It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will Space X's rocket kill NASA's "rocket to nowhere?"

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Here's an Op-Ed piece on Space.com that I find well written about the challenges for NASA concerning Space Exploration. NASA is being mandated by Congress to continue to build the SLS even though it is way more expensive than the Falcon Heavy. The F.H. will be able to do the same thing as the SLS for way cheaper, so why is congress forcing NASA's hand?

"Wouldn't it make more sense for NASA to buy a huge rocket from SpaceX or ULA and get much more capability for less money? If SLS were cancelled now, couldn't a small part of the resulting savings help speed up development of the large SpaceX or ULA launch vehicles — or both? In fact, this was exactly what NASA proposed to Congress before SLS was legally forced on them.?"

What say you, ATS?

www.space.com...




posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I wish for once as a nation we would put education and science, before all else.

How about instead of better trade tariffs for Walmart,

And farm Subsidizes to grow and simultaneously not grow something.

We do the same for science,

Hell, put a quarter of what we spent on any current war, pick one, Drugs, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other dumb ass government idea...


Space X could just be the start of a Golden age for man...


*sigh*

This is why we can't have nice things.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
The article is talking about a hypothetical super-heavy vehicle from SpaceX, not the Falcon Heavy. The Falcon Heavy is definitely going to be outclassed by the Block I SLS, with Falcon Heavy being able to deliver 53,000 kg to low Earth orbit compared to the Block I SLS's 70,000 kg. The Block IB SLS variant would be be able to deliver 105,000 kg to 120,000 kg, and the Block II SLS would be in the 150,000 kg range. So yeah, Falcon Heavy is definitely not a substitute for The SLS.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   

benrl
I wish for once as a nation we would put education and science, before all else.

How about instead of better trade tariffs for Walmart,
And farm Subsidizes to grow and simultaneously not grow something.
We do the same for science,
Hell, put a quarter of what we spent on any current war, pick one, Drugs, Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other dumb ass government idea...
Space X could just be the start of a Golden age for man...

*sigh*

This is why we can't have nice things.


In the article, the author drives home the fact that politicians in certain districts use funds allocated to Space to their benefit; keeping certain companies afloat and people employed so that they can line their pockets and get more votes.

Sad but true. Who will do anything about it especially when their lively-hoods depend on those jobs? Yes, things need to change for NASA but how?



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 08:21 PM
link   

nataylor
The article is talking about a hypothetical super-heavy vehicle from SpaceX, not the Falcon Heavy. The Falcon Heavy is definitely going to be outclassed by the Block I SLS, with Falcon Heavy being able to deliver 53,000 kg to low Earth orbit compared to the Block I SLS's 70,000 kg. The Block IB SLS variant would be be able to deliver 105,000 kg to 120,000 kg, and the Block II SLS would be in the 150,000 kg range. So yeah, Falcon Heavy is definitely not a substitute for The SLS.


I'm not aware of Block I SLS. Will that be even more expensive than the present SLS which, by itself, is way too expensive for there to be any money left for NASA to explore other projects?



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   

lostbook
Here's an Op-Ed piece on Space.com that I find well written about the challenges for NASA concerning Space Exploration. NASA is being mandated by Congress to continue to build the SLS even though it is way more expensive than the Falcon Heavy. The F.H. will be able to do the same thing as the SLS for way cheaper, so why is congress forcing NASA's hand?

"Wouldn't it make more sense for NASA to buy a huge rocket from SpaceX or ULA and get much more capability for less money? If SLS were cancelled now, couldn't a small part of the resulting savings help speed up development of the large SpaceX or ULA launch vehicles — or both? In fact, this was exactly what NASA proposed to Congress before SLS was legally forced on them.?"

What say you, ATS?

www.space.com...


The answer is no. Even a Falcon Heavy doesn't have the payload capacity of SLS.

Rockets that are vaporware aren't really a good argument against anything.
edit on 11-2-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   
the problem more or less is that SLS is funded in a traditional NASA manner; using Cost-Plus-Reward Contracts for its design and manufacture.

and while cost-plus contracts might make sense when you have something like an experimental test vehicle (like an x-plane), it doesn't if you're basically going to be reusing already existing technologies in a different way.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by lostbook
 


SLS is meant to be an evolving platform. The first version to launch spacecraft will be called Block I. An upgraded version with enhanced main engines will be called Block IB and provide greater lift capability. The Block IA variant will add advanced boosters, further increasing the lift capability. The largest version, Block II, will add an enhanced upper stage bringing the total low Earth payload to 150,000 kg.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 11:20 PM
link   



The answer is no. Even a Falcon Heavy doesn't have the payload capacity of SLS.

Rockets that are vaporware aren't really a good argument against anything.
edit on 11-2-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)


You don't agree with the article JadeStar? You don't agree with the article writer's contention that NASA should use Falcon Heavy in lieu of the SLS which is, reportedly, eating so much of their budget that they can accomplish nothing else.....? Maybe the Falcon Heavy is smaller than the SLS in its many versions but when are those versions due to fly? I think Falcon is the way to go, it's not hampered by politics and its objectives won't be changed every 4 years.

I know you are very knowledgeable in this area of expertise so i appreciate your input.
edit on 11-2-2014 by lostbook because: additional sentence



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   

lostbook



The answer is no. Even a Falcon Heavy doesn't have the payload capacity of SLS.

Rockets that are vaporware aren't really a good argument against anything.
edit on 11-2-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)


You don't agree with the article JadeStar? You don't agree with the article writer's contention that NASA should use Falcon Heavy in lieu of the SLS which is, reportedly, eating so much of their budget that they can accomplish nothing else.....? Maybe the Falcon Heavy is smaller than the SLS in its many versions but when are those versions due to fly? I think Falcon is the way to go, it's not hampered by politics and its objectives won't be changed every 4 years.

I know you are very knowledgeable in this area of expertise so i appreciate your input.
edit on 11-2-2014 by lostbook because: additional sentence


I guess the best and simplest way to answer this is that:

1. SLS is already being built - Falcon Heavy isn't. Abandoning something which a ton of money has gone into would be a boondoggle.
2. It depends on the mission. Falcon Heavy will be ideal for some missions, SLS for others.
3. Why do we have to choose? The more vehicles the better. Can't Space-X build Falcon Heavy without a big NASA contract?
edit on 12-2-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   



I guess the best and simplest way to answer this is that:

1. SLS is already being built - Falcon Heavy isn't. Abandoning something which a ton of money has gone into would be a boondoggle.
2. It depends on the mission. Falcon Heavy will be ideal for some missions, SLS for others.
3. Why do we have to choose? The more vehicles the better. Can't Space-X build Falcon Heavy without a big NASA contract?
edit on 12-2-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)


That would be the ideal scenario; build them both. Will that happen? Um.m.m...
edit on 12-2-2014 by lostbook because: Fixed text



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by lostbook
 



Congress is spending this money on NASA to keep, and telling NASA to keep this up because someone is pocketing money and benefitting greatly from it. It is no secret that NASA is no longer the front runner in space exploration technology. That crown now falls on the private sector. In particular, SpaceX.


I LOVE SpaceX.

There are many companies out there doing a lot of good for society. But so very few are doing something that may one day guarantee the survival of the human race. They have managed to outperform the expectations of investors and naysayers that said private space exploration was a pipe dream.

NASA is no longer synonymous with space. SpaceX has since taken over that spot and they are doing one hell of a great job.

As soon as their is a public offering for SpaceX stock I intend to be an early buyer. Elon Musk has managed to create an outstanding company with an outstanding vision.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 09:30 AM
link   

projectvxn

I LOVE SpaceX.

There are many companies out there doing a lot of good for society. But so very few are doing something that may one day guarantee the survival of the human race. They have managed to outperform the expectations of investors and naysayers that said private space exploration was a pipe dream.

NASA is no longer synonymous with space. SpaceX has since taken over that spot and they are doing one hell of a great job...


But they are doing it with NASA money. The contract to SpaceX provide the Dragon ISS re-suppy craft (and hopefully crew craft one day) is a NASA contract. Granted, this is a different contract delivery method than NASA used in the past, because the private company (in this case SpaceX) retains ownership of the hardware, and they also supply mission management -- i.e., the contract for the Dragon re-supply deliveries (and potential future crew deliveries) to the ISS is a whole-mission contract, rather than the old days where the contract was simply for the hardware itself.

But don't forget -- NASA (itself) did not build the Saturn V rocket. The rocket itself was designed and built by three companies who were contracted by NASA to do so -- Boeing Corporation built the first stage, North American Aviation built the second stage, and Douglas Aircraft Corporation built the third. NASA was involved in stacking the pieces together.

The Apollo command module was not built by NASA -- it was built by North American Aviation. The Lunar Module was designed and built by Grumman Corporation. The lunar rover was a product of General Motors Corporation and Boeing.

Even the SLS system and its components are not being totally designed and built in house by NASA. The booster for the SLS are being provided by Alliant Teschsystems, and the Orion crew capsule is being designed and built by Boeing Corporation.

However, As I mentioned, the contract with SpaceX is different. They are basically providing a full service spaceflight to NASA, including mission support, not simply building rockets.


edit on 2/12/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   

JadeStar
1. SLS is already being built - Falcon Heavy isn't. Abandoning something which a ton of money has gone into would be a boondoggle.
2. It depends on the mission. Falcon Heavy will be ideal for some missions, SLS for others.
3. Why do we have to choose? The more vehicles the better. Can't Space-X build Falcon Heavy without a big NASA contract?
edit on 12-2-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)


Oh, Falcon Heavy is definitely in development. SpaceX already has contracts for launches on it.

But again, the space.com article wasn't talking about Falcon Heavy competing with the SLS. It was talking about a hypothetical SpaceX vehicle that Elon Musk recently eluded to when talking about a "Mars Colonial" vehicle. He said such a vehicle would make the Saturn V look small. That's certainly not the Falcon Heavy. But there's no indication that development of such a vehicle is beyond the most preliminary brainstorming stages. We're talking something bigger than the Falcon XX, which itself is pretty much only hypothetical at this point. From a SpaceX presentation:



In the end, I think Falcon Heavy, and it's future variants, as well as the SLS will get built. And I think that's a good thing.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Space exploration has always relied on triple redundancy. Having multiple boosters being developed independently increases the odds that at least one of them will be serviceable.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   

projectvxn
reply to post by lostbook
 



Congress is spending this money on NASA to keep, and telling NASA to keep this up because someone is pocketing money and benefitting greatly from it. It is no secret that NASA is no longer the front runner in space exploration technology. That crown now falls on the private sector. In particular, SpaceX.


I LOVE SpaceX.

There are many companies out there doing a lot of good for society. But so very few are doing something that may one day guarantee the survival of the human race. They have managed to outperform the expectations of investors and naysayers that said private space exploration was a pipe dream.

NASA is no longer synonymous with space. SpaceX has since taken over that spot and they are doing one hell of a great job.

As soon as their is a public offering for SpaceX stock I intend to be an early buyer. Elon Musk has managed to create an outstanding company with an outstanding vision.


What has Space-X done for the exploration of space so far?

What probes has it sent into the solar system?

What Space Telescopes have they boosted?

Space X is a commercial satellite launching company until proven otherwise.

I am jazzed as anyone that they are bringing the cost of access to low and geo earth orbit down but calm down until they show they can contribute to exploration and not simply loft communications satellites.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   

nataylor

JadeStar
1. SLS is already being built - Falcon Heavy isn't. Abandoning something which a ton of money has gone into would be a boondoggle.
2. It depends on the mission. Falcon Heavy will be ideal for some missions, SLS for others.
3. Why do we have to choose? The more vehicles the better. Can't Space-X build Falcon Heavy without a big NASA contract?
edit on 12-2-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)


Oh, Falcon Heavy is definitely in development. SpaceX already has contracts for launches on it.

But again, the space.com article wasn't talking about Falcon Heavy competing with the SLS. It was talking about a hypothetical SpaceX vehicle that Elon Musk recently eluded to when talking about a "Mars Colonial" vehicle. He said such a vehicle would make the Saturn V look small. That's certainly not the Falcon Heavy. But there's no indication that development of such a vehicle is beyond the most preliminary brainstorming stages. We're talking something bigger than the Falcon XX, which itself is pretty much only hypothetical at this point. From a SpaceX presentation:



In the end, I think Falcon Heavy, and it's future variants, as well as the SLS will get built. And I think that's a good thing.


Solid points and I agree.



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


I agree.

But what SpaceX represents to me as a company is the realization and solidification that the private sector can and will do it better and cheaper. NASA, for all the good it has done this great nation, is an aging dinosaur. An unimaginative organization with a congress to either force policy upon it, or yank funding on it at any moment. Space exploration and colonization is NOT going to be a public sector industry. It will be private. Companies like SpaceX are just the beginning.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join