…who are writing open letters to the NASA administrator.
Dear Senators Shelby, Boxer, Feinstein, Warner, Chambliss, and Murray:
Why are you only calling for competition on one particular component of the SenateSpace Launch System? It is a huge project, estimated to cost many billions of dollars. If the taxpayer would be best served by competing the side boosters, why not increase the joy by competing the entire system, including main engines, tanks, upper-stage engines, and design? Why is that only the boosters would benefit from this novel procurement approach? For that matter, why not simply have a competition for the most cost-effective proposal to get humans beyond low earth orbit, or to resupply space station, since these are the reasons that we have been given when asked about the requirements for the SLS. Of course, such a competition might result in no SLS at all, if someone can come up with a cost-effective way of meeting those goals without it, but this is about the taxpayers, right?
Most sincerely and cordially,
Rand Simberg
[Cross posted at Competitive Space]
Heh. You may need to close caption that for the sarcasm impaired.
~Jon
What is the “upper stage” of the SLS?
It appears that the SLS political compromise will eventually lead to Alabama-built ULA LOX/Kerosene boosters powered by Aerojet AJ-26-500 (i.e. NK-33) engines, connected to an 8.4-meter diameter Boeing upper stage (or core stage) built at NASA-Michoud that is initially powered by ground lit SSME engines, but will evolve to ground lit or air lit J-2X engines. Boeing and Pratt & Whitney will get to keep their original Ares-1 upper stage contracts intact with the above SLS plan, and the only losers are ATK and the State of Utah.
The definition of “upper stage” could be the LH2 core stage that may be propelled by the Pratt and Whitney (PW) RS-25 SSME engines from the Space Shuttle, or it could be the smaller Earth Departure Stage (EDS) that is propelled by the PW J-2X engine. Both definitions will probably become 8.4-meter diameter upper stages, because they will politically be forced to use NASA-Michoud facilities.
If the SLS booster elements are competed and boosters with LOX/Kerosene engines are chosen over the solid booster motors, then why can’t these same LOX/Kerosene boosters also replace the core stage using the RS-25 SSME engines? Another possibility is that 4 of these LOX/Kerosene boosters will have superior performance (to 5-segment solids) when connected to a SSME core stage, and could reach the SLS 130-ton to LEO requirement without the J-2X EDS upper stage.
The point here is that only one contract for one LH2 stage is needed for this SLS political compromise to work, and there were already Ares-I contracts in place with Boeing and PW for an LH2 stage.
It appears that the SLS political compromise will eventually lead to ULA LOX/Kerosene boosters powered by Aerojet AJ-26-500 (i.e. NK-33) engines, connected to an 8.4-meter diameter Boeing upper stage (or core stage) built at NASA-Michoud that is initially powered by ground lit SSME engines, but will evolve to ground lit or air lit J-2X engines. The J-2X and SSME engines have similar vacuum performance, and 4 J-2X engines could replace 3 SSME engines on a LH2 core stage or upper stage.
Boeing and PW get to keep their original Ares-1 upper stage contracts intact with the above SLS plan, and the only losers are ATK and the State of Utah. Aerojet, Teledyne, ULA, and the States of Alabama and California will split SLS contract dollars that may have gone to ATK in Utah for the boosters.
Orbital Sciences (OSC) and the State of Virginia win, because Orbital will use the Aerojet AJ-26 engine on their Taurus II rocket, and OSC may compete their Taurus II boosters for the SLS LOX/Kerosene booster contracts.
See your earlier post “Public Support”, the 100 welfare recipients called the U.S. Senate are most likely even more uninformed the we,”the public”.
I include myself in that subset, however I have Rand to point the way.
Thanks!
“Why are you only calling for competition on one particular component of the Space Launch System?”
and then add
Considering the rest of the economy of the country, where you can’t seem to understand the NEED for competition but continue interfering via rules, regulations, bail outs and out right stock purchases!
and open competition benefits california more than anyone else, but they have to keep their control, cuz that is what they want more than anything.
I’m thinking the letters from Warner, Murray and Chambliss might have been a tad more convincing if they’d managed to get the name of Administrator Bolden’s agency correct.
Good point Dick.
Somebody or some Lobbist I should say, wrote those letters for them and used the same Template for the NASA address. Made the same mistake on all of the letters.
Handed them to the politican in question to sign and mail.
Better yet – make the hallmark of SLS become a project where American virtues of effective and efficient capitalism (and no crony capitalism either) get transparently demonstrated on an international stage as a model effort for other countries to compete against. Why not prove the best instead of just claiming the worst is the best for political benefit, as before?