As you define “better,” than yes, I agree with every single word you say in your message above.

I was not referring to the EELVs when I said “better.” The EELVs are an existing technology, and any required improvements are well within the existing skill set. Likewise, Dr. Griffin’s current plan is not “better.” I prefer the EELV approach for all the reasons you state, but in the sense I was discussing, Dr. Griffin’s plan and the EELV approach are essentially one and the same. They use our existing skills to get the job done quickly, but without a lot of improvement in cost or capability at this time.

This is one of the reasons why I am willing to support Dr. Griffin’s plan, rather than risk losing the whole thing by quibbling over that or EELVs. Yes, the EELVs would have been a better way to go, but in the bigger picture, we’re arguing over angels dancing on the head of a pin. The big question is whether to do it quick-and-dirty with what we’ve got, or to continue trying to greatly lower the cost of getting to LEO.

When I say we should avoid “better,” I mean substantial investments in improving transport to LEO with, say, new-generation reusable space planes. The market needs to exist first, before we can successfully develop new-technology launch vehicles. And, I believe we need to create the market with what we have now.

The rennaissance in new ideas and investment in transport to LEO engendered by the existance of the Space Station tells me that the “start it by establishing a lunar base with what we’ve got, and save ‘better’ for later,” strategy is the correct one.

– Donald

[[Al, I would eliminate the "better." Seeking "better" is how we got the Shuttle fiasco. We know how to send astronauts to the moon. We should use the techniques we know to work to establish an initial base, then use that market to justify better launch vehicles and deep space transportation.

Thus, my priorities would be: "faster" and "cheaper," in that order, with "better" being a very distant third at this point in time.]]

Donald,

I would like to talk about this. In fact, I am not convinced (yet) that you really mean it. Let me explain.

You have repeatedly stated that you thought the right approach to going to the Moon was to use the upgraded EELVs. I agreed with you (and still agree).

If you think about it, basing a lunar transportation system off of upgrading the EELVs is not “cheaper” or “faster”. But it is “better”.

Because it forces you to buy missions from the U.S. commercial industry, and in chunks that are addressable by new commercial entrants. It is better, because it creates a market (ala air mail) that justifies additional investments in private space transportation. It is better because it will force us to create technology in on-orbit assembly, and on-orbit fuel transfer, and on-orbit fuel storage — all of which are extremely useful technologies for many other applications.

Yes, I am “interpreting” your previous support for EELVs as a vote for “better”.

But you may have other reasons. Please share.

- Al

“the COTS RFP was that it pretty heavily skewed toward a group of small and generally poorly-capitalized companies, none of which have any operational experience in LEO spaceflight at all, much less HSF.”

and

“altspace offers enthusiasm and a lot of organizations that, for the most part, have yet to put anything in orbit”

Unfortunately, there are a lot of misconceptions about the COTS program held by people who are not directly involved. By my probably incomplete take, here are the “experienced” aerospace companies who are on one of the 6 COTS finalist teams:

Aerospace Corp.
Alenia
ARES
BAE Systems
Ball
Lockheed
MDA
Oceaneering
Orbital

[I also believe that Emergent Space Technologies, on one of the teams, was involved in the recent SPHERES experiment at ISS, although I don't know their total role in the flight program.]

Although CSI was not selected as a finalist, for our COTS proposal our vehicle and operations teammates would add Barrios, L3-Titan and RSC Energia to that list.

Additionally, last I checked both SpaceHab (SPAB) and SpaceDev have been able to “put anything in orbit” as Primes.

In talking of the CEV teams: “And, at least based on my experience, the teams have brought aboard the best of the legacy personnel available, both on the design and production side and the operations side.”

True, but that does not mean that the COTS competitors did not do the same. I won’t speak for the other teams, but for our COTS proposal, CSI’s design, producti0on, and operations teammates included:

* ARES (ISS Program Integration and Control (PI&C) contractor & winner of 2004 JSC Small Business Prime Contractor of the Year award),

* Barrios Technology (25 years of Human Spaceflight experience, including the ISS Mission Integration Prime Contract).

* Lockheed Martin Space Systems (Atlas series first launched in 1957),

* Oceaneering Space Systems (numerous STS & ISS hardware products for NASA since 1988),

* Odyssey Space Research (Prime contract for Rendezvous, Proximity Operations and Capture (RPOC) support to JSC, including ATV & HTV spacecraft), and

* RSC Energia (builder and operator of Sputnik, Vostok, Soyuz, Progress, Salyut, Mir, ISS, etc.),

* and limited support from L3-Titan (George M. Low Award winner that’s provided systems engineering services to NASA for > 20 years)

Additionally, the technical and management team CSI put together for our program has extensive experience in the industry on projects at companies and organizations such as NASA, USAF, Fairchild, Astrotech, Inmarsat, Astrium, Grumman, Rockwell, Hughes, and RSC Energia.

“and if they have, they have used non-US-built launch vehicles to do it.”

I doubt’s any of the COTS competitors bid a non-US launcher, as they were prohibited from doing that for this contract. CSI’s launch vehicle for our COTS proposal was the Atlas V. For NASA’s previous Alternate Access to Station (AAS) program, CSI’s baseline launcher was the Delta II, with options for the K-1 and HMX-refurbished Titans. CSI also told NASA that we are compatible with other current and future US launch vehicles.

On one or both or the two “Big 2″ CEV teams are the following:

1) The shuttle designers, builders, maintainers, and operators;

2) The ISS (US/Western elements) pressurized vessel designers, builders, maintainers, and operators;

3) The EELV and SRB designers, builders, maintainers, and operators;

4) The three largest US satellite designers, builders, maintainers, and operators;

5) The three largest US high performance aircraft designers, builders, maintainers, and operators, plus the largest Western European company doing the same sort of engineering;

6) The designers, builders, maintainers, and operators – or their legacies – of X-15, Mercury, Gemini, Apollo CSM, Apollo LM, and Skylab;

And, at least based on my experience, the teams have brought aboard the best of the legacy personnel available, both on the design and production side and the operations side.

And against those realities, as far as I can tell, altspace offers enthusiasm and a lot of organizations that, for the most part, have yet to put anything in orbit – and if they have, they have used non-US-built launch vehicles to do it.

As far as the deadline goes, one may wish to consider the competitive realities that face the businesses, politicians, organizations, and nation-states involved in the current endeavor.

Finally, I like affordable, sustainable, and operationally reliable, rather than faster, better, cheaper, but that’s me…I come from abackground where the birds had to be ready to go, and went, on a regular – and often irregular – basis.

Thus, my priorities would be: “faster” and “cheaper,” in that order, with “better” being a very distant third at this point in time.

Sam: I wasn’t aware that Spacehab’s offering used an EELV; which one? Atlas V?

SpaceHab have released very little information about their design, but it appears to be a ballistic capsule designed to launch on any medium-class launch vehicle, providing the greatest possible flexibility and competition. That strikes me as a very wise way to go.

[However, truth in advertising requires that I state that I am a small shareholder in SpaceHab, as well as the two other COTS-proposers that are public companies.]

– Donald

[[That being said, if the deadline for the Connie is IOC in time to replace the shuttle, and the deadline for shuttle retirement is no later than the fourth quarter of 2010, then how many quarters are available to do the detailed design and systems engineering work, cut metal, integrate the system, and test it?

Hint: We're in the third quarter of 2006 right now. IF NASA makes it selection in September, whoever gets the job has three months in 2006, 12 in 2007, 12 in 2008, 12 in 2009, and 12 in 2010 to accomplish the equivalent of Apollo 7 and then some - a manned LEO mission in a new spacecraft, on a new launch vehicle, that includes a rendezvous and docking with ISS, crew/cargo transfer, detachment, and safe return - and all in 51 months.]]

Sam,

I know of no requirement to create a replacement for the Shuttle in 51 months. If you know of such a requirement from either NASA, Congress or the White House, please share.

There is a stated objective, by the White House, to fly the CEV by 2014. But that need not be to the ISS. It easily could be CEV Block 2, instead of Block 1.

There is also a stated desire, by some Members of Congress, to “minimize the gap” in U.S. human spaceflight, and to fly the CEV earlier than 2014. One of the leaders of this line of thinking is Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of TX. But Mike Griffin has made it clear to her that this is increasingly unlikely to happen. This appears to be one of the reasons that Sen. Hutchison has recently started talking about COTS as “minimizing the gap”.

Separately, Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida has proposed that the “human spaceflight gap” is a national security issue. Those in the national security community consider this to be a joke. I expect that Sen. Nelson will stop saying this, unless he wants to be laughed at.

If you recall, Jeff Foust started off this discussiong by questioning the logic of the entire line of thinking that we need to “minimize the gap”.

I agree with Jeff. I understand the instinctual desire to go “faster” and to minimize the gap. The desire is fine. Basically, you (and many others) are proposing that “faster” is a top priority.

But the law of “unintended consequences” suggests we think about this first, before doing something we will regret later.

Lets revisit one of the lessons learned from the Goldin era. We now know that you can pick 2 of the following 3 objectives: better, faster, or cheaper.

If you pick “faster”, which seems to be the suggestion of your thread, you need to eliminate either the “better” or “cheaper” objective.

Which of these two objectives do you suggest we eliminate, in order to go “faster”?

- Al

[[I'm trying to think of an aircraft procurement where the responders did not include companies that had designed, built, and flown an airplane before, but I can't...]]

Sam,

If you read the COTS announcement, they focus on the capability and experience of the *people* as opposed to the *companies*.

This is appropriate.

Although the big 3 have people who built spacecraft 30 or 40 years ago, that does not mean you will get them on this program. In fact, most of those people have retired.

HINT: The COTS finalists are hiring a LOT of those retirees. (Who do you think designed the Kistler K1? Who do you think Elon is hiring? Who do you think really founded Andrews Space & Technology?)

- Al

PS — With respect to CEV, the people who really are designing the spacecraft are NASA civil servant engineers, who have not designed, developed and built an operational spacecraft in their lifetime. Again, the people who designed and developed the Shuttle in the 1970s, were veterans of the Apollo program, are now retired. A key part of Griffin’s strategy is to return NASA to the Apollo days when NASA did design and build new spacecraft. This is a non-trivial task, as it requires retraining engineers to do something different than they have done for most of their careers.

[[Fair enough on the agree-to-disagree; but I come from an aircraft background, so my focus is always on the mission and operational reliability; CEV and COTS are both supposed to be operational vehicles, not technology demonstrators...it is the difference between an X-15 and a C-130 - and neither one of those were designed and built by three guys in a shed in Mojave.]]

Sam,

You are incorrect on this point.

Please read the COTS announcement. COTS is about *demonstrating* a new capability. If fact, it is illegal for NASA to buy an operational good or service using the COTS procurement mechanism of “other transactions authority”.

I also agree with Donald, that COTS is the most important part of the VSE.

At the same time, I happen to agree with you that COTS is unlikely to succeed with the current level of funding. It may succeed (and I hope it does) but it is quite risky. Riskier than it needs to be.

The Foundation has proposed one solution — to adopt a best practice from private venture capital markets — a portfolio investment strategy. This approach mitigates risk in a different way. It may not be the perfect solution, and some may not like it, but it works in the commercial world, and NASA has not tried it before.

Also, NASA is taking additional risk mitigation steps that you probably do not know about. If you talk to the COTS finalists in private, you will quickly find out that one of the most important requirements is the “skin in the game” requirement.

This requirement was created by Griffin about a year ago. Those who can put more skin in the game — in the form of private investment are more likely to win a COTS agreement. This means they will be putting significant private capital at risk, which addresses one of the points you made.

This is why SpaceX is on almost everybody’s list as one of the likely COTS winners. Elon has significant private money in hand to commit to the deal. (Although, as I have written before on http://www.spacepolitics.com, Elon is doing this as a philanthropist, and not demanding an adequate risk-adjusted ROI on his original investment that is in the form of revenue streams.)

In essence, COTS has turned into a “cooperative agreement”, with both government and private funds thrown in, to develop and demonstrate new high risk capabilities, using NASA’s “other transactions” authority.

By the way, which is the six COTS finalists is proposing to build their system with “3 guys in a shed in Mojave”?

- Al

I wasn’t aware that Spacehab’s offering used an EELV; which one? Atlas V?

I’m betraying my background here, but General Atomics builds drones (to be blunt about it), which in terms of reliability requirements do not even come close to a manned aircraft…

And has Scaled Composites ever built anything but one-offs and prototypes for home-builts? Rutan is an interesting individual, but then so was Robert Hall…

The idea of an EELV-launched vehicle in competition with Dr. Griffin’s CLV-launched capsule is a good one, but I think that is what Spacehab (hardly a fly-by-night operation) is proposing.

As to your last question, I don’t know enough about the histories of the companies, but what about General Atomics and Scaled Composites?

– Donald