Boeing Claims SpaceX Falcon Rocket Can't Compete With Their SLS Rocket

EdwardHeisler · 2018-04-30 20:50:27

A SLS rocket that doesn't exist yet and won't fly for years! Boeing forgot to mention the BFR. Ed Heisler

The following is posted at Boeings website:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In February, Elon Musk’s SpaceX test launched the Falcon Heavy — a rocket that SpaceX touts as the “most powerful operational rocket in the world.”

However, the Falcon Heavy failed to impress the spaceflight department at NASA. Bill Gerstenmaier, the head of spaceflight at NASA, said the Falcon Heavy is“too small”for NASA’s needs.

Ouch.

Gerstenmaier went even further, stating that NASA’s exploration programneeds the “unique capabilities of the SLS rocket.”

The Boeing-built SLS rocket is the only spaceflight vehicle that can provide NASA the tools it needs for deep space exploration. The SLS can bring equipment into space that is too large for the Falcon Heavy.

The Falcon Heavy launch turned heads in February, but SpaceX’s rocket is a smaller type of rocket that can’t meet NASA’s deep space needs. Once theBoeing-built SLSis operational, it will be the most powerful rocket ever built.

Watch U.S. Fly will keep you updated as the competition between Boeing and SpaceX heats up.

https://watchusfly.com/nasa-spacex-falc … ploration/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The response from ARS Technica

Boeing blast —
Boeing slams the Falcon Heavy rocket as “too small”
"SpaceX's rocket is a smaller type of rocket that can't meet NASA's deep-space needs."
by Eric Berger - 4/30/2018

Recently, Boeing created a website called "Watch US Fly" to promote its aerospace industry—a grab bag of everything from Chinese tariffs to President Trump's visit to the company's facilities in St. Louis. Among the most intriguing sections is one that promotes the company's Space Launch System rocket and argues that SpaceX's Falcon Heavy booster is "too small" for NASA's deep exploration program.

"The Falcon Heavy launch turned heads in February, but SpaceX's rocket is a smaller type of rocket that can't meet NASA's deep-space needs," the website states. "Once the Boeing-built SLS is operational, it will be the most powerful rocket ever built."

The Boeing site backs up this claim by quoting NASA's Bill Gerstenmaier, who talked about the differences between the SLS rocket and Falcon Heavy at a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council meeting in March. Gerstenmaier, the chief of NASA's human spaceflight program, said the SLS had "unique capabilities" that the Falcon Heavy rocket does not have. However, as Ars reported at the time, Gerstenmaier actually struggled to explain why NASA needed the SLS rocket because the space agency has not yet built anything that will take advantage of those capabilities.

The SLS promotional website also makes some questionable assertions. It speaks of the super-powerful SLS rocket as if it will soon exist. But the SLS booster is probably at least two years away from its maiden flight. Moreover, the version of the SLS rocket that flies in two years will not come close to being the "most powerful rocket ever built." That will come much later, if ever.

Most powerful rocket

The "most powerful" title belongs to the Saturn V rocket. NASA used them in the 1960s and 1970s for the Apollo program, and they had the capability to lift 118 metric tons to low Earth orbit. The initial configuration of the SLS booster will be able to lift 70 tons to low Earth orbit, which is marginally more than the Falcon Heavy and its 64 tons. (Compared to the Falcon Heavy, the SLS will have a more powerful upper stage, enabling it to send more mass into deep space).

NASA does have plans to upgrade the SLS rocket to a 105-ton configuration, but this will not occur until at least the mid-2020s and will probably cost several billion dollars as NASA contracts with Boeing to build an entirely new upper stage. Finally, the 130-metric-ton version—the "most powerful rocket ever built"—has no real timetable. Certainly, it seems unlikely to fly within the next decade.

By then, the proposed 130-metric-ton SLS may well be superseded by the Big Falcon Rocket under development by SpaceX or Blue Origin's proposed New Armstrong booster. In any case, comparing the Falcon Heavy to a rocket that won't exist for at least a decade and without many billions of dollars in public investment seems spurious. Boeing also makes no mention of the huge cost disparity between the two rockets.

There is one final interesting nugget on the Boeing website. The end of the SLS blurb invites readers to "Learn more about why the SLS is the right choice for NASA" by linking to a news story in the London Evening Standard. This is a conservative British tabloid owned by a Russian oligarch and former KGB agent, Alexander Lebedev.

The author of the Evening Standard story, an online general assignments reporter named Sean Morrison, did not listen to the NASA Advisory Council meeting where Gerstenmaier commented about the SLS' capabilities. Rather, he quoted (without linking) from another news article from the "technology news website Ars Technica."

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04 … too-small/

Last edited by EdwardHeisler (2018-04-30 20:51:27)

elderflower · 2018-05-01 02:38:33

Boeing are a bit worried about the prospect of their gravy train coming off the rails, I suppose. Denigrating the competition and it's products is standard practice, its called "knocking copy" in advertising, and it doesn't work very well to sell your product.

louis · 2018-05-01 02:51:08

As they say, you start getting flak when you are over the target...except in this case, ironically, Musk isn't really targetting Boeing or NASA. The SLS is being made irrelevant simply because Musk wants to get to Mars as quickly as possible. If Boeing and NASA had developed something like the SLS years ago, Musk would have been happy to use that to get to Mars. His interest in rocketry developed because of his frustration at finding no one could get him to Mars.

Terraformer · 2018-05-01 06:27:52

Watch as NASA develop 65 tonne payloads, in order to show that the Falcon Heavy is too small and they need the SLS.

Do they actually have any current plans which need even the FH?

louis · 2018-05-01 07:44:17

I did wonder that myself...I think they might have plans for some super-telescope...not sure.

Terraformer wrote:

Watch as NASA develop 65 tonne payloads, in order to show that the Falcon Heavy is too small and they need the SLS.
Do they actually have any current plans which need even the FH?

SpaceNut · 2018-05-01 19:01:25

There were some other suggested uses but it comes back to how much for the launch that nasa will be charged....
Boeing could be under pricing when it comes to the finish product since they have already gotten fat as a hog but most likely we can blame it on the Nasa contract writers.

Sure we could hand off the redesign of some of the parts for better reusability beyond the SRB's but even that will only be a short term as Nasa wants to keep upping the total launch mass to orbit.

kbd512 · 2018-05-01 19:13:30

At this point, there are no payloads that require a rocket larger than Falcon Heavy. NASA is spending nearly all available human space flight program development funding on Orion and SLS and there's nothing left for anything else. I'm not sure what good the mega rocket will do, if it ever flies, when there's nothing available to fly on it. SLS might be able to send probes directly to Neptune or Uranus, which would be scientifically interesting since we know so little about those planets, but ion propulsion can supply even greater dV increments for far less thrown mass.

I heard a lady from NASA recently complain in a YouTube video that they'd have to assemble payloads at ISS if they used Falcon Heavy, to which I uselessly screamed at my computer, "That was one of NASA's reasons for creating ISS!" These people are seriously thick-headed in their approach to affordable space exploration.

I think BFR is the wrong approach to Mars exploration and colonization if cost reduction is Mr. Musk's goal. I would use cyclers (not real cyclers since they stop in orbit at Earth and Mars) to ferry people to Mars using artificial gravity spinning wheels using ion propulsion. The cyclers would spiral to GEO after assembly in LEO at ISS. The number of colonists can be adjusted by increasing the number of wheels and propellant quantity in a stack. The BFR would go to GEO at Earth and Mars to drop off humans and cargo, then return to the surface of Earth or Mars.

I see no point to SLS at this juncture, but I'm sure we'll keep spending billions on it when that money would be better spent on payloads that Falcon Heavy could deliver faster and cheaper. Since the total tankage volume of BFS stays roughly the same if it were switched to LOX/LH2 from LOX/LCH4, I would switch the BFS over to five restartable RS-25's. The thrust produced by the RS-25 is almost the exact same value that Musk said he wanted to achieve. For refueling BFR on Mars, a water electrolysis plant and cryocooler has to be more compact and cheaper to develop than a Sabatier reactor. That's a better use of the most expensive reusable rocket engine known to man. The RS-25's have had long lives and the procedures for servicing them are down to a science. NIH on the part of both NASA and SpaceX will preclude this from ever happening.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-05-01 20:56:30

At this juncture, we really don't know the final capacity of the Falcon Heavy using the Block 5 boosters. Musk made a statement in passing that there would be another performance upgrade with them, so incorporation into the FH system could conceivably surpass the 63 Tonne LEO capability stated on the SpaceX website

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2018-05-01 20:57:48)

RobertDyck · 2018-05-01 23:30:43

Oldfart1939 wrote:

At this juncture, we really don't know the final capacity of the Falcon Heavy using the Block 5 boosters. Musk made a statement in passing that there would be another performance upgrade with them, so incorporation into the FH system could conceivably surpass the 63 Tonne LEO capability stated on the SpaceX website

SpaceX website

Payload to LEO is defined as 185km altitude at the same orbital inclination as the latitude of the launch site. That's the lowest inclination possible for any launch site; makes maximum use of rotation of the Earth. In the case of Falcon Heavy, payload to LEO is defined as 28.5° inclination, while payload to GTO is defined as 27° inclination. Maximum payload is with everything fully expendable. The above image capture is accurate as of the time I post this. That means with Block 4 boosters.

My question is what's the capacity to TLI with all 3 core boosters recovered, not to landing zones on land, but to drone ships at sea? And what's the capacity with side boosters recovered to ships, but the central core booster expended? In both cases with Block 5 boosters. And no fairing, instead launching Dragon. That's important because dragon has a narrower diameter than the standard fairing, which means lower aerodynamic drag while passing through atmosphere.

kbd512 · 2018-05-02 00:50:46

All I want to do is ship 50t payloads to ISS, maybe less. I want empty habitation shells sent there for mating to propulsion units. It'll be the same solid core concept that Bigelow Aerospace uses, but with an inflatable spoked wheel section to provide artificial gravity. The unit will be inflated at ISS and attached to a propulsion module containing solar arrays, a reaction control system, and ion engines. I'm calling this combination of habitat and propulsion module the "Real ITS" or "RITS" (like the Ritz-Carlton, but without room service), since it can take people from Earth orbit to Mars orbit and back again. All joking aside, the unit spirals to GEO where BFS meets up with RITS to transfer crew and consumables. If everything is good to go, RITS performs TMI. If not, the crew aborts to Earth aboard BFR. A separate set of BFR's will stay on Mars, only going to and from Mars orbit, never to return to Earth.

SpaceNut · 2018-05-02 18:18:58

I can not see why Nasa is thinking that it needs chunks of payloads so large that it tries to lobe them into space as a single piece rather than on a smaller rocket at a lower cost.

Forget the Falcon Heavy’s payload and focus on where the rocket will go from a news conference back in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, April 5, 2011.

SpaceX will have nearly tripled the capability of the Falcon 9 rocket from 2011 to 2018, the period between the unveiling of the Falcon Heavy and its eventual flight. This means that many of the heavier payloads that once might have flown on the bigger rocket can now be accommodated by the single core Falcon 9.
The inflation-adjusted cost of a Falcon 9 from 2011 to now is $55 million, which is only slightly less than the actual $62 million price tag on a modern Falcon 9 rocket (which has more than twice the performance of the version 1.0 booster). And the Falcon Heavy price is now $90 million, less than the quoted price in 2011.

Musk's Falcon Heavy Packs A Huge Payload [Infographic]

Its 27 Merlin engines are capable of generating nearly 23,000 kilonewtons of thrust and that's slightly more than double that of United Launch Alliance's Delta IV Heavy which was the world's most powerful operational rocket. That immense level of thrust means the Falcon Heavy will be able to pack an impressive payload. It will be able to lift nearly 141,000lbs (64 metric tons) into orbit, also more than double the Delta IV Heavy and at a third of the cost, according to SpaceX.

tahanson43206 · 2025-02-08 18:05:26

The story at the link below is about Boeing cutting the SLS work force...

https://www.foxweather.com/earth-space/ … -artemis-i

(th)

kbd512 · 2025-02-09 01:21:23

SLS production rate may be sufficient for infrequent exploration missions, although that is questionable. It will never be sufficient for establishing off-world bases / outputs, and eventually, colonies on other planets. The issue as I see it is that we can only fabricate one core stage and set of engines to launch SLS once per year, at most. I have no idea if the solid rocket motors can be fabricated significantly faster, but in point of fact the workforce and facilities don't exist to do that at the present time. I would say that we could expand our existing facilities if we decided it was important, but to what end?

The stated reason for continuing to use SRB tech in orbital rockets is that it proves we can fabricate solid motors far larger and more complex than what's required for ICBMs or any other military missile systems. The US military wants to retain its edge in solid rocket motor design, development, and fabrication. Building the largest and most powerful motors, which require absolute precision and attention to detail, is one way to achieve that end. Similarly, we continue to use LH2 fueled engines because they represent the pinnacle of efficiency for liquid chemical fuel rocket engine tech, as well as the source propellant used by nuclear thermal rocket engines. So long as we maintain commanding leads with these engine technologies, there's no possibility of a competitor nation exploiting them to achieve some kind of militarily-significant technological edge over the US. That may not make a lot of sense to people who are not in the military, but that is how our military and our space technology advocates in Congress view this issue, and they've stated as much, repeatedly.

Similarly, Space Force now views fully and rapidly reusable rockets burning abundant natural gas fuel as important to their objectives. The US has ample supplies of LNG, so their thought process on this is that the cheapest and most plentiful rockets and fuels win the argument. They only care about putting their payloads in orbit whenever they want the service provided to them.

In a certain way, they're both correct. We now have Hydrogen, Methane, Kerosene, and solids (APCP or HTPB) as viable orbital class booster fuels. The Russians and Chinese still use some Hydrazine fuels, but we swore off use of those fuels as too expensive to produce in bulk and too dangerous to routinely use. I suppose if we had greater emphasis on Ammonia fertilizer production, then Hydrazines might look more attractive. Apart from Propane and Paraffin Wax, there's not much else we can feasibly use, and nothing else provides better performance than what we already have. Apart from Methane engine development, every other rocket engine development project over the past 20 years or so has been almost entirely intended to improve engine durability and decrease cost.

RS-25 is a mature engine, but the fabrication cost and time table is not reasonable. They're the most expensive single-use engines anyone has ever built, by quite a lot. LH2 engines need a tech update to improve their durability and decrease fabrication cost. The idea that it will take 1.5 to 2 years to fabricate a single rocket engine, is ludicrous. SpaceX is trying to figure out how to fabricate enough Raptor engines per week that they can keep up with what they perceive the demand will be for Starship, and they require 39 engines per vehicle.

The time required for core stage fabrication is particularly perplexing. We built entire facilities to assist in robotic welding of the Aluminum alloy core stage "potato chips" (the Aluminum gores that the SLS core stage is fabricated from). How is it possible for this to take a year or more with custom jigs / fixtures, piles of materials, and ocean transport infrastructure to carry the finished product to the VAB at KSC? Something is basically wrong with this process. SpaceX is fabricating a core stage just as large, at a rate of about 1 every 2 weeks or so, without the benefit of massive jigs / robotic tools. About 4 guys with welding equipment are C-clamping sheets of stainless and welding it by hand. There are numerous videos showing them doing this. I think they run 2 or possibly 3 shifts at Boca Chica, so maybe 12 people are involved, excluding the crane operators stacking the welded barrel sections. I see that many people standing around watching the machine work at the Michoud Assembly Facility. If that giant expensive toy cannot get the job any faster, then why not just have Boeing's welders take care of business the old-fashioned way?

If we're going to make Hydrogen and solids cost-competitive, then we need somebody to update the tech to streamline mass production.

I will assert that having cost-competitive Hydrogen, Methane, Kerosene, and solid rockets is a good thing, because the cost-competitive nature of the business should mean that we have people who are actively working on tweaking things to make them better / faster / cheaper.

For the longest time, we had people who thought anything space-related had to be exceptionally expensive. SpaceX is fabricating Raptor rocket engines for a little less than $200K per engine, and the engines exceed the thrust performance of the RS-25 at a much lower weight. The RS-25 is running about $72M. We can purchase 360 Raptor engines per RS-25 engine, enough for 9 complete Starships.

At the same time, we're working on air-breathing methods and non-rocket methods of launching things into orbit. One day, one of those other two methods will bear fruit, but it's hard to say when, because the workability of the concept itself and the business model have to be viable. If it was cheap and easy to achieve, then someone would've done it already. Even so, we are starting to see real progress on air-breathing hypersonics, via combined cycle engine concepts, materials capable of withstanding extreme heating, and application of rail gun and slingshot tech using modern materials.

So... What are we to make of Boeing cutting the SLS workforce?

At present, not much. The development of the SLS took forever and required a robust head count, but it's over now so the only thing Boeing needs to focus on is streamlining production.

Oldfart1939 · 2025-02-10 17:58:45

kbd512-

I agree with you on most , nearly all of your above statements.

The lone exception is regarding hydrazine based propulsion, and you gave the "cost of manufacture" as the primary reason for abandonment of N2H4 as a viable fuel. WRONG! Hydrazine is simple to manufacture and at one time was easy to purchase up until around 1990. The most expensive portion of using hydrazine was SAFE SHIPPING! I was using 55 gallon drums of Hydrazine Hydrate in some of my manufacturing processes routinely, and the major expense was needing 5 barrels of Sodium Hypochlorite to safely dispose of the waste. Mixed with enough bleach, hydrazine was completely destroyed and diluted with water, it could go down the sewer system without any quibbles from the EPA.

Shipping Hydrazine by truck freight became almost impossible--nearly overnight.

Anhydrous Hydrazine was another story, and was always heavily regulated by ICC and shippers.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2018-04-30 20:50:27

Boeing Claims SpaceX Falcon Rocket Can't Compete With Their SLS Rocket

#2 2018-05-01 02:38:33

Re: Boeing Claims SpaceX Falcon Rocket Can't Compete With Their SLS Rocket

#3 2018-05-01 02:51:08

Re: Boeing Claims SpaceX Falcon Rocket Can't Compete With Their SLS Rocket

#4 2018-05-01 06:27:52

Re: Boeing Claims SpaceX Falcon Rocket Can't Compete With Their SLS Rocket

#5 2018-05-01 07:44:17

Re: Boeing Claims SpaceX Falcon Rocket Can't Compete With Their SLS Rocket

#6 2018-05-01 19:01:25

Re: Boeing Claims SpaceX Falcon Rocket Can't Compete With Their SLS Rocket

#7 2018-05-01 19:13:30

Re: Boeing Claims SpaceX Falcon Rocket Can't Compete With Their SLS Rocket

#8 2018-05-01 20:56:30

Re: Boeing Claims SpaceX Falcon Rocket Can't Compete With Their SLS Rocket

#9 2018-05-01 23:30:43

Re: Boeing Claims SpaceX Falcon Rocket Can't Compete With Their SLS Rocket

#10 2018-05-02 00:50:46

Re: Boeing Claims SpaceX Falcon Rocket Can't Compete With Their SLS Rocket

#11 2018-05-02 18:18:58

Re: Boeing Claims SpaceX Falcon Rocket Can't Compete With Their SLS Rocket

#12 2025-02-08 18:05:26

Re: Boeing Claims SpaceX Falcon Rocket Can't Compete With Their SLS Rocket

#13 2025-02-09 01:21:23

Re: Boeing Claims SpaceX Falcon Rocket Can't Compete With Their SLS Rocket

#14 2025-02-10 17:58:45

Re: Boeing Claims SpaceX Falcon Rocket Can't Compete With Their SLS Rocket

Board footer