Scroll down to read this post.

 

Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. I keep the website clean from pop-ups and annoying demands. Instead, I depend entirely on my readers to support me. Though this means I am sacrificing some income, it also means that I remain entirely independent from outside pressure. By depending solely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, no one can threaten me with censorship. You don't like what I write, you can simply go elsewhere.

 

You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are five ways of doing so:

 

1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.

 

2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
 

3. A Paypal Donation:

4. A Paypal subscription:


5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.


NASA considers offering SLS for commercial payloads

Squelching the competition: NASA is pushing to redesign its expensive and giant Space Launch System (SLS) rocket so that it can be used to launch commercial, military, and scientific payloads as well as proposed manned exploration missions.

At the moment, SLS has no planned payloads or funded flights past its second test flight in 2021. The system is very expensive, however, and the only way other customers could afford it would be if NASA charges them far less than the actual cost to fly. In such circumstances, NASA would essentially be subsidizing SLS so that it could compete, even undercut, private commercial rockets that actually cost far less.

If NASA does this, they could very well squelch the emerging private commercial launch industry.

Genesis cover

On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.

 
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.


The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
 

"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News

5 comments

  • fred k

    NASA’s manned program is a *huge* waste of money. The linked article discusses a structural element, which is given a mandatory government three letter acronym:

    (The USA is) a separable adapter which provides a structural interface between the EUS and Orion (that) can accommodate co-manifested payloads (significant mission elements such as habitats, communications satellites, in-space telescopes, etc.) and secondary payloads (cubesats or equivalent ‘small’ science or engineering experiments),

    So, we are spending 10s of billions of dollars for some cube sats riding to space on a gov’t dinosaur rocket?

    This is financially insane.

  • David M. Cook

    Just think, we can launch every payload in the country, and save money doing it!

    Wait, I’m getting a huge feeling of Deja Vu, for some strange reason.

  • Edward

    Fred,

    I think you misunderstood. The primary payload would be the major paying customer, someone with a little less than 105 tonnes to put into orbit. The secondary payloads are the smaller satellites that would ride with the primary payload, as is common practice on launchers today. It isn’t as insane as you suggest, but unless the paying customers fully reimburse NASA for costs, then the customers would be subsidized by the US taxpayer, which would make it financially undesirable.

    You are right that our manned space program has been disappointing. The Space Shuttle cost more and flew less than anticipated, so we got less productivity than expected for our tax dollar, and the International Space Station also cost more and carries fewer crew members (and fewer experimental modules, such as the centrifuge) than originally designed, so we are again getting less productivity than expected for our money.

    Once again, we are spending large amounts of money on a launch system which will not even take us back to the moon — the destination of SLS’s predecessor, Constellation. SLS has no actual mission, but Congress dreams that it will eventually put a manned spacecraft on course to Mars, and the president dreams that it will get a crew close to an asteroid or to a boulder from an asteroid.

    Having no mission, SLS is available for any company (or foreign government) that is willing to spend the large sum to put 105 tonnes into orbit. However, whether it will ever be worth the large development cost is a question that only the future can answer (I suspect not, too).

  • Fred Kleindenst

    I do understand. I discount the primary payload as wasteful for the reasons you cite.

    I find it highly ironic that very large scale missions like ISS and SLS seem to be most valued for the opportunities to launch a few Kgs of cubesats.

  • Edward

    I’m confused about what Reasons I cited that make a primary payload wasteful, considering I did not talk about primary payloads as being wasteful. Not only do primary payloads generate a lot of commercial business and improved communications, civil primary payloads have resulted in superior weather forecasting, better hurricane warnings and more timely evacuations.

    What I find wasteful about SLS is that it was backward thinking that designed it. A better way to set requirements for a rocket (as with most designs) is to choose a mission then design the rocket to fit the mission. For example, the Falcons are designed to meet the needs of current satellite operators — and they can take cubesats aloft, too. SLS is designed with a capacity in mind and a hope that missions will come along that requires that capacity. If they do then fine, the primary payload is still valuable, but if they don’t then what was the (expensive) point of the rocket?

    I’m confused about what part of “secondary” — rather than “primary” — makes you think “most valued.”

Readers: the rules for commenting!

 

No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.

 

However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.

 

Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *