Success of SpaceX means to Huntsville? (Montgomery, Redstone Arsenal: home, live, costs)

[MisterEd51]

In the early 1970s there were plans for a space station and a reusable shuttle to build it. Only the space shuttle survived the whims of Congress. For decades we had to do with a spacecraft that was ill suited for most needs, was expensive to operate and proved to be not as safe as was intended.

The current replacement the SLS has survived multiple delays and cost overruns. Some of that are understandable but too much has been the results of interference from the White House and Congress. Its biggest problem is that it will be suited for only a small fraction of what will be needed for current and future space launches.

SpaceX has shown that a private company is better suited for making rockets than a bloated government agency. It is much more flexible in its management and engineering development. However, like all private companies it has one flaw. It has to make money at some point or risk being shut down. Similar projects by the government can with enough political backing can go on for decades and never make money an maybe even lose a lot of money.

I will also be glad when Boeing is able to launch a manned Starliner. This will provide backup for SpaceX's Crew Dragon. Hopefully there will be enough future space business for both companies

BTW, I worked in a support position for the Propulsion Division at Marshall Space Flight Center for almost 15 years.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by RocketDawg

Did they start from scratch? No.

No, and no one will claim that. They're in effect a demonstarion of NASA working as intended - do the groundbreaking research to give US industry a leg up.

Originally Posted by cjseliga

Very true, and didn't a most of the engineers from NASA's shuttle program just join SpaceX after that program was shutdown in 2011?

That would be surprising. The different Shuttle replacement programs - Constellation and SLS - were/are based on Shuttle technology. And Falcon 9 already flew in 2010.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by RocketDawg

How do you know that? Did you work there? I did, and we did.

Well... Ares I was on track to cost $20B to develop. Falcon 9 - which I will maintain is as close to apples-to-apples as one can reasonably get - cost somewhere in the vicinity of $600 million to develop.

In kilogram-to-orbit cost, SpaceX is far superior to NASA.

[Mississippi Alabama Line]

Government regulates, not innovates.

Even with SpaceX, NASA will still have a vital role.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by Mississippi Alabama Line

Government regulates, not innovates.

NASA used to innovate quite a bit. The X-plane program, the work on lifting bodies, that sort of stuff.

[wac_432]

Originally Posted by Mississippi Alabama Line

Government regulates, not innovates.

Even with SpaceX, NASA will still have a vital role.

This is true, but Huntsville is really tertiary to Houston, KSC, and Goddard. The big 3 will survive as long as the agency does, but my understanding is that the lion's share of MSFC is reliant on SLS and, somewhat, Artemis.

It's no secret that SLS is DOA unless enough starships explode that SpaceX just gives up completely. Eventually the politicians that kept SLS alive will retire, move on, or otherwise lose the political capital to pour billions more down the SLS sinkhole. The only way SLS survives is if it's the only game in town. With New Glen, Falcon Heavy, and maybe Starship, there is 1 operational and 2 very likely American boosters making SLS redundant.

There's a non-zero chance of Starship never flying, as the radically different approach to spaceflight might be the wrong pathway. SpaceX may never be able to even orbit the Starship. There's an even better chance that the vehicle will not survive reentry. However, even a throw-away version of Starship is orders of magnitude more efficient than SLS.

I had to laugh yesterday, because I was reading my kids a space exploration book which listed SLS as expected to launch in 2018. It will be a straight up miracle if it launches prior to 2022, and I think 2024 is even ambitious.

I don't know how much of Huntsville is dependent on an expanded MSFC. I remember the town from when I visited, thinking about working on fusion, antimatter, solar wind, and nuclear propulsion experiments at a sleepy little backwater NASA site several lifetimes ago.

I don't think there's much money, in tourism or lunar mining or whatever, pulling private industry toward replacing Artemis any time soon, so that program might be able to pick up some of the slack. Simply due to gravity, time, distance, the necessity of radiation shielding, and hopefully some in-situ raw materials, the Moon will be an important resource for development of space near earth. So, for the next several decades Artemis and its iterations will provide some funding to MSFC/Huntsville. However, if a big chunk of Huntsville's industry is tied up with SLS, the city needs to see the writing on the wall and rethink its future.

[MinivanDriver]

Originally Posted by wac_432

This is true, but Huntsville is really tertiary to Houston, KSC, and Goddard. The big 3 will survive as long as the agency does, but my understanding is that the lion's share of MSFC is reliant on SLS and, somewhat, Artemis.

It's no secret that SLS is DOA unless enough starships explode that SpaceX just gives up completely. Eventually the politicians that kept SLS alive will retire, move on, or otherwise lose the political capital to pour billions more down the SLS sinkhole. The only way SLS survives is if it's the only game in town. With New Glen, Falcon Heavy, and maybe Starship, there is 1 operational and 2 very likely American boosters making SLS redundant.

There's a non-zero chance of Starship never flying, as the radically different approach to spaceflight might be the wrong pathway. SpaceX may never be able to even orbit the Starship. There's an even better chance that the vehicle will not survive reentry. However, even a throw-away version of Starship is orders of magnitude more efficient than SLS.

I had to laugh yesterday, because I was reading my kids a space exploration book which listed SLS as expected to launch in 2018. It will be a straight up miracle if it launches prior to 2022, and I think 2024 is even ambitious.

I don't know how much of Huntsville is dependent on an expanded MSFC. I remember the town from when I visited, thinking about working on fusion, antimatter, solar wind, and nuclear propulsion experiments at a sleepy little backwater NASA site several lifetimes ago.

I don't think there's much money, in tourism or lunar mining or whatever, pulling private industry toward replacing Artemis any time soon, so that program might be able to pick up some of the slack. Simply due to gravity, time, distance, the necessity of radiation shielding, and hopefully some in-situ raw materials, the Moon will be an important resource for development of space near earth. So, for the next several decades Artemis and its iterations will provide some funding to MSFC/Huntsville. However, if a big chunk of Huntsville's industry is tied up with SLS, the city needs to see the writing on the wall and rethink its future.

That and the military.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by wac_432

Eventually the politicians that kept SLS alive will retire, move on, or otherwise lose the political capital to pour billions more down the SLS sinkhole.

There was a piece the other day about Sen. Shelby not having raised any funds for reelection yet. Could be he's planning on retiring?

[HB2HSV]

Originally Posted by wac_432

It's no secret that SLS is DOA unless enough starships explode that SpaceX just gives up completely. Eventually the politicians that kept SLS alive will retire, move on, or otherwise lose the political capital to pour billions more down the SLS sinkhole. The only way SLS survives is if it's the only game in town. With New Glen, Falcon Heavy, and maybe Starship, there is 1 operational and 2 very likely American boosters making SLS redundant.

There's another way.

NASA has pretty much recognized that the cost of SLS will not be able to compete with commercially available launch vehicles in or coming up in the market, so it has announced that it is leaving the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to commercial launch providers. This includes access to the International Space Station (ISS) and now it looks like NASA is also backing off launches to the Moon. Instead, NASA announced that its future missions will be "tougher" such as going to Mars, or to the deep space, and resigned itself to go where it would be cost prohibitive for commercial launch companies to compete with NASA. So in a way you're right, NASA has positioned the SLS to be the only game in town

I did a post after SpaceX launched its Tesla sportster now circling around the Earth here on this forum and wonder how NASA can compete. It was pulled by the admin because it was a "doom & gloom" and "politically unpopular" to the Huntsville economy The simple cost equation just does not add up when comparing SpaceX launch cost with NASA sponsored/ Boeing operated SLS launch cost.

For those who have supported MSFC in the past, I understand the hostility toward this thread. But it should not be taken that way. As employees/ support contractors, you don't get to have a say on how NASA manages its contracts. Ultimately it is Congress who decides how NASA spends its money and how long of schedule. I myself worked at MSFC for 9 years as a career civil servant so I understand the loyalty.

But it's time for "Old Space" companies like Boeing to wake up and recognize it needs to be more competitive. This reminds me the story of old IBM where the executives asked "why do we need to sell cheaper PC when companies are happy to pay a higher price to lease our mainframe computers?". Compete or be left behind. We are already seeing Boeing is no longer the leader in the space launch industry. Younger, hungrier, and more agile companies have passed it by.

However, if a big chunk of Huntsville's industry is tied up with SLS, the city needs to see the writing on the wall and rethink its future.

The tide is changing.

MSFC now has added responsibility of Human Landing System (HLS) to bring the next man and the first woman to the Moon. Some of you may say but that's just funneling money from Congress to Industry. Well, the reality is MSFC passes on 80% of fund it receives from Congress to Industry anyway. It is only a matter of "who" in industry get this money. The remaining 20% goes to operations and support workforce development (including research). So I foresee MSFC will be doing OK and the Huntsville economy will do just fine.

[MisterEd51]

The future of both SLS and Artemis is no way guaranteed. This is mostly because their future depends on the whims of the White House and Congress. If Trump is not re-elected then both programs will probably be shut down. Even if Trump is re-elected then Artemis may not be ready before he leaves office in January 2025. After that date nothing is certain.

I believe the International Space Station is to be decommissioned in 2028. If Artemis and the Lunar Gateway are cancelled the United States and will have no capability for human presence in apace after that date. Both SpaceX and Boeing will be left to only doing unmanned launches.

If SLS and Artemis programs are both shutdown and there is no replacement for the International Space Station MSFC will have far less less work to do. If its operations are cut back it will be a major blow to Huntsville's International prestige and to much lesser extent its economic future. Sure MSFC does not have the influence it once had decades ago but if its operations are scaled back that could easily mean the loss of thousands of jobs in Huntsville.