My long awaited (at least by me) study for the Reason Foundation is now online.
[Friday-morning update]
The best word to describe NASA’s lunar program is “delusional.”
[Bumped]
[Update Saturday morning]
A nice summary of the policy paper.
My long awaited (at least by me) study for the Reason Foundation is now online.
[Friday-morning update]
The best word to describe NASA’s lunar program is “delusional.”
[Bumped]
[Update Saturday morning]
A nice summary of the policy paper.
Congratulations Rand. Reading has commenced. I may have comments later after I’ve read it.
Somewhere around page 14, on the problems with an LH2/LOX first stage, a serious design flaw is that the volume for the same impulse, given the Shuttle ET tank diameter, means the SLS first stage has to be really really tall, which means the seconds stage and payload can’t be very tall or the rocket can’t fit under the VAB doors. That puts a pretty hard limit on the future growth potential of the SLS. It can really be the basis for a family of launch vehicles that have vastly more payload capability than the Block II. It can’t launch very large structures into LEO. The rocket was pretty much maxed out at conception. The most they could do is replace the SRBs with more capable liquid fueled boosters to try to stage later in the ascent.
With many rocket systems, a proponent can make the argument that the current capabilities may not seem like much, but the huge investment will pay off in massively increased performance down the road. That argument doesn’t really hold for SLS.
Have there been any rockets, outside of SpaceX, that actually delivered massively increased performance?
I remember reading an article maybe 30 years ago about the multiyear effort to find about 156 lbs. to trade for replacing the very problematic welded manifold on the SME with a heavier casting.
Delta, Atlas, and Titan’s performance kept growing, so much so that pretty much the only component they kept was the name.
If NASA was well run, they’d be doing scads of design studies on what they could do with Starship, from putting their own upper stage on top of Super Booster, to coming up with a shortened Starship with no payload bay at all, as a re-usable second stage that gets a completely separate payload stuck to its nose. They’d even be doodling on using a 12 or 15-meter diameter LH2/LOX stage as a corn-dog atop the Super Booster.
But they likely can’t do any of that, at least not in public, or it would be used to show they had no faith in continuing with the SLS.
The SLS core on top of a Starship Super Heavy could throw over 100 tons on a translunar trajectory, if they could either figure out how to restart the RS-27 in orbit, or add four RL-10s to the core. If we only had some Apollo CSM/LM hardware left in flyable condition…
Just make a new VAB, how much could it possibly cost? /s
Actually, I wonder if they could build a new, larger VAB that could withstand CAT 5 hurricanes for less than the $2.5 billion estimated for the ML-2 launch platform.
SpaceX would tear down the VAB and build a bigger one. NASA not so much …
The only thing I disagree with, is the spacesuits. I think spacesuits should be dark red. That will make them easier to find on the Moon. Pat Rawling’s did some paintings of astronauts, wearing red spacesuits on the Moon.
So lets use red, instead of white. On Mars, lets use yellow, or green spacesuits. Never use red on Mars.
In space walks, use white. That is easier to find in space.
The issue is not visibility, it’s reflecting heat instead of absorbing it.
The best word to describe NASA’s lunar program is “delusional.”
I would say more likely AI generated…
It’s an good document and it does put things in perspective (like the costs of Falcon heavy vs SLS of putting ~1200 metric tons up).
But many/most of what is said in there has been stated countless times for years. Though maybe not as succinctly and clearly and all in one place.
And still SLS lives.
Why?
Because all the logic in the universe won’t make a bit of difference if the logic doesn’t address the reason why SLS lives. That article mentions some of it (e.g. the excerpt from Zubrin’s article) and argues against it.
But until the people who decide are PERSUADED to change their minds SLS will carry on.
Everyone knows SLS is a jobs program and company payout program and “piece of the action to various NASA entities” program. Opponents have complained about that for years. It’s not a new and startling discovery.
Preaching to the choir won’t move the needle. (How’s that for a mixed metaphor?)
Countless waves of logic have beat against the walls of the “decider’s” rationale….fruitlessly…for years. The result? – The deciders just decided to fund more SLS missions past the first two.
Restating doesn’t seem to be doing it: it doesn’t knock down the reasons the decisions are being made. Something else has to be done if intelligence is to prevail. The deciders have to be persuaded, in some way, to do otherwise.
I think that Zimmerman is unkind to Hannity. Hannity is not a fool but he is also no expert on space policy. FNC really needs one or possibly more contributors who can expound intelligently on the subject.