The Biggest Rocket On Earth Is Not Being Built By NASA
@SpaceX Super Heavy/Starship stack will be ~400 ft/120m tall. If 32+ Raptors work it'll go to orbital altitude – the largest rocket ever to go into space. None of this even existed several years ago. Meanwhile after a decade at @NASA we're still waiting for @NASA_SLS to fly https://t.co/qG4Ul6Bgku
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) July 6, 2021
This is an excellent story of how the government gums up progress…
NASA looks like it is adopting to Space X and shows signs of progress. Government is not inherently good, but it also not inherently bad.
In the 1960’s, NASA was the young upstart organization that “can do”.
Today, NASA is the old ossified bureacracy, and SpaceX is the young upstart organization that “can do”.
Sad for NASA. At least NASA is participating to the extent that they have helped fund SpaceX endeavors, like a proud parent who can no longer run a mile themselves.
Musk said that the next Super Heavy will take about 6 weeks to build. If that holds true for successive Super Heavy boosters, it’ll just further illustrate the absurdity of the SLS, which depending how you count it, has taken about 4 years to fabricate. And that’s not even particularly long. The Delta IV Heavy takes around 36 months.
How on earth did we ever settle for rockets that take years to build single examples of? If SpaceX has achieved nothing else, its rapid production of Falcons, and soon hopefully Starship[/Super Heavy, has driven home how absurd it was to rely in rockets like the Atlas V and Delta II as long as we did. They may have been great performers, but their engineering and economics never made a lick of sense.
Even if it took 60 weeks to build one it would still beat SLS, hands down. Indeed, 600 weeks would still beat the SLS track record.
Not sure if you read all of yesterday’s tweetstorm, but there is no more Raptor and RBoost. SpaceX moved on to Raptor 2 in a gimbaled and non-gimbaled format with 230 t-f of thrust. Undecided if RVac will move to Raptor 2. Musk also mentioned a 9 engine Starship.
If they do follow through with a 9 engine Starship (3 Raptor 2, 6 RVac) it’d have a T/W of ~1.7. Enough for LAS?
First SLS core began fabrication in 2015 and was finished in 2019.
That was 4 years, not 11,with construction stopped for much of 2017 because of major tornado damage at MAF. Even then it was the first one to be built, future cores are taking far less time to be built.
You’re comparing an optimistic, if not impossible, estimation to build a test article with Boca Chica construction standards to the construction of human rated rocket stages nearly as large.
Big difference.
Sounds like Raptor production will be ramping big-time; they’re building a factory at McGregor.
https://twitter.com/elonmus…
https://twitter.com/elonmus…
I had a discussion years ago with some southern California people on here and they laughed at the schmuck from Iowa thinking Musk would move a huge chunk of his operation to TX… Kinda funny…
SpaceX’s Hawthorne property tax deferment ends January 1, 2024, so there’s your possible timeline.
It’s not just the rocket…Orion is going on its first launch with a partially-failed electrical system, because it’d take a year+ of disassembling and reassembling the vehicle to replace the failed components. It’s as if they’ve completely forgotten how to build things.
On the one hand, Orion has multiple redundancy in its power system, so they could (and have) stated that the bad subsystem isn’t mission critical. On the other hand, I have to wonder… If it isn’t mission critical, why did they put in that much redundancy?
Commercial aircraft sometimes have excess redundancy, so the can fly with a failed part and still have enough redundancy to satisfy FAA rules. (If you can’t take off without two redundant systems working and you don’t want to delay a flight for maintenance, there is some sense to having three redundant systems.) But NASA normally spacecraft aren’t design for operational requirements like that.
In the case of Orion, it reminds me of how NASA operated the Shuttle, with many, many waiver of flight rules. That wasn’t part of the design, it was just what they had to do to keep up the flight rates. And I believe the Rogers and the CAIB reports strongly criticized that practice.
“why did they put in that much redundancy?”
Well, it’s allowed them to get an Orion out of the factory in what they consider flyable condition…
That might have been the result, but that isn’t the original reason for the redundancy. It took them over a month do decide if flying with one bad subsystem was acceptable. If the original design purpose of so much redundancy (four fold, if memory serves) was allow them to fly with something broken, that would have been a documented part of the process. There wouldn’t have been any lengthy decision making process to decide if that was ok. In fact, at some point in designing Orion, they decided that this level of redundancy at launch was necessary. And, later, when it turned out to be inconvenient, they decided that it wasn’t.
They weighed their options.
Delaying everything by months for a small redundant component operating to 2/3 instead of 100% didn’t make sense to do.
In that case, why did they have that level of redundancy in the first place? It’s either needed or it isn’t. If they had decided (and announced) that the original design was over-engineered and provided an unnecessary level of redundancy, that would be fine with me. As long as they also explained how they had reached that conclusion. What they actually did was decide that despite having no stated problems with the original design, flying in an off-nominal state would be ok. Because it would save a lot of time and money. Making decisions like that, on a case-by-case basis and based on expediency and the launch schedule, is exactly what caused the Challenger and Columbia disasters.
Please, one of many 4 times redundant components operating to 2/3 capacity is not equal to a partially failed electrical system.
You guys are really trying to find anything to justifying shitting on SLS/Orion for the 500th time, even things as minor as this.
If only private companies had to answer as much as NASA about their human spaceflight developments, then maybe perception of things would be a lot different.
Keith is so right!
Even ignoring the lateness, the cost is prohibitive. The partially reusable Space Shuttle cost about a billion dollars a launch. SLS is not reusable at all and will cost more.
It is inevitable that they retire SLS, the sooner the better. After Starship reaches orbit – probably later this year – would be a good time to quit SLS.
“…inevitable that they retire SLS”
It is not.
The program does not have to be “successful” by your criteria, or be “affordable” by civil financial standards, SLS just has to EXIST.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c…
Good reminder from history. I think a headline like this is nightmare for any elected official. Lessons learned probably includes avoiding getting sucked into a costly program that will lead to having to later answer some very demanding questions. But then such situation of this time period is how Shuttle program received full approval (Jan 1972) to ease the huge layoffs in CA and FL with all those electoral votes. I remember in 1980s with big defense spending but many college students asking will we end up like what happened in early previous decade.
“SLS is not reusable at all and will cost more.”
You are wrong, for congressional members from space states, that is a feature!
Just to put SLS in perspective, one should remember that it was really never about cost or efficiency or really building something that would ever fly. No it was about a jobs program and as such has been a roaring success.
Cheers
Neil
even if Starship makes it to orbit this summer the SLS PAO team will probably spin their rocket as the largest most powerful human rated rocket for the Moon to try and stay relevant.
“Human rating” a vehicle before it ever flies would be a bad joke.
SLS is unfortunately the child of it’s parents, born with 70s technology and mindset. SLS (and other early generation rockets) are hand built (like expensive Italian sports cars) because (like Italian sports cars) the customers are (were?) willing to pay the cost.
SpaceX has the advantage of being born in the 00s, when CAD/CAE was so much more capable. SpaceX builds like Japanese/Korean car manufacturers … cheap and high quality.
People may be willing to pay for a “Maserati” or “Lamborghini” label on their car, but I doubt that “Boeing” has the same value on a rocket.
Gods, what a monster.
Thank you; Gurney Halleck! 😉 (wink)
Contact your Senators and Representative and tell them to cancel SLS as wasteful and unnecessary:
https://www.senate.gov/sena…
https://www.house.gov/repre…
Why? They don’t listen to me.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but neither your opinion nor your representative’s has any bearing on the future of SLS.
Based on other recent Space X launches, NASA will be happy to proclaim any Space X launch, a NASA launch. Particularly in the case of Starship, NASA has now contributed a bit of funding to support the Moon lander edition, and so NASA will feel no shame. As a long time NASA contractor and employee I know I feel shame when I think about the abortive wasted efforts to try and return Americans to the Moon, but thank God for Mr Musk and his most excellent workers. They are getting the job done. SLS and Orion; both farcical when it comes to the time and money invested and the costs; Constellation another farce;
Reading the recent NASA report on the early Artemis missions Gateway will be late but instead crew will rendezvous with the Space X StarShip to leave the Orion capsule behind and descend in the StarShip. It really begs the question why a crew of 3 or 4 would fly in a tiny capsule for several days in order to land on the Moon for weeks or months in a StarShip capable of carrying 100 or more people with control stations, private sleeping berths, air locks, huge viewing windows…Maybe Orion could have a role as an escape pod? or maybe just fly an extra StarShip? StarShips will be available by the dozens or hundreds, flying routinely like jumbo jet airliners, while Orions and SLS will be one off flying once a year, and cost billions of dollars each. I sure hope the Musk plan works. The alternative, the NASA and Senate plan, is nonsensical and dangerous. Orion is really no more than Apollo part II. Fun for a few but why bother?