Battle of the heavy lift rockets


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, 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. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

Check out this very detailed and informative look at unstated competiton between NASA’s SLS rocket and SpaceX’s heavy lift rocket plans that are even more powerful than the Falcon Heavy.

Key quote: “It is clear SpaceX envisions a rocket far more powerful than even the fully evolved Block 2 SLS – a NASA rocket that isn’t set to be launched until the 2030s.”

The SpaceX rocket hinges on whether the company can successfully build its new Raptor engine. If they do, they will have their heavy lift rocket in the air and functioning far sooner than NASA, and for far far far less money.

Share

4 comments

  • DK Williams

    Why reinvent the wheel? Reopen the Saturn V production lines if a heavy lift vehicle is needed. It’s not reusable, but I have grave doubts that mega-rockets could be made reliably reusable anyway.

  • Those Saturn 5 production lines don’t exist any more. They were shut down in the mid-1970s and are long gone, with many of the individuals who worked on them long retired or even deceased. In addition, the companies that built the Saturn 5 are also long gone.

    Moreover, the technology has changed. NASA tried to resurrect the J2 upper stage Saturn 5 engine for SLS and after spending billions on it mothballed it because they found it to be “overpowered.”

  • DK Williams

    Thanks for the update, Bob. One would think NASA would have kept copies of all schematics and production plans given that they paid a vast sum to these companies. Oh well…

  • It is not simply a matter of having schematics and production plans. You need the right kind of factories and, as you said, production lines. Those don’t exist anymore. You have to retool and rebuild everything.

    Far cheaper to start from scratch, as SpaceX has done, using the knowledge gained in the past combined with the technology and engineering of the present, to make something new and cutting edge.

Leave a Reply

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