ships. The Army doesn't make tanks, it buys tanks. Now part of that process involves a lot of military oversight and specification to make sure things are up to their standards. I know that the military is involved in the design of systems from Day 1. But all of those things are made by private corporations and they have no commercial equivalent. NASA operates this way already to a large extent. Boeing, Lockheed, etc are primary contractors that design & build a lot of this stuff. What NASA is going through right now is a switch from that model to using straight Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) stuff. The government buys plenty of things off the shelf with no motification or input if it meets their needs. Space X just happens to provide lift capability instead of laptops, but in the end it really is no different as long as they're not launching people.
- hga 15y ago
  "use shoddy designs" Given that NASA's shoddy design of the Shuttle has killed two of them along with their crews, somehow I don't find that to be a strong argument. If SpaceX is going to "land a monopoly on heavy launches" then by definition their vehicles will be at least somewhat reliable.
  - drzaiusapelord 15y ago
    Call me when dragon has gone to space as many times as the shuttle and we'll compare safety records, thanks.
bfe 15y ago
It's still much cheaper and easier in the long run to build one launcher big enough to do a straight shot from Earth to Mars or other target. You have all the assembly done on Earth and put all the lift capability into a single hyperbolic trajectory straight to the target, instead of doing on-orbit assembly (which we know how to do but is still outrageously harder) and devoting a lot of launch capability into putting mass in a circular orbit in an orbital plane around the Earth that's constrained by the launch site latitude, only to have to counteract a lot of that Delta V to put that mass onto a new hyperbolic escape trajectory along a plane defined between Earth and the target once it's put together. I believe SpaceX is planning on developing a still more powerful heavy launch rocket that could shoot human crewed missions straight to Mars in a single shot. The Falcon Heavy could send a substantial payload to the Mars surface.
- StuffMaster 15y ago
  Another benefit of larger rockets is the width of the components they can carry. I'm no expert, but larger spacecraft modules seem like a big win for long duration missions.

by zrail 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

timroman 15y ago

I think the problem is that the things NASA wants to send into orbit are much larger than what the commercial space industry is planning to send into orbit. That's why NASA is taking the lead and building a vehicle specifically designed for large loads rather than people or satellites.

Udo 15y ago
I disagree. Commercial launch systems are just beginning to unfold and for example SpaceX has already announced plans for heavy lift versions in the very near future. Contrast this with the SLS, which is the umpteenth attempt at rediscovering how the mysterious and ancient Saturn V worked, and which will probably be cancelled within three years without ever producing something that can actually get off the launch pad. Programs like these are completely superfluous and most people involved know it. NASA is not even hiding what this project is for: it's a job program, says so right there in the article. And when they say "jobs", they don't refer to real companies like SpaceX or even themselves, they mean huge defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

krschultz 15y ago

The proposed payload for the NASA SLS is 64,000kg-120,000kg while the Falcon 9 is 10,450 kg. The proposed payload for the Falcon Heavy is 53,000 kg. So to match 1 SLS launch you are looking at 6-12 Falcon 9s (which have flown) or 2-3 Falcon Heavy launches (which have not flown). I don't think it's a stretch to say that using Space X would be significantly cheaper to get the same weight up there because the design work is already done. You probably would want to use the Falcon Heavy because you don't want to piece together 10 different things, but that is just 3 Falcon 9s strapped together which I can't imagine is as expensive as designing a new launch vehicle from scratch. You are absolutely right that at this point NASA needs to get out of the launching game. Use the tax money for payloads whether that is a manned mission or robots.

burgerbrain 15y ago
"So to match 1 SLS launch you are looking at 6-12 Falcon 9s (which have flown) or 2-3 Falcon Heavy launches (which have not flown)." It is my impression that SpaceX anticipates doing exactly that sort of thing.
- FrojoS 15y ago
  Elon Musk has said in public, that they hope to build an ultra heavy lift vehicle which would be more powerful than the Saturn V.
  - berntb 15y ago
    That is a direct competition to this new NASA job program. And will probably cost 10-20% per lbs to orbit? So NASA now has incentives to kill SpaceX, since they'll never be able to compete (except with political weight)? :-( Edit: OTOH, I guess NASA will never make the SLS fly anyway...
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
jsmcgd 15y ago
Exactly. Is this not very similar to the program that was recently cancelled? Reading this actually made me quite angry, and I'm someone who is a fan of new technology, especially new space technology. What new ground is being covered here? "President Obama challenged us to be bold and dream big, and that's exactly what we are doing at NASA". I have to disagree. This looks a lot like NASA is about to reinvent the Saturn V. Surely it's best for NASA to completely draw a line and vow to never develop any more (conventional) launch vehicles. In orbit assembly presumably is exactly the kind of thing they should be investigating. Unless of course they plan to do all their deep space exploration via a single rocket launch?

drzaiusapelord 15y ago

Sure, but something that can assemble things in space (as well as raw materials) is going to be heavy and if its heavy its going to need a heavy launcher. Fuel is heavy too. At the end of the day, you need a powerful rocket to do the heavy lifting. NASA doesn't want to turn into an agency that just gives seed money to SpaceX and wants its own heavy human-rated lifter and capsule. Not to mention, there's political will for NASA to continue being in the launch business and for good reason. SpaceX could land a monopoly on heavy launches and could raise its prices, get bought by a foreign power, go bankrupt, use shoddy designs, or who knows what else. edit: really -2 moderation? Downvoting for disgreeing now? Wow HN.

krschultz 15y ago
It's not seed money, it's buying from a private contracter. The Air Force doesn't build planes, it buys planes. The Navy doesn't build ships, it buys ships. The Army doesn't make tanks, it buys tanks. Now part of that process involves a lot of military oversight and specification to make sure things are up to their standards. I know that the military is involved in the design of systems from Day 1. But all of those things are made by private corporations and they have no commercial equivalent. NASA operates this way already to a large extent. Boeing, Lockheed, etc are primary contractors that design & build a lot of this stuff. What NASA is going through right now is a switch from that model to using straight Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) stuff. The government buys plenty of things off the shelf with no motification or input if it meets their needs. Space X just happens to provide lift capability instead of laptops, but in the end it really is no different as long as they're not launching people.
hga 15y ago
"use shoddy designs" Given that NASA's shoddy design of the Shuttle has killed two of them along with their crews, somehow I don't find that to be a strong argument. If SpaceX is going to "land a monopoly on heavy launches" then by definition their vehicles will be at least somewhat reliable.
- drzaiusapelord 15y ago
  Call me when dragon has gone to space as many times as the shuttle and we'll compare safety records, thanks.

bfe 15y ago

It's still much cheaper and easier in the long run to build one launcher big enough to do a straight shot from Earth to Mars or other target. You have all the assembly done on Earth and put all the lift capability into a single hyperbolic trajectory straight to the target, instead of doing on-orbit assembly (which we know how to do but is still outrageously harder) and devoting a lot of launch capability into putting mass in a circular orbit in an orbital plane around the Earth that's constrained by the launch site latitude, only to have to counteract a lot of that Delta V to put that mass onto a new hyperbolic escape trajectory along a plane defined between Earth and the target once it's put together. I believe SpaceX is planning on developing a still more powerful heavy launch rocket that could shoot human crewed missions straight to Mars in a single shot. The Falcon Heavy could send a substantial payload to the Mars surface.

StuffMaster 15y ago
Another benefit of larger rockets is the width of the components they can carry. I'm no expert, but larger spacecraft modules seem like a big win for long duration missions.