The Space Launch system is subject to heated debate, but what is the alternative to going to the Moon, Mars and beyond? (Credit: NASA) |
by Ajay Kothari
Monday 15 March 2021
A few days after Bloomberg’s editors recommended that the Biden administration cancel the Space Launch System (SLS), Loren Thompson published a rebuttal in Forbes. But I respectfully, if strongly, disagree with Thompson. The future of the SLS is of great importance to NASA and the country, and therefore to the taxpayers, and therefore we must try to correct the record as soon as possible.
Thompson says: ‘The editors of Bloomberg News launched a senseless attack on NASA’s human space program last week. It was full of dubious allegations about alternatives to the space launch system. And yet it is his attack that seems motivated for self-centered reasons and is full of dubious allegations.
Yes, as the Bloomberg editorial said, SLS should be scrapped. But not only that, we need to change the paradigm of how we do space travel. Building a bigger and bigger rocket every time to fit in with a bigger mission is at the heart of Thompson’s argument, asinal and unnecessary. With the advent of many reusable rockets by SpaceX, Blue Origin and hopefully soon Rocket Lab, we are in a different area. Let’s use it as a country, otherwise someone else will do it first.
The problem is simply stated that larger payloads and further destinations require more propellant, which requires larger rockets to reinforce it. So, our plans are also limited to what we have available that day regarding rockets.
| Building a bigger and bigger rocket every time to fit in with a bigger mission is at the heart of Thompson’s argument, asinal and unnecessary. |
What if we do not have to be limited in this way? This is possible by tying multiple upper stages in a low earth orbit (LEO), one carrying the payload and all others carrying as much extra fuel with the same reusable booster (s). No fuel is needed for now, because the Forbes article set as alarm – maybe it can come later. In nerd talk, it is to increase the propellant fraction until it is equal to what is needed to do the job. It gives us the ability to have theoretically infinite solutions for space travel, basically tailored to the need. Do you want to go to Moon? Two flights from Falcon Heavy. Would you rather go to Mars? Four flights of Falcon Heavy. Need a little extra boost? Rocket Lab’s new Neutron can fill the gap. A bigger gap? New Glenn from Blue Origin can help you.
It builds a railroad to space with thousands of solutions at our fingertips. Let’s build this railroad instead of the one-time solutions like SLS. This is not rocket science!
This was not possible before. But now the reusable rockets are significantly cheaper to fly, and the upper stages have less weight. It is almost certain that many other countries, especially China, will follow this method and leave us in the dust if we do not accept it. China is already developing reusable rockets. If we stick to the current status quo, we’ll lose this race to China, which will have thousands of possible paths to NASA’s one or two with SLS. Do we really want to be in that brine?
This solution exists today! Docking in LEO has been done since 1966 and is done regularly and often automatically at the International Space Station today. The answer is simple: save the $ 2 billion a year spent on SLS and use some of it in the development of space refueling technology, lunar surface infrastructure, and water ice mining; some may even be re-allocated for climate change. This is a huge saving, and we now need to take a step with the new administration.
To displace the above arguments with numbers, the SLS cost is linked to about $ 2 billion per launch, and the payload for LEO with Block 1 is 95 tons and Block 2 load 130 tons. Falcon Heavy, coupled with $ 125 million per launch, with its semi-reusable option (the two side amplifiers have been repaired and the core has been spent) has a capacity of about 54 tons to LEO. Four of its flights can deposit more than 200 tons in LEO, which is twice as much as one SLS block 1. The estimated numbers are now $ 2 billion compared to $ 500 million for twice the payload – a factor of eight benefits. Why would we not do that? Note, it does not have to be refilled, but just docked. And as a cherry on this cake, we can also use an upper floor tank as a habitat. Is this rocket science? No. Just common sense, perhaps with an innovative, out-of-the-box, courageous mindset for which NASA was previously known.
Schedule. In 1961 it was announced that we ‘must commit ourselves to a goal before this man does not have to land on the moon’, and this was accomplished in spite of the awkward computers and for the first time for almost all the successes. NASA took longer for the Space Shuttle was already the beginning of a different NASA than the one in the 60s, which has just proved that it is now in a major bureaucratic decline, especially thanks to the unfair political pressure exerted by some Senators and such companies . what mr. Thompson represents. There must be a limit to stretching this rope unreasonably harder. It must break now. Yes, SpaceX was five years behind schedule for Falcon Heavy. But SLS is already at ten years after the development was announced, and has not yet flown. No, the excuses were just no more.
| This method, which is only possible with reusable booster rockets and not with SLS, not only creates the path to the Moon and Mars, but also many other destinations in the solar system. |
Cost. Let’s just look at the real savings for taxpayers here in the example that Mr. Thompson mentions in his essay, where he compares the projected launch cost of $ 2 million with the $ 331.8 million NASA has just paid for a Falcon Heavy launch. The quoted price of StarsX by SpaceX is indeed absurdly low and may not run out. But even if we take that number into account, NASA is being taken for the argument for $ 329.8 million more than they should have ($ 331.8 million – $ 2 million). But in the case of SLS, where each launch costs about $ 2 billion each, it’s a higher figure with about $ 1.67 billion, for which taxpayers will bear the heaviest. What is a higher load? It’s not just the relationship that matters. For taxpayers, this is the real dollar amount.
Technology. The most influential technology, possibly by far, developed by SpaceX is the sequence of the boostback maneuvering, restarting the engine and landing on a drone or returning to the launch site. This is what will save significant amounts of money that make unthinkable feasible. It changes the paradigm that helps not only this country but also humanity. To illuminate it by comparing it to the ‘world’s largest welding tool’, such as Forbes does in its assessment of new technology on SLS, is to deliberately keep eyeballs on.
Justification. The method outlined above, which is only possible with reusable booster rockets and not with SLS, creates not only the path to the Moon and Mars, but also many other destinations in the solar system. Again, the common denominator is not to use SLS or any consumable rocket solutions, which is a big money pit. If we do not think that China will accept this development, while the US once again falls victim to the distortion of political and big business, we have another set of blinders. It may not be just this time. It could also be a security threat in terms of China moving much further ahead of us in the space arena, especially the lunar space, if we do not take action soon.
Thompson says that ” a number of companies in the SLS team, including the core contractor, are contributing to my brainstorming. ‘Here on the other hand, no companies – SpaceX, Blue Origin, Rocket Lab or any other team – have contributed to this opinion piece.
Note: We are using a new commenting system, which requires you to create a new account.