50 Years of Progress in Launcher Design

[DeltaV]

In the good old days, this was known as "building pyramids".




(Edit - fixed dead link)

[djolds1]

In the good old days, this was known as "building pyramids".

I doubt SLS is ever built. NASA will be forced to opt for the Falcon Heavy when it becomes available next year. Fifty tonnes to LEO in throw-away mode, more when the Merlin-2 engines come on-line. Given the current fiscal environment, there is no way to justify a typical state-sponsored platinum-plated development program when that work is already available and developed elsewhere domestically at a fraction of the final price SLS would require.

[Betruger]

Isn't there legislation that requires govt to opt for cheaper (and private?) launcher option if it's available?

[Skipjack]

I doubt SLS is ever built. NASA will be forced to opt for the Falcon Heavy when it becomes available next year. Fifty tonnes to LEO in throw-away mode, more when the Merlin-2 engines come on-line. Given the current fiscal environment, there is no way to justify a typical state-sponsored platinum-plated development program when that work is already available and developed elsewhere domestically at a fraction of the final price SLS would require.

1. It does not matter whether the SLS will ever fly. The companies contracted with its development will have made plenty of money until then. That is why they love these sorts of contracts. Billions of USD and billions more in cost overruns and no need to ever deliver anything until it is cancelled. The follow on project to the SLS will do just the same.
2. Falcon will be fully reusable soon and as such will represent a signifficant technological advance. Falcon Heavy will probably reuse the first stage(s) as well, which would also mean an improvement. AFAIK, none of the components of the SLS would be reusable. The SRBs might be, but that was never really cost effective anyway.

[93143]

[*facepalm*]

You know, on NSF, people who criticize SLS usually have half a clue what they're talking about...

Falcon Heavy is not and never will be a substitute for SLS. Especially after reusability has taken its toll on the payload capacity, assuming they get reusability to work at all (which isn't a given)...

[GIThruster]

I think Skippy's point is well made. Falcon Heavy will never be a replacement for SLS, but we don't have a proven need for SLS.

The only way one can make the case that SLS is worth the money is to show why we need a 130T launcher. Atlas Heavy is only 30T and Falcon Heavy is currently 53T. With all the billions to be saved by launching these instead of an SLS--savings all on top of the cost to develop SLS--why do we need SLS? What are the missions that absolutely cannot be accomplished by Falcon and Atlas?

The engineers at NSF may be in support because this silly spending is keeping them employed, but that doesn't make it good space policy. It's very poor policy. Anyone looking at the numbers would certainly choose the 97% savings with Falcon and more if Grasshopper ever proves out.

IMHO, the real problem is there is no specific plan for what we intend to do in space this next decade. Deciding to build a huge launcher and then work out the plan is like deciding to build shuttle and then work out the plan. Haven't we had enough of that?

If for example we had a plan to build a fleet of interplanetary explorer class ships and fly them from LEO to Titan and everywhere between, we could look at Falcon and decide if 53T is big enough to accomplish the task. Likely we'd find that Atlas is big enough. Just how many spacecraft components have to be larger than the 20T lift we used for ISS? Probably none.

So why are we building SLS? Can't have anything to do with real need. Seems obvious to me its another jobs program. If we're going to have an aerospace jobs program, why not accomplish something real with it, like building a fleet of Nautilus-X type craft and sending them out? Not gonna happen while we're throwing money away on launch systems we don't need.

[93143]

Like I said (and like you apparently didn't parse correctly) - people on NSF who criticize SLS usually (not always) have some idea of what they're talking about. This board, unfortunately, is still mostly at the clueless blogger level...

97% savings with Falcon

Case in point. I had an extended response composed, but in the face of something like this I have to wonder if it's worth it... maybe I'll just continue my previous policy of ignoring NASA-related jabber on this forum...

...okay, apparently I can't resist hitting at least one point:

What are the missions that absolutely cannot be accomplished by Falcon and Atlas?

SLS is the only launcher that can get Orion (or another EELV- or EELV-Heavy-class payload) anywhere in cislunar space. It's not about LEO; the SLS team is largely ignoring LEO performance in favour of TLI...

The plan has been kept low-key because NASA doesn't want a Romney administration to can it as an Obama legacy. But apparently the L2 gateway has become solid enough that they couldn't resist spilling it...

[GIThruster]

I'm sorry but that's all rubbish. SLS is the only launcher able to go to cislunar space with one rocket. It will still cost many times more to go to the moon with SLS than it would with a pair of Falcons.

As far as keeping it hush hush because they're worried about Romney, you have to be a moron to believe such things. You think if elected Romney isn't going to get a full accounting of what NASA is doing and why?

Seriously, NSF has always been surrounded by pretense and bullshit. I can see nothing has changed.

[93143]

Which version of my response did you read?

Either way, I can certainly see how you might have managed to get yourself kicked off NSF...

[GIThruster]

You post a response that deliberately offends everyone on this forum, and then because my response has the word "penis" decide you have some morally superior grounds to argue from?

Who shot your dog today? You sound bonkers.

[93143]

My post was relatively accurate, if offensive. And I edited it with real information. Yours was nothing but angry noise.

Both of them would have resulted in a delete-and-ban on NSF...

For a while now I've been deliberately ignoring NASA-related talk on this forum, because I didn't want to be drawn into a time-consuming argument with the brick wall that is Skipjack. The issues are nuanced, which means that a shouting match is a really bad way to get anything accomplished.

But I've gotten increasingly frustrated with the level of discussion, and I let some steam off; my apologies for this. It basically amounts to starting an argument with a parting shot; I can't imagine a technique less likely to be productive...

All right, here's the bulk of what I had:

With all the billions to be saved by launching these instead of an SLS--savings all on top of the cost to develop SLS

Can you quantify this? No, you can't. It depends strongly on flight rate. Flight rate depends strongly on program funding. Program funding depends strongly on what Congress wants to do. What Congress wants to do is SLS.

One way or the other, if NASA wants to explore it is going to have to sink billions into something that the market isn't ready to do on its own. Congress wants that to be a heavy lifter. Fine, I say; that's one way to skin the cat, it's pretty general in its usefulness, and it's not like NASA would keep the money if they managed to convince Congress to cancel it. The question is whether they'll keep the money in any case; if they don't, switching launchers is not going to help...

The SLS program is significantly streamlined compared with Ares. NASA has learned from its mistakes, it's learned from SpaceX, and it knows the budget outlook is bleak. PDR is next year, and there are no signs of the problems that Ares was already showing at this stage.

[GIThruster]

You can make up all the excuses you like trying to justify SLS. The fact remains no one who knows what it is wanted it. Only the senate wants it. It is a jobs program expected to cost $40B over the next 12 years with just 4 launches. With $40B Musk could launch 100 Falcons and send hundreds of people to the Moon.

SLS is a lot of nonsense by a lot of people who believe they deserve a job even when there is no job to do. NASA is dead. It is a dinasaur that has continually made itself irrelevant. It is this belief that they can spend whatever they like with no real progress that has made NASA irrelevant. All the real news is in private industry and until NASA get some vision, they are doomed to one failure after the next.

Of course Romney will kill SLS. Anyone with a clue would kill SLS. Who in their right mind could possibly think it's worth $40B to send 4 70T launches to LEO in 12 years? SLS is a fantastically bad joke. If there are people at NSF defending it, you can be sure they're defending their jobs. No reasonable people think it's a program that makes any sense at all.

And you ought to know better. Waving the "it's launch rate" nonsense around just makes you look like a snake oil salesman. Yeah, it's launch rate, and the rate is going to make the rockets cost more than $10B each. Get a clue.

[93143]

I'm sorry but that's all rubbish. SLS is the only launcher able to go to cislunar space with one rocket. It will still cost many times more to go to the moon with SLS than it would with a pair of Falcons.

No existing upper stage has the duration or the rendezvous capability to send a payload that heavy to the moon. In fact, no two existing rockets, not even Delta IV Heavies, could send Orion to the moon even if the stages could be linked up.

How many partially-empty Falcon upper stages would you have to daisy-chain to get a 20-ton payload to an L-point? I don't even know...

As far as keeping it hush hush because they're worried about Romney, you have to be a moron to believe such things. You think if elected Romney isn't going to get a full accounting of what NASA is doing and why?

Perhaps I should have been more careful not to sound like I was presenting that as fact or any sort of official story. It's one theory, that seems to make more sense than any other as to why they've been sitting on the results of the architecture study.

Of course he'd get a full accounting of what NASA was doing and why. But he'd be a new president, and new presidents seem to have a tendency to want to put their own stamp on NASA. We've had quite enough of that lately; some things are better off for Obama's FY2011 stunt and the ensuing thrash, but others are most certainly not, and there's no guarantee another attempt would go even that well.

As for Bush cancelling the SLI, I'm not sure there was anything good about that...

The theory goes that if NASA keeps things quiet before the election, whatever they've come up with can then be Romney's plan rather than Obama's plan, and he'll be more likely to keep it going.

Seriously, NSF has always been surrounded by pretense and bullshit. I can see nothing has changed.

No, that's just you being bitter. Any forum will have those things, but NSF has a lot of real information and insight, and a lot of industry professionals both as posters and as contacts. The level of discussion is far beyond what you get anywhere else I've seen.

[GIThruster]

Seriously, NSF has always been surrounded by pretense and bullshit. I can see nothing has changed.

No, that's just you being bitter. Any forum will have those things, but NSF has a lot of real information and insight, and a lot of industry professionals both as posters and as contacts. The level of discussion is far beyond what you get anywhere else I've seen.

That's true. There are people at NSF who know their stuff. It's the best source of real information about the current national manned space program. It is however completely surrounded by and permeated with pretense and bullshit. There are a lot of people who because of their first hand knowledge, are sure they are always right, even when they're obviously wrong.

Put all that aside. The Senate Launch System is a bad joke that is going to sidetrack this nation for the next decade because once again, we have a President who doesn't care about space enough to provide real vision. If what the President wanted to do was revitalize the space program with a new vision and stretch the few dollars NASA has access to, it would be buying Falcons and building the Nautalus-X or something similar.

Let me ask, do you have any idea how much money has been spent on Orion, and how much SLS intends to continue to spend, and how those numbers compare with the development of Dragon? You cannot be familiar with these issues and think SLS is a good idea.

[93143]

The fact remains no one who knows what it is wanted it.

The Senate didn't make up the design; they simply specified what NASA fed them. This is known. For instance, the 130 tons is from Mars design studies.

expected to cost $40B over the next 12 years

Factually incorrect, and not by a small amount. Unless you're including MPCV and 21CGS.

It is this belief that they can spend whatever they like with no real progress that has made NASA irrelevant.

You don't think NASA wants to make progress? As for spending whatever they like, they are aware that they can't continue to do things the Ares way, and the SLS program is reportedly on a major diet.

Do you know how much cost reduction went into Shuttle? Quite a bit - by the end of its life the system was commercially viable for missions requiring its special capabilities, not that the USG cared...

...do you mean irrelevant to HSF, or in general? If the latter, your view is utterly indefensible. But I don't think you really mean that. Even the former is kinda silly if you actually stop and think...

Waving the "it's launch rate" nonsense around just makes you look like a snake oil salesman.

You didn't finish the paragraph, did you? It's not launch rate; it's politics.

Yeah, it's launch rate, and the rate is going to make the rockets cost more than $10B each.

Preposterous methodology. SLS isn't intended to launch four times and be ended. Even if it were, that's not just the rocket; it's the capsule as well, and a bunch of infrastructure that's not going anywhere regardless.

There are a lot of people who because of their first hand knowledge, are sure they are always right, even when they're obviously wrong.

I don't see a lot of those. I see a few people who have first-hand knowledge and usually turn out to be right. I see people with first-hand knowledge that disagree with one another and can hold intelligent conversations with one another, and none of them hold the naive views that are considered obvious fact around here. I see a lot of people without first-hand knowledge that are sure they are always right, and they usually flat-out miss what their opponents are actually saying in their haste to disagree with what they think their opponents are saying...

If an expert says something that you think is "obviously" wrong, chances are fair-to-middling you've missed something. The word "obviously" is a red flag...

The experts on NSF are split on SLS. They generally acknowledge the same fact base, but they range from cautiously optimistic (it will enable exploration if the government gives us enough money) to flatly pessimistic (it will never be funded to first flight). The guys actually working on it seem to make mostly factual posts, rather than offering opinions on whether or not it's a good idea.

Put all that aside. The Senate Launch System is a bad joke that is going to sidetrack this nation for the next decade because once again, we have a President who doesn't care about space enough to provide real vision. If what the President wanted to do was revitalize the space program with a new vision and stretch the few dollars NASA has access to, it would be buying Falcons and building the Nautalus-X or something similar.

There's a logical disconnect in there. How is it that changing what NASA is doing is eminently feasible, while changing how much money it gets is flat-out impossible? The same people are in charge of both.

Everyone has his own pet idea as to what NASA should be doing. Yours apparently involves handing SpaceX a lucrative monopoly, which might turn out well...

Also, the NAUTILUS-X core is too big for any existing launcher. The Falcon Heavy might be able to handle it...

It wouldn't take much extra money to make SLS worth it. Right now, the chances of NASA getting that money seem slim (but five years is a long time; consider where we were five years ago). The chances of Congress funding something else, at least without a fight that would drag on for years and do even more damage to NASA, seem slimmer. And then NASA has to implement it...

On the other hand, if SLS and Orion do get finished, that's two-thirds of a lunar architecture and a really obvious opening for any administration that wants to do an exploration mission without a bunch of prep that will take multiple political cycles. And it plays nicely with the L2 Gateway idea that seems to have gained ascendancy within NASA.

Exploration is about much more than the launcher. If NASA doesn't get more money, we won't be doing much exploration regardless of how cheap the launcher is. If NASA does get more money, SLS can be an effective tool. This isn't the catastrophic blunder Ares was, though if the government keeps cutting NASA (as if it were NASA's fault the deficit is so high) the consequences may be no better...

I say that when all factors are considered, SLS is d@mn well good enough, and I don't want to waste any more time thrashing. It is a tentative conclusion, but I don't think the alternatives are as clearly superior as you make out. Also, I think NASA desperately needs to execute a successful program here; if we rip it out and start over again it is likely to be the last straw in the eyes of many in Congress, and NASA HSF will never recover.

Let me ask, do you have any idea how much money has been spent on Orion, and how much SLS intends to continue to spend, and how those numbers compare with the development of Dragon?

I do.

SLS is about $10B to get to IOC with Block 1 (assuming deep budget cuts don't murder the cost and schedule), and about $1.6B in fixed costs each year after that. I know of no solid estimates for further development (BAH received some, but apparently didn't like 'em), but an advanced hydrolox upper stage is usually in the vicinity of $4B, and advanced boosters might be around half that. (NB: It seems that ACES, at least the stage, is happening anyway, targeted for around 2020. It would be nice if NASA could leverage that for the CPS, though I was hoping CPS would get an earlier rollout; perhaps NASA could go in with the Air Force and speed things up...?) Note also that the 130-ton capability does not have a schedule requirement, and the fact that MSFC is focusing on TLI capability implies that 130 tons is on the back burner...

NASA has spent around $5B on Orion, and will spend roughly that much more to get to IOC, followed by several hundred million per year in capability and infrastructure sustainment. This is because (a) Ares I was sucking up funds and forcing Orion to change its design repeatedly, and (b) SLS isn't getting a budget bump, which pushes IOC out so far that Orion could easily be ready well before its launcher, so it's being slow-rolled. Orion would have been under budget and ahead of schedule if it weren't for Ares I, and the remaining spend would be less if the SLS/MPCV development budget were further above the fixed-cost floor.

This is also why NASA didn't go with the two-stage kerolox/hydrolox vehicle that "won" the RACs. Development cost was too high.

Actually, the SLS/MPCV estimates are at least partly based on Constellation-era practices. NASA is trying to streamline and do things more efficiently; one manager was quoted as saying that if SLS costs as much as the projections, he's not doing his job. And the schedule is packed with margin, as should be evident from the fact that it hasn't budged since it was announced a year ago. We shall see how much, exactly, NASA has learned...

SpaceX has spent about a billion dollars so far, most of it from NASA, and will spend maybe another billion making Dragon manned. They'll spend another billion if they go with Merlin 2, and probably a couple billion on Raptor; neither of these was included in their $2.5B super-heavy proposal (the thing didn't involve LH2 at any point; this is part of SpaceX's secret to low cost, and it's also why Falcon Heavy's advertised GTO performance loses to that of the DIVH). So maybe $6-8B to get an SLS Block 2 equivalent plus capsule, or $3-5B to get an SLS Block 1 equivalent plus capsule - except that the capsule is half the size of Orion and doesn't have near as much delta-V. Not to mention that IOC would likely be much to the right compared with SLS/Orion. Plus you'd end up tossing out everything NASA and its contractors know about Shuttle-heritage systems and operations in favour of untried technology in the hands of an untried company. And for that budget the government doesn't get any design oversight; they'd probably want it for a program of this magnitude and mission-criticality, which due to regulations not unique to the space program would add significant cost. This is all dependent on SpaceX being able to perform as advertised, and there was very little basis for confidence at the time the SLS decision was made.

The projected prices for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are predicated on ten launches of each per year. And those are pure kerolox vehicles, which means they're much less useful for exploration than their LEO performance would seem to indicate. SpaceX's workforce numbers continue to climb... yes, that's a good thing; it means they're doing stuff...

...

Remember that study that compared SpaceX's development costs with the output of a prediction method? And how even the "commercial" development came out way higher than SpaceX's numbers?

Well, it turns out that wasn't a test of SpaceX's awesomeness compared with everyone else. It was a test of the prediction method. Tweaking it resulted in a much more accurate prediction...

...

Dammit, I want high-thrust M-E technology. That would end the argument real quick...

...

Dammit, I wasted my entire afternoon on this. Please try not to respond point-by-point unless you absolutely have to...