[AR] Re: SpaceX F9 Launch/Update -- Live Link
- From: Henry Spencer <hspencer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2015 00:25:33 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015, John Dom wrote:
...confusing why a new launcher like SLS still requires SRBs. Politics?
SLS is not primarily a new launcher -- it is a way of maintaining
employment at MSFC and some of the major shuttle contractors. There was
some lip service given to follow-on development of new booster technology,
but we've heard that song before (e.g., in the early days of the
shuttle!).
Why not go for more powerful liquid motors or more of them instead...
Because the US has no suitable large liquid engines. The RS-27A is out of
production and too small, the RS-68 uses the wrong fuel for high-thrust
first-stage engines, and that was basically it for off-the-shelf engines.
And there is reason to fear the cost and schedule impact of having MSFC
and Rocketdyne develop a big new engine. No, reviving the F-1 would not
solve the problem -- as witness the J-2X, such an effort would almost
certainly end up building essentially a new engine. No, there is no
realistic prospect that it wouldn't be an MSFC/Rocketdyne project.
The mere existence of SpaceX is due to NASA funding & support help.
No -- SpaceX was in existence and well on its way to flying Falcon 1
before it got a dime of NASA money. NASA money (and before that, some
DARPA money) certainly sped things up, and Elon admits that.
Henry
Other related posts: