The Space Frontier Foundation called Wednesday’s announcement by NASA that it will attempt to build Congress’s giant monster rocket a disaster that will devour our dreams for moving humanity into space. Rather than breathing life into a dying space program, it may well kill new initiatives to greatly expand US space exploration and settlement efforts.
“It is a sad day for our space program,” said Rick Tumlinson, co-founder of the Foundation. “The amazing possibilities offered by engaging commercial space to lower costs and develop a sustainable long term infrastructure to support NASA space exploration, settlement and a new space industry have been trumped by the greed, parochialism, and lack of vision of a few congressional pork barrelers intent once again on building a government super rocket. We’ve been to this party before, it was a bust then, and it will be this time as well.”
The rocket, known as the Senate Launch System by most of the space community, was formally announced in the very building where it was conceived – the U.S. Senate’s Dirksen office building. Not surprisingly, Senators and Congressmen proudly spoke of their contribution to this Frankenstein monstrosity, stitched together from various pieces of pork for congressional districts that have been working the system for months.
“Senator Nelson called the SLS a monster rocket and he’s right,” explained Bob Werb, co-founder and chairman of the board for Space Frontier Foundation. “Although they’re trying to dress it up in the colors of the Saturn V, it’s a Frankenstein rocket, built from rotting remnants of left over Congressional pork. And its budgetary footprints will stamp out all the missions it is supposed to carry, kill our astronaut program and destroy science and technology projects throughout NASA.“
The Foundation is certain that much like Constellation before it, the Senate Launch System will never stay within its budget or schedule, and in the end will be cancelled. SLS will become the most cannibalistic program in NASA’s history, consuming innovative programs attempting to lower costs by using commercial firms to fly astronauts into space, new technologies that would make exploration more affordable, and of course the payloads the new rocket is supposed to carry.
“The Senate’s new Franken-rocket will fail, it will waste billions, it will never fly and it will destroy what little credibility our space program has left.” said Foundation Executive Director Will Watson, “It is an un-American solution to a challenge we can solve in an American way with our own commercial space flight companies. If it is not stopped the SLS monster will be a death sentence for NASA’s once great human space flight program.”
Rick Tumlinson and the Space Frontier Foundation are a bunch of technologically illiterate idiotic ideological ignoramuses. If they think the United States or any other country can design and build a rocket, any rocket, without using components and technology from previous programs, they are just stupid. Every new system is built on the lessons learned and development investments of past systems. How many cars are sold today that have absolutely novel and never used technology? None. It is the same with rockets. Tumlinson and his band of carping creeps are just upset that the funding NASA receives isn't diverted to their undercapitalized shoestring "NewSpace" companies that have consistently oversold and under-delivered on every novel launch system concept they have proposed. Remember the Roton? How about the Phoenix? Technology advances by increments, not by quantum leaps. The SLS will utilize proven components such as core stage engines derived from the Space Shuttle Main Engines, the most fuel-efficient and reliable rocket engines ever designed, built, and flown. Oh, and NASA has a warehouse full of them, already bought and paid for. The argument that SLS is too large displays a complete lack of knowledge of what is involved in efficiently and safely sending astronauts beyond low earth orbit. On-orbit assembly of multiple, smaller payloads drastically increases the overall mission risk when compared to launching larger spacecraft that are completely integrated and tested on the ground prior to launch. Rick Tumlinson and the Space Frontier Foundation should just shut up, if they really care about U.S. space leadership.
It will cost $2.8b to launch one of these momster or $4.2 for lunar mission…see webpage . This is what happens when engineers are not allowed to compete on the design decision. This is Constellation II…How long did it last before cancelled?
"[...] rocket, built from [...] remnants of [...] pork"
History tells us this cannot end well: http://www.rathergood.com/bacon_rocket!
Dear RIck,
I would have to whole heartedly DISAGREE. I think YOUR solution will kill the Space Program entirely. Let's see…you are advocating the following:
(1) We should do manned deep space exploration with commercial providers because they are CHEAP and because they have NO EXPERIENCE. GREAT LOGIC!
(2) We should do Space Technology work and hold off on designing a vehicle for exploration. With this approach, we will not have a Human Space Flight Program until 2050 – SOUNDS FANTASTIC!
(3) A whole 1.8 billion dollars (10% of total NASA's allocations) a year to invest in the SLS is GOING to WIPE OUT ALL of NASA's science and technology programs – COME ON LEARN TO DO MATH!
This is the best course of action for the Space Agency! Let's build that rocket and crew vehicle and really explore!
-MM_NASA
Hey, SpaceX has enough "experience" now to be the front runner to replace the Space Shuttle in spite of the fact that competitors are using political influence to hold them back. If the money the Government wasted on Solyndra to create 1000 jobs in California had instead been spent on SpaceX, California would still have those 1000 jobs, the Falcon Heavy would be operational, the Dragon would be carrying astronauts, and a second International Space Station would be under construction (by Bigelow Aerospace). The Falcon Heavy took three imprtant concepts from older rockets: (1) Many small engines instead of one large one, from the Soviet N1 moon rocket. NOTE: The N1 failed because its computers weren't capable of controlling 30 engines at once. Now, computers powerful enough to do that are given to children for toys. (2) A common booster core, a cocept taken from the Delta IV Heavy. (3) And oh, yes, the Falcon Heavy got propellant cross fed from the Space Shuttle, which fed fuel to its main engines from an external fuel tank.
So it is a Jobs program, not a Space program.
Just as an aside, because I think the double-think on this issue is endemic. Remember the halcyon days of the Apollo program? The brave folks who flew the missions, the brilliant scientists who pushed the edge of human knowledge, and the ingenious engineers who devised and built the marvelous rocket-ships that the new knowledge made possible — all that great flag-waving stuff sort of skips over something that also gets missed in today’s polemic about commercial space.
The Command module was built by North American Aviation. The Saturn V was built by Boeing, Chrysler, and Douglas. The F-1 and J-2 rocket engines were built by Rocketdyne. The Guidance and Navigation Computer was built by Raytheon.
Lets move on to the late & much-lamented shuttle: SRBs built by ATK, SMEs built by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, Thermal Protection System built by Rockwell, orbiter built by Boeing — and the list goes on.
‘Commercial’ entities have lots of experience in building spacecraft, rocket engines, instruments, and launch systems. The current kerfluffle over whether or not to ‘promote commercial space’ is little more than careful and clever spin by the current vested (yes, commercial) interests to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt. The motive for spreading the FUD? To keep competitors out of the cozy and lucrative monopoly that the current interests have on US Government procurements. New companies coming into the market will mean loss of market-share (and pork-laden profits) for the existing publicly-traded, for-profit, corporations which currently have all the room at the feed-trough.
If the current suppliers are really ‘better’, then let them demonstrate that in the open market.
Comments on this entry are closed.