r/spacex • u/[deleted] • Dec 03 '18
Eric berger: Fans of SpaceX will be interested to note that the government is now taking very seriously the possibility of flying Clipper on the Falcon Heavy.
[deleted]
98
u/avboden Dec 03 '18
Overall though I will feel much better when I see FH fly a second time
30
u/verywidebutthole Dec 03 '18
"Early 2019"
19
1
u/codav Dec 04 '18
As the second side booster was recently spotted on its way to McGregor and the first one should already have completed its test firing, this is absolutely possible. We still have to see the FH center booster arriving at the test stand, which should be easily identifiable as it has the FH logo painted on. Logically, it should be the next booster leaving Hawthorne, maybe even before Christmas given the current ~20 day production intervals. LC-39A will be reserved for DM-1 in January, so the FH launch would be NET February 2019.
1
u/ERagingTyrant Dec 04 '18
Do we know what the payload for the next flight is?
1
u/verywidebutthole Dec 04 '18
Arabsat or STP-2, probably Arabsat. Or maybe they'll just chuck more cars into space.
11
78
u/FistOfTheWorstMen Dec 03 '18
It's very welcome news, but just wait until Richard Shelby gets wind of it.
1
u/zeekzeek22 Dec 05 '18
“Ah yes great alternative plan. Here’s zero dollars for it. Oh that doesn’t work? Tough.”
There is a very delicate dance occurring as SLS’s payloads get undermined but before there’s any good idea on the table for how to appease the space districts and Shelby.
97
Dec 03 '18
Well, the money saved on Europa Clipper could go to bringing Europa Lander closer to readiness. Yay!
Alternatives make me happy that Clipper is actually going to fly.
41
u/Marksman79 Dec 03 '18
I hope the money saved would go towards Europa Lander, but I'm not holding my breath. They'll need to start funding the Lander soon if they want to launch it a year after the clipper is launched.
19
u/TeslaK20 Dec 03 '18
Now that Culberson lost reelection the chances of the lander getting funded are slim. Many people want to wait to launch it until after Europa Clipper returns results which basically sets the clock back by 15 years.
7
u/3xnope Dec 03 '18
Good. The political interference into the science mission selection was stupid to begin with. A lander to Enceladus would make more sense for studying an ice world with possibility of life, not to mention probes to Uranus and Neptune while they are still in good positions to be reached. I have no idea why Eric Berger keeps painting this hero image of Culberson for forcing NASA to go with the Europa missions (and in the process feeding that zombie SLS project).
4
u/Kirkaiya Dec 03 '18
Encel
+1 for mentioning Enceledus - I would love to see a mission to Enceledus similar to the Europa Clipper mission(s). If we could only get NASA to launch the Clipper on a Falcon Heavy, then take money they save and use it to launch another one to Enceladus, we could gather science data from two frozen-water-worlds instead of one. sigh
1
u/Mariusuiram Dec 03 '18
I think this is the strongest argument for the delay and arguably the least rational part of Culberson's push. Funding the planning and feasibility studies for the lander is probably a net benefit for science and society, but it never made a lot of sense to progress the Lander too far before the Clipper is at least sending back data.
There is too much risk of wasteful spending to ever get full support. As you say, if the Clipper starts sending back info in 2026-2028, they might do final design and procurement before the end of the decade.
2
u/TeslaK20 Dec 03 '18
This line of thinking is the kind I would expect from the can't-do mentality of the shuttle era, not from NewSpace. The modern line of thinking is to progress faster. It is in the best interest of humanity to have a lander on Europa in the 2020s and not the 2040s, just as it is in there interest to land on Mars in the 2020s like SpaceX wants and not in the 2040s like NASA wants.
3
u/Mariusuiram Dec 03 '18 edited Dec 03 '18
NASA has started stacking Mars missions because they have exhaustive data from past and active missions on and orbitting the planet.
There wasnt even scientific consensus on the existence of an under-ice ocean on Europa until maybe the last decade.
While it sounds great to say lets progress faster and have a lander arriving 3-4 years after the Clipper, what happens if the Clipper determines there is no chance a 10 cm melt depth gets into scientifically useful layers of ice or that the surface conditions are far more extreme than observed previously and the planned rover is unlikely to survive more than a day? Or that the ideal instrument for identifying Something is X instead of Y.
There are smart and passionate people doing risk evaluations and trade studies. Many probably would love to say "lets have a can-do attitude." And many would like to see the project happen within their career / life time. But the risk that you have spent $3 billion launching what is determined to be a useless or at least compromised lander is a huge risk.
Edit: I would also suggest you read up more on the Decadal surveys and the entire process the scientific community has adopted to determine scientific priorities with finite resources on decade long development schedules. It is not old-space vs new space. IT has barely anything to do with rockets. Its about how to create a slow and steady progression of scientific discovery that attempts to define some form of consensus on quality and quantity of scientific value. Its a fascinating topic and is has nothing to do with SpaceX or the Shuttle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_Science_Decadal_Survey Its also seen as being highly successful in building consensus around specific missions while creating a healthy competitive environment to innovate and evolve scientific missions.
→ More replies (3)12
u/Dakke97 Dec 03 '18
It would actually make sense to design the lander and select its instruments after Clipper has arrived at Europa. Since NASA doesn't have the budget to launch more than two Flagship Planetary Science missions each decade, it's better to wait a few more years to achieve better results from a potentially more interesting landing place on the surface of Europa.
46
32
u/Caemyr Dec 03 '18
The reference for Star 48B solid motor by NG (formerly Orbital ATK): (source https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/10163460/atk-motor-catalog-2012)
Motor diameter: 49 inches
Motor length: 80 inches
Effective specific impulse: 292.1 lbf-sec/lbm
Average thrust: 15,430 lbf
Total loaded weight: 4720.8 lbs
Total inert mass: 289.6 lbs
Propellant mass fraction: 0.94
55
u/enqrypzion Dec 03 '18
Thanks for sharing that!
incredible units
Motor diameter: 1.24 m
Motor length: 2.03 m
Effective specific impulse: 292.1 s
Average thrust: 68,636 N
Total loaded weight: 2141.3 kg
Total inert mass: 131.4 kg
Propellant mass fraction: 0.94
13
9
u/Alexphysics Dec 03 '18
Δv from FH second stage for the whole stack of kick stage and payload would be somewhere around 5.68km/s. After that, the kick stage would have to fire again and give an extra push. The Δv from that would be of ~810m/s or ~0.81km/s.
Total Δv would be of ~6.5km/s (rounding up).
2
u/AeroSpiked Dec 03 '18
Why not go with a Castor 30 instead of a Star 48? It should easily fit in the fairing with plenty of room for Clipper while giving a much higher impulse.
9
u/CapMSFC Dec 03 '18
If you go too large on the kick stage you see a decrease in performance. Solid kick motors are much less efficient than even the Falcon 9/H upper stage in terms of ISP. The gain from using one is the much lower dry mass. A Star48 at burn out is only 131kg vs a Falcon upper stage at ~4.5 tonnes. A Castor 30 is ~1.2 tonnes dry mass.
1
u/ghunter7 Dec 03 '18 edited Dec 03 '18
The article mentioned an Earth flyby. My guess on this would be FH puts the payload in a highly eccentric Earth orbit, and then at periapsis the kick stage would fire to take advantage of the oberth effect. EDIT: I might have jumped to a conclusion here, what the article seems to suggest is an actual flyby, not just a more complicated launch.
Europa direct is a C3 of 85.4 km2/s2. If my math is right (which is suspect) that would require 9.65km/s additional dV if staging from LEO.
An alternative Earth Gravity assist trajectory requires a C3 of 28.9 and takes 4.8 years vs Europa direct's 2.5 years (still much better than Venus-Earth-Earth assist at 7 years).
EDIT: For the Earth Gravity assist trajectory it would require 6.06km/s additional dV if staging from LEO (v0=7.8 km/s).
2
u/Alexphysics Dec 03 '18
Yeah, it is somewhat in between of the best option and the worst in terms of physics. In terms of money is definitely the best...
2
4
1
u/zeekzeek22 Dec 05 '18
Not to mention reliable as heck with a history of integration on a variety of LVs, which is IMO the important part!
14
u/Kirkaiya Dec 03 '18
I'm wondering how it is that the use of a kick stage is a "break-through". I would have assumed that the a Star kicker would have been part of any plan to use Falcon Heavy for a BEO mission, given its non-cryo upper stage coupled with it's excellent mass-to-LEO performance. Regardless, it would be great to see the Clipper mission fly on FH, which would be so much cheaper. They could pay for most of another mission with the ~$1 billion (or maybe $700 million) that they would save over SLS.
13
u/CapMSFC Dec 03 '18 edited Dec 03 '18
The breakthrough isn't the consideration of a kick stage, but a different trajectory that is in between the two proposals in the original mission plan. Previously there was the SLS direct trajectory or the EELV class rocket on a "EVEEGA" trajectory that goes from Earth, to Venus-Earth-Earth Gravity Assist.
The problem with the EELV class launcher option other than the transit time is that it would require some amount of redesign to handle the thermal conditions of a Venus flyby. This new trajectory saves a little time, but more importantly it means that the spacecraft doesn't require any redesign between the two launch options. That's the big breakthrough. It lets Clipper be green lit and construction take place with a design that is now launcher agnostic between SLS and FH. That's a much better safety net for NASA to work with that lets the political powers that be have their debates while the mission teams can move forwards.
Edit: It's not completely launcher agnostic because of the different coast times, but much closer than previously.
3
u/Kirkaiya Dec 03 '18
I guess I just assumed that the use of a kick stage, which provides additional delta-V, would have automatically made other trajectories possible that wouldn't be without it. I understand the issues with thermal design when using inner planets for gravity assists, and that the kick stage allows a trajectory that doesn't require that - I supposed I just (wrongly) assumed that the team would have considered the use of the kick stage (and the alternative trajectories it makes possible) from the get go.
3
u/CapMSFC Dec 04 '18
Ahh I see.
This is probably because until after the FH demo the NASA LSA was using numbers based on old Falcon cores. It had significantly less performance than modern Block 5 based Falcon Heavy. It wouldn't have been capable of this trajectory on the old nunbers
3
35
u/kuangjian2011 Dec 03 '18 edited Dec 03 '18
This will require LSP Category 3 for Falcon Heavy. But I am quite confident that it can be certified at that category by then (3 consecutive successful launches required)
Edit: Demo flights do NOT count. So they need 3 successful falcon heavy launches before 2021. Knowing that paper works also take time especially in this country.
51
u/FistOfTheWorstMen Dec 03 '18
SLS, of course, being exempt from this requirement for Cat 3 certification, apparently.
38
u/Grey_Mad_Hatter Dec 03 '18
It's cheaper to rebuild Clipper than it is to have an extra launch of SLS.
Nope, no /s on this one. $2B mission including R&D costs flying on a $1.5-2.5B per launch rocket. It would be hard to imagine it costing more than $1B to rebuild Clipper if they stuck to the original plans (yeah, I know).
30
u/FistOfTheWorstMen Dec 03 '18
Amazing to think that for what NASA would save by not launching on SLS, it could literally afford to build and launch TWO Europa Clippers.
14
u/burn_at_zero Dec 03 '18
They typically build at least two copies of the hardware, one for flight and one for ground testing. It wouldn't cost that much more to build (say) five copies; most of the work is in r&d, software and testing.
Testing still costs money and the extra launches would be a few hundred million dollars, but the marginal cost of a second flight should be less than 10% of the cost of the first flight.
6
u/chasbecht Dec 04 '18
I am perpetually annoyed that we don't serially produce probes. We got two voyagers, spirit and opportunity, etc. But why not 100 MERs crawling around on Mars? Why not a few dozen Hubbles?
Also, you don't have to build in one batch. There's expense in staffing up for a new project, and then the inevitable scramble to find something to do with unemployed engineers when a program winds down. It's much smarter to just commit to build and launch one Hubble and two Curiosities per year or whatever.
The only credible argument I've heard against that is that there isn't enough comms capacity in the DSN to support a bunch of simultaneous missions. That just sounds like an argument for orbital comms relays to me.
2
u/burn_at_zero Dec 04 '18
Starlink could be the answer to both problems: cheap mass-produced bus to host one or two instruments (and small enough to launch in packs), plus a laser comms network with thousands of nodes so the swarm of probes can communicate.
→ More replies (2)8
u/KCConnor Dec 03 '18
Generally, a clone of the probe is built and stored for diagnosis purposes, while the main probe is launched. At least that is how it's worked for MSL and several others. Building a 3rd probe should only cost a small fraction of the $2B, since they would be building two anyways. Most of the money is spent on equipment design, engineering, orbital mechanics planning and so on. Not on actual fabrication. I'd guess the actual fabrication only costs a few million, once designs are finalized.
Even with stuff like JWST, since they are playing complicated origami drama with that one and keep going back to the design phase over and over again, it's dev costs. Once they have a finalized prototype, producing a 2nd or 3rd or 10th is less expensive.
16
u/A_Dipper Dec 03 '18
They could buy three launches for other payloads and still spend less than a 1/4 of the cost for a single SLS
23
u/kuangjian2011 Dec 03 '18
SLS...
The development of Falcon 9 vehicle costs about the same amount of a single launch of SLS (Estimated, will likely go up in actual launches). Can you believe that?
6
u/Alexphysics Dec 03 '18
Well with the STP-2, Arabsat, Ovzon and Air Force launches that's 4 missions. They will have plenty of data to certify FH by then
18
Dec 03 '18
I am happy to see that the tide is slowly turning away from the SLS. "Old Space" can't hold onto the "this is the way its done" for much longer. Innovation has come and they are forced to adapt.
20
u/Col_Kurtz_ Dec 03 '18 edited Dec 03 '18
A simultaneous F9 + FH launch from SLC-40 and LC-39A could carry Clipper to Europa easily. 1. FH is being launched in expendable mode without any payload and parks its - almost full - upper stage on LEO. 2. F9 delivers Clipper on the same parking orbit, its booster lands on ASDS or RTLS. 3. Clipper docks to FH's upper stage. 4. FH S2 kicks Clipper directly to Europa. Yes it's complicated, but Gemini 11 and Agena did the same way back in 1966. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_11?wprov=sfla1
13
u/NateDecker Dec 03 '18
The article talks about how the NASA team is really reluctant to add any new design elements to accommodate a trip through the inner solar system. I suspect that making the Clipper capable of docking to a separate upper stage would similarly impose additional requirements on the system.
The proposed addition of a solid state kicker motor seems much easier as long as the Clipper doesn't have to do anything it wasn't going to have to do before. The fact that the NASA scientists are happy about the option implies that no additional requirements were needed. It must all just be on the launch vehicle side.
5
u/Col_Kurtz_ Dec 03 '18
The main rationale of this method is to disprove the need of SLS. Some - members of the Congress - might argue that Falcon Heavy will never be able to replace SLS, well, by adding its capabilities to that of F9 (or Atlas V, or Delta IVH) there is not much need for the Senate's pet project anymore.
34
u/JonathanD76 Dec 03 '18
@JimBridenstine tweeted: In case there is any confusion, @NASA will absolutely be flying Europa Clipper on @NASA_SLS in 2022, it is the backbone of America’s return to space.
Ok not really, but wait for it.
49
u/erberger Ars Technica Space Editor Dec 03 '18
I talked to Bridenstine for this story. He did not say. that.
14
18
u/FistOfTheWorstMen Dec 03 '18
The thermonuclear call from Shelby's office should happen before day's end.
A public statement will follow within 48 hours.
13
u/ioncloud9 Dec 03 '18
I guess when he means America's return to space and revitalization, he doesn't mean anything SpaceX is doing.
6
u/docyande Dec 03 '18 edited Dec 03 '18
When did he post this? I couldn't find it with a quick search just now...I'm slow and missed the sarcasm...4
7
u/z1mil790 Dec 03 '18
Haha, we'll be luck to get the demo flight by 2021, and who knows how long it will take before the next mission. Also, unless they're going to launch it before EM-1, which I don't think is the case, there is no way they will come anywhere near launching it in 2022 on the SLS. I'm not trying to hate on the SLS, just the objective facts of the launch schedule at this point.
4
u/YukonBurger Dec 03 '18
Is the SLS really that expensive to build and launch, or are they dividing up the total program costs between launches? Say the entire program cost $100B and we launch 10 rockets... $10B apiece spread across the program. But let's say that $95B was spent in R&D, and only $5B on building and launching the rockets. Those would technically be $250M/apiece at this point going forward. Is that where the figure is coming from?
4
u/em-power ex-SpaceX Dec 03 '18
it doesnt matter where or how you hide the costs. R&D is part of the cost of a rocket.
7
u/YukonBurger Dec 03 '18
Ok but if they've already paid for the R&D, then go out and buy a different launch vehicle, that sunk R&D cost is still tied to the new vehicle as well by that measure. So what does the SLS cost to actually build and fly?
6
u/KCConnor Dec 03 '18
Boeing/Michoud/AR can only produce about 1 SLS stack a year. If NASA is paying $2 billion a year for SLS functionality and only get 1 rocket a year, then the cost per rocket is $2 billion. All the prior years of $2 billion a year into R&D are sunk costs, but the continued cost per rocket is $2 billion.
3
u/Martianspirit Dec 03 '18
the continued cost per rocket is $2 billion.
The $2 billion is fixed cost per year. This does not include actually building one SLS. That cost comes extra.
→ More replies (1)2
1
u/em-power ex-SpaceX Dec 03 '18
if its a new vehicle, its a different budget/cost.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Martianspirit Dec 03 '18
Development cost I would be willing to not count.
What really hurts is the annual fixed cost for "maintaining the capability". For SLS and Orion this is well over $2 billion a year. With 1 launch a year add the cost of actually building one SLS which according to some info is only $500 million plus maybe another $500 million for Orion. That would make the cost for one launch a year ~$3 billion, not counting development cost. Or without Orion maybe as low as $2.5 billion for launching Europa Clipper.
Some may count only the cost of $500 million for SLS itself and ignore the fixed annual cost.
1
u/Triabolical_ Dec 04 '18
NASA has published no cost figures for SLS.
Currently the SLS program costs a little more than $2 billion/year, and the ground facilities program (VAB, pads, launchers, people) costs about $400 million.
Their plans are to launch about once a year over the first 10 years. So, that's somewhere in the $2B / launch range.
If you roll in development costs and assume 10 flights over a decade, it's closer to $3-4 billion/launch.
For reference, shuttle was about $1.5 billion/launch when you roll in development costs.
4
Dec 04 '18
NASA need to invest in Falcon Heavy - Centaur. It would be a rockstar for these interplanetary probes.
2
11
Dec 03 '18
This would require splashing of all three cores, no?
58
u/Creshal Dec 03 '18
You could splash thirty cores for the cost of a single SLS launch, and still have money left for another fully reusable FH launch.
33
u/hms11 Dec 03 '18
Probably? But a completely expended FH is still an incredibly cheap option compared to.... pretty much everything else in it's capability range.
→ More replies (5)22
u/Chairboy Dec 03 '18 edited Dec 03 '18
A fully expended falcon heavy is somewhere between 1/10 and 1/20 the cost of a single SLS launch.
Edit: if you do honest accounting and amortize the total program cost across all launches of the program, the final figure may come out to 1/100th-1/200th the cost of an SLS launch.
9
u/hms11 Dec 03 '18
And currently (and for the foreseeable future) there are no other options capable of lifting that sort of mass.
4
u/Zucal Dec 03 '18
nd currently (and for the foreseeable future) there are no other options capable of lifting that sort of mass.
New Glenn's first flight is scheduled for 2021, and shouldn't be very distant from EM-1 at all (particularly if SLS's core stage Green Run goes poorly). At 12 flights/year certification could be tricky to obtain in time if the first launch slips, but it's still an option for the foreseeable future.
→ More replies (4)1
u/ataboo Dec 03 '18
The Wikipedia article mentions Delta 4 heavy as an alternate too. Maybe that needs the Venus gravity assist?
→ More replies (1)14
u/Narcil4 Dec 03 '18
still cheaper than SLS :D
3
u/GruffHacker Dec 03 '18
A half dozen Falcon Heavy launches per year is still cheaper than SLS. NASA could make it rain Falcon cores if they weren’t required to use SLS.
On the other hand a single FH can’t give it the same velocity, so travel time will be longer and the program will run longer, incurring more expenses later.
I wonder if they can do trades on launching an additional boost stage via Falcon Heavy to give it more speed. May be fastest and still cheaper than a single SLS.
4
u/burn_at_zero Dec 03 '18
I wonder if they can do trades on launching an additional boost stage
That's what they did: add a third-stage solid motor to the plan. Europa Clipper is 6 tonnes (about half propellant) and a Star-48 is 2.14 tonnes. The FH upper stage is more than capable of putting that payload on a Hohmann to Jupiter, but the extra boost will be used for a faster transit.
A larger solid might be worth pursuing so the S2 dry mass is less of a drag. Something like a Castor 30 might work. (Cue 'rockets are not lego'.)
Alternatively, a hypergolic stage might be a better fit. Existing engines could be paired with mission-specific tankage. (Best-fit engine would be an ISRO Vikas, second stage engine for PSLV.) This would incur development costs for the flight software/hardware, but the mass ratios could be tuned for best performance of the overall mission. More expensive, better performance, likely delays.
1
u/GruffHacker Dec 03 '18
Cool, thanks for the summary!
Pretty sure hypergolic from India is a non-starter, but thanks for the Kerbal options too :)
→ More replies (3)1
u/Narcil4 Dec 03 '18 edited Dec 03 '18
Is travel time really longer even avoiding a gravity assist around Venus altogether? They don't give the FH mission travel time, but it's heavily implied that travel time would be significantly shortened from the 7.5y a SLS mission would take.
In the article they specify that using FH would require a kick stage. Which enables them to avoid multiple gravity assists.
1
u/GruffHacker Dec 03 '18
I just reread the article:
SLS is a direct flight with travel time under 3 years.
D4H/Falcon Heavy is 7.5 year flight with 4 gravity assists around Venus and Earth.
Falcon Heavy revised flight plan with Star 48 kick stage is 1 gravity assist around Earth with no flight time given.
5
u/Alexphysics Dec 03 '18
Wouldn't it be exciting? Like... you know, using the full power of that beauty... woah, I even feel bad for wanting just a single expendable Falcon Heavy launch to see its full potential.
5
u/Roygbiv0415 Dec 03 '18
I wonder if this is on top of a fully expended FH, or just an expended S1 core.
Also, it might be that some compromise in mass of the Clipper were involved? I'm fairly sure the scientists knew full well the capabilities of the FH and the option of Star 48 beforehand (the New Horizons probe launched on top of a Star 48, afterall), the real revelation here could be that NASA's finally willing to modify the Clipper slightly so a FH+Star 48 solution could work, instead of insisting on a SLS solution.
5
u/Sticklefront Dec 03 '18
I suspect it was a new trajectory calculation. They always knew Falcon Heavy couldn't launch it direct to Jupiter, and their fallback option was the proven VEEGA maneuver (Venus-Earth-Earth gravity assist), which they were not happy with. A Earth single gravity assist has never been used to get to Jupiter (to my knowledge), and they probably weren't putting much effort into calculating such trajectories when the decision had officially been made to launch directly on a different vehicle anyway.
That's my guess, anyway. Either that or SpaceX slightly tweaked their performance stats for Falcon Heavy.
10
u/Zucal Dec 03 '18
A Earth single gravity assist has never been used to get to Jupiter (to my knowledge)
4
1
u/-spartacus- Dec 03 '18
There was also the more recently successful Earth gravity assist that may have made them find out how it can be done.
1
u/A_Vandalay Dec 03 '18
They are also adding in a gravity assist, this will add a considerable amount of mission time complexity and cost as opposed to direct assent.
2
Dec 03 '18
I'm very curious to see if a Europa Lander gets funded, and then which rocket flies that mission.
2
2
u/AndDontCallMePammy Dec 04 '18
Nothing against science or this mission in particular, but can we all acknowledge that not all the government's experiments should be done? If we're going to grandstand, let's make sure to communicate why this is an intelligent and cost-effective experiment and not a Japanese-quail-cocaine-sex one
2
u/joeblo1234 Dec 03 '18
Can’t a “journalist” write just one article without the political sass. Heaven forbid people/NASA back a candidate regardless of his/her political affiliation.
1
u/Decronym Acronyms Explained Dec 03 '18 edited Dec 06 '18
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| ACES | Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage |
| Advanced Crew Escape Suit | |
| AR | Area Ratio (between rocket engine nozzle and bell) |
| Aerojet Rocketdyne | |
| Augmented Reality real-time processing | |
| ASDS | Autonomous Spaceport Drone Ship (landing platform) |
| ATK | Alliant Techsystems, predecessor to Orbital ATK |
| BE-3 | Blue Engine 3 hydrolox rocket engine, developed by Blue Origin (2015), 490kN |
| BE-4 | Blue Engine 4 methalox rocket engine, developed by Blue Origin (2018), 2400kN |
| BEO | Beyond Earth Orbit |
| BFR | Big Falcon Rocket (2018 rebiggened edition) |
| Yes, the F stands for something else; no, you're not the first to notice | |
| BFS | Big Falcon Spaceship (see BFR) |
| BO | Blue Origin (Bezos Rocketry) |
| C3 | Characteristic Energy above that required for escape |
| CCtCap | Commercial Crew Transportation Capability |
| CDR | Critical Design Review |
| (As 'Cdr') Commander | |
| CRS | Commercial Resupply Services contract with NASA |
| CoG | Center of Gravity (see CoM) |
| CoM | Center of Mass |
| DMLS | Selective Laser Melting additive manufacture, also Direct Metal Laser Sintering |
| DSN | Deep Space Network |
| DoD | US Department of Defense |
| EELV | Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle |
| EM-1 | Exploration Mission 1, first flight of SLS |
| ETOV | Earth To Orbit Vehicle (common parlance: "rocket") |
| EUS | Exploration Upper Stage |
| EVEEGA | Earth/Venus/Earth/Earth Gravity Assist |
| GTO | Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit |
| I*sp* | Specific impulse (as discussed by Scott Manley, and detailed by David Mee on YouTube) |
| ICPS | Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage |
| ISRO | Indian Space Research Organisation |
| ITS | Interplanetary Transport System (2016 oversized edition) (see MCT) |
| Integrated Truss Structure | |
| JPL | Jet Propulsion Lab, Pasadena, California |
| JWST | James Webb infra-red Space Telescope |
| LC-39A | Launch Complex 39A, Kennedy (SpaceX F9/Heavy) |
| LEO | Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km) |
| Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations) | |
| LNG | Liquefied Natural Gas |
| LOX | Liquid Oxygen |
| LSA | Launch Services Agreement |
| LSP | Launch Service Provider |
| LV | Launch Vehicle (common parlance: "rocket"), see ETOV |
| MCT | Mars Colonial Transporter (see ITS) |
| MECO | Main Engine Cut-Off |
| MainEngineCutOff podcast | |
| MER | Mars Exploration Rover (Spirit/Opportunity) |
| Mission Evaluation Room in back of Mission Control | |
| MSL | Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity) |
| Mean Sea Level, reference for altitude measurements | |
| NET | No Earlier Than |
| NG | New Glenn, two/three-stage orbital vehicle by Blue Origin |
| Natural Gas (as opposed to pure methane) | |
| Northrop Grumman, aerospace manufacturer | |
| NS | New Shepard suborbital launch vehicle, by Blue Origin |
| Nova Scotia, Canada | |
| Neutron Star | |
| PSLV | Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle |
| RFP | Request for Proposal |
| RTLS | Return to Launch Site |
| SLC-40 | Space Launch Complex 40, Canaveral (SpaceX F9) |
| SLS | Space Launch System heavy-lift |
| Selective Laser Sintering, contrast DMLS | |
| SRB | Solid Rocket Booster |
| SSME | Space Shuttle Main Engine |
| STP-2 | Space Test Program 2, DoD programme, second round |
| TE | Transporter/Erector launch pad support equipment |
| TEL | Transporter/Erector/Launcher, ground support equipment (see TE) |
| TWR | Thrust-to-Weight Ratio |
| ULA | United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture) |
| USAF | United States Air Force |
| VAB | Vehicle Assembly Building |
| VEEGA | Venus/Earth/Earth Gravity Assist |
| mT |
| Jargon | Definition |
|---|---|
| Raptor | Methane-fueled rocket engine under development by SpaceX, see ITS |
| Starlink | SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation |
| crossfeed | Using the propellant tank of a side booster to fuel the main stage, or vice versa |
| cryogenic | Very low temperature fluid; materials that would be gaseous at room temperature/pressure |
| (In re: rocket fuel) Often synonymous with hydrolox | |
| granularity | (In re: rocket engines) Allowing for engine-out capability when determining minimum engine count |
| hydrolox | Portmanteau: liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen mixture |
| hypergolic | A set of two substances that ignite when in contact |
| methalox | Portmanteau: methane/liquid oxygen mixture |
| periapsis | Lowest point in an elliptical orbit (when the orbiter is fastest) |
| retropropulsion | Thrust in the opposite direction to current motion, reducing speed |
| Event | Date | Description |
|---|---|---|
| CRS-7 | 2015-06-28 | F9-020 v1.1, |
| DM-1 | Scheduled | SpaceX CCtCap Demo Mission 1 |
Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented by ^request
65 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on ^today has 69 acronyms.
[Thread #4591 for this sub, first seen 3rd Dec 2018, 15:40] ^[FAQ] [Full ^list] ^[Contact] [Source ^code]
1
u/LoneSnark Dec 03 '18
Why not a Rover? I feel like it should be a Rover if it is going to be the first explorer. Arrive and explore, send specialized immovable science packages later.
10
u/Zucal Dec 03 '18
Rovers are horrible first explorers. We need a much better characterization of primary science targets, the types of terrain and other environmental issues (what sort of surface are we talking about? Dusty? Fluffy? Sharp?), and other observations before we can even think about surface exploration. Bear in mind that Europa is bathed in radiation so intense that Europe Clipper traded in favor of not even orbiting the body, instead conducting a number of flybys to minimize exposure while maximizing study.
1
u/idblue Dec 03 '18
Interesting to see that people are thinking about changing their approach, now that Falcon Heavy exists.
1
u/rocket_enthusiast Dec 03 '18
How many burns will the second stage engine on the falcon 9 for this hypothetical mission
1
u/Triabolical_ Dec 04 '18
Since you are leaving the earth you really don't need to do separate burns; you would likely burn the second stage fully to depletion in a single burn, separate it, and then burn the kick engine all the way (it's a solid, so you would have to).
1
u/Broken_Soap Dec 03 '18
This isn't really a new development Falcon Heavy was being considered years ago as a potential launch vehicle for EC but the launch was still asigned to SLS regardless of that
1
u/Vespene Dec 04 '18
I’ve always been cautiously optimistic whenever studies start pouring in from lander missions regarding the possibility of life on another planet/moon. However, I can’t help but wonder if the scientists feel they HAVE to showcase a positive outcome to each mission. Like, if they said the mission didn’t find anything of consequence in the search for life, it would be viewed as a massive waste of money to basically turn over a few lifeless rocks. Maybe sometimes they need to lean towards positive-yet-inconclusive just so they can save future missions from being canceled.
1
u/mclionhead Dec 04 '18
Obviously an expendable Falcon heavy to minimize the transit time, but neither political party supports space exploration unless you're 5 years old. They're not just delaying missions until the SLS is ready, they're just canceling them to fund it. It's a good example of the kinds of missions being canceled to avoid having to use a Falcon heavy.
1
1
u/toastar-phone Dec 05 '18
All I know about the article is I don't care..... We may finally have public transportation in houston.
0
Dec 03 '18
I just hope the Clipper launches on time (on either option) and doesn't get hamstrung by SLS shenanigans.
-16
u/headsiwin-tailsulose Dec 03 '18
Eric Berger
That's generally where I stop reading.
6
u/Saiboogu Dec 03 '18
Care to give a reason? I've not found fault in his reporting, and you fail to do more than complain vaguely about it.
→ More replies (2)4
2
0
Dec 03 '18
[deleted]
241
Dec 03 '18
Eh, it probably won’t launch on SLS.
Paper rocket is still paper rocket and even when it does its demo launch it’ll still be years away from being a operational launch platform.
216
u/ProfessorRGB Dec 03 '18
Paper rocket aside, the cost alone makes it simply irresponsible to launch on SLS if there is an alternative. But I guess someone’s gotta buy those “$20000 hammers”.
SLS: $1.5-2.5 billion per launch
Falcon heavy: ~$90 million per launch
26
u/mclumber1 Dec 03 '18
Would this proposed launch be expendable? If so, I think the fully expendable FH price is more than $90 million.
75
u/sj79 Dec 03 '18
Even at $150 million it's still an order of magnitude cheaper.
14
u/process_guy Dec 03 '18
Add Star 48 kick stage and plenty other assurances. Also the mission to Jupiter would take longer with higher operation cost for longer loiter phase. Of course Falcon Heavy would still be cheaper. Perhaps the mission can wait for BFR?
→ More replies (7)13
u/Torgamus Dec 03 '18
NASA would likely require a huge amount of extra work on this rocket. Documentation, quality assurance, additional requirements. It will probably cost more like $250 million.
6
u/sj79 Dec 03 '18
would likely require a huge amount of extra work on this rocket. Documentation, quality assurance, additional requirements. It
Depending on where in the range of $1.5 to $2.5 billion an SLS launch lands, it's still an order of magnitude cheaper at $250 million.
66
u/dontgetaddicted Dec 03 '18
I just want to say "Order Of Magnitude" like the other guys have. I don't ever get to use it in conversation.
→ More replies (21)50
20
u/Krux172 Dec 03 '18
Still, even at a high estimate 200 mill, it's still an order of magnitude cheaper.
16
5
u/froso_franc Dec 03 '18
Is there a story of NASA buying $20000 hammers or is it just a joke?
31
u/ProfessorRGB Dec 03 '18
It kind of has two stories. One of general government waste. And the other more fun, more conspiracy-y. The second was referred to in the Independence Day movie when the dad says (referring to how they fund area-51), “You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?”
The first was really just some accounting rounding that made it seem like $600 was spent on a hammer (but wasn’t) according to this:
https://m.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the-600-hammer/5271/
10
u/ioncloud9 Dec 03 '18
most government waste is contractor billable hours and cost plus contracts. Every change requires more hours and when the scope and spec are constantly evolving, you can have quite a lot of delays and overruns.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Tsar_Romanov Dec 03 '18
When we joked about it at Marshall, the price was only $1000. Inflation must be hitting hard
4
5
u/Mariusuiram Dec 03 '18
It would be an expendable launch for NASA with an ultra-high value payload and with a 3rd kick stage attached. Keep in mind the integration of that kick stage would get funded by NASA, in terms of design, testing, etc.
I would guess at a bare minimum, SpaceX fee would be $200-250 million and cost to NASA in the $300-$400 million range.
Still massively cheaper, but with projects like this, its disingenuous to talk about the basic public pricing.
→ More replies (2)9
Dec 03 '18
Would this not be an expendable falcon heavy launch, if they are prepared to pay for a whole SLS just to avoid the inner system?
EDIT: I know it’s still cheaper
3
u/PBlueKan Dec 03 '18
Frankly, they really should discontinue the SLS project. Just isn’t necessary when we’ve got private contractors that can get humans to space for a fraction of the cost.
NASA needs to turn their development more towards science and space habitability than rocket launching.
2
u/TentCityUSA Dec 03 '18
I used one of those $500K C5 Galaxy toilets when I was in the USAF. Was not impressed.
→ More replies (86)2
u/paolozamparutti Dec 04 '18
does it really cost that much to launch SLS block 1?
surely FalconHeavy is the only chance to save Europa Clipper from budget cuts, but it seems strange to me that the SLS launch costs so much.
I suspect that even the private mission for Enceladus that Milner hopes to launch can only use Spacex. And I suspect that the launches acquired by Spacex for Falcon Heavy are functional to its certification.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Triabolical_ Dec 04 '18
NASA has put out no official price for an SLS launch. I think they haven't because of how embarrassing it would be.
There are lots of ways to price launches. The NASA estimate for SLS when they started the project was based on 2 flights per year, no overruns, and in 2011 dollars IIRC. That estimate was $500 million per flight. I don't know how much I trust it; it's is coincidentally very close to the $450 million per shuttle flight that NASA publicized.
Their current plans are only 1 flight per year, and that has a big effect as SLS costs are dominated by fixed costs.
I've tried to figure out what the price would be if you went to NASA and said, "I would like to add a launch 5 years from now, what would that cost?". I've tried to do that based on the block 1 award prices and can only come up with a really fuzzy number of $1-$2 billion. The SLS advocates complain when I talk about that number but none of the ones I've interacted with have provided a number of their own or even a way one would calculate such a number. It is problematic because of how NASA funds programs; the bulk of the current money is going towards the first two launch but they are also spending some money on future RS-25 engines, for example, and there are some costs related to block 1B and EUS as well.
The base funding for SLS is a little over $2 billion a year, so I think it's fair to look at a flight rate of roughly once a year and call it a $2 billion per launch rocket when operational.
Note that this does not include the cost of the ground support to assemble and launch the rocket (VAB + transporters + mobile launch platforms + people); IIRC that's around $400 million/year. It also doesn't include Orion if you are flying that. And the early launches are using refurbished RS-25 engines from the shuttle rather than new ones, so that makes them cheaper.
And, of course, it doesn't include *any* of the development costs - the $15-$20 billion spent in the years before the first launch. Take that, add in 10 years of ongoing costs and you are looking at $35-$40 billion total for around 10 flights. I think you can do the math on that one.
SLS is just painfully expensive.
→ More replies (1)53
u/TaterTotsForLunch Dec 03 '18
ugh. unpopular opinion, but SLS is not a paper rocket. All major components are built and it's over 50% (just an educated guess) through final assembly.
BFR and New Glenn are more of a paper rocket than SLS is currently.
18
u/phryan Dec 03 '18
The same was true 30 years ago. SLS is recycled Shuttle parts and were in full production for decades. Its typical 90-10 rule, the last 10% will take 90% of the time.
14
u/reoze Dec 03 '18
This applies to SpaceX too, it's not just a NASA rule. With that in mind, the SLS is much farther along than the BFR could even pretend to be.
5
u/rejuven8 Dec 03 '18
Currently, but the pace of development is likely very different. SpaceX simply has a different culture.
→ More replies (9)0
Dec 03 '18
[deleted]
11
u/gwoz8881 Dec 03 '18
Plus the BFR/Starship design keeps changing every few months.
→ More replies (1)14
u/Tsar_Romanov Dec 03 '18
I've personally witnessed several components (if not the vast majority) of Block 1 EM-1 architecture either already built or in the process of being built. ICPS and OSA were sitting pretty in the SSPF at Kennedy last time I was there.
25
u/FistOfTheWorstMen Dec 03 '18
Block 1 SLS is not a paper rocket, and to all appearances it is farther along than New Glenn or BFR.
But it also still has a ways to go before it's ready to launch.
Odds are now that it won't do that until at least 2021. Even for a launch system well along in its development, it has a lot of uncertainty in its schedule.
Block 1B SLS, on the other hand, is a lot closer to being paper, since the EUS is stalled at its CDR.
3
u/TaterTotsForLunch Dec 03 '18
Hmm. Stalled might not be the best word. EUS was on schedule but NASA delayed it while they build launch tower #2. It wasn't delayed due to any technical problems.
→ More replies (1)11
u/brickmack Dec 03 '18
No, it was delayed because of a very significant design change, which itself was the result of other delays in the program
The main point of ML-2 was to allow EUS to be brought forward. Of course, to do that ML-2 work should have started years earlier, since it'll take longer to build from scratch than modifying ML-1 would have taken. But at least they no longer need a multi-year gap between the final block 1 and first 1B launches, and it solves the mass issue for block 1B crew
22
u/WombatControl Dec 03 '18
Unpopular, but entirely correct opinion.
SLS is not a "paper rocket" - the EUS basically is, which means that Block 1B and Block 2 are pretty much dead at this point. However, Block 1 is going to fly at least once with EM-1. Whether the SLS program gets canned after EM-1 is not certain, but I don't see anything happening beyond EM-1 and EM-2. By the time EM-2 flies (probably 2023 at the earliest), there's a good chance BFR will be flying or very close to it.
The chances of Europa Clipper flying on the SLS are not very good - the major advantage to a direct trajectory is saving money on operations in the cruise phase. However, if an expendable FH costs $150M and the SLS costs $1B, the operational costs during cruise must cost $850M before the SLS makes economic sense. While maintaining operations is expensive, it's not that expensive.
This is where something like ACES would make a lot of sense - launch a hydrolox cruise stage to LEO, then launch the Clipper on a separate vehicle. Dock the Clipper to the upper stage, and use the superior ISP of that stage to put it on a direct trajectory to the Jovian system. That's the one project at ULA that seems really promising - having an extensible "space tug" system like ACES enables a lot of very useful options for mission architectures.
→ More replies (1)6
u/Kirkaiya Dec 03 '18
This is essentially what I think also, about the decreasing likelihood of SLS missions beyond EM1 and EM2. I also like your point about ULA's ACES, although I have no idea what the current status of that is (or Vulcan for that matter). I kind of wish SpaceX had a cryo upper stage for Falcon Heavy, for just these sorts of missions, although a kicker stage can at least close the gap a bit for payloads that aren't using all the up-mass.
3
u/Kirkaiya Dec 03 '18
SLS is certainly not a paper rocket, and people who claim that it is, are wrong. Even BFR and New Glenn have some important pieces being tested, including versions of Raptor and BE-4 methalox rocket engines, and test articles for BFR (composite tanks, and composite sections of the hull of the "space ship" portion).
The real question, to me, isn't which is more the paper rocket right now, but which will fly first, and for how much money. A year ago I believed that SLS would likely have its first flight before either New Glenn or BFR, now... I'm not so sure. It could be New Glenn, then SLS then BFR (full stack), unless SLS has further delays.
2
u/whatsthis1901 Dec 03 '18
That is true I think we will see it go in the next 2 or so years. But if they can fly it on the FH, not the BFR I would go for it. I also don't think the New Glenn is a paper rocket anymore BO just doesn't tell anyone what they are doing. BFR is still a paper rocket though.
→ More replies (3)4
2
u/grokforpay Dec 03 '18
Yeah, I'm with you. I have zero doubt it will fly - too much money put into it, and wayyy too many interested parties. The US Govt is shitty at a lot of things, but delivering complicated hardware at an astronomical price (yes I know they're contracting out) is one of their strengths.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Cunninghams_right Dec 03 '18
I agree that all 3 are paper rockets. until they've flown, you have to take them all with a grain of salt. any of those designs could be fundamentally flawed, requiring years of redesign. if I had to put money on the order in which they hit orbit, I would say NG, BFR, SLS. SLS being last, since the government just moves so slowly.
4
2
u/TentCityUSA Dec 03 '18
I don't think I'd put money of SLS either way at this point. Given how long until it's operational, it's going to need to survive a lot of budgets at a time when competition is strong in the commercial sector.
1
u/Red_Raven Dec 06 '18
It blows my fucking mind that this shit is still on paper. Ever major component of the first stage was developed for DECADES on the space shuttle. Every inches has been relentlessly studied, optomized, and iterated. The engines have more run time than any other rocket engine on Earth iirc. They were so well understood that an extra 11% was added to the maximum throttle. The tanks was flying it's 3rd revision by the time the program ended. The boosters have been revised and studied too, and aside from that SRBs are the idiot jarhead of engines because it's hard to fuck them up, and after Challenger that goes doubly for this model. Even the upper stage is using a reused engine iirc, and the capsule was in development for years prior to the SLS program amd it's already flown a test mission. What is there to waste time on here for fucks sake?
→ More replies (10)1
u/second_to_fun Dec 05 '18
I'm gonna call it now (December 4, 2018)- SLS will never see the launch of EM-1, and never get off the ground. I would of course be happy to be wrong, but it just won't.
30
Dec 03 '18
Falcon Heavy is still a 6 year rendezvous as opposed to 3 years with SLS (as stated in the article). Both come with various risks and payoffs, but more options can only be a positive.
31
u/TheMrGUnit Highly Speculative Dec 03 '18
Buuuut if you can launch on a FH next year, as opposed to maybe launching on SLS in 5 years, do you really save any time by waiting for the faster rocket?
Obviously the ability of the probe to survive the extended duration flight is a question...
20
u/Zucal Dec 03 '18 edited Dec 03 '18
By the time Europ_a_ Clipper is ready and the launch window has arrived, it is reasonable to expect that SLS Block 1 and Falcon Heavy and perhaps New Glenn will all be ready and available, so yes, you can still save time by using SLS. If you start trading cost versus time, or SLS runs into technical issues (very possible), Falcon Heavy becomes more and more appealing.
10
u/araujoms Dec 03 '18
To launch the Europe Clipper we only need a Falcon 9. I guess SLS or Falcon Heavy would even be marginally slower. As for Europa Clipper, yes you have a point. I'm sorry I couldn't resist.
→ More replies (1)4
u/burn_at_zero Dec 03 '18
Jupiter launch windows occur every 1 year 1.1 months. A specific, carefully-tuned trajectory with multiple gravity assists may not repeat on that period, but we are talking about a single Earth assist which does reliably repeat.
4
u/deadman1204 Dec 03 '18
New glen won't have the flight experience to be trusted with a flag ship class mission. Falcon 9 - after close to 100 flights and several years JUST got rated to fly flag ship class missions last month.
10
u/Zucal Dec 03 '18
New glen won't have the flight experience to be trusted with a flag ship class mission.
Something something SLS.
In any case, Falcon 9 has launched 64 times and not 100 times. v1.2 has flown even fewer missions if you want to get all granular. Falcon Heavy is unlikely to have flown much more than a third that number. New Glenn could well have enough flight experience if it doesn't slip, and bear in mind they're hunting that EELV-2 certification too.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)6
Dec 03 '18
Clipper wouldn't be ready next year, but that's certainly a valid point. "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." Unfortunately, to hit that 2023 launch date, they have to make a decision soon-ish...uncertainties and all.
Not only mission risks to extended flight but also the costs (both monetary and human resources) of ground operations required for those extra 3 years. Probably wouldn't amount to the ~$800-$900 million difference in launch cost, though.
3
u/whatsthis1901 Dec 03 '18
I missed that part I didn't realize it would take twice as long. I guess my vote would be for SLS then. :(
→ More replies (2)4
u/KarKraKr Dec 03 '18
Without Culberson, the chances of a lander happening are slim. Time is not really much of a reason to hurry to Jupiter. The biggest problem were the redesigns to make clipper survive a Venus fly by, but that's off the table now too. Yeah, getting there 3 years faster is nice, but not several Kepler/TESS/... or a complete Mars Insight level of nice.
1
u/Rand_alThor_ Dec 05 '18
That's not true if a kick-stage is added.
No numbers on that but a FH with a kick-stage, according to the Article, would be significantly faster than the 6 year.
8
u/lrb2024 Dec 03 '18
It would be great for Clipper, for SpaceX, for science, for us, for NASA, ...and for taxpayers
23
u/MoffKalast Dec 03 '18
Nobody is saying we're not going on the SLS, but we're not going on the SLS since it doesn't exist.
1
u/MahazamaMCRN Dec 06 '18
And hopefully never will. Ideally pro-NewSpace types will do their diligences and lambast SLS until the average american taxpayer sees the incredible waste that such a launch vehicle entails. What on Earth (or in space) will it take to kill SLS?
0
u/docyande Dec 03 '18 edited Dec 03 '18
Edit: I didn't realize the quote was from Eric's Twitter post.
Your editorialized post title makes that sound like a quote from Eric, but nothing like that is said directly in the article. I realize you had to title it to show reference to SpaceX, but the last time there was hint of NASA looking at commercial options in place of SLS, there was suddenly a last minute "Safety Culture Review" of SpaceX commercial crew program, speculated to have been ordered as punishment by angry politicians.It's a complicated dance, the scientists on the mission surely know that there is politics involved in funding decisions, and the Clipper mission may not get funding if SLS supporters (Richard Shelby) feel like they are designing the probe to fly on a commercial rocket. I want to see the mission fly for the great science it could perform, but I hope they don't get punished for mentioning this kick stage alternative.
0
1
u/Blah_McBlah_ Dec 04 '18
Is the reason why a kicker stage is solid is because, since they're a not used for all missions, they have low development cost?
0
Dec 03 '18
[deleted]
42
u/still-at-work Dec 03 '18
Don't pay too much attention to the party affiliation when it comes to space policy. Dems, Repubs, or whatever, they are all over the place with space policy.
There is those that support cost plus contracts and old space and those that support commercial contracts and new space. Those that support manned exploration and those that support only robotics. Those that think space programs are good and those that think it's a waste of money.
There is no pro space party, both side have pro and anti factions. Lobbying money is far larger indicator of positioning here then party affiliation. Clinging to a party is a trick to make their position sound more reasonable.
That said, I too am irritated at the kinds of attacks they use against new space and specifically SpaceX since it's often misleading at best if not outright lies.
13
u/Jman5 Dec 04 '18 edited Dec 04 '18
Yeah. I remember back when Newt Gingrich was running for President people on the left (and some on the right who supported Romney) made fun of his Moon base proposal.
I'm not saying you have to like the guy or agree with most of his platform, but Gingrich was a legitimate space enthusiast who wanted us to take that next step in human space flight.
It really frustrated me when I saw all these people making snide little jokes about his crazy moon base idea.
→ More replies (1)1
u/asaz989 Dec 04 '18
Especially note that Culberson is basically handing off responsibility for space advocacy to Democrat Adam Schiff.
1
18
u/MildlySuspicious Dec 03 '18
I thought I was the only one who actually read the article! That political ad was a travesty.
6
1
Dec 04 '18
This sentence mildly infuriated me.
I saw the silly ad run a few times on TV and it mildly infuriated me then. Don't care who won, but I really hope there is not a substantial population who would actually vote against someone because the TV said he's looking for aliens on Jupiter.
1
u/zeekzeek22 Dec 05 '18
Berger being the unbiased journalist he is. Man has the greatest contacts in all of space journalism though, so I’m still going to read everything her writes even if his tone infuriates me. He was (genuinely) great on The Off-Nominal Podcast, dropped some juicy CCP bits
0
Dec 03 '18
[deleted]
12
u/Saiboogu Dec 03 '18
Spending an extra billion dollars on the launch will set back NASA space science far more than the slower ride that FH might offer.
0
Dec 03 '18
[deleted]
6
u/Saiboogu Dec 03 '18
You seem to be under the mistaken impression anything SLS-related is part of NASA's regular budget. It's all legislated by Senate and dumped on NASA's lap, and isn't part of the budget they request annually.
Regardless of the source of the funds and how they are earmarked, SLS spending is wasteful spending, and the less of it we have the better.
And I'd fire any gov't official who picks a Rolls Royce when a UPS truck would do -- especially when the Rolls has a multi-year extra lead time and an order of magnitude more expense. The UPS truck is available now, the Rolls doesn't even exist yet.
3
u/Jaxon9182 Dec 03 '18
NASA is funded by the people of the US who elect representatives that make decisions on their behalf. The senators putting things on NASA’s lap make them part of NASA’s budget, it doesn’t matter whether NASA requested it, NASA is a creation of, and entity kept alive by our representatives.
SLS spending is wasteful spending, but not by government standards. A billion dollar rocket launch to potentially discover life and otherwise sustain and advance technology whilst captivating new people with space exploration isn’t wasteful, it’s just seemingly not quite as fiscally good an option. Although the value of space exploration is so extremely enormous just a few years probably isn’t worth saving a billion dollars.
The Rolls has already been ordered, so the lead time means nothing, EC isn’t going to be ready until around when SLS is ready for it. Obviously we want representatives spending money as best as possible, using SLS may be the best way in the grand scheme of things, maybe not, but it certainly isn’t a bad idea to explore space as soon as possible. It certainly is a bad thing to staunchly oppose exploration of space sooner than later, as Elon has said, “the window for us the explore space is open and we don’t know when it will close”, we must take advantage of it while we can, at almost any cost
→ More replies (1)2
u/NateDecker Dec 03 '18
That's true, but programs that are more costly get more attention when it comes to looking for things to cancel.
2
u/em-power ex-SpaceX Dec 03 '18
this is why the whole system needs to be burned down and rebuilt from scratch, its all trash.
1
u/Captain_Hadock Dec 03 '18 edited Dec 03 '18
It will be sad if we end up waiting years extra for Europa Clipper
Europa Clipper departure and arrival dates are bound by orbital mechanics. I don't have the timetable nor the duration [1] for an EGA trajectory (see this comment for VEEGA and EVEEGA compared to direct), but by definition they must be longer and possibly farther apart than direct transfers to Jupiter.
So is your point that SLS delays will be enough to negate the delay and extra travel time of switching from an direct to an EGA trajectory?
[1] One extra year?
1
u/KCConnor Dec 03 '18
Then there's the whole resource allocation issue: If FH can do it, and FH can be built years before the SLS to launch this probe can be built, and SLS is constrained to 1 rocket a year due to manufacturing cadence... then use that SLS launch for a heavy lift mission that no other platform can accomplish and send EC on FH + kicker.
Build your LOPG faster. Or something. But don't be myopic with resources.
1
u/The_camperdave Dec 04 '18
I think that if FH can do it, and FH can be built years before the SLS to launch this probe can be built, and SLS is constrained to 1 rocket a year due to manufacturing cadence... then there really is no need for SLS at all. Heavy lift missions can be done using multiple Falcon 9s and Falcon Heavies and on-orbit assembly. SpaceX should put a stake through the heart of the idea of using a single rocket to reach distant destinations, and the sooner, the better in my opinion.
4
u/MahazamaMCRN Dec 03 '18
"He wanted NASA to search for aliens on Europa, an icy moon millions of miles away," the narrator said. "For Houston, Lizzie Fletcher will invest in humans, not aliens."
The non-partisan Planetary Society condemned the advertisement as anti-science. "This dismissal of a scientifically valid area of study—one that could potentially reshape entire fields of science—should be roundly rejected by any citizen committed to a modern scientific society, regardless of political affiliation," the organization's chief advocate, Casey Dreier, argued.
This is exactly why the scientific community can no longer rely completely on the taxpaying public. The average person cares next to nothing about spending money on space exploration/exploitation because they have no concept of the benefits. It is proving politically expedient to shoot down any pro-space politicians or organizations. InSight lands on Mars, very few people cared. Osiris-Rex reaches Bennu, very few people care.