NASA’s newest rocket is a colossal waste of money(economist.com)
economist.com
NASA’s newest rocket is a colossal waste of money
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/08/28/nasas-newest-rocket-is-a-colossal-waste-of-money
8 comments
> Then again, the SLS program does fund the private space industry. While it's easy to dismiss it as a mere "jobs program", it did / does provide a bed for the next generation of engineers to learn, gain knowledge, become experts and so on. It also provided a bed for contractors and subcontractors to grow their businesses. Just like the Apollo program did.
This is completely backwards. It traps highly-skilled, highly-demanded engineers in dead-end jobs that do absolutely nothing to advance the state of the art.
Same with the contractors. SpaceX doesn't use OldSpace subcontractors for very good reasons. They're too slow and too expensive. They famously use industrial grade components rather than aerospace grade components. You can blame the loss of CRS-7 on this practice. OTOH Falcon9 has a perfect record since CRS-7, the highest number of consecutive successes of any rocket ever.
This is completely backwards. It traps highly-skilled, highly-demanded engineers in dead-end jobs that do absolutely nothing to advance the state of the art.
Same with the contractors. SpaceX doesn't use OldSpace subcontractors for very good reasons. They're too slow and too expensive. They famously use industrial grade components rather than aerospace grade components. You can blame the loss of CRS-7 on this practice. OTOH Falcon9 has a perfect record since CRS-7, the highest number of consecutive successes of any rocket ever.
Don't forget that the knowledge unlocked in the private space industry is locked and owned by these corporations.
While government funded programs can be re-used for generations to come and are more than often public domain.
While government funded programs can be re-used for generations to come and are more than often public domain.
SLS is therefroe worst of both worlds. The knowledge gained by it is locked in Boeing, Lockheed Martin et al.
I'd argue that progress for progress' sake is a meaningless goal. Especially when "advance the state of the art" or "industrial grade components" aren't argued as concrete tangible value.
When it comes the latter part, defining that value is the essence of the debate. No matter how advanced the technology is, it's just a tool that serves a purpose. Once a business establishes a market dominance, what incentives remain to keep advancing that tech? What guarantees could anyone offer that SpaceX will stay on the "cutting edge" once that point is reached? And how will that impact NASA's ability to make operational choices regarding it's launch capabilities and it's larger mission to foster human exploration of space starting on Earth itself?
Finally, we're not discussing CRS-7 or Falcon 9. This is about SLS and it's Starship counterpart and which developed within their shared, particular timeline.
When it comes the latter part, defining that value is the essence of the debate. No matter how advanced the technology is, it's just a tool that serves a purpose. Once a business establishes a market dominance, what incentives remain to keep advancing that tech? What guarantees could anyone offer that SpaceX will stay on the "cutting edge" once that point is reached? And how will that impact NASA's ability to make operational choices regarding it's launch capabilities and it's larger mission to foster human exploration of space starting on Earth itself?
Finally, we're not discussing CRS-7 or Falcon 9. This is about SLS and it's Starship counterpart and which developed within their shared, particular timeline.
That's just shifting the goal posts.
NASA Administrator Bolden is quoted to have said:
“Let’s be very honest,” Bolden said in an interview. “We don’t have a commercially available heavy-lift vehicle. The Falcon 9 Heavy may some day come about. It’s on the drawing board right now. SLS is real.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/nasa/adrift/2/
NASA Administrator Bolden is quoted to have said:
“Let’s be very honest,” Bolden said in an interview. “We don’t have a commercially available heavy-lift vehicle. The Falcon 9 Heavy may some day come about. It’s on the drawing board right now. SLS is real.”
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/nasa/adrift/2/
Bolden was sharing his perspective on available technologies here. He wasn't discussing the economics of human deep space-flight and how those tie in with with NASA's mission as a public entity.
Sure, I'm astounded by SpaceX's technical prowess and aptitude to reduce the price of human spaceflight by magnitudes. There's no denying that.
I'm skeptical about their business model and the potential risks and second-order effects involved in handing a single party the keys of a multi-billion dollar, nation-state sized program to establish a human / U.S. presence on the moon / space. Because that's essentially what many proponents of commercial space flight are implying by directly pointing to Starship as the alternatives that (seemingly already) outclasses SLS.
Sure, I'm astounded by SpaceX's technical prowess and aptitude to reduce the price of human spaceflight by magnitudes. There's no denying that.
I'm skeptical about their business model and the potential risks and second-order effects involved in handing a single party the keys of a multi-billion dollar, nation-state sized program to establish a human / U.S. presence on the moon / space. Because that's essentially what many proponents of commercial space flight are implying by directly pointing to Starship as the alternatives that (seemingly already) outclasses SLS.
Relativity and Blue Origin both have fully reusable vehicles in the pipeline. Rocket Lab has an upcoming design that only reuses the first stage but makes the throwaway second stage exceedingly cheap.
SpaceX isn't, and will never be, the only game in town.
Unlike the ULA monopoly we had for a good decade.
SpaceX isn't, and will never be, the only game in town.
Unlike the ULA monopoly we had for a good decade.
Aside from comparing different launch programs that don't compete with each other, the article is also purely "20/20 hindsight". A more entrepreneurial path to a moon mission was obviously feasible when the Artemis program started. So it's not so much that we chose a more expensive option, it's that we have been blessed with experience and confidence with a new path since the original program began.
Obama wanted to get rid of Constellation and did not want SLS.
He knew that there needs to be a new approach. And the new approach he put in place works excellently.
He knew that there needs to be a new approach. And the new approach he put in place works excellently.
I don’t think people understand how bad the charter is for SLS. Obama tried to cancel the program (called Orion then) and Congress brought this back.
The rocket you see standing on the launchpad has 4 used space shuttle engines strapped to the bottom of it because Congress mandated they have to use existing components.
Imagine optimizing the design of a rocket for a congressional mandate like this—how does that provide a bed for the next generation of engineers?
The rocket you see standing on the launchpad has 4 used space shuttle engines strapped to the bottom of it because Congress mandated they have to use existing components.
Imagine optimizing the design of a rocket for a congressional mandate like this—how does that provide a bed for the next generation of engineers?
Why would you care about access to space if you do not plan to do there anything valuable?
The biggest issue with SLS+Orion is that these 40 billions could be spend on launching space telescopes or missions to other planets.
You could get 3 or 4 James Webb Space telescopes. 60 missions like Kepler. 12 Curiosity/Perseverance rovers.
One, single, SLS launch will cost 2 billion dollars!
That's already 3 Kepler Space Telescopes right there or a Curiosity rover on Mars.
The biggest issue with SLS+Orion is that these 40 billions could be spend on launching space telescopes or missions to other planets.
You could get 3 or 4 James Webb Space telescopes. 60 missions like Kepler. 12 Curiosity/Perseverance rovers.
One, single, SLS launch will cost 2 billion dollars!
That's already 3 Kepler Space Telescopes right there or a Curiosity rover on Mars.
Comparing the price of a craft that can go to the moon with an orbital launcher is pretty unfair don't you think?
Huh? SpaceX's Starship is designed to go to Mars.
It's... not? There are no allowances in Starship design for long range trip. It could be used to kickstart building a vessel that could do it, by being useful launch vehicle to ship materials, but that's it.
Starship is literally contracted by NASA to land people on the Moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starship_HLS
I knew about lunar use, and distances for lunar trip are much shorter than distances for Martian one. Somehow I forgot that Musk claims they are going to Mars in Starship - thought it was too small for that, but a good chance of kickstarting the kind of industry you need to build one to take to Mars and back.
Starship is at least 10x bigger than any current NASA plan of sending people to Mars.
For HLS NASA requirement was capability of delivering 2T of cargo to the Moon.
Starship offers 100T or more.
For HLS NASA requirement was capability of delivering 2T of cargo to the Moon.
Starship offers 100T or more.
[deleted]
It appears to be designed to go from lunar orbit to the surface - not to take people to lunar orbit?
Edit: I was referring to the Starship HLS variant linked to
Edit: I was referring to the Starship HLS variant linked to
This is lunar lander variant. They just adopted Starship to the NASA requirements.
Starship is first and foremost designed to deliver people and/or 100T of cargo to Mars.
Starship is first and foremost designed to deliver people and/or 100T of cargo to Mars.
In theory it can do both. However, it is not yet crew-certified.
SpaceX builds Mars Starship in their private capacity, so they don't have to certify it with NASA.
It most likely never will be according to criteria from commercial crew program, because it does not have and will not have an escape system.
It most likely never will be according to criteria from commercial crew program, because it does not have and will not have an escape system.
Starship is specifically designed to fly to and land on Mars:
https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/
https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/
That's... some chutzpah, especially combined with no mention of specific problems involved. But maybe for a very small crew it will work?
That said, they could update the page, it's 2022 already and promising great things in the future year of 2020 is not a good look.
That said, they could update the page, it's 2022 already and promising great things in the future year of 2020 is not a good look.
Musk/SpaceX have been working on Mars for literally decades at this point, and are very cognizant of the incredible difficulties involved. Here's a primer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mars_program
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Mars_program
It might surprise you, but that doesn't make SpaceX's Martian program the longest one, or even in the running for that title.
And while I do not want to besmirch SpaceX engineers working on it, the website is not a statement from them, it's a statement from PR machinery. Which holds similar weight as "FSD is next year" being told for 7 years by Tesla PR.
If they manage it, congrats. If not, I still reserve the right to laugh at the PR machine (not at the engineers, they have a hard problem to solve that isn't helped by overpromising PR).
And while I do not want to besmirch SpaceX engineers working on it, the website is not a statement from them, it's a statement from PR machinery. Which holds similar weight as "FSD is next year" being told for 7 years by Tesla PR.
If they manage it, congrats. If not, I still reserve the right to laugh at the PR machine (not at the engineers, they have a hard problem to solve that isn't helped by overpromising PR).
Its not designed for crew to exit the ship once it lands on mars.
I do not have high hopes in that design.
I do not have high hopes in that design.
Anybody can design anything to go anywhere.
Starship doesn't exist.
Starship doesn't exist.
Starship exists as much as SLS does.
To me it looks very real: https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/rvmKpUhryN6qQmNffvqnXH-970...
"Elon Musk’s SpaceX, for instance, has shown it is possible to build reusable rockets that can send astronauts and cargo into space for around $50m per launch, far less than the projected $2bn (or more) for each ride aboard the sls" - that $50m is not Starship pricing that's the more run-of-the-mill Falcon 9.
We went to the moon 50 years ago, made a half a dozen trips then got bored.
Now we will soon be able to do it again.
Now we will soon be able to do it again.
The Orion spacecraft can't even make it to low Lunar orbit.
The SLS block 1 can put 95 tons into low Earth orbit. Compare to the Falcon Heavy, which can put 63.8 tons into LEO. Is it worth paying over ten times as much for only 1.4 times as much cargo?
The SLS block 1 can put 95 tons into low Earth orbit. Compare to the Falcon Heavy, which can put 63.8 tons into LEO. Is it worth paying over ten times as much for only 1.4 times as much cargo?
Things don't scale linearly with space cargo, nor can you easily work around it by multiple launches.
That said, majority of the price tag is probably congressional impact rather than anything else...
That said, majority of the price tag is probably congressional impact rather than anything else...
It looks bad when compared to the Saturn V.
Launching people into space should not be a priority at all. Most of the western world is dangerously aging, but there arent any (large scale) anti-aging projects.
I completely disagree.
Western world is aging, bu we don't have a global issue of aging (e.g. population of Africa is growing) - as a species humans will survive this issue.
However - when (not if) an asteroid hits, we are all gone. We mostly can't anticipate a hit, and even if we could, we could just watch it destroy us.
We must become multiplanetary species to survive.
Western world is aging, bu we don't have a global issue of aging (e.g. population of Africa is growing) - as a species humans will survive this issue.
However - when (not if) an asteroid hits, we are all gone. We mostly can't anticipate a hit, and even if we could, we could just watch it destroy us.
We must become multiplanetary species to survive.
Africa is not funding research though. And the hypothetical asteroid is much less likely than a truly deadly pandemic or nuclear or biological war. Humans will never become multiplanetary. Another, engineered species will
Everyone who has ever been born is dangerously aging as far as I can make out. Doesn’t seem unique to one hemisphere.
"Everyone who has ever been born is dangerously aging as far as I can make out." Except for those who have already dangerously aged a bit too far.
The associated cost with aging is the real problem. Alzheimer’s, for example, is about $300 billion a year, on the way to $1 trillion.
https://www.ajmc.com/view/economic-burden-of-alzheimer-disea...
https://www.ajmc.com/view/economic-burden-of-alzheimer-disea...
This is probably only because the US "health system" charges ridiculous amounts of money for Aspirin to arbitrarily inflate the prices
There are though. One such is Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SENS_Research_Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SENS_Research_Foundation
>but there arent any anti-aging projects
Sure there are. The coming environmental collapse, the collapse of technological civilization soon to follow, increasingly virulent pandemics, violence, poverty, hunger, the rise of global fascism and war, self-driving cars plowing into pedestrians.
The future presents a bountiful cornucopia of options for never reaching adulthood.
Sure there are. The coming environmental collapse, the collapse of technological civilization soon to follow, increasingly virulent pandemics, violence, poverty, hunger, the rise of global fascism and war, self-driving cars plowing into pedestrians.
The future presents a bountiful cornucopia of options for never reaching adulthood.
Just like everything else in the globalised economy, young people are being manufactured at scale in places where the manufacturing costs are lower (for instance, Africa). So “aging western society” is mostly a question of logistics.
Young Africans aren’t a replacement for westerners. They are culturally too dissimilar.
https://www.startus-insights.com/innovators-guide/4-top-anti... lists 204 startups, more than the number of rocket startups. Calico alone has received $2.5B in funding, which is more than SpaceX has received in any one of its rounds.
Making it easier to have kids is the solution here, age related death is the natural equalizer
Getting off the planet is a priority, among many others.
So we can have wars and destroy that one too?
Maybe first try to fix the problems here
Maybe first try to fix the problems here
We can do multiple things at once. Weird, right?
with the genetic makeup developed entirely by and for planet earth? How is that a reasonable position
That's a bit silly position to take. Different take would be if something happens to the planet, we all go. We need redundancy. Let alone all of the other possible benefits, starting with resources.
Evolution isn't paused
> there arent any anti-aging projects
Yeahhh, so this isn't true. Just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Yeahhh, so this isn't true. Just because you don't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist.
Old age gets us all. Deal with it.
What kind of market is it called when there is only one buyer for a product? What's so stupid about this article is that Starship too is part of Artemis program.
[deleted]
[deleted]
That would be a monopsony, making NASA a monopsonist.
It's called a monopsony.
[deleted]
> Within the next six months, SpaceX will put Starship into orbit.
Really? I haven't heard news about Starship in quite a while now.
> Its biggest rocket yet, the heavy-lift vehicle will be able to carry similar payloads into space as the sls for, Mr Musk reckons, just a few million dollars a launch.
Mr. Musk reckons all sorts of stuff, mostly fanciful. He has also been reckoning that Tesla will achieve full self driving next year, for the past 7 years or so. He has also reckoned that Neuralink will allow people to communicate telepathically, that hyperloops make sense, that we'll have Earth to Earth rocket transport, that the boring company will revolutionize tunneling etc.
So far NASA has delivered vastly more than Elon Musk.
> Given the increasing competition from companies such as Blue Origin, owned by Jeff Bezos, it is hard to see a role for nasa’s bloated sls.
Bloated SLS may be, but has Blue Origin actually done anything useful? Joy rides for billionaires don't count.
Really? I haven't heard news about Starship in quite a while now.
> Its biggest rocket yet, the heavy-lift vehicle will be able to carry similar payloads into space as the sls for, Mr Musk reckons, just a few million dollars a launch.
Mr. Musk reckons all sorts of stuff, mostly fanciful. He has also been reckoning that Tesla will achieve full self driving next year, for the past 7 years or so. He has also reckoned that Neuralink will allow people to communicate telepathically, that hyperloops make sense, that we'll have Earth to Earth rocket transport, that the boring company will revolutionize tunneling etc.
So far NASA has delivered vastly more than Elon Musk.
> Given the increasing competition from companies such as Blue Origin, owned by Jeff Bezos, it is hard to see a role for nasa’s bloated sls.
Bloated SLS may be, but has Blue Origin actually done anything useful? Joy rides for billionaires don't count.
There have been some Defense missions that sent “unlabeled” payloads to LEO, but I agree with you. The learning and takeaways from Nasa launches are highly underestimated here in the comments. Also, ask any Nasa engineer if they’re in a dead end job/industry; you’d be remise to find one.
It's not just Mr. Musk reckoning stuff, but NASA too.
Artemis program will not land on the Moon without Starship.
In fact, SLS is almost useless without Starship due to 2 billion launch cost.
There are no payloads for SLS besides Artemis program.
Even Europa Clipper spacecraft will launch atop a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket.
Artemis program will not land on the Moon without Starship.
In fact, SLS is almost useless without Starship due to 2 billion launch cost.
There are no payloads for SLS besides Artemis program.
Even Europa Clipper spacecraft will launch atop a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket.
Thou shalt not blaspheme the market by collectively building anything.
This is the 11th commandment, handed down by the Economist in the City.
This is the 11th commandment, handed down by the Economist in the City.
There's an big argument to be made for the efficient investment of "taxpayer money".
Then again, the SLS program does fund the private space industry. While it's easy to dismiss it as a mere "jobs program", it did / does provide a bed for the next generation of engineers to learn, gain knowledge, become experts and so on. It also provided a bed for contractors and subcontractors to grow their businesses. Just like the Apollo program did.
The big difference with the likes of SpaceX is that the latter aims to provide a completely integrated platform with all the components. At a fraction of the cost. In a way, SpaceX aims to mimic Apple's business model. It's already a commercial brand in it's own right rather then some white-label name.
While choosing the cheaper, efficient option would seemingly be preferable, a public government isn't a private customer. It's the 'res publica' that represents society and its manifold interests. So, that leaves us a poignant question: Would the cheap price and efficiency offered by a single private actor who does everything, really be worth trading in supporting a diverse, competitive, advanced space industry as part of a public mission?
After all, when taxpayers point fingers to the Senate, let's not forget that this institution exists in a democratic model which the people of the United States have chosen as part of their own representation over the past 250 odd years. Pork and barrel politics are - ultimately - part and parcel of a well-functioning consensus model that doesn't let one dominant voice determine whose interests should be favored at the expense of all others.
Finally, in the grand scheme of things, NASA's budget in FY2020 represented 0.48% of all federal expenses. As far as the taxpayer is concerned, the cost of SLS over a decade pertains to a negligible fraction of their contributions through taxation on an individual level.