Hacker News Reader

Comment by zrail | Hacker News Reader

If SpaceX and friends can reliably launch cargo and eventually humans into LEO, why can't NASA focus on what to put into space, rather than how to get there? I'm sure I don't understand the mechanics of it, but wouldn't it be possible to put up a few smaller cargo carriers containing fuel and pieces of a trans-mars ship and assemble it in orbit?

View on HN

The proposed payload for the NASA SLS is 64,000kg-120,000kg while the Falcon 9 is 10,450 kg. The proposed payload for the Falcon Heavy is 53,000 kg.

So to match 1 SLS launch you are looking at 6-12 Falcon 9s (which have flown) or 2-3 Falcon Heavy launches (which have not flown).

I don't think it's a stretch to say that using Space X would be significantly cheaper to get the same weight up there because the design work is already done. You probably would want to use the Falcon Heavy because you don't want to piece together 10 different things, but that is just 3 Falcon 9s strapped together which I can't imagine is as expensive as designing a new launch vehicle from scratch.

You are absolutely right that at this point NASA needs to get out of the launching game. Use the tax money for payloads whether that is a manned mission or robots.

Exactly. Is this not very similar to the program that was recently cancelled?

Reading this actually made me quite angry, and I'm someone who is a fan of new technology, especially new space technology. What new ground is being covered here? "President Obama challenged us to be bold and dream big, and that's exactly what we are doing at NASA". I have to disagree. This looks a lot like NASA is about to reinvent the Saturn V.

Surely it's best for NASA to completely draw a line and vow to never develop any more (conventional) launch vehicles. In orbit assembly presumably is exactly the kind of thing they should be investigating. Unless of course they plan to do all their deep space exploration via a single rocket launch?

"So to match 1 SLS launch you are looking at 6-12 Falcon 9s (which have flown) or 2-3 Falcon Heavy launches (which have not flown)."

It is my impression that SpaceX anticipates doing exactly that sort of thing.

Elon Musk has said in public, that they hope to build an ultra heavy lift vehicle which would be more powerful than the Saturn V.

That is a direct competition to this new NASA job program. And will probably cost 10-20% per lbs to orbit?

So NASA now has incentives to kill SpaceX, since they'll never be able to compete (except with political weight)? :-(

Edit: OTOH, I guess NASA will never make the SLS fly anyway...

It's still much cheaper and easier in the long run to build one launcher big enough to do a straight shot from Earth to Mars or other target. You have all the assembly done on Earth and put all the lift capability into a single hyperbolic trajectory straight to the target, instead of doing on-orbit assembly (which we know how to do but is still outrageously harder) and devoting a lot of launch capability into putting mass in a circular orbit in an orbital plane around the Earth that's constrained by the launch site latitude, only to have to counteract a lot of that Delta V to put that mass onto a new hyperbolic escape trajectory along a plane defined between Earth and the target once it's put together.

I believe SpaceX is planning on developing a still more powerful heavy launch rocket that could shoot human crewed missions straight to Mars in a single shot. The Falcon Heavy could send a substantial payload to the Mars surface.

Another benefit of larger rockets is the width of the components they can carry. I'm no expert, but larger spacecraft modules seem like a big win for long duration missions.

I think the problem is that the things NASA wants to send into orbit are much larger than what the commercial space industry is planning to send into orbit. That's why NASA is taking the lead and building a vehicle specifically designed for large loads rather than people or satellites.

I disagree. Commercial launch systems are just beginning to unfold and for example SpaceX has already announced plans for heavy lift versions in the very near future. Contrast this with the SLS, which is the umpteenth attempt at rediscovering how the mysterious and ancient Saturn V worked, and which will probably be cancelled within three years without ever producing something that can actually get off the launch pad.

Programs like these are completely superfluous and most people involved know it. NASA is not even hiding what this project is for: it's a job program, says so right there in the article. And when they say "jobs", they don't refer to real companies like SpaceX or even themselves, they mean huge defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

Sure, but something that can assemble things in space (as well as raw materials) is going to be heavy and if its heavy its going to need a heavy launcher. Fuel is heavy too. At the end of the day, you need a powerful rocket to do the heavy lifting. NASA doesn't want to turn into an agency that just gives seed money to SpaceX and wants its own heavy human-rated lifter and capsule.

Not to mention, there's political will for NASA to continue being in the launch business and for good reason. SpaceX could land a monopoly on heavy launches and could raise its prices, get bought by a foreign power, go bankrupt, use shoddy designs, or who knows what else.

edit: really -2 moderation? Downvoting for disgreeing now? Wow HN.

It's not seed money, it's buying from a private contracter. The Air Force doesn't build planes, it buys planes. The Navy doesn't build ships, it buys ships. The Army doesn't make tanks, it buys tanks.

Now part of that process involves a lot of military oversight and specification to make sure things are up to their standards. I know that the military is involved in the design of systems from Day 1. But all of those things are made by private corporations and they have no commercial equivalent. NASA operates this way already to a large extent. Boeing, Lockheed, etc are primary contractors that design & build a lot of this stuff.

What NASA is going through right now is a switch from that model to using straight Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) stuff. The government buys plenty of things off the shelf with no motification or input if it meets their needs. Space X just happens to provide lift capability instead of laptops, but in the end it really is no different as long as they're not launching people.

"use shoddy designs"

Given that NASA's shoddy design of the Shuttle has killed two of them along with their crews, somehow I don't find that to be a strong argument.

If SpaceX is going to "land a monopoly on heavy launches" then by definition their vehicles will be at least somewhat reliable.

Call me when dragon has gone to space as many times as the shuttle and we'll compare safety records, thanks.

Nope, long before it first launched we knew the Shuttle was a shoddy design:

The SRBs saved money on development but are very bad for human flight, you want engines you can turn off.

The insane fragile tile and leading edge heat protection, all to satisfy a "requirement" the Air Force didn't care about, a Vandenburg single orbit polar mission (to return to the same spot on Earth while it's rotated under you requires serious maneuvering using your initial high energy state).

No crew escape system after the first few test flights with only pilot and co-pilot, who had SR-71 class ejection seats (the best available). The state of the art of "rocket science" simply isn't good enough to forgo this.

Since then we've learned from the two fatal missions:

The SRB joints were grossly misdesigned, forcing their O-rings to seal on expansion (any of us who've worked with a faucet or shower head know how terribly wrong this is).

Especially after it was made in a more "green" fashion, the fuel tank sheds ice and insulation chucks with sufficient momentum to destroy the above mentioned fragile heat protection systems.

That's all that immediately comes to mind, and I've already pointed out one Ares I inherited potentially fatal design flaw in the Senate Launch System. How many obvious design flaws can you or anyone else point out in SpaceX's systems? (I don't know, I haven't been closely following them.)

I'm aware of the shuttles limitations and the politics behind them, but the Soyuz system isn't any safer. I'm just skeptical of this sudden "ZOMG DRAGONX SAFETY WILL BE AWESOME" assumption that so many pro-privatization types seem to have. Considering how many times their rockets have blown up already perhaps its best to be not drawing any conclusions thus far.

Whut? Soyuz has a better safety record.

Not by much. Seems like we've hit a limit of human engineering at least for the technology at that time. The idea that you can do loads better than NASA or the Russian program, safety wise, is a pretty big claim, especially considering that the Falcon series has blown up more than it hasn't.

> the Falcon series has blown up more than it hasn't.

No, it hasn't.

Falcon 1 has launched 5 times. The first three failed -- in likely-survivable ways. None just "blew up". The next two were successful.[1]

Falcon 9 has flown twice, both successful.[2]

7 launches, 4 successes, 3 survivable failures. Your statement is objectively false.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Falcon_1_launches

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9#Launches_and_scheduled...

Whoops, I thought it was 5 out of 7. So wait, you're applauding 4 out of 7 successes? Really?

Look, its obvious that its too early to decide one way or another but thats a fucking rocky start to anyone who isn't a fanboy blinded by whatever allure SpaceX has.

Also the disagree downvotes make you look bad. HN is turning into reddit/digg. What a shame.

Your ad hominem attacks are tiring, and in light of your apparent hatred of reddit/digg, reveal a nasty case of projection. So I'll just leave you with some early US and Soviet launch records.

If you still feel like debating the matter, I suggest searching YouTube for launch failures first. There are some rather spectacular videos of rockets that actually did explode, sometimes right on the pad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlas_launches_(1957-19...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_R-7_launches_(1957-1959...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Thor_and_Delta_launches...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Titan_launches

The US has rather strict rules regarding transfers of rocket/missile technology. The only way SpaceX could get "bought by a foreign power" is with the express approval of the federal government.

Fine, how about they just become unprofitable after some accident or other event. Now the US has lost all its launch capabilities. Here comes the big bailouts. Why not just have NASA make its own rockets with private companies for certain tasks. I don't understand the rabid pro-privatization crowd's insistence that its one or the other.

The military works the EXACT SAME WAY. They bring design specs and ideas to contractors, do x amount of engineering themselves, and let the contractors do the dirty work. I don't understand why the military gets to design their own stuff but suddenly our civillian space program should just be a check writing machine to Elon Musk and friends.

Characterizing people who disagree with you as "rabid" is not going to help your case, especially when one of those disagreeing with you is borderline-socialist and not generally a big fan of mass privatization.

Nor is using the bloated, corrupt, horrifically inefficient military-industrial complex as your model for how spaceflight should be carried out.

For once, a government agency is handling this right. They're transparently paying set, commercially-appropriate amounts of money to contractors that have a good chance of success, in exchange for meeting specific, objectively-judged goals.

If something goes wrong, there are obvious fallbacks. Boeing/Lockheed and the ULA aren't going anywhere, the ESA has a good track record, and Soyuz is at least as reliable as the Shuttle ever was (and a hell of a lot cheaper).

If SpaceX fizzles out, it's not the end of the world, or even manned space travel, any more than NASA's twice-over criminal negligence with the Shuttle was.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com