Battle of Heavyweight Rockets: NASA vs SpaceX

Terry Olaes

Terry Olaes

I Used to be the [H] News Guy
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
4,646
For you space buffs, here is a nifty article that takes a look at the budding but unspoken competition to win the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle race. Pretty interesting stuff.

It is notable, yet understandable, that SpaceX has never openly portrayed its BFR plans in competition with NASA’s SLS. The Agency is SpaceX’s biggest customer and Mr. Musk has noted on more than one occasion that his company owes a debt of gratitude for NASA’s support and contracts during this early phase of its existence.
Click to expand...
 
NASA cheats by using Russian tech, SpaceX cheats by using ex NASA employees. :D
 
Hmmmm. NASAs underfunded SLS built by the pork masters at ULA* vs. hungery tech startup? Geee.

In before the "but but but SpaceX takes government money" 'tards yammer their face holes. Of course they do. That's where the customers are. I'd be shocked at any launch provider that did not pursue government work. It's a good deal for the US since SpaceX runs a tight ship with a cost effective product powered by American technology.

What we should all be pissed about is the politicians in ULA states pushing bullshit to block SpaceX and others from competing against their sugar daddies.

*ULA - United Launch Alliance. The Boeing/Lockheed pork system that relies on Russian motors because they don't have their own.
 
The closest thing Space X has to a Super Heavy Launch Vehicle is the Falcon 9 Heavy that is still in development, and will launch next year. Anything after that is still a long ways away. However, SLS will still outclass the Falcon 9 Heavy's lifting capacity by a very significant margin. Unless NASA completely botches their testing timeline, the SLS WILL beat the supposed "BFR" to first launch. The "BFR" is mostly conceptual at this stage outside of the new engines and computational modeling. What Space X is going for (and will eventually apply to the "BFR" as well) is rocket re-usability. Which, if all goes as planned, will make it much cheaper (per kg) to launch shit into space.
 
NASA rockets are primarily built by contracting mega-corps aren't they? Boeing, Lockheed, etc.

Then of course there's deciding who gets the contracts which is... decided by the a house panel aka free to lobby the living shit out of congressmen.
 
Grahamkracka said:
The closest thing Space X has to a Super Heavy Launch Vehicle is the Falcon 9 Heavy that is still in development, and will launch next year. Anything after that is still a long ways away. However, SLS will still outclass the Falcon 9 Heavy's lifting capacity by a very significant margin. Unless NASA completely botches their testing timeline, the SLS WILL beat the supposed "BFR" to first launch. The "BFR" is mostly conceptual at this stage outside of the new engines and computational modeling. What Space X is going for (and will eventually apply to the "BFR" as well) is rocket re-usability. Which, if all goes as planned, will make it much cheaper (per kg) to launch shit into space.
Click to expand...

"However, the initial launch of the first Raptor-driven BFR could occur before the end of the decade. While that is a highly ambitious time scale, it would result in the BFR debuting close to the time NASA’s SLS will be conducting test flights."

Will NASA completely botch their testing timeline? No, wait, let me correct myself: will NASA continue to completely botch their testing timeline? I'd bet on it. The article notes that NASA itself is only 70% sure they'll make the 2018 deadline for their only SLS test flight this decade.
 
evilsofa said:
"However, the initial launch of the first Raptor-driven BFR could occur before the end of the decade. While that is a highly ambitious time scale, it would result in the BFR debuting close to the time NASA’s SLS will be conducting test flights."

Will NASA completely botch their testing timeline? No, wait, let me correct myself: will NASA continue to completely botch their testing timeline? I'd bet on it. The article notes that NASA itself is only 70% sure they'll make the 2018 deadline for their only SLS test flight this decade.
Click to expand...

Space X isn't immune to delays either. If they had their way the Falcon Heavy would already be flying.
 
I think it's awesome to have a Company like SpaceX that has spawned from ideas to real products in a very very expensive class of business. At times 1 failure would have doomed SpaceX, now the skies the limit, and if people think Government Heath care sucks, Government into outer space sucks even more, it's just there was no good private companies to step up to the plate.
 
Grahamkracka said:
The closest thing Space X has to a Super Heavy Launch Vehicle is the Falcon 9 Heavy that is still in development, and will launch next year. Anything after that is still a long ways away. However, SLS will still outclass the Falcon 9 Heavy's lifting capacity by a very significant margin. Unless NASA completely botches their testing timeline, the SLS WILL beat the supposed "BFR" to first launch. The "BFR" is mostly conceptual at this stage outside of the new engines and computational modeling. What Space X is going for (and will eventually apply to the "BFR" as well) is rocket re-usability. Which, if all goes as planned, will make it much cheaper (per kg) to launch shit into space.
Click to expand...

Never under estimate NASA and politics to derail a product. Remember NASA is severly effected by politics. A change in leadership in two years will effect all current and future plans for NASA. This were SpaceX has the advantage. SpaceX will continue to move forward while NASA stops, stumbles, repeats, and starts again based on the political will of the White House.

Ohhh and while the SLS will beat Falcon 9 Heavy. The ability of the Falcon 9 Heavy to land and relaunch will obliterate the NASA heavy rocket in price point.
 
Grahamkracka said:
Space X isn't immune to delays either. If they had their way the Falcon Heavy would already be flying.
Click to expand...

You are correct SpaceX could experience delays due to unknown or unexpected issues. However those delays would be technical in nature and not related to politics. NASA can create products which work well. Albiet they always more expensive and later than expected. This is because NASA will always be a slave to politics from the White House and Congress. Funding comes and goes. NASA direction is a fickle as a weather vane. which ever way the White House blows is the direction that NASA follows.
 
Ohh and thank-you who ever posted this article. I love to hear and read new information about SpaceX and NASA.
 
Grast5150 said:
You are correct SpaceX could experience delays due to unknown or unexpected issues. However those delays would be technical in nature and not related to politics. NASA can create products which work well. Albiet they always more expensive and later than expected. This is because NASA will always be a slave to politics from the White House and Congress. Funding comes and goes. NASA direction is a fickle as a weather vane. which ever way the White House blows is the direction that NASA follows.
Click to expand...

Space X is pretty 'political' too. They are suffering from some pretty significant issues related inexperienced low-mid level leadership...mainly due their uberfast growth and the high turnover rate they are experiencing with engineers and technical workers. I worked there over this summer. It was a fantastic experience, but burnout was approaching quickly. Thankfully it was only an internship...but the full time engineers were there just as long as we were. No work life balance there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top