Posted on 08/25/2018 12:47:38 PM PDT by Kaslin
Over the last few weeks, SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk has taken a beating in the media. Recent negative stories include Tesla’s halting of important brake testing in desperation to meet production goals for its Model 3 sedan, Musk lashing out with an unfounded accusation when he was challenged on his involvement in the high-profile Thailand cave rescue, the Securities and Exchange Commission opening an investigation into Musk for possible violations of federal security laws regarding a cryptic tweet about having secured funding to take Tesla private, and subsequent stories about concerns from Tesla’s board regarding Musk’s mental state.
What hasn’t gotten much coverage, though, is a provision in the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Agreement (NDAA) signed into law last week, which may have been crafted with the explicit purpose of giving Musk something to be cheery about.
Last year, I and many others noticed that the FY 2018 NDAA would restrict funding for new launch systems, seemingly leaving SpaceX’s Falcon 9 as the last man standing. The year prior, SpaceX donor-recipient John McCain also inserted an amendment into the NDAA that would have banned the use of the Russian-made RD-180 engine before other American alternatives were created – again, ostensibly making SpaceX a gatekeeper of the government rocket-launching world.
But while those efforts proved futile, the third time appears to have been the charm for SpaceX.
This year, the potential damage comes in the form of Congress unduly pressuring the military to utilize reusable rockets, which right now come only from SpaceX. The issue isn’t that Section 1603 of the recently-passed FY 2019 NDAA authorizes consideration of reusable rockets where appropriate, but that it also adds extra burdens through a requirement that the Secretary of Defense explain in writing to Congress if the agency proposes using space launch services “for which the use of reusable launch vehicles is not eligible for the award of the contract.”
Congress, in other words, is subtly placing its own judgment, possibly influenced by crony back-scratching, over that of the relevant national security experts.
All this said, there’s not yet need to fret. Although aspects of Section 1603 may have the intent of favoritism, if the Pentagon does its research and Congress asks the right questions, it can still serve a national security purpose. Instead of artificially bringing more business to SpaceX, the bill language can, if appropriately acted upon, spark long overdue examination of the merits of reusable versus expendable rockets, leading to more informed legislatures and improved policy outcomes.
Musk and his advocates believe reusable rockets are the future of the space industry, but others’ research has led them to think it is an impractical idea that sounds good in theory but doesn’t work well in present reality.
Recall that the government’s partially-reusable Space Shuttle, retired in 2011, was supposed to provide America with easy access to space for $10.5 million per launch. Instead, the per-flight cost averaged at around $1.6 billion. Fourteen astronauts died on board due to quality control issues.
One can certainly speculate about the degree to which government mismanagement and bureaucracy caused these shortcomings and hypothesize that SpaceX’s results will be different; however, the good news is that Pentagon and congressional decision-makers don’t need to surmise. The company already has a whole body of completed work in this sphere that they can review.
This summer, SpaceX retired its reusable Block 4 rocket class. Did it have an acceptable success rate? Was its re-flight goal achieved? Did it bring costs up or down?
These are all questions that policymakers should ask and receive answers to before making contracting decisions.
While I don’t have access to this in-depth Block 4 data and lack the necessary expertise to render a final verdict, I do know that each Block 4 booster could only fly two to three times, which seems to be much lower than necessary from a cost-effectiveness standpoint.
But facts and figures, not speculation from analysts like me, should shape government policy. That’s why it’s critical for the Pentagon and Congress to use Section 1603 to the country’s advantage by taking a deep dive into the data and separating fact from fiction, and industry boasting, themselves. Through conducting the proper research and asking the right questions, they can singlehandedly turn one potential corporate handout into a blessing.
This is all a scam.
A rocket that goes up and then lands upright is CGI. This is the equivalent of “bread and circuses” from the days of Julius Caesar.
Keep your eyes on the shinny thing while I take your money.
But facts and figures, not speculation from analysts like me, should shape government policy.
...
Not speculation, but ignorance.
The Block IV and all Falcon 9’s before it were not designed, but modified to be reusable. That’s why they were only used once or twice.
Even without reusability, the Falcon 9 is by far the lowest cost rocket in its class. When it’s reused, which the Block V is designed to be, it costs even less.
SpaceX has proved that with or without reusability, the taxpayers were being shafted by Boeing and Lockheed. SpaceX should be congratulated by the author instead of being accused.
So you really think all of the Space X reusable boosterlandings shown are fake, even the ones at Kennedy Space Flight Center in front of many witnesses? What are your views on the moon landings?
Keep your eyes on the shinny thing while I take your money.
-
Don’t forget to keep you own eyes wide shut ... that will help your imagination stay fresh.
Fourteen astronauts died on board due to environmentally mandated quality control issues.
...
What’s your source for that?
The basic safety problem with the Shuttle was the position of the Orbiter on the side rather than the top, and there was no escape system.
On top of that, NASA management failed to heed warnings from lower level employees.
Our commercial jets do this every day - no reason rockets cannot be designed to do this also. The redesign was necessary to strengthen parts found susceptible to undue wear after re-use - this would be a normal process of design, test, inspect, redesign.
I think it's inspiring that a mentally retarded person like yourself can operate a keyboard and mouse. Keep it up!
Musk didn’t make any unfounded accusations. He correctly identified the British pedophile homo living in Thailand. And THAT is the third rail of politics. So many of our leaders are pedophiles and homosexuals that he was instantly transformed from the liberal darling into persona non grata.
To learn who rules over you, figure out who you may not criticize...
Fake.
The first shuttle accident was not due to environmental mandates. The second shuttle accident was caused by the foam that broke off the external fuel tank. They switch from the foam that ran successfully on all those prior missions to an environmentally friendly design that did not adhere as well
It is accurate to describe the second accident has caused by environmental BS. And it’s desire to be green NASA killed those last Seven astronauts when their shuttle was damaged on take off.
Good analysis on SpaceX exposing how we were being fleeced
The second shuttle accident was caused by the foam that broke off the external fuel tank. They switch from the foam that ran successfully on all those prior missions to an environmentally friendly design that did not adhere as well
...
What’s your source for that?
The Shuttle always had foam strikes. The problem was the position of the Orbiter on the side rather than the top.
What’s your source for that?
—
Living thru the environmental scam that forced NASA to change the booster coating to an ‘environmentally friendly’ coating which flaked off, and the same with the seals ... switching materials to satisfy the green weenies, while helping kill the whole idea of manned space travel.
The position of the Shuttle on the rocket was modified from the Air Force concept which placed it on top. Which in itself was the answer to killing Project Orion in ‘64.
NASA caved to political pressure ... like most top heavy organizations, employee input is routinely round filed.
The bipod foam that struck Columbia was made out of BX-250 which was made with Freon. That particular piece of foam had fallen off on six previous missions, before there was any change in regulations.
For return to flight, NASA replaced the bipod foam with a heater. The Columbia failure had nothing to do with environmental regulations.
Then why didn’t NASA return to the previous o-rings (assuming there ever was such a thing) rather than using heaters?
Again, from very old memory, the environmental regulations that were in place at that time were deemed more important or too difficult to change and another solution had to be found.
The bipod foam had fallen off six times before and had always used Freon, even on the Columbia. And the larger problem was the Orbiter being on the side where it was subject to debris strikes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.