This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

NASA Wants Throwaway Rockets For A Reusable Architecture

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 30, 2018
Filed under , ,

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

51 responses to “NASA Wants Throwaway Rockets For A Reusable Architecture”

  1. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    Well bless their hearts!

    Seriously though. This op-ed is a bunch of garbage. Let’s start with SLS, as handed to us by Congress, then make up a ton of justifications for it by providing only hand-waving arguments with zero numbers attached to them. This is the kind of “upper management” talk that makes me never want to attend an “all hands meeting” ever again. I don’t work for NASA or an aerospace company, but I work for a big enough company to know “management speak” when I hear it.

  2. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    In Management Strategy this is know as “Marketing Myopia”. Instead of seeing itself as the government agency that explores space, NASA sees itself as the government agency that builds rockets to explore space.

    If NASA doesn’t change its mindset it will find its future dim as it becomes a laughing stock when the press shows Orion astronauts, like in an old movie, being fished out of the ocean by the US Navy after spending a couple of weeks crammed into a 20 cubic meter Orion capsule to fly around the Moon, while the dozen or so artists on the BFS, accompanied by a couple of art reporters, spent a comfortable voyage enjoying themselves in a luxurious spaceliner (with private rooms bigger than Orion?) with over 1,000 cubic meters of pressurized space to enjoy, before landing at the same spaceport they launched from. Their biggest issue will probably be going through customs when someone at the State Department realizes that “technically” they probably did leave the country by flying around the Moon. 🙂

    https://www.businessinsider

    “This imaginative drawing liked by Elon Musk reveals just how crazy SpaceX’s first missions to Mars will be”

    “Sleeping quarters: “Each crew member has a personal space equipped with bed, illumination, a portal window to the outside, electricity, and connection to the ship net. Removable partitions allow for crew to bunk together and expand their private space if desired.”

    The images of artists painting while in the BFS and doing Zero-G dances while the Orion astronauts are jammed like sardines in a can will be something even the Senate will not be able to ignore. It will be a sad day for NASA when the hearings start…

    • Zed_WEASEL says:
      0
      0

      Technically flying around the Moon in a BFS is not leaving the country. Since SpaceX is US based, the BFS is considered US territory.

      However I have some doubts of the #DearMoon BFS will return back to the US. It makes more sense to landed the BFS on a sea platform off the Japanese Bōsō peninsula to help startup P2P service and more local media coverage for @yousuck2020 & his companies. There is enough time for a locally build sea platform to be completed in Japan.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        Yes, since they won’t be landing on the Moon, just orbiting it, Customs may let it go, unlike the Apollo 11 flight. But then again never underestimate the bureacratic mindset. Remember, Pigs Is Pigs 🙂

        https://www.space.com/7044-

        Back from the Moon, Apollo Astronauts Had to Go Through Customs

        By Tariq Malik, Space.com Managing Editor
        July 24, 2009 09:37am ET

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          I’d expect a trip to orbit, or around the Moon, would have the same legal status as fishing ships. When they leave a US port, sail into international waters and later return to a US port, do they have to clear customs? That wasn’t my understanding, but maybe there is some specific exemption for that situation.

          On the other hand, landing a BFR in Japan (or any other country) would be a problem. I can’t think of a more blatant case of exporting ballistic missile technology. That’s one of my (many) doubts about the whole point-to-point transport concept.

          • Zed_WEASEL says:
            0
            0

            Said nothing about landing P2P flights in Japan. It will be taking off and landing on SpaceX sea platforms that are US flagged in International waters.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            International waters typically start 12 nautical miles (22 I’m) off shore. I’m not sure if the water there would be too deep for a fixed platform. Even when that’s possible, it would add travel time from the platform to shore. Since the whole point of point to point flights is cutting the travel time down (to an hour or so in flight), adding even a quarter of an hour of platform to shore travel on each end would be a big deal.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Don’t forget the sonic pressure waves that will be put out by a BFS. Remember, its about the size of the Saturn V that almost knocked Walter Cronkite off the air 🙂

            https://www.youtube.com/wat

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Never gets old.

            Cronkite was as responsible as anyone for the success of Apollo.

          • imhoFRED says:
            0
            0

            Indeed. It would make sense to package up the passenger service as a bundle:

            Limo + helo + BFR trip to $X

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            That would make sense, but as I’ve said before, it makes the savings look less impressive. Flying a BFR to Tokyo compared to 787 might mean one hour instead of 12 hours. That’s impressive. But Limo + helo + BFR + helo + limo, that could be five hours, versus 16 for car-airport-787-airport-taxi. Actually, when you add going through security, checking luggage, boarding, etc. it could easily be eight versus 19 hours. Not even a factor of two and a half, not the factor of 12 for the flight time alone.

          • imhoFRED says:
            0
            0

            You are correct, a service who’s advantage is speed needs to pay attention to the total travel time. Obviously a helo and limo arent’ ballistic vehicles, but they are the fastest realistic vehicles to help complete the speedy journey.

            I suggested those because they also have the advantage of being bookable today for very fast point to point (but short) travel. You might imagine 30 passengers that are spread out in the city each getting limo’d to a helo that lands near them. Then off to the launch site at 200 kph.

            If you consider today’s airports, they are 20 or 30 km away from the city anyway. BFR will also be removed from the city, but in a different direction.

          • imhoFRED says:
            0
            0

            You aren’t seriously saying that landing a spacecraft is “exporting ballistic missile technology”. Did you miss the /sarc tag?

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            The way I phrased it was a little bit of a joke, but this really is a serious concern. A whole lot of technology connected with launch vehicles and satellites falls under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) or related export control laws.

            I know someone who once took a instrument for a ESA science mission from Europe to the US. He was a co-investigator and had access to some calibration and test facilities they didn’t have over there. He forgot to fill out the right paperwork in advance, and had a whole lot of trouble trying to “export” it back to the people who originally built it. And that’s just for a scientific instrument designed to go on a satellite. And sending it to a allied country with a long history of friendly relations (if memory serves, Switzerland.) Now you’re talking about a whole rocket.

            I know BFR isn’t going to be a ballistic missile. I supposed it could be converted into one, but even then, it wouldn’t be a very good one. At the same time, it will be crammed full of hardware and technology that could be used to build a ballistic missile (or improve a country’s ballistic missile technology.) Landing a BFR in a foreign country would definitely involve export control laws. That doesn’t mean it’s prohibited. It means a huge amount of paperwork and official approval from either the Department of State or of Commerce (or both.)

          • imhoFRED says:
            0
            0

            Sadly, I expect you are correct, the ITAR police would be all over BFR flights as exports. I think that everyone, including the ITAR police, need to wrap their heads around a new paradigm: spaceflight and spacecraft are are new airplanes.

    • chuckc192000 says:
      0
      0

      Wishful thinking — it won’t happen in the lifetime of anyone alive today.

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        You do know that flight testing starts next year…

        https://www.teslarati.com/s

        SpaceX confirms initial BFR spaceship flight tests will occur in South Texas

        • Daniel Woodard says:
          0
          0

          SX has even picked out a large area at the Cape for BFS assembly and servicing operations but so far they have not started construction.

        • chuckc192000 says:
          0
          0

          Testing an uncrewed vehicle is a LONG way from being able to fly a crew to Mars. They’ll have to find ways to deal with radiation, bone loss, long-term life support, etc. Then there’s always the question of funding — who’s going to pay for all this? There’s no profit to be made going to Mars.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Mr. Musk didn’t start SpaceX for profits, and Mr. Bezos definitely didn’t start Blue Origin for profit. They started PayPal and Amazon for profit, and then spent those profits on things they had a personal interest in. That’s how private spaceflight to Mars can be funded; by people who are personal interested, have no expectations of profits, and made the money doing something else. There are plenty of people who consider a million, or even a billion, dollar hobby to be small change.

          • chuckc192000 says:
            0
            0

            We’re talking billions of dollars, maybe $100 billion for ONE mission to Mars. That’s more that pocket money for even the richest billionaire.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Mr. Bezos has said his plan for funding Blue Origin is to sell $1 billion in Amazon stock per year. His net worth is $147 billion. Just putting that in the bank and living off the interest would give him an annual income of five or ten billion. Mr. Musk has the profits from SpaceX (well, his share of them) to invest on his Mars hobby. Since they’re privately held, it isn’t clear how much that is, but it’s funding BFR development (estimated at $2 to $10 billion.)

            As far as the cost of a Mars mission, NASA is talking about billions to hundreds of billions. However, NASA officials have said it would have cost NASA $4 billion to develop a launch vehicle equivalent to the Falcon 9. SpaceX did so for a little under $400 million. The same analysis suggested that something similar could apply to deep space missions. So, no, we are not talking about $100 billion unless it’s NASA doing the work.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            I don’t think that anyone has an accurate idea of how much “Mars” will cost. Partly this is because the goal posts move around quite a bit, as do the definitions of exactly what is envisioned.

            But mostly, in my view, is the simple fact that the biggest pieces of hardware aren’t available; and the parts that are available are insufficiently proven. And from that point flow naturally the unsettled question of mission architecture. I imagine that Mr. Musk has a better idea (less pricey, anyway) than anyone.

  3. Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
    0
    0

    It doesn’t surprise me to see Cooke As another SLS shilling op-ed trying to justify the mistakes of his own past while at NASA and salvage the legacy of SLS despite the growing evidence of mismanagement, cost over runs and over all unsustainability.

    Sadly I had hoped Bridenstine would have come in and cleaned house of the old guard standing in the way of progress but it appears that those beholden to the it’s about jobs not exploration have brainwashed the administrator and it will take until BFR and New Glenn are flying before SLS house of cards will finally collapse under the enormous weight of high cost and low flight tempo.

  4. Chris Owen says:
    0
    0

    It’s worse – they are making something which was once reusable into expendable; the main engines.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      And the SRBs, which on the space shuttle admittedly weren’t so much reusable but refurbishable. Still, recovering them provided an opportunity to do post-flight inspections on the SRB joints and the like. SLS won’t even allow for inspections of SRBs after flight.

      • Daniel Woodard says:
        0
        0

        I’ve heard the SRBs desribed (by an enineer who was closely involved) as “salvageable”.

        • Jeff2Space says:
          0
          0

          True. The SRBs were essentially torn down to the bare steel casings after recovery. The casings were then used to build new SRBs.

          But at least in the SRBs case, that gave NASA a chance to inspect them after flight. They had the data that showed SRB field joints were not working as intended, leading to o-ring erosion (which was never supposed to happen). Unfortunately, management overrode ATK engineers on the morning of the Challenger disaster.

          SLS won’t even recover the SRBs for inspection.

      • Tally-ho says:
        0
        0

        They aren’t recovering the SRBs?

  5. Anon7 says:
    0
    0

    You just have to understand SLS/Orion in terms of the mission. The mission is to spend half of NASA’s human spaceflight budget on non-competitively awarded contracts to pre-selected contractors who base their effort in the right congressional districts. For that mission, SLS *is* reusable, because NASA can use the same budget justification every year, since every year it has the same number of years remaining to flight.

  6. richard_schumacher says:
    0
    0

    Chances of killing SLS increase with a Democratic Congress. The typical current R member of Congress is more beholden to Big Bidnis generally and aerospace particularly than is the typical D candidate.

    • imhoFRED says:
      0
      0

      Chances may go up, but the SLS mafia in congress is a strong bi-partisan group. It’s unlikely to unravel for any reason.

  7. buzzlighting says:
    0
    0

    There they go again claim they can make SLS affordable. I have a hard
    time believing that idea from Precourt. One thing you have to get
    through SLS Development time. By launching 4 SLS rockets break it in and pay down Development cost before you can think about making SLS cheaper.

  8. Nick K says:
    0
    0

    SLS (and Orion) are absolutely necessary until Mr. Musk’s next big advance. NASA is already becoming a laughing stock and are solely dependent on remembrances of a fifty year old achievement. Its amazing how they fell so fast. They turned off Shuttle. That eliminated about 85% of their activity. Now they are planning to shut down ISS. Soon they will have nothing.

  9. Bob says:
    0
    0

    Lets not forget that the BFR has a long list of required breakthroughs needed!…And Musk and SpaceX are the only ones capable of this. Has anyone heard of a Carbon Fiber structure in space? Can it handle the stress of rocket travel?…I know that the DOD is talking to SpaceX about 150 ton military transport.

    • DiscipleY says:
      0
      0

      Yes on pretty much every spacecraft ever flown.

      • Bob says:
        0
        0

        Thanks…So what do you think the biggest challenge is for the BFR? Orbital return? Sheer size? Heat shielding? Orbital refueling?

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          I don’t think we know enough about the details to really know, but my guess is orbital return or heat shielding. So far, SpaceX has brought back the first stage of the Falcon 9, which is at sub-orbital speed before a deceleration burn and reentry. The upper stage of a BFR (or BFS, if that’s what they are calling it this week), would be at orbital velocity, and that means either a much larger deceleration burn before entry, or much more problems with heat shielding and reentry loads. Or a combination of the two. That’s not an unsolvable problem, but I see it as the greatest difference from what they’ve done before.

          Well, cost of turning around the vehicle and the number of times they can re-fly the same vehicle are also issues. They are talking about going from two flights per vehicle with months between those flights, to hundreds of flights with only a few days between flights. That’s a whole different world.

          • Bob says:
            0
            0

            Thanks for the insight. I see your points. I wonder how long it will take before we see the orbital return testing. As for the turnaround costs, I am less concerned about that as it can be fully automated and robotized like the Tesla Factory.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            The Tesla factory probably isn’t the most compelling argument. Planned versus actual production goals have gotten to be a bad joke, and I recently say an article, with interviews of current and past employees, which discussed over automating, and then having to take out some of the robots. Some tasks don’t automate well, and trying to automate virtually everything was probably a mistake.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Mr. Musk has been very open about the entire “robot fiasco”.

            It’s a simple by-product of trying new stuff, that’s all.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Sure, and trying new things sometimes means finding out they aren’t a miracle solution. I don’t have any problem with that. But, after learning that lesson, I’m a little suspicious when someone says that same thing will be a miracle solution to a different but related problem. Automation will probably help BFR turn-around costs, and after the Tesla fiasco, they probably won’t try to take it too far and then have to back up and unautomate some things. But I’m not convinced that, alone, will give the massive improvements required for BFR to work as advertised.

          • imhoFRED says:
            0
            0

            F9b5 will work out a great deal of the issues involved with low maintenance rocket flight.

            BFR will expand the envelop by adding orbital reentry velocities (and a few other things as well)

            These are hard engineering problems, but they all seem well within the reach of existing materials, with antecedent vehicles or technology demos.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Mr. Musk, and others, have pointed out that the re-entry heating problem might be more tractable than imagined: there’s the reduction in speed, to begin with, surely the biggest factor.

            The size of of this spaceship might not be a negative. Mr. Musk points out that the loading would be distributed over a wider area (the mass of the thing is also much larger, too).

  10. robert_law says:
    0
    0

    No Different from the Saturn V post Apollo program had this went ahead we would have Sean reusable Nuclear shuttle based on the S4C stage with a NERVA engine and a reusable space tug and eventual reusable lunar module and later construction of manned Mars spaceship all launched on Saturn V

  11. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    Throw weight is the issue here. NASA has decided that there is a certain mass per launch needed to make a lunar base or Lagrange Halo Station viable in the long term. Curiously, it’s the throw weight to cis-Lunar space of SLS.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      Not really. Congress spit-balled the payload for SLS when they wrote it into law that NASA keep the existing Ares contracts and convert them over to SLS.

      NASA actually studied returning to the moon using the space shuttle. It was quite possible, even with the shuttle’s much smaller “throw weight”.

      NASA even studied this before picking Lunar Orbit Rendezvous for Apollo. The alternative was called Earth Orbit Rendezvous.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Maybe I’m cynical (ok, I should stop saying that, since there is no maybe about it…) But it feels like it happened the other way. They (whether NASA, or Congress, or whoever) decided what they wanted (SLS), and then looked at what it could do, and then found a capability (throw weight) which could be used to justify the program they wanted. Or maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve seen way too many traceability matrices written from right to left rather than left to right. And that is what the justifications for SLS feel like.