For decades, the space community bemoaned the discarding of the massive Saturn V rocket, the greatest of all heavy lift launch vehicles ever built, with the capacity of lifting 130 tons (118 metric tons) to low Earth orbit (LEO). Space advocates complained because they felt that, after Apollo, it could have lifted great amounts of hardware to build rapidly a space station, space ships, or help transport habitats and other hardware to the lunar surface.
Instead, we threw all this away in favor of the space shuttle, which did it tenure for 30 years, and recently was retired.
In 2010, Congress passed the NASA Authorizing Act of 2010, where, after the cancellation of Project Constellation (A government program to return humans to the Moon, also known as “Apollo on Steroids”), NASA is to build a new heavy lift launch vehicle, called the Space Launch System (SLS). Here, NASA took the other proposed Ares I and Ares V rocket designs from Constellation, themselves derived from the space shuttle, and commenced building the new SLS. This is to be built in three different phases or blocks, upgrading each block to carry more weight than the previous rocket, with the final upgrade able to lift 145 tons (130 metric tons).
The Final block of the SLS will be bigger than the Saturn V, with a greater launch capacity, making it the greatest heavy lift launch vehicle ever built.
There’s only one problem; nobody wants it!
The space movement doesn’t want it, commercial space doesn’t want it, and this author doesn’t want it!
This essay is against this project, and I will explain why.
The reasons, given in the nutshell, are as follows:
It is too expensive, $38 billion of government (your) money, and the cost will only rise, exponentially.
The SLS has no clear purpose.
It is projected to be used once every four years. Maybe more, but not by much.
The money NASA spends on developing it can be use in more constructive and creative ways to advance humanity into space, such as new technologies, including propulsion, that private industries cannot afford to do on their own. The money can also be used to construct a space infrastructure needed to advance into space as up and coming industries start venturing out there.
Private launch companies, such as Boeing, SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, are coming into the fold, launching cargo at a fraction of the cost of government built rockets, especially the SLS. Even if they require multiple launches matching the cargo capacity of the SLS, it will still be cheaper.
Finally, the SLS will not help the space movement; it will hinder it, due the amounts of money it will cost to develop, build, use, and maintain; money in the tens of billions of dollars that can be used otherwise for more advanced ways in the development of space.
Remember the International Space Station (ISS)? When it was first proposed back in 1984, it was estimated to cost only $8 billion to build. It ended up cost over $100 billion to build and maintain. The SLS will go on the same path, because it will require annual funding by Congress, and it will not always get the funding NASA will get for it year after year. Funding will start to be cut, and the cost of developing it will rise, due to technical glitches that the builders will no doubt encounter. How much will it cost down the road, I don’t know, but it will rise by a lot; double, triple, quadruple the original cost, perhaps even more.
Another fact that will contribute to this rising cost is that the different stages of the rocket are manufactured by different companies. They are as follows:
Core Stage - Michaud Assembly Facility
SSME (RS-25 Engines) - Aerojet Rocketdyne
Boosters - ATK (Alliant Techsystems)
On the boosters, Aerojet Rocketdyne are entering the competition with a booster design (Pyrios) using two F-1B engines that powered the first stage of the Saturn 5.
Upper Stage and Orion - Boeing
This in itself makes the rocket expensive, and the development of each stage is in the danger of cost overruns, which, in the long run, will make the SLS even more expensive.
A company like SpaceX is cheaper to go, because its entire rocket is built in one factory, keeping launch costs on the more inexpensive side.
The development of Heavy Lifts are expensive anyway. In 2004 dollars, the cost to develop the Saturn 5 rocket was $43 billion ($7.5 billion in 1966 dollars). The launch of a single Saturn 5 rocket costed $431 million, that’s $2.4 billion in 2004 dollars. (This data is from Encyclopedia Astronautica.) The SLS will not fare any better. So far, it has been projected that a launch from an SLS will cost $5 billion (tqhat will rise). It costed $1.5 billion to launch a space shuttle when it was in use, so compare that to the SLS.
Another fact is that the Saturn V and other rockets were developed by government specifications, and they are always more expensive. Our government is not in the business of developing anytime inexpensively, and they don’t have the ability to do so anyway, for the above reasons. (Everyone has to get into the act.)
Now that private enterprise is moving in, NASA needs to get out of the rocket business entirely. SpaceX, for example, has shown that they can launch the same amount of cargo that a NASA rocket, like the now defunct space shuttle can launch, but at a fraction of the cost. SpaceX claims that it will be able to launch cargo at less than $1000 per pound, even with the Falcon Heavy (estimated to be $709 per pound). The Falcon Heavy will be able to haul 117,000 lbs. to orbit that’s 58.5 tons.
Compare this with $1720 per pound with the SLS, and you have real savings here, even with multiple launches. With the advent of the returnable first stage, the cost will even go down further. The costs of launching cargo on the SLS will only rise, never fall.
I have heard all the cases for the SLS. It has been stated that the SLS will be the workhorse of the 21st century, forever upgrading to more advanced versions, and the SLS is desperately needed if we are to advance into space.
Oh really? Throughout the past century, we’ve, being private industry, have done this with cars, ships, and airplanes. We will do the same thing with rockets and later, space ships (they are different). Private industries will do that; it’s the way things are done, with or without government help. NASA’s new position will be to help research and develop the new technologies required for this. Private companies can then take it from there.
The last argument is that the SLS will take us to the Moon, Mars, and destinations beyond that. The Moon, yes, but Mars? As it is? It is designed to carry the Orion capsule, able to carry seven astronauts, but not very far…the Orion capsule itself is too small to carry astronauts over long distances for a long period of time.
I know what is required to take us to Mars, being advances in propulsion, long-term life support systems, and landing vehicles. Dr. Robert Zubrin, head of the Mars Society, sees the SLS being used for his Mars Direct, and explains it in great detail in his books, but many space advocates, including me, feel that this is not the way to go, and for good reason. (I will explain this in another essay).
There are pathways to Mars that will start from developing low Earth orbit, near Earth asteroids, and the Moon, and the SLS is not needed in any of these endeavors.
The harsh reality is that there is no planned project to use the SLS where other, more cheaper and efficient rockets cannot be used in its place, and that includes carrying the seven crew Orion capsule. Quite simply, it is a waste of time, money, and resources.
There is one main reason why the SLS is being developed - to provide jobs. To provide jobs in certain states so that those who are employed in this endeavor will continue to vote for the U.S. senator in their state responsible for providing these jobs by continually approve funding for the SLS, thus keeping that senator in office.
We in the space movement, have a special name for the SLS because of this situation. We call it the Senate Launch System. As stated in the last paragraph, the Senate Launch System is designed to keep U.S. senators in office who keep voting and providing funding to build this system so that the constituents can keep their jobs.
Well, those who work for the SLS will be able to find work in the private sector once this project is hopefully cancelled.
The old space program, with Apollo/shuttle program went from 1961 to 2011. These 50 years have served us well. When I was seven, I saw my first launch on TV, Gemini 5, and then subsequent launches, the Moon landings, Skylab, and finally, the shuttle, all broadcasted on television for the public to watch.
To their credit, the U.S. government and NASA got us to where we are now, and we wouldn’t be here had it not been for them.
The days of televised launches and the thrills of watching them are over, and that’s good. It is now time for private enterprise to come into the picture.
Congress should not only cancel the Space Launch System, but NASA must get out of the rocket launching business completely, and leave all the launches to the private entities like SpaceX and its competitors.
Whenever the government or NASA (both really are the same thing) require launch services for whatever reason, they should consult these companies to buy these services. “Buy the ride, not the rocket.”
NASA’s new role will be research and development of new technologies that the private industries cannot afford to do on their own.
The new role of NASA will be to develop new rocket and propulsion technologies, turn them over to the private companies, and then get out of the way.
Alastair Browne
Instead, we threw all this away in favor of the space shuttle, which did it tenure for 30 years, and recently was retired.
In 2010, Congress passed the NASA Authorizing Act of 2010, where, after the cancellation of Project Constellation (A government program to return humans to the Moon, also known as “Apollo on Steroids”), NASA is to build a new heavy lift launch vehicle, called the Space Launch System (SLS). Here, NASA took the other proposed Ares I and Ares V rocket designs from Constellation, themselves derived from the space shuttle, and commenced building the new SLS. This is to be built in three different phases or blocks, upgrading each block to carry more weight than the previous rocket, with the final upgrade able to lift 145 tons (130 metric tons).
The Final block of the SLS will be bigger than the Saturn V, with a greater launch capacity, making it the greatest heavy lift launch vehicle ever built.
There’s only one problem; nobody wants it!
The space movement doesn’t want it, commercial space doesn’t want it, and this author doesn’t want it!
This essay is against this project, and I will explain why.
The reasons, given in the nutshell, are as follows:
It is too expensive, $38 billion of government (your) money, and the cost will only rise, exponentially.
The SLS has no clear purpose.
It is projected to be used once every four years. Maybe more, but not by much.
The money NASA spends on developing it can be use in more constructive and creative ways to advance humanity into space, such as new technologies, including propulsion, that private industries cannot afford to do on their own. The money can also be used to construct a space infrastructure needed to advance into space as up and coming industries start venturing out there.
Private launch companies, such as Boeing, SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, are coming into the fold, launching cargo at a fraction of the cost of government built rockets, especially the SLS. Even if they require multiple launches matching the cargo capacity of the SLS, it will still be cheaper.
Finally, the SLS will not help the space movement; it will hinder it, due the amounts of money it will cost to develop, build, use, and maintain; money in the tens of billions of dollars that can be used otherwise for more advanced ways in the development of space.
Remember the International Space Station (ISS)? When it was first proposed back in 1984, it was estimated to cost only $8 billion to build. It ended up cost over $100 billion to build and maintain. The SLS will go on the same path, because it will require annual funding by Congress, and it will not always get the funding NASA will get for it year after year. Funding will start to be cut, and the cost of developing it will rise, due to technical glitches that the builders will no doubt encounter. How much will it cost down the road, I don’t know, but it will rise by a lot; double, triple, quadruple the original cost, perhaps even more.
Another fact that will contribute to this rising cost is that the different stages of the rocket are manufactured by different companies. They are as follows:
Core Stage - Michaud Assembly Facility
SSME (RS-25 Engines) - Aerojet Rocketdyne
Boosters - ATK (Alliant Techsystems)
On the boosters, Aerojet Rocketdyne are entering the competition with a booster design (Pyrios) using two F-1B engines that powered the first stage of the Saturn 5.
Upper Stage and Orion - Boeing
This in itself makes the rocket expensive, and the development of each stage is in the danger of cost overruns, which, in the long run, will make the SLS even more expensive.
A company like SpaceX is cheaper to go, because its entire rocket is built in one factory, keeping launch costs on the more inexpensive side.
The development of Heavy Lifts are expensive anyway. In 2004 dollars, the cost to develop the Saturn 5 rocket was $43 billion ($7.5 billion in 1966 dollars). The launch of a single Saturn 5 rocket costed $431 million, that’s $2.4 billion in 2004 dollars. (This data is from Encyclopedia Astronautica.) The SLS will not fare any better. So far, it has been projected that a launch from an SLS will cost $5 billion (tqhat will rise). It costed $1.5 billion to launch a space shuttle when it was in use, so compare that to the SLS.
Another fact is that the Saturn V and other rockets were developed by government specifications, and they are always more expensive. Our government is not in the business of developing anytime inexpensively, and they don’t have the ability to do so anyway, for the above reasons. (Everyone has to get into the act.)
Now that private enterprise is moving in, NASA needs to get out of the rocket business entirely. SpaceX, for example, has shown that they can launch the same amount of cargo that a NASA rocket, like the now defunct space shuttle can launch, but at a fraction of the cost. SpaceX claims that it will be able to launch cargo at less than $1000 per pound, even with the Falcon Heavy (estimated to be $709 per pound). The Falcon Heavy will be able to haul 117,000 lbs. to orbit that’s 58.5 tons.
Compare this with $1720 per pound with the SLS, and you have real savings here, even with multiple launches. With the advent of the returnable first stage, the cost will even go down further. The costs of launching cargo on the SLS will only rise, never fall.
I have heard all the cases for the SLS. It has been stated that the SLS will be the workhorse of the 21st century, forever upgrading to more advanced versions, and the SLS is desperately needed if we are to advance into space.
Oh really? Throughout the past century, we’ve, being private industry, have done this with cars, ships, and airplanes. We will do the same thing with rockets and later, space ships (they are different). Private industries will do that; it’s the way things are done, with or without government help. NASA’s new position will be to help research and develop the new technologies required for this. Private companies can then take it from there.
The last argument is that the SLS will take us to the Moon, Mars, and destinations beyond that. The Moon, yes, but Mars? As it is? It is designed to carry the Orion capsule, able to carry seven astronauts, but not very far…the Orion capsule itself is too small to carry astronauts over long distances for a long period of time.
I know what is required to take us to Mars, being advances in propulsion, long-term life support systems, and landing vehicles. Dr. Robert Zubrin, head of the Mars Society, sees the SLS being used for his Mars Direct, and explains it in great detail in his books, but many space advocates, including me, feel that this is not the way to go, and for good reason. (I will explain this in another essay).
There are pathways to Mars that will start from developing low Earth orbit, near Earth asteroids, and the Moon, and the SLS is not needed in any of these endeavors.
The harsh reality is that there is no planned project to use the SLS where other, more cheaper and efficient rockets cannot be used in its place, and that includes carrying the seven crew Orion capsule. Quite simply, it is a waste of time, money, and resources.
There is one main reason why the SLS is being developed - to provide jobs. To provide jobs in certain states so that those who are employed in this endeavor will continue to vote for the U.S. senator in their state responsible for providing these jobs by continually approve funding for the SLS, thus keeping that senator in office.
We in the space movement, have a special name for the SLS because of this situation. We call it the Senate Launch System. As stated in the last paragraph, the Senate Launch System is designed to keep U.S. senators in office who keep voting and providing funding to build this system so that the constituents can keep their jobs.
Well, those who work for the SLS will be able to find work in the private sector once this project is hopefully cancelled.
The old space program, with Apollo/shuttle program went from 1961 to 2011. These 50 years have served us well. When I was seven, I saw my first launch on TV, Gemini 5, and then subsequent launches, the Moon landings, Skylab, and finally, the shuttle, all broadcasted on television for the public to watch.
To their credit, the U.S. government and NASA got us to where we are now, and we wouldn’t be here had it not been for them.
The days of televised launches and the thrills of watching them are over, and that’s good. It is now time for private enterprise to come into the picture.
Congress should not only cancel the Space Launch System, but NASA must get out of the rocket launching business completely, and leave all the launches to the private entities like SpaceX and its competitors.
Whenever the government or NASA (both really are the same thing) require launch services for whatever reason, they should consult these companies to buy these services. “Buy the ride, not the rocket.”
NASA’s new role will be research and development of new technologies that the private industries cannot afford to do on their own.
The new role of NASA will be to develop new rocket and propulsion technologies, turn them over to the private companies, and then get out of the way.
Alastair Browne
No comments:
Post a Comment