Its Moon, Mars, and Beyond Time Again!
President’s Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond (11 February 2004)
“The President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy is charged with making recommendations to the President on implementation of his vision outlined in the policy statement “A Renewed Spirit of Discovery” and in the President’s Budget Submission for Fiscal Year 2005. The commission will also advise NASA on the long-term implementation of the President’s vision.”
Vice President Pence to Lead National Space Council Meeting at Kennedy Space Center, White House
“Vice President Pence will lead the second meeting of the National Space Council at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. “Moon, Mars, and Worlds Beyond: Winning the Next Frontier” will include testimonials from leaders in the civil, commercial, and national security sectors about the importance of the United States’ space enterprise. The Vice President will conclude his visit with a tour of Kennedy Space Center.”
Moon, Mars, and Beyond 2.0, earlier post
At the risk of being “Nancy Negative”, this ain’t the first time at this rodeo for me.
“…government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
I think the better quote alternative here is, ” government is the problem and government is the solution.”
Eric, I respectfully disagree with you.
If NASA does pure research and development of technologies necessary to conquer space, and then turn them over to private enterprise for cost-effective implementation, I can live with your point.
If not, government involvement in civilian space exploration is a guaranteed extinction-level experience for our collective space exploration and commercial goals and interests.
The SLS path NASA is on is a perfect example of repeating the same solution, and expecting a different outcome. Yeah, I get that NASA is just following the directives of the pols in Washington. DC is mostly clueless about the value of space exploration, and will on schedule, fall back to “flags and footprints” over long-term planning and execution of a sustainable civilian space program.
SLS is fiscally and programatically unsustainable, and is a recognizable prescription for failure and disaster.
Again.
SLS is, but what I read is that after EM-1 the next 7 missions of SLS are to build the Deep Space Gateway and Deep Space Transport. The tech development for the propulsion, hab, and support of all of that are using Space Act Agreement contracting same as CCDev.
Also, at 1 SLS launch per year that timeline intersects with the development and projected availability of several heavy and super-heavy lifters built by International and commercial partners. There will be lots of opportunity to ditch SLS along the way and make the “Deep Space ISS” a mostly commercially built and supported system.
BTW…with SLS busy until 2030 and beyond building the DSG and DST, and the Delta IV Heavy fading into history, who’s going to lift all the robotic Planetary Science missions over the next decade? 😉 Lots of business for commercial heavy throwers to develop their systems into. Build it, then proof the design by lifting super-heavy comm SATs with lots of extra fuel and redundancy on board for longer lives. Then get contracts for geo-sync military payloads, and finally interplanetary robotic and crewed missions for whoever can afford them. All just in time to compete for DSG and DST versions of Commercial Resupply and Commercial Crew.
n i c e. love 2 pivot from the Moon to Mars to the Moon to Mars to the Moon to Mars to the Moon to Mars to the Moon
Kinda like whiplash.
It sure does, even to me, a youngin. It’s insanity… I think the NASA-industrial complex has found the ultimate way to become a near-permanent jobs program
There were only two real problems with the VSE. The first was when Dr. Griffin tossed out the advisory groups advice and playing chief engineer mandated the Constellation Solution. The other was when President Obama told us the Moon bored him, killed Constellation and said we needed to capture an asteroid for the astronauts to explore so someday in the distant future we could go to Mars.
So this is just correcting the 12 year dead-end detour those two took NASA on 🙂
#3 – Totally unaffordable in the context of Administration priorities.
Actually, Obama said in 2010 that NASA will be “sending astronauts to visit an asteroid … beyond the moon into deep space”. After NEO’s were assessed in the context of the limited capability of Orion, NASA morphed this into the infamous/idiotic “boulder retrieval” mission. As long as the robot parked the boulder 1 m “beyond the moon” within range of Orion’s crew, mission accomplished.
The issue with the NEO mission was SLS. Obama’s budget proposed that Constellation funds be put into a major technology development program ($2-3b per year on tech-dev!) With the asteroid mission just serving as a focal point.
Once Congress attached the new money hog to replace the old money hog, there was nothing left for the technological development necessary for ARM; and SLS/Orion is not capable of deep-space missions. ARRM came as a result of that.
Instead, Obama should have bitten the bullet and abandoned ARM immediately, then made a point, year after year, that there was no purpose for SLS (**); but given the shrill, hysterical reaction of people like TLM, I get the impression he didn’t want to spend one more cent of political capital on Space, with the exception of Commercial Crew.
** (Instead of Congress demanding that NASA tells them what the purpose of SLS is, they would be answered bluntly, there is none, we are just obeying your legislation. For once, just once, rub their noses in their own filth.)
The problem with President Obama killing SLS was that he was actually the one that proposed it.
https://www.nasa.gov/about/…
“Next, we will invest more than $3 billion to conduct research on an advanced “heavy lift rocket” — a vehicle to efficiently send into orbit
the crew capsules, propulsion systems, and large quantities of supplies needed to reach deep space. In developing this new vehicle, we will not only look at revising or modifying older models; we want to look at new designs, new materials, new technologies that will transform not just where we can go but what we can do when we get there. And we will finalize a rocket design no later than 2015 and then begin to build it.”
Something SLS opponents keep forgetting. So how would it have looked for President Obama to kill both a rocket and mission he proposed?
Also in terms of Commercial Crew, he didn’t spend any capital on it. It was something that Lori Graver drove through Congress and NASA. She sold it as an alternative to ISS now after President Obama killed Ares I.
“– a vehicle to efficiently send into orbit
the crew capsules, propulsion systems, and large quantities of supplies needed to reach deep space.”
That doesn’t sound like SLS. Well it sort of does except for the part about doing it efficiently 🙂
“In developing this new vehicle, we will not only look at revising or modifying older models; we want to look at new designs, new materials, new technologies”
Really that was the gist of Obama’s plan, to work on the technology that would enable next generation space vehicles. That’s the part that wound up being skipped, the only thing they seemed to hear was “revise or modify older models …. build big new rocket”
Sort of like the old Far Side cartoon depicting what dogs hear their owners say, “blah blah Ginger blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Ginger blah blah blah…”
President Obama called for a new Heavy Lift vehicle to replace the Ares V he killed under Constellation and he got one. If he didn’t like SLS he sure didn’t say anything about it, nor did his NASA Administrator. But note he called for the design to be ready by 2015. And NASA, under his Administrator, did meet that time table.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-…
Oct. 22, 2015
NASA Completes Critical Design Review for Space Launch System
So if you look at the space record of President Obama he basically killed the Constellation Program and the VSE, then made a speech in Florida (to keep the voters happy) explaining why and promising them federal aid to help with the Shuttle being closed down and great things in the distant future (ie SLS, Asteroid missions, Mars), and then he just walked away from NASA, other then submitting budgets that attempted to cut its funding, which Congress fought against. The record is there, including the Obama dip in NASA funding. Its on page 5 starting in 2010. It was only after his re-election when he stopped caring about deficits that it edged up again, but it is still lower in spending power then under the last year of the Bush Administration.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/spa…
If it wasn’t for Lori Graver taking advantage of the loss of Shuttle to push COTS/CCP at minimum funding we would be even worst off today. And remember COTS did start under President Bush in 2006.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/…
Indeed, you only need to read the rest of the speech: “Critical to deep space exploration will be the development of breakthrough propulsion systems and other advanced technologies. So I’m challenging NASA to break through these barriers. And we’ll give you the resources to break through these barriers.”
Note that “developing breakthrough propulsion systems” seems to exclude “recycling the actual engines taken off the old Orbiters.”
But also reading his budget proposal, in which they pushed for a new large liquid hydrocarbon (not hydrogen) engine. Something that the USAF is still trying to slip in under Congress’ radar. 8 years, $20+b wasted. And that was what the new “advanced” HLV was meant to be built around. Not Shuttle engines and SRBs.
Trying to twist that speech around to suggest that Obama came up with SLS is, frankly, not something that a literate human could honestly do. You have to so wilfully twist the words around that there’s no reasonable explanation other than deliberate lying.
[edit: I thought you were replying to Mr Baker. The original story was referring to the second President Bush.]
I think you’ve got the wrong Bush. He said thirty years, so he probably means the 1989 initiative and the subsequent Goldin [sic] era of spaceflight.
“The other was when President Obama told us the Moon bored him, killed Constellation and said we needed to capture an asteroid for the astronauts to explore”
LOL … ya right .. show me that in the actual budget he submitted for his kennedy speech, show me in HIS budget where he wanted an asteroid mission. Man you are freakin’ hilarious when you go into la la land.
A president submits a non binding budget proposal .. shelby and the alabama mafia could not twist enough arms to get funding for CON stellation and so a bi partisan congress sent a Act for President’s signature that did not include funding for the boondoggle..
You mean the 2010 budget proposal that killed Constellation and grounded NASA?
http://content.time.com/tim…
“The initiative, for now at least, is more about what NASA plans to cancel than what it plans to pursue. The six-year-old Constellation program, which had been focused on developing new boosters, Apollo-like orbiters and a 21st century lunar lander, all with the goal of making long-term stays on the moon possible, will be scrapped, after $9 billion and a single flight of the Ares 1 booster last October. The longer-term goal of venturing out to Mars is being tabled along with it.”
Followed by his proposal to freeze NASA spending for five years?
https://phys.org/news/2011-…
President Barack Obama on Monday proposed reining in expenses at NASA, sending a 2012 budget blueprint to Congress that calls for a five-year freeze on spending levels at the US space agency.”
“Nearly half of Obama’s proposed 2012 NASA budget — and for the next five years — is dedicated to space operations and exploration systems, including $2.9 billionfor the development of a heavy launcher and a space capsule intended for missions beyond low Earth orbit.”
BTW Heavy Lift Launcher is the SLS which he proposed in his 2010 Kennedy speech after he kill the Constellation Program in his 2010 budget proposal.
Note BTW how they match his original proposals for NASA as a Candidate before figured out that he had to win Florida?
https://www.wired.com/2007/…
“Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama released a new $18 billion education plan yesterday that he proposes to pay for by delaying the NASA Constellation program (to return humans to the
moon) five years.”
No, President Obama is the one who killed VSE, plain and simple. And who tried to gut NASA spending which Congress fought back against.
NON BINDING budget PROPOSALS do not KILL anything.. President Obama was against military spending, gosh if all he had to do was simply put a a big ZERO under miltiary and it all INSTANTLY would have been canceled I am surprised we still have a military at all.
CONGRESS FAILED to vote for funding.. do you understand that? Congress passed a funding ACT and sent that ACT to the President it contained NO funding for the CON program. That is the Act the President signed. They could have voted for funding just like they voted for funding the SLS and forced him to veto it .. they didn’t.
Meanwhile, a generation of engineers gets shafted. Again.
Yes, that is the really sad thing about having a space program prisoner to Washington politics. Is it any wonder that the best and brightest are going to work for SpaceX, Blue Origins, Bigelow Aerospace, etc.?
Best and brightest under 40. They dont want anyone older.
🙁 … 🙁 x infinity. Oh and its not just the current generation, but the loss of a significant portion of the next two who will not be inspired or see potential job in the associated failing projects, programs, industries.
Time to sell a paper again: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/a…
Thanks, it looks interesting. I need to get a copy. Have you ever looked at the ASCE Space and Earth Conferences? I have been publishing a stream of papers there the last few years on an evolutionary strategy for space settlements with revenues spinoffs in Earth applications.
https://earthspaceconf.mst….
I am working with actual lunar samples now, love Mars first, and am a great fan of Star Trek. But we have been down this unfocused, nebulous path before and one can see where it has gotten us to date. Mars still remains 30 years from now. The same as it was when I started working in the space program in 1993. The arguments are the same, the vision (if you can call it that) is the same, the prerequisites are the same.
Why would anyone expect anything different and what measurable facts are they basing such a belief on?
Oh and another good place to pitch my paper: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/a…
So you have no faith that the folks from Hawthorne will get someone to the Martian surface in the next fifteen years?
A fun fact SpaceX is 15 years old. They have come a long way from trying to launch the Falcon 1 at the Vandenberg SLC-3W pad. Fully expect they will attempt a Mars landing before the company turns 30 years old and before their CTO become unable to pass the physical for space flight.
Yes truly remarkable what SpaceX has accomplished in fifteen years, but some perspective is needed. A big part of their success was picking a good design early on and then developing it. They essentially created one launch vehicle and have been able to develop its capabilities beyond what many thought was possible. I’m not minimizing it, it was a fantastic technical achievement.
Secondly they have built an unmanned cargo capsule. Pressurized, recoverable, and reusable. No small feat.
But what is ahead is daunting, even for SpaceX. As of now SpaceX has not launched humans into space, that won’t happen until the end of this year at the earliest. I have no reason to believe they won’t be successful, but it’s new for them and thus the timeline is more unpredictable. In fact they are already way over schedule.
Then they have to develop a habitat that can support humans on a several month trip to Mars, and a several month return trip.
And they have to develop a lander to place the humans onto the surface. Using Dragon is now in question since Musk has now indicated that he is reconsidering using SuperDracos and landing legs to reach the surface. So development of an entirely new landing vehicle may be required. And of course the lander has to be able to return them to Mars orbit.
They also need to develop a habitat that humans can live in for at least several weeks on Mars if not months. It’s unlikely that the lander will be able to serve that purpose.
And somehow deal with radiation in all of these new habitats and vehicles.
And last but not least they need to reenter Earth’s atmosphere. They could use Dragon for that, although that means dragging one along for the entire mission.
As innovative as SpaceX is, I think fifteen years is too optimistic to accomplish all of this. Especially since SpaceX typically goes over schedule on everything. Which I think is a strength, they take their time and do things right. But that’s why I think fifteen years is not enough time.
The habitat is already waiting for SpaceX to use. Its called the Bigelow Aerospace B330.
That’s the shell, the easy part. Like building the walls of a hospital and saying there we have it, a hospital.
Note that the Dragon shell has existed for years and yet no humans have yet flown in it. That’s because they are still working on the hard stuff.
Or because NASA keeps adding requirements to it. 🙂
Nothing has prevented them from flying their own manned test flights. I realize since they have a NASA contract it’s probably more efficient to keep it together as one project, but I think if it was easy to fly humans on Dragon they would have done it already to start gaining the experience.
I think my hospital analogy is appropriate, because these aren’t just vehicles, these are places that have to keep people alive, and for extended periods.
Why would they fly their own crew flights and risk the billion dollar contract they have from NASA? Elon Musk is not that stupid. He will get as much as possible from NASA before going on his own road. The proof of that is how he used the extra time to create reusable rockets and the foundation for the BFR.
The whole point and truth to any transportation system is that sooner or later you WILL kill someone. The job of any engineer, architect or management system is to make the time gap between first use and killing someone as large as possible.
And NASA believes the best way to avoid the risk is by flying as little as possible…
>>“Why would they fly their own crew flights and risk the billion dollar contract they have from NASA?”
I’m not sure why flying their own manned test flights would have risked their NASA contract, any more than the grasshopper test flights did. But the NASA component certainly is interesting as we know it affects SpaceX, we just don’t know to what extent. For example it’s not hard to imagine that NASA had some influence in the decision to abandon propulsive landings for Dragon, but if Musk was completely on his own would he have pressed ahead with it, or do we take at face value his explanation that there were safety concerns. Then again he didn’t say if they were his concerns or NASA’s.
And as you pointed out we can expect that NASA requirements/concerns have had some affect on the schedule of the upcoming manned test flights, but how much farther along would they have been if NASA wasn’t involved, i.e. he decided that he didn’t need their money. Perhaps farther ahead in some ways, but not having the technical knowledge and assistance that he receives from NASA would be a detriment. I’m sure NASA would have still provided some resources but I would think not at the same level as they do as partners.
Looks like they will be launching a couple of those “shells” into Earth orbit soon to start serving paying customers. To return this to is core theme, there could be so many alternatives to the ISS in a few years no one may care if it goes away…
You cant land that on Mars without an extreme amount of advancement in large EDL operations. And like the next person said, its a shell only. So no, not any where near ready.
Why land a B330 on Mars when Phobos is a much better site. Besides if Planetary Protection is hostile to astronauts setting foot on Mars, and unhappy with Elon Musk launching a roadster into space, imagine their reaction to someone trying to build a tourist resort there. ?
“Why land a B330 on Mars when Phobos is a much better site.”
Because it’s not Mars.
Nope, but its a great staging place for Mars. The Martian story would have never existed if there was a support base on Photos to evacuate to when the storm struck instead of having to flee to Earth. The problem is the fine art of exploration that emerged over centuries of actual experience has been lost on NASA which only has the Apollo model to draw on.
You are so right on the NASA model.
SX’ primary contribution to the entire interface between humans and space – a sort of ecotone, I think – has been a new way of thinking about just about every aspect of space exploration.
This way of thinking that will in the long term dwarf the importance of F9/FH.
Steve,
To your first point: it is true that SX has made remarkable progress in 15 years; but it is also true that much of the ‘failure’ inherent in any tech development was paid by NASA and subcontractors over the years, allows SX to – well, I suppose it’s cherry picking – to learn from the mistakes of others, as Mr. Musk reiterates every single time he can.
And to your second point, on the time required to reach Mars: here, SX is pushing the tech envelope itself, at least to a larger degree. It’s true that NASA and others know an awful lot about the technologies that you mention, but it’s also true that none of these are mature, off the shelf.
And to your point about judicious choices: it is true that Mr. Musk is not afraid to make decisions, and the notion that F9/FH are to be abandoned in favor of BFR stand as an example. But doesn’t this machine answer all of the points you mention in a single vehicle (with support, admittedly): BFR is a sort of Space Winnebago that obviates the need for much of the construction required to form a Mars colony, particularly in the short term. It’s quite visionary, really.
And the funny thing in all the threads here is that people love to talk engineering and tech. NOT a single person here or most other places ever discuss EXACTLY what people are going to do when they get to either the Moon or Mars. They use the magical sales pitch of “science” as if it will solve everything.
No problem we’ll cross that bridge when we get there, just like we did with ISS. Oh wait, that one didn’t work out very well.
Yep. Although to be fair, that’s a theme that I’ve hit several times.
HSF is such a mess for a simple reason: no compelling reason to go anywhere has yet been even proffered. And lest anyone think that’s a pessimistic view, I’d counter with simple reality.
Oh, sure, lots of ‘space nuts’, yours truly included, are electrified by space travel, regretting a birth perhaps 100 years too soon. But it’s not a view widely shared.
The great Kim Stanley Robinson of Mars Trilogy fame probably described in the most accurate detail the difficulty of Mars settlement. And lately KSR has been hammering us with a string of novels detail just how awful the livability of Planet Earth is soon to become. It’s bleak and all to real.
Maybe we will be driven to Mars by our own TFU (Terran mistakes). It’s some sort of irony.
What I have always liked about Musk is that he approaches everything with a “Why not?” attitude regardless of how outlandish an idea seems. He doesn’t wait for anyone to answer, instead he forges ahead, in many cases accomplishing things in a way once thought impossible.
However in other cases the “why not” becomes apparent to him as he gets into the nitty-gritty of it, and then he goes a different direction. Which is also a huge strength, a trait that Thomas Edison and Henry Ford sometimes lacked.
One example is recovering the Falcon second stage. Originally Musk planned that after succeeding in recovering first stages, they would then do the same for the second stage, although certainly a much bigger challenge which was why it was planned for later, and also because of the lower value of the second stage. But apparently the “why not” turned out to be pretty daunting as it seems the idea has been abandoned, at least for now. Perhaps they have basically run out of time considering the uncertain lifespan of the Falcon program.
As for BFR, in my opinion I think we are still in the outlandish – why not phase, and that the “why nots” are eventually going to impinge on this one, at least as far as doing all of the things it is supposed to do. Just my opinion, as always I hope that it all works out, but I expect that as this plays out for a manned Mars mission that additional vehicles will be required.
And anyway we’re still talking about just the basic transportation job of the vehicles, my point is that all of these vehicles have to carry humans and keep them alive for long periods of time, which adds an incredible layer of complexity on top of what is already a very complex business.
I share your admiration for Mr. Musk’s ability to give up ownership of ideas. It is something that we cherish in the design biz. And frequently we fail.
But BFR! The notion of something that does so many things, all rolled into – dare I say it? – a comfortable living environment is so audacious, yet so right-thinking.
I’ve wondered about the sensibility of abandoning F9 and FH. But time will tell.
The Dragon doesn’t appear to be in SpaceX plans after completion of ISS supply and crew flights. SpaceX have shelved further future development of the Dragon beyond the NASA commercial crew role. Especially after being micro-manage and bury under paperwork by NASA for that role.
@Steve Pemberton doesn’t appear to have read the specifications of the SpaceX 2017 BFR system that is in development to replace the Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and the the Dragon.
The upper stage or spaceship part of the BFR (aka BFS) is suppose to get stuff to orbit from Earth, transit to Mars as a large transport and habitat after orbital refueling, do direct EDL entry to Mars surface, act as initial Martian surface habitat, act as initial ISRU facility for propellants and a SSTO launch vehicle from the Martian surface to direct Earth reentry.
Of course the timeline might be optimist for a pathfinder unmanned mission for the 2022 launch window. Supposedly SpaceX is going do some low altitude test hops of the BFS prototype from their South Texas spaceport around the start of 2019. We shall see if SpaceX keep to their development timeline schedule.
SpaceX does have the hard deadline of getting their CTO to Mars before he fail the space flight physical.
Thank you for the reminder – and it cannot be said often enough. BFR is such a departure from accepted thinking that even booster recovery will pale. It’s as cheeky as Sabre (and much more capable).
And it is something that von Braun would have loved.
2050 will be a great time to be alive! Alas…
I know what the specs are for BFR. It brings back memories of 1961 and Direct Ascent, which at the time was assumed to be the method that would get us to the Moon. An elegant method, but one that in the end turned out not to be the best way to do it, or at least not the fastest to develop. Yes that was a different era and a different destination, but my opinion is that the Mars project will also evolve differently than the current specs. Not that I expect you to take my opinion over Elon Musk, I’m just stating that it’s way too early in this massive project to know if what Musk currently plans is how it will actually play out.
And anyway this is a moot point against my argument that fifteen years is way too optimistic for even SpaceX to accomplish the multitude of complex requirements that I listed that are needed to land humans on Mars and return them to Earth. Rolling all of it into one vehicle doesn’t change that. Would it have been easier and less complex for Musk to put humans into LEO using a SSTO vehicle instead of two separate boosters and a capsule? I submit that building a single vehicle would have been at least as complex as the method that he wound up using, and would not have reduced the timeline.
Stretching my knowledge of NASA history here – but Direct Ascent was abandoned chiefly due to the difficulty of construction the needed booster capability. As a result we developed all sorts of throwaway tech.
Will BFR succeed where Direct Ascent failed? I accept your view that it will morph into something different.
Let us hope, in the immortal words of David Bowman, that it is ‘something wonderful’.
I agree with Zed_Weasel and would add that the future of cost plus contracting is not looking very promising policy-wise. SLS only has one mission left over the next 10 or so years that is the construction of the DSG and DST. If Congress wants SLS to live, then they have to fund those programs too and tech development for hab and propulsion for DSG and DST are Space Act Agreement contracts. So if anything happens to those programs then the cutting edge systems that are developed for them will be owned by the private sector.
Also, if FH doesn’t try to fly to Mars in the next launch window (after 2018) with a serious payload, probably a comm sat, I’ll eat my hat with…what was it again, peanut butter? 😉
I want to hear about those other Worlds. Maybe he has long range sensors. Not WFIRST of course.
so will this current space council light a fire under NASA to get Boot on Moon in a timely manner (say by 2024, the end of second term) or just let NASA slow roll things and get around to surface ops in 2030 that the budget rollout suggested. until the agency is given a mandate with a clear end date to work towards they will let bloat and inefficiency grow the schedule and budget to the point of never going anywhere.
Enough of this Mars nonsense. Men on Mars will always be 20 years into the future. OK lots of people say lots of stuff that it can be done etc, etc. but first demonstrate landing a man or a woman on the Moon and bringing him safely back to Earth. This demonstrates ability to exit earth orbit, land on a celestial body with all the details of controls, communications, durable hardware, reliable software, managing propellants.
I can see it now, the initial meetings will begin discussion with a lunar exit strategy before a lunar landing.
Regarding VSE, it was a non-starter from the beginning by cancelling Shuttle and “no new rockets” (along with large spending in many congressional districts).
This visit is causing a fairly major disruption to KSC. The SSPF and surrounding buildings will be closed to all personnel from 5 PM today until 2 PM tomorrow — too bad if you work there.
words, words, words … enough already.
show me the money !
This is just SO frustrating.
Many have pointed out that SLS appears to be a wagging tail looking for a dog. But I wonder.
Imagine space exploration enterprises led by strong leadership and with a clear, long-term goal. Certainly SX is one of these.
But imagine NASA with this sort of vision and leadership. Isn’t it the case that whatever program NASA proposes the traditional suppliers would find a way to extract their pound of flesh?
NASA can use different contracting method (COTS milestone based fixed cost vs cost plus) to control the contractors, see Boeing CST-100 in Commercial Crew, it’s still more expensive than SpaceX, but a lot cheaper than Orion.
But in reality contractor is only half the problem, the other half is NASA itself with its bureaucracies and tons of federal employees to feed.
I have a question for the experts, here, who are more familiar with the Rocketdyne RS-25s (SSMEs). Specifically, if NASA had the vision, could they have designed a medium/heavy-class launch vehicle based on a recoverable 1st-stage using a 4-cluster arrangement of the RS-25s. Or, hypothetically speaking, if they started SLS from scratch (and even licensing any SpaceX control patents), could this be done? Or, would the triangle arrangement of the engines (no center-line engine) pose an issue for controlled landing? If so, and assuming all the engines would have to fire for controlled landing, can the SSMEs be throttled back enough to accomplish this?
The RS-25 is not startable without a lot of ground support equipment. So could not be shut down and restart once launch.
If they start SLS from scratch without having to retain STS legacy components today. You should end up with something like the partially reusable New Glenn from Blue.
Thanks, Zed. I didn’t realize that about the RS-25s. I guess I had assumed they would be able to re-start, like RL-10s (which also use LH2/LOX), but then again, they are very different engine designs/cycles.