SLS Buyer's Remorse At NASA
New White House budget spells trouble for NASA’s SLS rocket, Ars Technica
“Two sources familiar with the thinking of Vice President Mike Pence–who leads US space policy–have said he is frustrated with the slow pace of the nation’s efforts to send humans to the Moon. In particular, he is growing tired of delays with NASA’s Space Launch System rocket, which was originally due to launch in 2017 and is now likely delayed until 2021 at the earliest. … With this proposal, therefore, NASA is taking away a key upgrade to the Space Launch System’s upper stage, proposing to launch Gateway on commercial rockets, and removing a high-profile mission from the launch manifest–the Europa Clipper. This leaves just one real task for SLS, which no commercial rocket can presently perform: the direct delivery of a crewed Orion capsule to a high lunar orbit.”
If @NASA was really intent upon using @NASA_SLS as a robust Moon/Mars exploration backbone they'd build the EUS as soon as possible to reduce the number of flights needed to build Gateway & make the most of every SLS flight. This rocket is now only semi-useful. #SecondThoughts?
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) March 11, 2019
Clearly no one has advised the VP that SLS was created for the single purpose providing high paying jobs. Failure to communicate.
Cheers,
Neil
I almost feel sorry for SLS – almost. If they weren’t building the most powerful version possible from the very beginning; why build it at all? Deferring costs never works; kicking the can down the road never works. For the tens of billions with a B that SLS has already cost to develop – before anything has even flown yet – how many Atlas V, Delta IV-Heavy, Falcon Heavy and even Vulcan launches would that have gotten you?! Delta IV-H could easily have been upgraded to get more than 45 metric tons into LEO, using existing launchpads and infrastructure.
For even a fraction of the cost of SLS, NASA could have asked/paid SpaceX to upgrade the upper stage of the Falcon Heavy to give a launcher that would kick SLS Block-1’s butt, metaphorically. I wish they’d start looking at the Orion spacecraft to be launched on Vulcan/ACES right now. Indeed: if Vulcan was upgraded from 6x strap on solid boosters to 8x and the upper stage (ACES or Centaur V) used stronger RL-10 derivatives or Vinci engines, that sort of launcher should be able to do SLS Block-1 missions for a fraction of the cost…
There’s no way that budget gets past Senator Shelby without all the cuts to SLS being restored. SLS will keep on chugging.
As I said on the other post, it kills me that it’s taking so long and so much bloat in costs just to make a heavy lift booster entirely out of hardware they’ve been working with for 30 years.
Yes, the Huntsville delegation is likely also livid that NASA is daring to save $700 million by moving the Europa Clipper from the SLS to another less expensive heavy lift launcher with the ability to launch it.
Despite claims by the media this budget is a cut for NASA it is actually 6% more than the Trump Administration proposed for NASA last year. And after Congress gets finished returning the Congressional Pork to it that the Administration is trying to cut out of it, it will probably be another big increase for NASA
I suppose in fairness to SLS, there is a real loss to using a different launcher. Unless Falcon Super Heavy is ready by 2023, the other options would be launching atop a Falcon Heavy or (possibly) a New Glenn. In both cases you’d end up with a mission that can’t directly launch to Jupiter, and that would more than double the time it would take to get Europa Clipper out to Jupiter (since you’d have to spend years doing gravity assists to build up speed).
It’s almost a pity they couldn’t give it a decent RTG, since then they could have had it use electric propulsion to get out there and spiral inwards. Maybe that just wouldn’t have worked with Jupiter (too much time spent circling in Jupiter’s radiation belts versus the mission).
You can spend years doing gravity assists or years waiting for SLS to be ready. It’s six or a half dozen either way. Falcon heavy has the virtue of being ready and lot’s cheaper.
Or you could use the money saved to do two launches, one with the spacecraft, the other with a big booster for a direct flight to Jupiter. The booster could be attached to the Europa Clipper spacecraft using the automated docking system the Dragon2 demonstrated in flight. Of course this might cut the savings to only $500 or so. But you would probably arrive at Jupiter with extra propellant for an extended mission.
There is no rush or urgency. Europa is not going anywhere. There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking the slow boat. Save some money, use the savings to keep doing some good planetary science elsewhere.
Not for Europa Clipper. It’s designed to be launched on a single vehicle using a fairly standard payload adaptor. Getting it to a solar orbit on the way to Jupiter is up to the launch service provider. It’s way to late in development to ask Clipper to add a upper stage of their own. And they definitely wouldn’t want the mass of the docking adaptor during Jovian orbital insertion.
You could (and it might not be a bad idea) develop a specialized interface, with a standard payload adaptor on top and a automated docking system on the bottom. Put the scientific spacecraft on top and fly that to low Earth orbit on a Falcon Heavy. Separately, develop an in space propulsion stage with an automated docking adaptor on top. Launch that, dock, fire the rockets and leave Earth, then separate the science spacecraft from everything else. That design could act as a reusable space tug, as long as you never burn it dry without returning it to low Earth orbit.
But that’s designing and developing a whole new vehicle, plus the docking/payload interface. That’s not going to be cheaper than a few extra years of cruise on the way to Jupiter. It’s also way beyond the scope of the Europa Clipper project. I said it might not be a bad idea in general, but not if it’s only for and/or done by the Clipper project.
Yes, the last thing you want to do is add cost by redesigning the spacecraft at the point. Perhaps there will be some work in that direction given the benefits it would provide future deep space missions given the low price of the Falcon Heavy.
Not just for planetary missions. As I suggested, you could use the same system as a Earth orbiting tug. It’s about 7.5 km/s to go from low Earth orbit to geostationary orbit and back, and that’s also a very useful delta-v for a planetary mission. Of course, a payload to geostationary orbit would only be going up, and the tug would be going back by itself. For a planetary mission, the tug and the payload would be together the whole way. So the comparison isn’t simple. But I think a basically similar vehicle could serve both roles, one reusable as an Earth-orbiting tug and one expendable for planetary missions.
First, there is no such thing as a Falcon Super Heavy. Starship and Super Heavy are very different design from Falcon and Falcon Heavy.
Second, an RTG wouldn’t have nearly enough power to get Clipper to Jupiter using electric propulsion. For a spacecraft that big, tens of kilowatts might not be enough. More to the point, electric isn’t very efficient, and is very, very slow when the vehicle’s acceleration is low compared to the acceleration from the central body’s gravity. That means it’s fine for solar orbits, but you really don’t want to use it to climb all the way up from LEO to solar orbit, and then from solar orbit down to a Jovian orbit near the Galilean satellites.
BFR, whatever. I’m sure it will go through at least two more name changes before it’s ready whenever it’s ready. It does have a cargo configuration in addition to the starship passenger vehicle, and if it’s ready before 2023 it could be a potential candidate to launch Europa Clipper (although knowing SpaceX’s tendency to miss deadlines, I don’t think that’s likely).
Fair enough on the electric propulsion.
I know Mr. Musk has an almost unlimited ability to use inconsistent nomenclature. But I still think similar things should have similar names, and different things should have different names.
In any case, a NASA project like Europa Clipper can’t baseline a launch vehicle that hasn’t even been flown yet. Unless it’s being developed by another NASA project, then I guess they have to pretend to trust the other, NASA project’s schedule. For commercial launch services, it has to be an existing and certified vehicle.
And the Clipper project is getting to the point where they really need to know. Critical design review is in the fall, and that involves a whole bunch of things which depend on the launch vehicle and cruise trajectory to Jupiter.
From what I have seen the Kilopower project seems to be making progress, not least because the program name is not an acronym. It might have some potential for electric propulsion.
A Falcon Heavy used as a fully expendable launcher can get a good sized Europa Clipper to Jupiter with only 1x Earth gravity assist. That’s not so bad: considering they’d be saving about $1 billion with a B in launch costs, I’d say that would be worth the extra months waiting for that gravity assist…
The cruise with an Earth flyby (and deep space maneuver) adds about three years to the trip. For a flagship mission in its cruise phase, operating costs would be over $50 million per year, assuming it’s like past missions. So there would be a net savings, but not nearly all of the claimed $700 million.
I had not heard an additional 3 year figure from my source – more like 15 months. But thanks for the info.
It depends, but I can’t see 15 months. The fastest, non-direct trajectory I know of is the sort used by Juno and included in several proposed but unselected missions. That’s a launch to a solar orbit with a ~2 AU apohelion, a deep space maneuver around apohelion, and then an Earth flyby at perihelion. After that, it’s basically like a direct transfer. That’s 28 months longer than a direct transfer, although it does vary a bit from window to window. But I think that would require Clipper to launch on a fully expended Falcon Heavy.
On a Delta IV Heavy, they’d have to do something even less direct. The estimates I’ve seen from the project (e.g. presentations of the Outer Planers Assessment Group, or the material provided back when they were soliciting instruments) mentioned a few possibilities and a three year longer cruise.
“(2) FLEXIBILITY.—The Space Launch System shall be designed from inception as a fully-integrated vehicle capable of carrying a total payload of 130 tons or more into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. The Space Launch System shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate capabilities for evolutionary growth to carry heavier payloads. Developmental work and testing of the core elements and the upper stage should proceed in parallel subject to appropriations. Priority should be placed on the core elements with the goal for operational capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016”
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/64…
It was supposed to launch in 2016 . starting from 2010. It will be 12 years before it finally launches? Or More?
More.
I was talking with people about Orion yesterday and was told again, it could only be lifted by SLS. I reminded them Ares I could lift it to ISS with Orion tanks 1/2 full and that an Atlas V or Delta IV could lift it as well (with tanks full). Crickets. I also reminded them a stripe down version of Orion flew on a Delta IV. More Crickets. I told them Atlas V is human rated. Even more Crickets. I don’t want MSFC contractors to suffer like they did back in 2010. It was bad. We need to protect jobs and get real value for the tax dollar. SLS is not the way to do that. If we are going to Mars one day NASA will need a bigger ship than Orion (and several of them). Go build that.
You forgot the Falcon Heavy. Also NG is trying to recreate the Ares I under the name of Omega for the USAF. I am sure they wouldn’t mind offering it for the Orion.
https://www.northropgrumman…
100% agree
Its dead Jim.
Which episode was it, where McCoy said that and the patient later recovered?
“The Changeling”. Bones pronounces Scotty dead, then Nomad repairs him.
Can you name the episode where he said “He’s dead, Jim” or “He’s dead!” three times in one story?
…’Wolf In The Fold’.
Kill it. Waste of all resources. Use commercial launch capability. Upgrade as necessary. This d***** country is so wasteful.
Ah so we’re going to go through another year of this Kabuki theatre where we pretend the SLS won’t be funded in full by Congress? What’s this… year number 7? 8? Aren’t we tired of this game yet?
Is Senator Shelby still representing Alabama? Is NASA Huntsville still open for business? If yes to both, you have your answer. You know how this ends. You’ve seen this movie before.
Congress had zero interest in funding Obama’s priorities for any agency after 2011. The “Senate Launch System” was the tip of the iceberg in that regard. The Trump budgets have been the same. Even a unified Republican government didn’t care. Passed appropriations haven’t looked less like PBRs in our life time.
I don’t know why they didn’t just propose a 10% cut to NASA. Or hell, a 25%. You know while we are there, let’s just make it 35% and end all NASA Earth Science and shutter SMD as we know it. And then build a series of space-themed roller coasters and charge admission. You know, something completely ridiculous.
The PBRs aren’t serious documents and havent been for years, and it’s even worse of a joke to take them seriously when the next budget deal is already being quietly worked out by Congress, complete with an increase on the debt ceiling.
So instead of cuts to everything, get ready for a cool ~$80 billion increase to domestic spending and defense each ($160B+ spending over last budget). NASA, rather than suffering a 5% cut, will probably see it’s budget grow by 3-4%, just like the past five years. It’ll probably land around $22.3 billion give or take.
The SLS will carry on yet another year and next march we get to play this game all over again.
Before we get too excited about the future death of SLS, note that they cut $600 million from the Science budget. Except JWST, which gets more.