If you really believe in what you have said above, you are wasting your time try to convince me about the technical merits, and this blog it not the right website for a technical discussion.

If a corporation is going to own, and operate, and invest in the Jupiter system, then you need to convince a corporation to take on you Jupiter project, and make it their own.

This is more a business decision than a political decision. The ESAS is likely to die in about 13 months, and if a corporation is not willing to step up to the plate to advocate your idea, and say they are willing to invest in this system, then you will have missed the boat.

You have about 13 months to persuade one or more corporations to make your Jupiter project their own.

If you want to argue anything here — it should be a policy or political issue. For example, you could promote the idea that NASA should develop super-heavy-lift using “other transactions authority”, which is a COTS/EELV-like approach.

– Al

I understand that risk is important but let’s take a step back. The Jupiter-120 doesn’t require new engines and requires few modifications to the manufacturing, integration and launch infrastructure. The SRB’s work and they load the External Tank the same way they do now. The big risk if you will is that the External tank needs to be modified to take axial loads from its base and nose. In addition, the bending loads will be different. This is actually a simpler and more typical loading configuration though than the current side mounted configuration. While the loads in the External Tank (ET) will be different they will largely be solved thru changes in the milling thickness and joint design of the aluminum plates used to construct the tank already.

The major assembly tooling and overall construction sequence of the ET will be very similar as well. By integrating the RS-68 engines into the Aft thrust structure and then joining it to the new ET you will have built the Common Core Booster of the Jupiter launch system.

The other risk will be all the avionics and feedback systems but this is known quantity with a lot of the engine and flight controls already in service on the Atlas or Delta systems.

Once we have this in place all we need to do is add a new contract for the Jupiter’s upper stage (more risky with a new engine and upper stage, maybe cost plus maybe not) and we have all the lift capacity we will need for the foreseeable future.

That is an excellent idea. If we could get the powers that be inside the beltway to sign up to the purchase of so many Jupiter launches at firm fixed price within a specified time frame we could bridge the ‘gap’ using private capital. That way we could push the government’s development expense using higher downstream Jupiter launch costs into a time frame in which the Space Shuttle and ISS cost expense is minor to non-existent.

This would also free up government capital now to accelerate the Orion development. An Orion ISS variant which is composed of a Lunar class Command Module but an ISS class Service Module would weigh in at 10mT and could easily fly on a single CCB EELV thereby de-coupling the critical paths of the American based ISS access after the Space Shuttle retirement while still transitioning our existing heavy lift government capital base with private capital for a smoother workforce transition from STS to the VSE. The incentives needed to convince various powerful stakeholders all appear to be in the right place and in the same direction.

This is starting to make too much sense altogether. The torches and pitch forks can’t be too far behind us now

Yes, he calls it the BFR. I think (but could be wrong) that the acronym is for Big Falcon Rocket.

OK, I could agree to allowing the Jupiter to compete for commercial business if it was owned and operated by a private company, under an FFP OTA agreement — just as SpaceX is doing. This would mean there was a level playing field.

However, I am highly skeptical that a major company, or consortium of companies, will be willing to sign a firm-fixed-price Space Act Agreement with

The companies that have the skills to lead this kind of development — Boeing and Lockheed — will want to do this as a traditional-government cost-plus acquisition. They each have also been burnt by their EELV investments. Committing to develop these systems would involve a major corporate risk.

Do you have any idea on who would bid this as FFP development, in the manner you have suggested?

Who knows — maybe SpaceX would bid and win? He has basically stated that he wants to build a super-heavy-lift system? Or possibly Andy Beal will come back?

– Al

If you can persuade NASA to expand the COTS model — which used other transactions authority — to super-heavy-lift systems, that would be great!

BTW, I note that the EELVs were also developed using “other transaction authority”. The EELV companies also knew that they would get a share of the follow-on “service contracts” from the DOD, when they each made their $500M private investment.

I would suggest that whichever company, or consortium of companies, decides to develop the Jupiter system based on the existence of an OTA agreement (which NASA calls “Space Act Agreement”) and a follow-on “services contract” for so many flights per year, should be required to invest at least as much as the EELV companies did in the development of their EELVs. That is $500M.

– COTSadvocate

The closest example I can come up with for what I mean in the word ‘national launch system’ is along the lines of Airbus where organizations that compete in other markets work together on a national objective like the VSE. More along the lines of ‘America’s’ launch services team if you will.

In answer to question two I would say yes where the ‘private’ company would be a consortium of private companies along the lines of profit/risk sharing partnership. It could be operated and shares sold apart from the founder entities as well with contracts within the consortium being renegotiated after so many units were produced. So the consortium could evolve overtime incorporating improvements and organizational changes when it closed the business case for the shareholders. Basically we would be placing the existing STS capital base under new private management. ‘NASA’ would be focus on the spacecraft and mission side of the VSE. The government launch services contract would still have some imminent domain clauses plus domestic hardware source requirements especially if the DOD was a major customer.

In answer to question one I would say yes with two additional items added to the contract. One, the price per launch changes as a function of how many launches per year are purchased by the government. Two, there is a charge should the government decided to stop using the service. The profit margin would come from commercial launch sales since the incremental cost would be lower than the current fixed price being charged at that launch rate.

What I would like to avoid is decommissioning yet again another tax payer funded heavy lift asset in favor of trying to stuff everything into 5m containers bid out to five different launch services company some of which are only one failure away from being forced into self insuring the next launch which only the deep pocket EELV club can afford.

The Jupiter with the capital base paid for can operate at about $5K/kg (5 Jupiter-232 launches per year) even assuming we drag along the current high fixed cost structure of STS. Over time I’m sure the consortium could work down both the fixed and variable cost to maybe $4K/kg building in a nice little profit that pays out dividends to the shareholders, tax revenue for the government and provides capital for further operational improvements.

First, your position is much more reasonable now, and your logic does not invoke a requirement for a “national” space transportation system, on which all payloads go. That said, I have some quibbles.

METSCHAN: I would submit that you cannot develop a true capitalist supply and demand system if the federal government is >80% of the demand which in turn drives the capitalization number near 100% public because no private company will risk that kind of money without a lock on downstream sale to one customer.

I would submit that I can prove you wrong because there are already successful examples of true capitalist supply and demand systems that started with the federal government as >80% of the demand.

There are public-private partnership models that looked quite the same in their early years, and now are very commercial BECAUSE (some might say “in spite of of the fact”) the government funded 100% of the early capitalization.

One model is the Internet. Al Gore even mentioned this “model” as being appropriate for space commercialization in his speech to the Xprize Cup Executive Summit in 2006.

Another is the federal government development of advanced airplane technology for government needs (mostly national security).

Another model is the “Kelly Air Mail” Act of the 1920s. There was not enough *proven* demand of “passengers” to raise the private capital for building an airline, but they were able to raise the capital with air mail contracts (for a government customer) in hand, plus the potential demand for passengers.

BOTTOM LINE: You can have “commercial” industries and companies that are jump started by the federal Government. The key is to establish “commercial companies” owning and operating their key assets — and commercial processes throughout the business.

METSCHAN:All the Jupiter’s hardware, integration, infrastructure and operations can be put out for competitive bid to suppliers already involved in providing launch services/hardware today. Further the materials that make up the system from aluminum plate to software can be procured from industries outside the space industry that are privately capitalized and largely supply private individuals improving the overall efficiency.

The simple fact of private suppliers of hardware and aluminum is not enough to define it as commercial (I know this is definition of commercial for many in NASA — but that is the thought process of somebody who has done cost-plus acquisition all their life.) This is not enough to define the Jupiter as being “commercial”. If you can answer “Yes” to the following two questions, then Jupiter falls into the “commercial category”.

1) Will these purchases be done under a firm-fixed price basis?

2) Will a private company OWN and OPERATE the Jupiter system, and sell a super-heavy-lift transportation SERVICE to NASA (and other customers)?

If you can answer “Yes”, then commercial industry practices will pre-dominate the entire process. If you answer “No” to either, then non-traditional practices will predominate.

Who owns the assets, and is responsible for them and the practices — will drive the entire future of how this system is used.

I will just note that COTS is structured to be on a firm-fixed-price basis, and that all of the bidders are U.S. companies who will own and operate their systems, and sell services.

If Jupiter will be developed in the same manner as the COTS systems, then it meets the minimum definition of “commercial.”

– Al

The ‘federal’ government in the form of NASA does surprisingly little of the actual maintenance, manufacturing and operations of the ‘government owned’ STS system. Going beyond civilian space the ‘federal’ government in the form of the DOD is the anchor tenant for the ‘commercialized’ launch services as a whole. The ‘federal’ government has also effectively paid for the DDT&E for both the Atlas and Delta launch systems over their evolution and is currently helping to fund SpaceX via NASA-COTS. However you slice it (Pay me now Pay me latter) the money flowing into the US launch service providers comes primarily from US tax payers for (DDT&E, Manufacturing and Operations). Elon has managed to shift the capitalization base from 100% public then to only 99.99% public now. Actual launch costs charged to private companies or civilian space are typically at cost plus a profit margin. DOD funded DDT&E is considered part of the national defense.

I would submit that you cannot develop a true capitalist supply and demand system if the federal government is >80% of the demand which in turn drives the capitalization number near 100% public because no private company will risk that kind of money without a lock on downstream sale to one customer. I also submit that any industry largely dependant on the government as a customer will decline in efficiency over time, hence the opening for SpaceX which has used private capital to open the door to the public money. But SpaceX will not solve the demand side of this industry even if it ultimately eats the current EELV suppliers’ lunch (Private and Public). The demand must be predominately private in order to take this industry where I think you want it to go. I would also submit that even if the launch cost was free via some Area51 RLV you would still be left with the other 80% of the life cycle cost for the current (Direct TV) line of private space commercialization demand. Joy rides on the other hand would go up tremendously since the millionaire astronaut is already paid for unlike satellites.

A real shift in the utilization of space for profit (demand) needs to occur before a real shift in how launch services are capitalized and operated can occur. For example let’s assume that He3 could be mined on the lunar surface brought back to Earth and used to generate electricity for a profit all things considered. Let’s also assume that demand for IMLEO is now 100 fold what it is today in order to achieve this. In this space development paradigm the ‘federal’ government’s launch need is now just twig on the mighty stream because competitive privately capitalized businesses are supplying product at market prices to private consumers thereby dominating the market cash flow dynamics. It’s personal Cars vs. Battle Tanks. Both come from private for profit companies but the dynamics of capitalization and sustaining support are entirely different because the source of the demand is different. This is not to be confused with the government capitalizing and producing bread for the masses. You only get bad bread and bread lines when that happens. (public capital being used to satisfy a private demand)

All the Jupiter’s hardware, integration, infrastructure and operations can be put out for competitive bid to suppliers already involved in providing launch services/hardware today. Further the materials that make up the system from aluminum plate to software can be procured from industries outside the space industry that are privately capitalized and largely supply private individuals improving the overall efficiency.

In addition the unit launch cost puts the Jupiter (with the demand dominated by civilian space) is out of direct competition with the existing launch service providers launch systems. As you have said there is very little commercial demand for 100mT satellites where as putting 500mT on a Trans Mars Injection need for manned Mars surface missions is going to require some serious IMLEO lift capacity.

We also include a propellant depot opening up almost 70% of the IMLEO demand for the VSE if COTS could beat the Jupiter price. In fact splitting (spacecraft/people) from (propellant) potentially opens up new methods of placing mass into orbit not suitable for spacecraft and/or people. For example rail guns could blow the traditional smoke and fire approaches (Jupiter, EELV, SpaceX etc) out of the water with a real publicly funded market demand as the prize that justifies private capitalization.

100mT in space DOD systems, will that’s another thing altogether. We may be able to consider ASAT counter measures not possible today due to mass and volume limits. Whether this is ultimately the best way to counter the ASAT threat only time will tell. The current solution of ignoring the problem though won’t work. Large portions of our military capability are absolutely dependant on these space assets.

I’m done filling in the holes, I yield the shovel back to you Dig away.

Since you are asking for a debate, I will give you one. I hope to keep our discussion respectful, and focused on the facts.

This is a long post — in summary I describe some (not all) of the problems with your proposal to turn Jupiter into a “real national” space transportation system.

In summary — I believe that you are over-reaching, that you are going to unnecessarily create enemies for your Jupiter concept. I recommend that you retrench and focus on the benefits of Jupiter vs. Ares I/V.

METSCHAN: The primary impediment for increasing the private sector portion of the launch services under the current commercial space utilization paradigm is limited not by the launch cost but the cost to develop, build and operate the satellites while serving a private market for a profit (Direct TV for example). As such even a business case driven by the assumption that the launch services were free would still have a life cycle cost of about 80% of what it does today.

Although market characteristics are important, classic market failure is just ONE impediment among many impediments. It is the entire package of impediments that is the primary problem. We need to remove and mitigate impediments, not increase them.

Regulation is often an impediment — there has been over two decades of progress on that front. Subsidized competition, or direct competition, with the federal government has also been, and continues to be, a major impediment.

The relatively recent historical space policy adjustments to purchase commercial services — including the LSPA, the CSA98, the AAS/COTS programs, the White House creation of the ISS crew/cargo services budget as part of the VSE, and the WH mandate to NASA to buy commercially provided services — are all about dealing with the “market risk impediment” and the “competing with the US government impediment.

Based on what you have said, it is clear that you disagree with some of these policies — and I can only assume (based on what you have said so far) that you would reverse some of these new policies if given the opportunity.

Second, since you are arguing business case, there is ZERO business case for a super-heavy-lift class launch vehicle, whatever the cost/kg. It is extremely difficult to get many payload customers to agree to share a ride. With a few limited exceptions, they are almost always going to different orbits, or have different schedules, and the cost of having to compromise on their needs with other customers if usually a show-stopper. The few limited cases to date are GEO sats (which are going to the same orbit), and small experiments that don’t care what orbit they are in, and are willing to be a secondary payload in return for very low cost.

Third, if you ignore DDT&E costs, and just look at “marginal costs” (which in itself leads to false economic choices), then the marginal cost of a super-heavy-lift might be better than a smaller ELV. But if you consider the standing army — a fixed cost — of people needed to work on the super-heavy-lift — then the Super-heavy-lift does not look so good.

Fourth, in the world of reusable spaceplanes, a super-heavy-lift system has very limited niche uses. The reusable spaceplane will beat the super-heavy-lift on cost/lb, and flight availability, and reliability, and ability to control orbit and schedule, every time. In this world, the super-heavy-lift flies much much less, and as flight rate goes down so does reliability … while cost/lb goes way up.

There is a MUCH better business case for a national investment in reusable spaceplanes.

For example, you argue that Jupiter is good for national security. Reusable spaceplanes will deliver substantially more benefit to national security than a super-heavy-lift expendable.

Existing DOD policy clearly agrees with this position. The DOD has a program to support technology development for reusable spaceplanes, and is actively considering more aggressive efforts. The DOD invests nothing in super-heavy-lift.

Given the difference in national security benefits, and commercial industrial benefits, a fair “Analysis of Alternatives” based on national space policy objectives (the White House has explicitlyy stated that commerce, national security, and science are the principal policy objectives), investing taxpayer funds in developing reusable spaceplane(s) will win out EVERY time.

METSCHAN: If a private company wanted to develop a direct competitor to the Jupiter they could. Now would the existence of a national launch system along the lines of the Jupiter delivering payload to LEO at below $5K/kg to orbit make it difficult to close the business case for this? Yes it would.

Thank you for acknowledging that developing Jupiter, and adopting your policy approach, would discourage and deter private sector investment in space transportation. As such, this conflicts with existing White House policy.

IF ANYBODY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE OR CONGRESS is reading this blog.

Please note that Mr. Metschan has just acknowledged that a federal investment in his Jupiter concept, combined with his policy proposal to allow Jupiter to compete with private industry, would deter private investment in commercial space transportation.

I note that the White House National Space Transportation policy at:
http://www.ostp.gov/NSTC/html/pdd4.html

specifically states and applies in this situation:

(c) U.S. Government agencies shall purchase commercially available U.S. space transportation products and services to the fullest extent feasible that meet mission requirements and shall not conduct activities with commercial applications that preclude or deter commercial space activities, except for national security or public safety reasons.

METSCHAN: Now bucking that smaller is better trend revolves around the recent ASAT test. The additional volume and mass capabilities of the Jupiter would enable more repositioning propellant, thicker protection and the incorporation of high mass ASAT counter measures.

This statement, when combined with your “real national” space transportation system statement, clearly implies that you would like to kill the DOD’s Operationally Responsive Space initiative, and the DOD’s existing RLV technology initiatives (minimal that they are) and replace them with support for the Jupiter.

So, in your excitement to promote Jupiter, you are not only goring commercial space advocates, you are attacking ORS national security too.

Not a very good way to make friends.

Related to your national security argument, Jupiter is a technology chasing a problem that is in the process of being solved.

The Orbital Express system recently demonstrated the ability to refuel satellites in orbit. According to “Space News Washington Aerospace Briefing”, dated 18 September 2007, Secretary of the Air Force Mike Wynne is now pushing that future satellites be both smaller and designed for orbital refueling as part of the solution to ASATs. The proven Orbital Express technology will allow national assets to use lots of propellant, when needed, in order to avoid ASATs.

Two other factors:

1) The avoidance approach will also eliminate orbital debris that would be created by a “heavy shield” approach.

2) Adding “shielding” will do very little to protect national assets.

There are many ways to take out a satellite. Hitting the main bus with a projectile is just one. Having all the shielding in the world will not protect the exposed parts of the satellite (solar arrays, antennae, etc.) There are many ways to take out those systems.

Moving the satellite out of the way, and then refueling it later, is a much better solution.

No need for Jupiter for this mission.

In summary, you are committing a classic “sales” error. You have a hammer, and now everything looks like a nail. Instead of leaving us alone and fighting to replace the Ares 1/V — and we leave you alone — your sales approach is going to make enemies of commercial space advocates.

If you want to continue to debate this issue, and dig a deeper hole for Jupiter with this commercial space advocacy community (and the many commercial space advocates who read this blog), please let me know. I am just getting started with pointing out the downside implications of your proposal for a “real national” space transportation system.

– Al

“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”