NASA chief argues against purchasing Falcon Heavy over SLS
When asked at a meeting of a NASA advisory council meeting why NASA doesn’t buy a lot of Falcon Heavies instead of building a few SLS rockets, NASA chief of human spaceflight Bill Gerstenmaier argued that only the SLS could launch the large payloads NASA requires to establish its Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway (LOP-G).
Gerstenmaier then said NASA’s exploration program will require the unique capabilities of the SLS rocket. “I think it’s still going to be large-volume, monolithic pieces that are going to require an SLS kind of capability to get them out into space,” he said. “Then for routine servicing and bringing cargo, maybe bringing smaller crew vehicles other than Orion, then Falcon Heavy can play a role. What’s been talked about by [Jeff] Bezos can play a role. What United Launch Alliance has talked about can play a role.”
The problem with this argument is that the “large-volume, monolithic pieces” Gerstenmaier proposes don’t exist yet, either in design or in budget. NASA could very easily design LOP-G’s pieces to fit on Falcon Heavy, and then use it. Instead, they are purposely creating a situation where SLS is required, rather than going with the most cost effective solution.
Unless someone in power, such as a president, puts his foot down and demands NASA do this intelligently, I expect NASA to accomplish nothing significant in manned space in the next decade. That does not mean Americans will be trapped on Earth, only that NASA will not be the way they will get off the planet. And unfortunately, based on the most recent budget passed by Congress and signed by Trump, I do not expect this president to do anything to change things. Right now, NASA is being run by the big contractors (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) that need SLS and Orion, and thus NASA is going to give them a lot of money to build things that we can’t afford and can do nothing to put Americans in space.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four 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 or subscription:
4. 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.
When asked at a meeting of a NASA advisory council meeting why NASA doesn’t buy a lot of Falcon Heavies instead of building a few SLS rockets, NASA chief of human spaceflight Bill Gerstenmaier argued that only the SLS could launch the large payloads NASA requires to establish its Lunar Orbiting Platform-Gateway (LOP-G).
Gerstenmaier then said NASA’s exploration program will require the unique capabilities of the SLS rocket. “I think it’s still going to be large-volume, monolithic pieces that are going to require an SLS kind of capability to get them out into space,” he said. “Then for routine servicing and bringing cargo, maybe bringing smaller crew vehicles other than Orion, then Falcon Heavy can play a role. What’s been talked about by [Jeff] Bezos can play a role. What United Launch Alliance has talked about can play a role.”
The problem with this argument is that the “large-volume, monolithic pieces” Gerstenmaier proposes don’t exist yet, either in design or in budget. NASA could very easily design LOP-G’s pieces to fit on Falcon Heavy, and then use it. Instead, they are purposely creating a situation where SLS is required, rather than going with the most cost effective solution.
Unless someone in power, such as a president, puts his foot down and demands NASA do this intelligently, I expect NASA to accomplish nothing significant in manned space in the next decade. That does not mean Americans will be trapped on Earth, only that NASA will not be the way they will get off the planet. And unfortunately, based on the most recent budget passed by Congress and signed by Trump, I do not expect this president to do anything to change things. Right now, NASA is being run by the big contractors (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) that need SLS and Orion, and thus NASA is going to give them a lot of money to build things that we can’t afford and can do nothing to put Americans in space.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four 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 or subscription:
4. 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.
Gerstenmaier: “We’re trying to build a plan that uses SLS for its unique capability of large volumes and a large single mass in one launch.”
That says it all. Not “we have a plan which requires a rocket with these capabilities,” but “we have this rocket so now we need a plan which will be uniquely met by that rocket.”
WHY is it , on any subject other than NASA, we can get leadership and some sort of political support , but NASA is always untouchable.. why oh why is that?
Not only is the SLS rocket obscenely overpriced.
Not only is the rocket procured as a monopoly contract
Not only is NASA ignoring cheaper alternatives that exist today for launch
Not only is LOPG a “Gateway to nowhere”
Not only is the schedule for SLS and LOPG unnecessarily decades long
But, the US hasn’t flown an astronaut in a US spacecraft in going on 7 years.
An absolutely pathetic effort.
I think the dual track approach is the best we can hope for.
I was reading elsewhere (Wikipedia) that they want to use SLS/Orion because of the propulsion on the Orion system. Some segments of the LOP-G wouldn’t need SLS/Orion because they would have their own propulsion.
NASA has been working on components of this for a long time now, with at least six companies providing possible components.
It looks like a LEO/cislunar tug would be very useful.
In any case, many companies have their own preferred activities and since the LOP-G will take a very long time to build if it relies on SLS/Orion, it could be that commercial space renders the project obsolete.
SLS/Orion are a waste of money but in the grand scheme of things, its just a drop in the bucket. For the long term, space cadets should be more concerned with commercials space getting the support it needs in terms of reduced regulatory burdens, support for private property rights, and a friendly NASA.
Dear Mr Gerstenmeier,
I have a few questions of fact?
Is your plan the most cost-effective means of establishing the Gateway?
Pray tell, which piece of the Gateway is so large that it couldn’t fit within the fairing of the Falcon Heavy?
Forget the TLI capability of the FH, why couldn’t the Falcon Heavy be used to assemble the entire Gateway in LEO prior to it being pushed by another vehicle to the DRO orbit?
Is the Falcon Heavy sufficiently capable of pushing an Orion capsule to the DRO orbit? How much would it cost to have the FH human rated after the Falcon 9 Block 5 is human-rated?
Have the alternate, more cost-effective approaches to accessing the Moon and Mars been openly reviewed and compared to the SLS-Orion-DSG-Someone’s lander architecture?
How much will the DSG cost compared to a Lunar COTS approach to developing and operating a XEUS-scale lander?
Finally, after having personally acknowledged to me that the Gateway is unnecessary for lunar access but cargo & crew modules and propellant could be handed off directly between a launch vehicle and a lunar lander, why then do you persist in saying that the Gateway should be used to access the lunar surface?
NASA has this idea for the LOPG that every module (except for the first, the power module) will be launched together with a crewed Orion. This guarantees that Falcon Heavy cannot launch it. But that’s maybe a price worth paying for the benefits of mixing crew and cargo on big rarely launched rockets?
The ISS was assembled from modules half the mass of those that Falcon Heavy could launch. The ISS has a mass of around 450 tons. What’s been learned from the ISS should be applied on building a Mars or Moon cycler like spacecraft next. There’s no value with using astronauts as Geiger counters around the Moon.
Have a question:
How many Falcon Heavy has been constructed to date? Think there is only 1 rocket constructed. When those launches becomes monotonous and they began to cut costs so as to save money (it being a private initiative), then the possibility of a catastrophic rocket launch would become greater and then no Falcon Heavy rocket then.
Lemuel Vargas asked, “How many Falcon Heavy [sic] has beeen constructed to date?”
SpaceX has two more launches of the Falcon Heavy scheduled for this year. By the time SLS launches once in 2023, I expect the rocket will have flown dozens of times. And the cost of all those launches will still be less than what it will cost NASA to simply build the two mobile launchers (one of which they will abandon after one use) that just roll SLS to the launchpad.
SLS is a disgrace. It does not take much research or intellectual honesty to see that. And to avoid this reality one has to be willfully blind.
Lemuel,
Would you rather trust your payload to a launcher which launches several times per year (which is a reasonable expectation going forward for Falcon Heavy), or one that only goes up once every 12-18 months (which is basically SLS’s schedule for the mid 2020’s)?
And the Falcon Heavy will be based upon the Falcon 9 flown at the time (e.g. Block 5). So the flight frequency of the FH cores will be flying dozens of times per year and will share its fixed costs with those launches.
First of all, a Gateway is not needed to get to the Moon and back. The Gateway is like a middle man in a relay race — unnecessary. If the vehicle from Earth can hand off cargo, crew, or propellant to the Gateway then it can do the same directly with a reusable lunar lander.
But, if it is deemed necessary to assemble and use a multi-piece craft in cis-lunar space prior to going to Mars then the smart way of doing this would be to do it inexpensively by launching the pieces on FHs and assembling it in LEO first followed by pushing the assembled craft to a high cislunar orbit (e.g. DRO). For a modest investment, the FH could be human-rated and is sufficiently capable of sending either the Orion or Dragon capsules to that craft / station.
There’s no need to certify the FH for crew. Crew can be launched with the F9 that is safer because it will have flown crewed much more often and it is smaller and simpler. Dragon could dock or berth with a heavier payload in LEO, like it always does.
DougSpace noted: “a Gateway is not needed to get to the Moon and back.”
This is true, however there may be a usefulness in the future (let me emphasize that it is in the future) for a way station so that a small shuttle can take people and equipment down to and up from the Moon.
A two-hour shuttle from a lunar-orbit way station does not need the mass of living quarters or as much life support, compared to the three-day journey between the Earth and lunar orbit. A shuttle designed for transit from low Earth orbit (LEO) to lunar orbit would not need a heat shield for atmospheric entry if a small shuttle were used for the six-hour trip from the Earth’s surface to LEO and back again. Three different specialized craft and two orbital way-stations (one in Earth orbit and the other in lunar orbit) could be used to more efficiently transport people between the Earth’s surface and the lunar surface than an Apollo-like system.
This kind of infrastructure is probably a decade or so away — after we get back to the Moon. It is not appropriate for early development of our return to the Moon, in which case an Apollo-like system may be more cost effective for early exploration. If the LOP-G is a good idea, it will be that good idea sometime in the future.
Right now, we do not seem to have any immediate plan for LOP-G, other than use it for a hypothetical future Mars mission and to use it as an excuse for the SLS.
As it happened, SLS designed (and now LOP-G will be designed) before the Mars mission is designed, which drives the design for the end mission. The proper way to design a system is to start with the requirements of the final use of the system, but SLS was designed on speculation, and LOP-G is likewise also being designed on speculation — and with the requirement that SLS be used, even as a less expensive launcher becomes available. This is backwards thinking and is not worthy of the (once) great NASA and its workforce, which knows better than this.
Only a government project could be managed so poorly for so long.
SLS is corruption from top to bottom. It is the poster child for everything wrong with America today. No excuse of any kind justifies it. Attempts to justify it should cost people their jobs.