While Rep. Dave Weldon is using this week’s release of a report predicting thousands of job losses at the Kennedy Space Center when the shuttle is retired as another reason to extend the shuttle’s life, a couple of major newspapers in the region have called for a different type of legislative relief. In editorials published Thursday, both Florida Today and the Orlando Sentinel are calling on state legislators to pass a package of legislation that would provide incentives for commercial space and other businesses to move to the area.
The editorials also ask Washington for help, not to extend the shuttle but to accelerate Constellation. “The next president should reverse the Bush administration’s negligence, properly fund NASA and close the five-year gap between the shuttle fleet’s retirement and the lunar program’s scheduled kick-off in 2015,” Florida Today requests. Also: “Bipartisan members of the Democratically controlled Congress should recognize the space program’s vital role in America’s technological preeminence and support increased NASA funding – not continuing cuts that are knee-capping the agency.”
If they are serious about “closing the gap,” then they should push for an replacement option that requires less new development, such as EELV or Direct. Also, arguments that we’ve invested too much and are too far down the road with Ares 1 are poppycock. Realistically, after one factors in the upcoming bleak budgetary environment for NASA and changing national priorities, Ares 1 wouldn’t become truly operational until the latter part of next decade. As the Orlando Sentinel article states, this sad state of affairs is due to all the new developments required for Ares 1, which were not included in the original ESAS study results. I suspect that there is plenty of time to chuck the Ares approach, and still get a human LEO capability fielded within the next five years.
The best way to close the gap is to kill ESAS and just keep the Shuttle flying. Two flights a year will be just about right to keep the local’s rice bowls filled and provide photo ops for the politicos who saved Florida.
Perhaps this could be Obama’s plan since he wants to kill the VSE anyway. Solves the Gap problem, creates good will among the voters in Florida to make up for not counting their votes at the convention and builds his image as a hero, saving America’s space program from the mistakes of the Bush Administration. Also it saves jobs in New Orleans, showing that he is committed to rebuilding the city that Bush abandoned. And the 100 billion saved by not going to the Moon could fund his educational program. Perfect!
You know I think I will email his website to suggest just that!
That is a good idea Anon and this new report is all Obama needs to kill the stick and keep the Shuttle flying.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa0308apr03,0,7779196.story
Shuttle successor flawed, dangerous, GAO report finds
Basically the report says it’s flawed and its possible the flaws are not fixable no matter what NASA spends on it. Gee, imagine that.
Some highlights:
The Orion crew capsule is too heavy for Ares’ lifting capacity.
Ares is subject to excessive vibration, called thrust oscillation, which has the potential of shaking the spacecraft to pieces, killing anyone aboard.
So far, no company is capable of producing a heat shield big enough to protect the Orion capsule when it re-enters Earth’s atmosphere.
Wow, its Makes the Shuttle sound as safe as an airliner.
Gentlemen,
It is rocket-scientist think to suggest that the Shuttle’s life might be significantly extended, at the cost of $4-5 Billion per year to the U.S. taxpayers. Not going to happen.
All of the campaigns have made it pretty clear that they will retire the Shuttle.
Obama has already has made his views clear.
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/03/07/obama-nasa-no-longer-associated-with-inspiration/
OBAMA: “NASA has lost focus and is no longer associated with inspiration,†he said. “I don’t think our kids are watching the space shuttle launches. It used to be a remarkable thing. It doesn’t even pass for news anymore.â€
In his own way, Obama was channeling parts of the CAIB report.
– Al
Does Anon actually think that extending the life of the shuttle is a good idea?
The shuttle is a developmental vehicle that has not brought down the cost of space access. And it blows up every now and then.
Obama will have a tough time killing all the momentum for a shuttle replacement.
Anon: “The best way to close the gap is to kill ESAS and just keep the Shuttle flying. Two flights a year will be just about right to keep the local’s rice bowls filled and provide photo ops for the politicos who saved Florida.”
That would be incredibly expensive, dangerous, non-productive, and boring. Any politician that causes that to happen will look very bad, given what’s in the CAIB report, if another Shuttle fails after going through a huge recertification process.
Your first 11 words are a good first step, though.
Obama will have a tough time killing all the momentum for a shuttle replacement.
I don’t think anyone wants to see the U.S. to back away completely from human spaceflight. But the only way to expedite development of a Shuttle replacement is to go with a lower risk launch vehicle option and terminate the Shuttle program. This should be a slam dunk, and treated as a second priority effort within the agency. The emphasis should shift back to Earth and space science, with technology programs focused on reduced access to orbit and power/energy/propulsion.
So you would put 8,000 Shuttle workers on the street, destroying the space coast economy and wait years for a new human launch vehicle with far less capability to replace the ESAS architecture? When the Shuttle could easily fly two missions a year for another decade?
Yes, I could just see Obama saying in Florida, I am taking your jobs away at Kenndy and shipping them to JPL in California. I could also see him saying to New Orleans, sorry I am sending your ET jobs to Utah for the Stick…
Nope. He will look at the job numbers and come out in support of Florida and New Orleans, not against them. And his Gen Y will care less what some baby boomer space policy experts think.
DIRECT solves both “gaps” that are created by retiring Shuttle in 2010 and not flying Ares 1 until 2015:
(a) Americans flying Soyuz for five years; and
(b) Worker layoffs, because the basic Jupiter 120 can start launching from KSC far sooner than 2015. September 2012 has been predicted for the Jupiter 120 if a decision is made by June 2009.
Yes, some jobs would still be lost but the Jupiter 120 stack shares a great many features with the STS orbiter launch stack and many jobs would be retained.
= = =
What does Ares 1 do for the next President, anyway? At least from a political perspective?
If POTUS Hillary McBama “sticks with the Stick” he or she shall need to fully fund NASA even though it will be at least 2015 before Orion flies with crew. If there are no schedule slips.
Best case, POTUS #44 will garner the political capital from America’s new launcher in the second half of his or her second term. Lame duck territory.
Worst case, it will be 2016 or 2017 before Ares 1 flies. Maybe AFTER Hillary McBama’s second term is already over.
Therefore, to stay the course with ESAS demands that POTUS Hillary McBama:
(1) Spend money now, in a tight budget context;
(2) Annoy FL & TX & LA etc. . . with layoffs; and
(3) Watch US astronauts fly Soyuz (if Russia refrains from playing hardball).
Suppose the Kremlin wants to pull our chain over Iran. Soyuz access would be a useful device.
Then, watch as POTUS #45 gets all the good video and free publicity from NASA sending astronauts back into space.
Now suppose NASA flies crew on a Jupiter 120 in September 2012? Then guess what, POTUS #44 is up for re-election in November 2012 and that flight would create enormous free publicity for the incumbent POTUS #44.
And THAT is what space politics is all about. IMHO.
Now suppose NASA flies crew on a Jupiter 120 in September 2012? Then guess what, POTUS #44 is up for re-election in November 2012 and that flight would create enormous free publicity for the incumbent POTUS #44.
Your analysis is fine except for one important point. Space is next to unimportant as a national political issue. You inflate space’s importance in the national eye.
First, I do think that Mr.Obama needs a better education about the benefits the space. We could have a concept class and use Mike Griffin as the test student, as I doubt HE understands the complete benefits possible with station, and the gold rush into space that it has the potential to produce. God knows this is not common knowledge in the voter’s minds.
Second, both times we lost Shuttles, it was more the fault of human decision than a surprise hardware failure. In both cases, NASA was repeated warned that they had problems and needed to stand down until they were fixed. It would be nice to see if NASA finally learned that if you kill Buck Rogers, you kill the bucks.
What shoud the future program look like? First we need some organization to get space a major discussion point with politicians. This needs to be headed with a “Move-On” type vision, and could be based on their model.
Second, now we understand how dangerous space flight can be, we need to continue to fly the Shuttle to the point that a new system can take over. Two missions a year would be about right. There are a lot of “grey-hairs” that work the program, and many plan in retiring in the next few years — which would mean a steady, reduction in force, which seems to be another NASA goal for the new program.
Third, we need to look at Direct and other such systems with the idea of getting something flying ASAP and also look at cost trade offs.
Finally, the state of Florida and Brevard county need to get their act together to attract what’s left of private space companies. Several horses are out of the barn, but apparently there are a few left.
Now suppose NASA flies crew on a Jupiter 120 in September 2012? Then guess what, POTUS #44 is up for re-election in November 2012 and that flight would create enormous free publicity for the incumbent POTUS #44.
Your analysis is fine except for one important point. Space is next to unimportant as a national political issue. You inflate space’s importance in the national eye.
Well okay. Maybe I exaggerated, a little. It was late and I was on a roll.
But the central thesis still stands, IMHO:
Even if a Jupiter 120 lofted Orion would only offer a tiny blip of publicity in the Fall of 2012, a skillful re-election campaign can combine that with telling the voters on Florida’s Space Coast and near Houston “I saved many of your jobs!”
If FL & TX & LA etc . . . are closely fought in 2012, every vote counts.
With ESAS, a President running for re-election will not have this same opportunity.
What does ESAS offer the next President? In a crass political sense?
Meh, I should have used the blockquote tag instead of “b” and “i”
Jeff, I want a preview button!
What does ESAS offer the next President? In a crass political sense?
You’re absolutely right about this. It would behoove the POTUS to place a new Administrator in quickly who would cancel Ares and get NASA moving on Direct, EELV derivative or COTS. It is feasible that enough progress could be made with these easier approaches to proclaim a minor victory in support of the 2012 election.
In fact, a blatantly superficial plan would stick a dummy modified Orion on an EELV or Falcon and fly it in a manner similar to Ares 1-X. Another Admiral’s Test for sure, but it would indicate progress to the public.
You can always tell how tight the budget climate is by the number of earmarks, only 4000 or so on the last one versus the 6700 at the peak. Yes it really is a tough climate for spending.
The problem is that continuing to fly the Shuttle at any rate is mutually exclusive with developing any new vehicle of significant expense. The Shuttle costs $5 billion a year, whether you fly it twice or six times. Thus, it makes no financial sense to fly it at a lower rate than the maximum you can achieve. More importantly, you think scientists are complaining now, just wait until we plan to fly the Shuttle and develop something else simultaneously for longer than another couple of years. Even I would oppose spending all of NASA’s money on human spaceflight forever. . . .
Wonderful as the Shuttle is, the first step in doing anything else at this point in time, is to get rid of it and its $5 billion a year tax on human spaceflight as quickly as possible.
Regarding job cuts, is our goal to get into space, or is it to preserve jobs? We have no problem handing a $5 billion (I think) contract for Air Force tankers to the Europeans, providing a subsidy to off-shore even more of what little is left of America’s last major relatively healthy manufacturing industry; why would we care about a few Shuttle workers that generate no export dollars?
— Donald
— Donald.
Ravenstar.
Yes, it was human error on both Shuttle losts, and rushing to get the flights in to avoid schedule slips. Two flight a year will reduce both risks to almost nothing.
It is also a great way for the next president to get started, by reversing a Huge ($100 billion dollar plus) Bush spending plan while creating immediate relief for the economies of Florida and New Orleans.
I could see President Obama now. Bush wanted to CUT your jobs and put you on the street to pay for HIS Mars program. I am restoring your jobs and restoring the Shuttle and the America space program to its place of glory in the real world, not the fantasy of Bush’s world. And the Money I save from killing the Bush Mars program I will use to build better schools in New Orleans for your children. Man you couldn’t beat it as a great way to start an new administration!
A simple plan would be to keep the Shuttle flying at two a year. At the same time NASA “downsizes” the CEV to fly on the Atlas V. They could well get a boiler plate flying by 2010 or earlier, long before the time table in Bush’s schedule. A simple 4 man capsule to ISS shouldn’t cost more then $500 million a year could even be flying before Obama’s second term. Delaying a few Battleship Galactica science missions could easily pay for it without increasing NASA funding. And do we really need to spend $2 billion to get rocks from Mars when you are able to buy peices of Mars on eBay for a lot less?
Yes Ravenstar I like the idea. It may be the best way to salvage this Bush mess.
“”So you would put 8,000 Shuttle workers on the street, destroying the space coast economy”
The unfortunate reality is that no matter what happens, as long the Space Shuttle program is terminated, thousands of contractors (and possibly civil servants after Griffin leaves) associated with the labor-intensive Shuttle orbiters and SSMEs will be displaced. It doesn’t matter what replaces Shuttle — Ares I/V/Orion, human-rated EELVs, DIRECT, or something else. None of those vehicles use the Shuttle orbiter or the SSMEs, so there is no need for those jobs once the Shuttle program is no longer flying. And it doesn’t matter whether the Shuttle program is terminated in 2010 or 2020. The jobs will have to go away at some point. Maintaining the Shuttle program after 2010 just defers the pain — it does not eliminate it.
The best that NASA can do is detailed workforce planning and inform stakeholders of those plans as far in advance as possible. One could argue (and I would agree) that NASA has done a very poor job of this, but it doesn’t mitigate the fact that those jobs have to go away, sooner or later, if the Space Shuttle orbiters are going away.
“and wait years for a new human launch vehicle with far less capability”
The Space Shuttle orbiters are not “capable” vehicles, in any sense of the term, for human space exploration, because of the simple fact that they cannot support human space flight missions beyond low Earth orbit. It doesn’t matter how many crew, how much cargo, or what other capabilities the Space Shuttle program has because it can’t deliver or do any of those activities at the locations that exploration needs it to. This is the other unfortunate reality — that if we buy into the proposition that NASA’s human space flight programs should be reoriented to exploration beyond Earth orbit rather than activities in Earth orbit, then the Space Shuttle orbiters are the wrong vehicles for the job and are no longer needed.
“Two flight a year will reduce both risks to almost nothing.”
Simply not true. Two flights a year over ten years is 20 flights. As of August 2007, the Space Shuttle program had completed 118 missions and lost two missions for a demonstrated LOM/LOV/LOC figure of 1-in-60 (i.e., a loss of one mission/vehicle/crew every 60 flights). So even at a low flight rate of two missions per year for ten years, we’d run about a 33% (20-in-60 or 1-in-3) risk of another Challenger- or Columbia-type accident based on the demonstrated figures.
It’s also worthwhile to note that NASA in the past has argued that such a low flight rate (anything below about four flights per year) actually makes the Space Shuttle program more dangerous to fly, mainly due to a lack of exercising the workforce and the consequent impacts on skill retention. So the 33% figure may actually be low, as workforce skills get rusty on just two flights per year and flight risks go up.
Worse than that, the Columbia accident demonstrated Space Shuttle failure modes that threaten not only crew lives, but the lives of innocent bystanders on the ground. If you read the Columbia Accident Investigation Report, Columbia’s disintegration spread debris over a path stretching from southern California to northern Louisiana, including near some high density population centers and some property damage that the federal government had to pay for. There were a number of close calls, including falling debris that almost hit a driver and caused a car accident, and hydrazine tankage that fell in between two propane tanks on the ground. The risk of killing bystanders is small, but very real and not infinitesimal. Were a Space Shuttle accident to harm innocent bystanders, the consequences for NASA’s future programs would be severe.
“When the Shuttle could easily fly two missions a year for another decade?”
It’s actually not easy at all. Flying the Space Shuttle twice a year does not eliminate NASA’s need to purchase Soyuz, and probably Progress, flights from the Russians to support the International Space Station. NASA is still on the hook with the international partners to provide year-round emergency egress capabilities, which Soyuz provides but the Shuttle cannot because it can only stay at ISS for a few weeks at most. And two Shuttle flights will probably not deliver enough supplies to fully sustain the ISS and its crew, and will certainly provide no substantial research equipment so that the facility and astronauts have something useful to do. Fewer but still some number of Progress or other cargo vehicle flights will be needed. (In fact, Progress flights may even be required to maintain the ISS in orbit, but those may be covered by the Russians — someone closer to the program than me should chime in.)
The costs of the Space Shuttle program are also very insensitive to flight rate. So even at two flights per year, the Space Shuttle program is still a $4-5 billion per year program. Over ten years, that’s $40-50 billion, which is not an insignificant amount of money, especially if we consider the $24 billion minimum estimated cost of developing Ares I/Orion (forget Ares V).
I know it hurts if you live on the Space Coast and I do sympathize, but continuing the Space Shuttle program is about the dumbest thing that NASA could do from the standpoint of exploration, safety, cost, or ISS support. It’s tough medicine but it has to swallowed. Unless we forgo exploration, turn NASA’s human space flight program into one multi-ten-billion-dollar earmark to keep the entirety of the Space Shuttle workforce employed, and accept the substantial risk of another Shuttle accident, there’s really no other way.
“At the same time NASA “downsizes†the CEV to fly on the Atlas V. They could well get a boiler plate flying by 2010 or earlier, long before the time table in Bush’s schedule. A simple 4 man capsule to ISS shouldn’t cost more then $500 million a year could even be flying before Obama’s second term.”
While I had much to criticize about extending Shuttle operations, this would be a worthwhile option to examine and pursue in place of Ares I/Orion, on the basis of both cost and schedule.
Even without working requirements smartly as you allude to, two years ago, the Congressional Budget Office costed EELV-derived options, especially Atlas-derived, lower than Shuttle-derived options (add http://www):
.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/76xx/doc7635/10-09-SpaceLaunch.pdf
And the General Accounting Office released just yesterday a report on Ares I/Orion stating that:
“The current state of play requires that NASA remain open to the possibility that it may need to revisit deicsion on its architecture and design…”
In part because:
“… the [J-2X upper stage] engine development is out of sync with the first stage and upper stage in the flow-down and decomposition of requirements, an approach our past work has shown to be fraught with risk… [and could have] a ripple effect of cost and schedule impacts throughout the entire Ares I project.”
There were numerous other technical/cost/schedule issues in the GAO report, which is worth reading here (add http://www):
.gao.gov/new.items/d08186t.pdf
“Delaying a few Battleship Galactica science missions could easily pay for it without increasing NASA funding. And do we really need to spend $2 billion to get rocks from Mars”
With the exception of the James Webb telescope to replace Hubble, which is nearing the height of its development right now and could not be deferred without incurring huge cost overruns, there are no flagship-class missions to delay. They’ve all been terminated or deferred under Griffin. For example, the Mars sample return mission that you allude to has only $65 million (IIRC) in funding proposed over the next five years.
To fund a human-rated Atlas V and a small capsule, we’d have to terminate Ares I and redirect Orion. There should be considerable change leftover, which could then go towards restoring flagship science missions, COTS, and/or actual human space exploration hardware (e.g., Shuttle-derived heavy lift).
“Yes, I could just see Obama saying in Florida… Nope. He will look at the job numbers and come out in support of Florida”
Guiliani was the only Republican candidate to release (very positive) positions on the human space flight program and campaign on the Space Coast during the Republican Florida primary. It did nothing to improve his losses in the state.
Clinton also tried to differentiate her campaign from Obama’s on the issue of human space flight in Texas, and Houston in particular, but those efforts appear to have had negligible impact on the outcome there.
Human space flight issues does not move voters in a Presidential election, even in the states where voters should have an interest in them.
For better or worse, budget decisions about the fate of Shuttle, Ares I, and Orion will probably be made on the basis of policy and engineering, not politics.
Hopefully that will be for the better of at least NASA’s human space flight program… FWIW…
Anonymous, I agree with every word.
Unless we forgo exploration, turn NASA’s human space flight program into one multi-ten-billion-dollar earmark to keep the entirety of the Space Shuttle workforce employed, and accept the substantial risk of another Shuttle accident, there’s really no other way.
Even this would not work. What happens if — when — you lose the next orbiter, and you are left with two and another big recovery bill to fit into an overstretched budget? Is a two orbiter fleet sustainable? A one orbiter fleet? And, don’t forget, until the instant you lose that last orbiter, you’re still paying $5 billion to maintain the infrastructure and workforce. It’s similar to the logging companies who simply want to keep logging with no thought to sustainability. Those workers will lose their jobs, or be redirected to something more constructive. The only real questions are how much money are we going to throw down a rat hole with no future, and how much damage are we going to do to the space program (or what little is left of the old growth forests), first?
— Donald
@anonymous.space
I’ve got to disagree with you about the absolute inevitability of the full slate of post-Shuttle job losses. Yes, each and every one of this week’s announced job losses will occur if we move from Shuttle to Constellation or EELV.
But…..I’m not sure if you’ve seen the workforce estimates for Direct vs Constellation. Direct’s shorter manned-spaceflight gap sure seems to offer a much more manageable “workforce transition”. That’s gotta be attractive to both the workers involved and the politicians that represent these constituencies in Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Utah, California, and elsewhere.
For the Direct team’s detailed chart of the plans, look here:
(add http://www)
.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/Pics/Comparison_Workforce.jpg
Right now STS + ISS add up to about 22,000 public and private sector jobs nationwide. Constellation cuts that to 12,000 by 2012, and then gradually ramps back up to 15,000 by Ares I in-service in 2016 and a rather budget-busting 28,000 for the full Ares I + Ares V + lunar program by 2020.
In comparison, Direct will cut the workforce to 18,000 by 2012 and then build back up to about 22,000 by 2020 including the lunar program. While Constellation will require the involuntary layoffs announced this week, Direct’s job losses are small enough that they will be able to be covered through expected retirements. Direct proposes to put the Michoud ET employees to work building J-120 cores on the same production line just as soon as the last ET rolls off the line, to keep ATK workers in Utah casting solid fuel into the same SRB segments they’ve been using for STS with no development gap, and to keep KSC LC-39 and VAB staff working on J-120 test flights scheduled for 2010 and 2011 before initial operational capability in 2012. Yes, all the Orbiter-related jobs at KSC go away, but between the number of staff who are reaching retirement age and the number of staff required for Orion, massive layoffs won’t be required.
many web billionaires (like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Paul Allen, etc.) already invest in (or start) new.space companies
thanks to the iPod and iPhone success Apple has $18 billion CASH, Microsoft wants spend $44 billion to buy Yahoo!
so, these (and other) big companies have enough money to buy NASA several times or just start a new “NASA 2.0″
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/027applenasa.html
“I’ve got to disagree with you about the absolute inevitability of the full slate of post-Shuttle job losses.â€
Just to be clear, I did not write that there would be a “full slate” of job losses, only that we’re facing some “thousands” of job losses no matter which option we choose. Some options may involve more thousands (EELV with no Shuttle heavy life) while other options involve fewer thousands (DIRECT). But no matter what, we’re facing thousands of job losses as the Shuttle orbiter and SSMEs are retired. And that’s just something that we’re going to have to accept if NASA’s human space flight programs are ever going to move out of low-Earth orbit.
“Right now STS + ISS add up to about 22,000 public and private sector jobs nationwide. Constellation cuts that to 12,000 by 2012… In comparison, Direct will cut the workforce to 18,000 by 2012″
You’re absolutely right that DIRECT’s hit on the workforce is only 40% of Constellation’s hit. My only point is that it’s still a number in the low- to mid-thousands that will involve some pain. While DIRECT may minimize the pain, I have not seen a proposal that gets around it, and I don’t think it’s avoidable given that any useful proposal has to terminate the Shuttle orbiters and their associated workforce.
To be clear about where I stand, the DIRECT proposal has many merits, just like some EELV-derived options. As I’ve argued before in this forum, the problem is that ESAS was flawed, subsequent decisions have exacerbated those flaws, and it’s far past time for an independent look at ESAS, including apples-to-apples comparisons of options that were never considered under ESAS, including DIRECT.
FWIW…
anonymous.space
No on is calling for the Shuttle to fly until 2020. Most estimates show that the Ares I/CEV will be ready by 2015. Likely an Atlas V/CEV will be operational much earlier since the launch vehicle already exists.
If 3 flights a year are safer then 2 then three it will be. For the 4 years from 2011 to 2015 that is only 12 flights. But not all those flights need to be new missions. One of the risks NASA is running now in their current Shuttle Surge to finish ISS is the need to launch 16 flights by 2010. The first two have gone fine, but the next is already delayed a week because of late ET delivery. In the past it was this very schedule pressure and launch surge that contributed to both the Challenger and Columbia accidents. By eliminating the 2010 deadline NASA will be able to stretch the schedule out to a safer launch rate and may even increase the overall safety of the remainder of the program.
If President Obama makes his announcement early in 2009 NASA could reschedule a number of the 2009 mission into 2010 and push some of the 2010 missions into 2011 and 2012. This means you would only have an additional 8-9 new start missions until the 2015 retirement date. And instead of a sharp stop you could start winding it down with perhaps only 2 mission in 2015.
This will replace the massive layoffs at the end in 2010, like Apollo, followed by a hiring boom in 2015, with a more orderly workforce transition with job reductions in Shuttle being managed by retirement, normal turnover and transfer to Atlas V/CEV.
The Launch Gap is eliminated along with the Bust and Boom hiring cycle resulting from the current Shuttle and Ares I/CEV transition. In addition, the greater capability of the Shuttle means that you might actually use the ISS for science during the Launch Gap, instead of keeping it in a survival mode due to the limitations of Soyuz for supporting it.
As for the funding, I agree that there would probably be enough savings from eliminating Ares I/CEV to fund the Atlas V/CEV without cutting into the science budget. If needed the additional funds could also come from eliminating the need to purchase additional Soyuz/Progress missions.
And after the Atlas V/CEV is flying the political and economic climate may well be suitable for building the Ares V or SDV for heavy lift for the VSE. So it will still preserve that option for future administrations.
All in all, keeping the Shuttle flying to 2014 and going for an Atlas V/CEV seems the best strategy for getting us out of the mess Griffin and the Bush Administration has put America in regarding its space program. I hope someone from the Congressional staff and Obama campaigns are following this Blog.
“No on is calling for the Shuttle to fly until 2020.”
Actually, they were earlier in the thread. Anon wrote “When the Shuttle could easily fly two missions a year for another decade?” That’s one of several specific comments that I responded to.
“But not all those flights need to be new missions. One of the risks NASA is running now in their current Shuttle Surge to finish ISS…”
Once Kibo is up in a few months, most U.S. commitments on ISS assembly are met. There’s no overwhelming reason to continue ISS assembly after that point, and if assembly stretched out beyond 2010, I’d advise cutting those flights out of the assembly sequence and retiring the Shuttle program in 2010. (In fact, I’d advise ending ISS assembly and Shuttle flights after Kibo is up in 2008, but that’s another thread.)
“If 3 flights a year are safer then 2 then three it will be.”
Actually, IIRC, I think NASA has argued in the past that anything below four missions per year is suboptimal in terms of workforce skill retention and therefore adds flight risk. But it’s unquantifiable, and you’re right that three flights would be better than two.
“For the 4 years from 2011 to 2015 that is only 12 flights.”
Based on the program’s demonstrated LOM/LOV/LOC numbers, that’s still running about a 20% (12-in-60 or 1-in-5) chance of a LOM/LOV/LOC event over 2011-2015. 20% is certainly lower than 33% but it’s still a fairly significant risk — worse than the odds of rolling a 1 on a die. (And we havn’t even talked about the risks — of new components and reassembly — associated with recertification of the Shuttle system, per the CAIB recommendations.)
And we’ll spend $20-$25 billion to maintain the Shuttle program during those same years. (And again, we havn’t even talked about the costs — maybe upwards of $10 billion — associated with recertification of the Shuttle system, per the CAIB recommendations.)
And at the end of those years, we’ll still have to layoff at least some thousands of Shuttle workers, regardless of whether astronauts are going up on Atlas Vs or some other option.
In sum, that’s considerable risk and a lot of money just to delay the inevitable for five more years. I don’t work on the Space Coast, and it’s not my job on the line. But to me, that’s a bad deal for the space program and for the taxpayer. I don’t agree with a lot of Griffin’s decisions, but on this I think he’s right. It’s going to hurt, but let’s take our medicine and retire the Shuttle program sooner, rather than latter.
Again, just my 2 cents… your mileage may vary… FWIW…
anonymous.space
Note that not all of the 12 mission in 2011-2015 are new ones. I assumed that at least 4 would be rescheduled from the Shuttle Surge. so you are only talking about 8 additional flight beyond the current 16 or so flights to finish ISS by 2010. That is only a 50% increase in overall risk from what is considered acceptable now.
As for te $25 billion, that will likely be wasted on Ares I/CEV anyway getting it to work before it is cancelled for an Altas V/CEV solution. In this case allowing the Shuttle to fly will not only kill Ares I/CEV, it will enable the ISS to finally be used for science. I am sure there are a number of experiements that could make use of 8 additional ISS missions, even if most of the payload are supplies. It seems senseless to spend 100 billion builidng the ISS, then just abandon it to the Russians because you want to save a few billion. Penny wise pound foolish is the term that comes to mind.
As for the jobs cut, as noted elsewhere, at least half will need to be hired back in 2015, so it does reduce the number laid off quite a bit by waiting to 2015. And if you figure retirements in and normal turnover, plus a slower ramping down of the Shuttle and you are changing the dynamics of the job cuts, and there economic impact, by a significant amount. So it does indeed make sense to delay it for a soft landing instead of a hard one.
However NASA seems determined to repeat the mistakes of the 1970’s and abandon one launch system before its replacement is online. And I suspect in the future you will see historians wondering how they could have been so blind.
It seems senseless to spend 100 billion builidng the ISS, then just abandon it to the Russians because you want to save a few billion. Penny wise pound foolish is the term that comes to mind.
This presumes that ISS is providing value commensurate with the costs of maintaining it, particularly with the Shuttle. The phrase that comes to my mind is “good money after bad.”
Lets see. Research on the ISS has been limited because it was under construction. Shuttle missions were focused on construction and bringing up the modules needed to do research. Now that its ready to do research we stop sending Shuttle missions to it. Arguments to send future Shuttle missions are countered by staying its likely future research will not produce a favorable cost/benefit based on the cost/benefits of very limited research the ISS was able to do while under construction.
Or put it another way. You spend a billion dollars to build a telescope. Then abandon it because you don’t see any value in a budget for researchers to drive up to the mountain top to use it. You justify not budgeting for it on the grounds that it hasn’t produced any useful research while under construction so its unlikely to produce any useful research now that is is finished.
Am I missing something with that logic?
“Am I missing something with that logic?”
While the point about the abandonment of ISS research is accurate, the transportation analogy is not. After our hypothetical observatory is built, our research team doesn’t continue to use the same backhoe, bulldozer, dump truck, and concrete mixer that built the observatory to commute to that same observatory. That’s an incredibly expensive way to get a handful of astronomers and their instruments, papers, and software to and from work. Same goes for Shuttle, astronauts, and their equipment.
But neither does our research team build their own economy-class cars to make that commute when Toyota, Honda, Ford and Chevy have economy-class cars for sale in the dealership or rolling along assembly lines. That’s the mistake that NASA has made with Ares I — spending precious money and time reinventing the wheel when EELVs existed and commercial options were on their way. It’s that needless reinvention of intermediate-class LEO transport capabilities that has eaten the ISS research budget and forced the gap, not Shuttle retirement per se.
FWIW…
But now we are here and have to make the best of it, which means keeping the Shuttle flying to support the science that the ISS was designed to do. Flat beds will work in getting you to the observatory while you wait for the bus to be built.
But now we are here and have to make the best of it, which means keeping the Shuttle flying to support the science that the ISS was designed to do. Flat beds will work in getting you to the observatory while you wait for the bus to be built.
You continue to assume without basis that the primary goal of the ISS program was to do science, and that the science it will do will be worth the expense. The reality is that the science that will be performed on ISS, even if the Shuttle program is continued, will never justify the cost of the program, either the sunk costs of developing and building the ISS, or the ongoing costs of continuing the Shuttle program. ISS was primarily a jobs program for NASA, and a midnight basketball program for the Russians.
We’ve already gotten most of the value from the program that we’re likely to get, mostly in terms of lessons in how not to run human spaceflight programs. Unfortunately, NASA continues to refuse to apply them…
Anonymous: In fact, I’d advise ending ISS assembly and Shuttle flights after Kibo is up in 2008, but that’s another thread
Why would that be another thread? After all, that would be the easiest and fastest way to free up money to fund a human-rated COTS vehicle or two and accelerate Orion, if we insist on doing that. I think we should have cancelled the Shuttle program immediately after the loss of Columbia and used all the billions we’ve spent retrofitting the Shuttle to be safe for a few more missions on adapted the remaining Station modules for EELV launches, building entirely new Station modules, and / or using the Station as is and developing better launch vehicles. There no reason not to do that after the Kibo launch, save ten or fifteen billion, and use that for Orion (or its replacement), a heavy lift rocket (Ares-V or something else), and COTS. Any way you measure it, we’d get far better value for our money.
Randy: The reality is that the science that will be performed on ISS, even if the Shuttle program is continued, will never justify the cost of the program, either the sunk costs of developing and building the ISS
It is entirely possible that you are correct, but you cannot know that at this point in time. The Space Station has yet to really be used, and, as the first fully-equipped scientific laboratory in the microgravity environment that dominates the universe, outside of the special case environment we are used to, it will be very surprising if the Space Station does not caugh up a major surprise or two. Most of the potential private alternatives are cheaper, but they also will not have the kind of comprehensive laboratory facilities that the ISS has.
Also, I would argue that what we have learned building it is worth something. If we are to have a future in space, you can’t launch everything you need on giant rockets. At some point, you will need to do complex construction tasks, and, for better or wose, that is what the Space Station project is teaching us.
— Donald
It is entirely possible that you are correct, but you cannot know that at this point in time.
Of course, I cannot know. But based on the history of microgravity science, that would be the way to bet, particularly given the horrendous costs of the project.
If we are to have a future in space, you can’t launch everything you need on giant rockets. At some point, you will need to do complex construction tasks, and, for better or wose, that is what the Space Station project is teaching us.
Actually, the (false) lesson that most seem to have taken from ISS is to avoid orbital assembly, which is why we’re wasting more billions and more years redoing Apollo, complete with Saturn V.
Actually, the (false) lesson that most seem to have taken from ISS is to avoid orbital assembly, which is why we’re wasting more billions and more years redoing Apollo, complete with Saturn V.
I fully agree with the sentimate, here, if not with the exact statement. We would have been far better off using existing EELVs (or something COTS-like) and the orbital construction we are learning on the ISS to return to the moon, and move on, rather than re-inventing the wheel yet again.
— Donald
The reality is that the science that will be performed on ISS, even if the Shuttle program is continued, will never justify the cost of the program, either the sunk costs of developing and building the ISS, or the ongoing costs of continuing the Shuttle program.
And the meteric you are using to support this statement is? $/Published Paper? $/Patent? Or ???
If you found a way to develop a cost/benefit scale to measure the economic value of research please publish it. You may well win the Noble Prize in economics.
No one “knows” what the value of scientific research on the ISS will be its actually done. That is the nature of research. We spent $100 billion on ISS. Not let’s see if its able to product some surprises. Don”t let your anti-NASA feelings get in the way of giving it and the Shuttle a chance.
And the meteric you are using to support this statement is? $/Published Paper? $/Patent? Or ???
I know that after many tens of billions of dollars, that there has never been a Nobel prize won (or AFAIK, even nominated) for anything resulting from NASA manned spaceflight. It’s possible that those billions are justifiable, but certainly not on the basis of scientific results.
Donâ€t let your anti-NASA feelings get in the way of giving it and the Shuttle a chance.
This has nothing to do with my “feelings,” “anti-NASA” or otherwise. It’s coldly analytical. I’d say that in demanding that we continue to spend tens of billions on bloated jobs programs in the name of science, in light of the vast failures of the past in that regard, you’re the one relying on “feelings.”
The Shuttle has had almost three decades of “chances.” There’s little reason to think that ISS will provide anything more, at least commensurate with the cost.
Rand: There’s little reason to think that ISS will provide anything more, at least commensurate with the cost.
If you measure this by the potential long-term importance of the achievement (rather than the efficiency with which it was achieved), I would argue that there have already been two results that are worth $100 billion (although I would be the first to admit that both, and especially the second one, could have been obtained for far less money).
1). The experience gained in building the structure itself. I argue that in something like building structures and surviving in orbit, experience counts far more than any amount of study or research.
2). Learning how to reliably grow plants through multiple generations in microgravity, which took decades spread over multiple space stations and was finally achieved on the early ISS. The techniques are being perfected today through multiple Russian and American experiments. This proved far more difficult than anyone expected, yet is a clear prerequisit to any future for human beings in the Solar System. If there are ever to be civilizations off this Earth, that momentous achievement will be the most important factor making it possible, and thus may prove literally priceless.
— Donald
I would argue that there have already been two results that are worth $100 billion (although I would be the first to admit that both, and especially the second one, could have been obtained for far less money).
I would argue that if they could have been done for far less money, that they aren’t worth far more money than they could have been done for. Just because they ended up costing that much doesn’t make them worth it. I don’t think that the combination of the two results is worth even a few billion, let alone a hundred, let alone either of them individually.
Well, Rand, that is a very un-American attitude. We have created an All-American transportation system designed to move people and goods in the most inefficient way possible (cars and, especially, trucks) at least when measured by total cost per unit mass per unit distance, and no one seems to mind that we’re spending trillians when billions would do.
The fact is, since the government build and provided the highway and freeway networks to thee and me for (what appears to the end-user to be) almost free, everyone happily uses one of the most socialist institutions ever conceived without another thought.
I don’t see why the Space Station should be any different. The government built it for their reasons. Sure, it could have been far more efficient — but it’s there and we may as well use it. Especially if it creates a valuable result or two.
I don’t think that the combination of the two results is worth even a few billion,
Then, you must not have very great ambitions for the human future.
— Donald
“Actually, the (false) lesson that most seem to have taken from ISS is to avoid orbital assembly, which is why we’re wasting more billions”
The Russian model shows that to be incorrect, obital assembly was the cheapest way to go with mir, what made it even MORE cheaper to do was having a relatively cheap rocket to put the componets and men into space.
Every US componet on the ISS has to add launch costs, not 50 million like russia, but 500 + million for the shuttle. All assemly delays on the ISS are atributed to the unrealible shuttle which lead to higher costs. All modules that had to be compromised in design to fit into the shuttle bay and then sit for years because of launch delays added to costs. If the ISS would have been put up using EELV’s and a capsule system for the astronauts and EELV’s for launching infrastructure the costs would have been considerably lower.
Well, Rand, that is a very un-American attitude.
[smiling]
I’ll ignore the ridiculous slam on my patriotism, and just say that I don’t think so.
We have created an All-American transportation system designed to move people and goods in the most inefficient way possible (cars and, especially, trucks) at least when measured by total cost per unit mass per unit distance, and no one seems to mind that we’re spending trillians when billions would do.
If efficiency were the only measure to be considered, that might be something worth complaining about. However, you have to consider the value of human time and convenience, so I don’t accept your premise, because billions wouldn’t “do.”
I don’t see why the Space Station should be any different. The government built it for their reasons. Sure, it could have been far more efficient — but it’s there and we may as well use it. Especially if it creates a valuable result or two.
The problem with that argument is that it will cost us many more billions to use it, whereas I can drive down the Interstate for the price of gas. So it’s not just the billions in sunk cost, but the future billions in operating costs that are at issue.
…you must not have very great ambitions for the human future.
A silly argument. I have tremendous ambitions for the human future in space. Such as they are, and to the degree that they’re necessary to support such a future, your “accomplishments” could and would have been achieved without pissing away tens of billions on Shuttle and ISS. If we hadn’t done Shuttle and ISS, and they’d been done privately (which they would have, eventually), for much lower cost, then clearly, they weren’t worth the much higher cost. This is true regardless of the future value of space to humanity. Once again, the fact that they cost hundreds of billions doesn’t make them worth hundreds of billions. Nor does it justify wasting more tens of billions over the next decade on ISS. This is an extreme economic fallacy.
Rand: We’ll have to agree to disagree on most of this, but. . . .
However, you have to consider the value of human time and convenience,
I submit that my car-less life — with essentially no transportation tax on my time and with everything I need within a casual walk from my front door — is by this temporal measure far more efficient than most Americans’ lives. Likewise, my _entire_ day-to-day transportation budget is slightly over $50 per month. We have spent trillians going from that, to where many middle class Americans live out of their cars and never see their families. I rest my case.
whereas I can drive down the Interstate for the price of gas
Actually, no. The last I looked, even now that it is essentially complete, approximately one-third of the maintenance cost alone of the Freeway system came out of the general fund, and that does not include the high cost of emergency and medical services for those who get killed. The operating cost of the freeway and highway systems is very, very high. If COTS succeeds, maintenance and supply of the Space Station conceivably couldbecome relatively inexpensive — that, at least, is the hope I think of all of us.
and they’d been done privately (which they would have, eventually)
I don’t think so. When was the last time a brand new infrastructure was built from scratch into a trackless frontier only by private individuals or groups? When was the last time an R&D project that would not pay off for decades paid for entirely by private individuals? A far more typical model — which is why I think it has so much promise — is COTS (or your car or the Internet) where private efforts ride on top of some large government project, which serves as a market and / or support system, and eventually lead to a largely private industry.
The potential acception I see is Biglow, and I wish him every success, but aside from this one example, private orbital flight is, and is likely to remain for some time, entirely dependent on the government market. And, the largest government market for the foreseeable future is the Space Station.
— Donald
I submit that my car-less life — with essentially no transportation tax on my time and with everything I need within a casual walk from my front door — is by this temporal measure far more efficient than most Americans’ lives.
How nice for you. Unfortunately, that has zip to do with the rest of us, who don’t necessarily want to share your lifestyle.
When was the last time a brand new infrastructure was built from scratch into a trackless frontier only by private individuals or groups?
I fail to see the relevance of the question, unless you’re saying that nothing can ever be done for the first time.
Having Jewish ancestry, I’ll answer your question with a question: when was the last time that the world was so wealthy, with so much disposable income by wealthy individuals, and travel and tourism (including adventure travel) the second largest industry on the planet?
Rand,
Its always easy to see where to save money after a project is done. In retrospect NASA should have stayed with the original Space Station design from the 1980’s and placed it in a 28 degree orbit. But Congress and President in there wisdom decided otherwise.
And now we see a continuation of that series of mistake by retirement of the Shuttle and transferring the operation of a facility that cost U.S. taxpayers over $100 billion to build to other countries that spent only a fraction of that amount on it and yet allowing them to reap the scientific advances from research on the ISS.
Really, retirement of the Shuttle turns the ISS into the biggest Euro-welfare project since the Marshall Plan.
I wonder what opponents of the Shuttle will say to defend their policy when foreign scientists start winning Noble prizes using a facility it built using U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Oh, in regards ot the three decades the Shuttle had to prove itself, you might consider its record. The first satellite repair missions, the first recovery of satellites for repair on Earth, the first Zero-G manufactured products, the maturing of spacewalk technology including the MMU, the first manufacturing of structural components in space.
None of this will be possible anymore when you replace America’s space truck with a capsule and turn astronauts back into spam in a can.
The CEV in not a replacement for the Shuttle, nor is the Dragon. They are major steps back to an era when in-orbit servicing, repair, recovery, construction and manufacturing was impossible.
I wonder what opponents of the Shuttle will say to defend their policy when foreign scientists start winning Noble prizes using a facility it built using U.S. taxpayer dollars.
Given the vast unlikelihood of such an event, I’m not going to lose any sleep worrying about it.
Rand: Unfortunately, that has zip to do with the rest of us, who don’t necessarily want to share your lifestyle.
No one is asking you to. I am only asking you to admit that, like commercial space, your lifestyle rides on top of a lot of frankly socialist infrastructure and forced (or strongly encouraged) behavior.
unless you’re saying that nothing can ever be done for the first time
Not at all. I am saying that, if it is big and if it has no immediate market of comparable value to the cost — read: “space” — it probably will not be done without a lot of government help. The only exception would be extremely wealthy individuals who don’t need to care about a near-term market.
I’ll answer your question with a question: when was the last time that the world was so wealthy, with so much disposable income by wealthy individuals, and travel and tourism (including adventure travel) the second largest industry on the planet?
That one’s easy: the Greko-Roman world. And, just like us, the Roman roads were built by the government for military purposes as a cost-no-object project, then used by private individuals for commerce. Many private individuals traveled the length and breath of the Empire and beyond at what they pretended was their own expense — but, just like us, they used primarily government-financed infrastructure.
— Donald
I am only asking you to admit that, like commercial space, your lifestyle rides on top of a lot of frankly socialist infrastructure and forced (or strongly encouraged) behavior.
And I still fail to see the point. That it was done in the past doesn’t justify it being done in the future, particularly when it’s much more horrendously inefficient than your example, no matter how falsely you want to paint it otherwise.
The only exception would be extremely wealthy individuals who don’t need to care about a near-term market.
And that (as we’ve already seen) is a significant exception, rendering your question pointless.
That one’s easy: the Greko-Roman world
Sorry, no comparison at all. Or rather, the comparison is that today’s world vastly exceeds that one in the aspects that I described. There was very little resembling tourism, and particularly adventure tourism, in the Greco-Roman world, roads or no roads. Life was adventurous enough back then without going out and paying money for it.
Rand: That it was done in the past doesn’t justify it being done in the future, >/i>
But, it does. We are looking at models that have worked in the past. To do that, you have to look honestly at what the full model was. Entrepreneurs were only half the story, and as long as we pretend they were the full story, we are creating false models that likely will result in failure.
particularly when it’s much more horrendously inefficient than your example, no matter how falsely you want to paint it otherwise.
This is your opinion, and, if look at honestly and not through the prism of most peoples’ self interest in the way things are, it is wrong.
And that (as we’ve already seen) is a significant exception,
It will be if and when they succeed. The tiny fact in the soup of fiction is that this hasn’t happened yet. And, as others have pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, they are not working in a vacuum without a lot of government help and markets.
.There was very little resembling tourism, and particularly adventure tourism
This is untrue. Read some of the Roman histories written at the time, particularly by non-military authors. Cicero, for example, traveled all over the Republic (it wasn’t an Empire until later in his life) at his own expense, mostly doing research and getting interviews for his various legal battles, but also to visit friends he corresponded with. There was a lot of what we would recognize as “adventure tourism” going on. Space advocates in general need to read a lot more history, understand how similar things were achieved in the past, and use how it is known to work to plot strategies for our own situation.
That said, I don’t want to disagree with your wider implicit point. Now (as, to a lesser degree, then) tourism in all its forms is one of the largest industries, and possibly the largest industry. It is also the most likely industry to invest lots of money in spaceflight. Tourists today are flying in transports serving the Space Station and they are flying to the Space Station. (And, this should be considered an important commercial product of Mir and the ISS.) Orbital tourism almost certainly would not exist without large government stations; the market would not be proven; and it would be a lot harder for those planning orbital projects to raise money. (It is true that suborbital tourism is a different market and probably would be going forward, but it’s a different technology, too. It is a very big step from suborbital tourism to orbital tourism. It is true that the former would probably lead to the latter, over time, but the government project have sped thing along, probably by decades and maybe by many decades.)
In short, I fully agree that tourism is the most likely, and largest, near-term market for commercial space. That does not change any of the rest of my argument.
— Donald
There was a lot of what we would recognize as “adventure tourism†going on.
There was some. There was not a lot, particularly in the context of what is going on today. The two eras are in no way comparable.
I am quite familiar with history, and historians, such as Herodotus, thanks.
And I still fail to see the point. That it was done in the past doesn’t justify it being done in the future, particularly when it’s much more horrendously inefficient than your example, no matter how falsely you want to paint it otherwise.
In theory anything is possible, but some events, like a libertarian winning the White House, are close enough to zero to forget about. Private funding of the construction of space infrastructure (ISS, Fuel Depots, Lunar Settlements) easily falls into this category as proven by the New Space industry to date. Henry Ford did not build the nation’s highway system, he successfully campaigned for the government to do it instead.
Only the billionaire hobbyists are still going it (mostly) without government funding and that will change as delays and failures mount. (First service date for VG is now what 2011?) Elon already fell off the “New Space†wagon and SpaceX is getting a majority of its revenue as a government contractor. While Bigelow is now looking for government customers (sovereign customers as he calls them…) to close his business model while waiting for the great breakthrough from space tourist firms while XCor is now building its hopes on USAF contracts for its designs. .
anon: Well said.
— Donald
“Sorry, no comparison at all. Or rather, the comparison is that today’s world vastly exceeds that one in the aspects that I described. There was very little resembling tourism, and particularly adventure tourism, in the Greco-Roman world, roads or no roads.”
I believe that is incorrect. Although the average ancient person might spend his life a LOT closer to home, humans have always seemed to travel/pilgrimage through out written history. From the “Epic of Gilgamesh” to Herodotus and Pausanias’s early guides written in 500 bce -100 bce, into the medival period.
Temples, Ziggurauts, Pyramids, Stone Henges, The list goes on and on of Ancient “tourism” spots. The seven wonders of the Ancient world were all tourists traps and who ever controled them at a point in time most certainly controled it for all the rackets being run, from selling offerings and trinkets to food etc. Granted the people were not GLOBAL jet setters in a modern sense, but in their respective areas there was a lot of travel, just in today’s terms seem a lot shorter.
You can read how people in one of the earliest civilizations traveled up and down the tigris and euphrates rivers in barges and stopping into the local city state to view the Ziggerauts and Palaces. The same for Egypt and the nile and pyramids. The one thing we are sure of is that ancient man loved to travel and trade.
In theory anything is possible, but some events, like a libertarian winning the White House, are close enough to zero to forget about. Private funding of the construction of space infrastructure (ISS, Fuel Depots, Lunar Settlements) easily falls into this category as proven by the New Space industry to date.
That “proves” nothing of the kind. You need to work on your logic.
XCor is now building its hopes on USAF contracts for its designs.
This is a false statement. The vast majority of funding for the Lynx is private. The Air Force funding represents only about five percent of the total.
Well said.
No, illogically and falsely said.
Rand,
You are assuming that the ONLY USAF funding for Lynx will be the Phase II funding. That would be surprising given what Phase II contracts are for. I would be surprised if the current Phase II funding is not followed by additional USAF contracts for completion of the Lynx. In fact I bet that is why Xcor is still negotiating their Phase II. To determine the amount of Lynx work that will be funded by the Phase II and what follow up contracts will be needed to finish and test fly the Lynx.
My prediction is that the Phase II will just cover the preliminary aerodynamic and engine work. Then when this milestone is reached there will be additional announcements of USAF funding for Lynx, probably before the end of the year.
When all is said and done I expect most of the Lynx development costs will be covered by USAF funding. Yes, Xcor has become a government contractor just like SpaceX. There is no shame in that and government contracting is the only hope for New Space survival in the near term. The other option is just to keep doing the viewgraph rounds until a billionaire falls in love with you as their next high profile hobby. The viewgraph rounds grow old fast when you have no income to pay your bills.
My prediction is that the Phase II will just cover the preliminary aerodynamic and engine work.
Your “prediction” is an ignorant guess, and completely baseless. The Air Force is buying operability and flight test data from XCOR. Nothing more, nothing less. The vast majority of the development will be privately funded.
When all is said and done I expect most of the Lynx development costs will be covered by USAF funding.
As someone familiar with the situation in general with SBIRs, and with this particular one, your expectation is entirely nonsensical. An SBIR Phase II is limited to $750K. Period. XCOR’s Phase II proposal (as are all Phase II proposals) was premised on leveraging the Phase II funding to get additional private funding, because a primary purpose of the SBIR program is to commercialize the technology. That was the stated goal of this SBIR topic in particular.
The reason that XCOR is still negotiating their Phase II is not because they’re trying to get additional Air Force funding, but because they are having to get the Air Force to agree to a fixed-price contract, a concept with which their procurement people are utterly unfamiliar.
I will be blunt. You have no idea what you’re talking about, and are indulging in wishful thinking to affirm your ignorant prejudices. Why you fear so much the notion of privately-funded space projects that you will publicly indulge in such a willful denial of reality, I’ll leave to your shrink, if you have one. I do understand, though, why you would express such foolish opinions anonymously.
Rand,
You are the one that has no clue as to how government contracting works. The fact that you claimed both SpaceX and XCor are not government contractors when they meet all the tests for government contracting was proof of that. As for your statements on Lynx SBIR funding.:
The reason that XCor is still negotiating their Phase II is not because they’re trying to get additional Air Force funding, but because they are having to get the Air Force to agree to a fixed-price contract, a concept with which their procurement people are utterly unfamiliar.
Firms submitting their SBIR Phase II must specify in their cost proposal section if its fixed price or cost plus fixed fee contract. Period. There is nothing to negotiate. It had to be specified in their proposal and that will be how the USAF awards it. And if they are going for the full amount then they likely have specified a fixed price. Its not something that the USAF would have a problem understanding as they do fixed price contracts for many goods. All they need to do is follow the FAR and SBIR on it.
That the USAF ONLY does cost-plus contracts for space is one of the urban myths that New Space spreads. And that the USAF contracting officers would not know how to handle a fixed-price SBIR is an insult to them.
The reason traditional aerospace firms push for cost-plus is because they have been burned in the past on fixed price contracts and learned to avoid them in areas of new technology. The New Space firms will learn this same lesson, and the value of termination fees, after they have been burned a time or two. Hopefully their firms will survive the learning curve.
What XCor is likely negotiating is the details of commercialization strategy and the requirements for a SBIR Phase III follow-on, the most likely things for them to negotiate on a SBIR Phase II. Everything else needed to be spelled out in the proposal. A SBIR Phase III 1 to 4 match for the SBIR Phase II funds which would go a long way towards funding the Lynx. But clearly you have no knowledge of how SBIR or FAR work.
Really, you need to stop drinking the New Space Kool-Aid. Private funded spaceflight, ala Libertarian belief system, is a nice dream, but this is the real world we are talking about, not a Heinlien novel. The New Space survivors will be the firms like SpaceX and Xcor that learn to play the game, not the individuals like you that refuse to acknowlede how the industry work and try to spun it to fit your beliefs.
Firms submitting their SBIR Phase II must specify in their cost proposal section if its fixed price or cost plus fixed fee contract. Period. There is nothing to negotiate. It had to be specified in their proposal and that will be how the USAF awards it.
They did so. Unfortunately the people who award the contract are not the people who actually implement it on the procurement side, so there is always the argument.
What XCor is likely negotiating is the details of commercialization strategy and the requirements for a SBIR Phase III follow-on, the most likely things for them to negotiate on a SBIR Phase II.
Again, you are talking completely through your hat. You are completely clueless as to what is going on in that negotiation, and you demonstrate it with every “guess,” and “prediction,” and “expectation.” I, on the other hand, have an NDA with XCOR.
I am very familiar with how this industry works. I’ve been working in it for almost three decades, and consulting in it for half of that.
Even assuming that XCOR is seeking a Phase III (there is no reason to think that they are, since they have adequate private funding), it is not necessary, or even desirable to negotiate that during Phase II, which would hold up progress, since the decision won’t be made until progress has been made on Phase II.
From Space News:
So, “Anon,” are you calling Jeff Greason a liar? If so, again, one can see why you would post anonymously.
I am very familiar with how this industry works. I’ve been working in it for almost three decades, and consulting in it for half of that.
And you didn’t know that legally SpaceX was a government contractor? Or were you just trying to spin their contractor status into something its wasn’t to prove a point? Kinda like Clinton not inhaling?
Unfortunately the people who award the contract are not the people who actually implement it on the procurement side, so there is always the argument.
If that is the case then their cost proposal was poorly worded. That is again is where traditional space firms have more experience then New Spacers.
And Gleason’s comments are exactly what he needs to say to support he commercial strategy plan for their SBIR Phase II and stay kosher with the SEC. I would expect nothing less.
We will see by the end ot the year who is right when XCor announces furthr contracts with the USAF for Lynx.
And Gleason’s comments are exactly what he needs to say to support he commercial strategy plan for their SBIR Phase II and stay kosher with the SEC. I would expect nothing less.
So, just to be clear, you are calling him a liar?
Even if there eventually do turn out to be further contracts with the Air Force for Lynx, the fact remains that the majority of the funding is private, as I’ve been saying all along, and you’ve been steadfastly (and mistakenly, and cluelessly) denying.
Rand,
Note the EXACT wording of the statement.
The Lynx 1-class rocket plane is focused more on the passenger space travel market, Greason said. The AFRL funding is intended to be matched by a larger amount of private investment, he said.
The Lynx 1. That allows the possibility of a Lynx 1b or Lynx 2 for military use without making this statement false.
Also note – The AFRL funding is INTENDED to be matched So this is also not a false statement IF the private funding doesn’t emerge, as is common in New Space firms not funded by billionaires, and XCor ends up being dependent on USAF contracts for building the Lynx.
In short all Gleason talks about is their HOPES for Lynx 1, nothing more as you are reading into it.
I may intend to win the lottery tomorrow, but that is not a statement of fact nor is it a lie. It just means I am buying a lottery ticket with a lot of high hopes
A CEO must be careful in what they say in public about their firm. If they aren’t then they may get into legal trouble over those statements. That is a reality in the business world. That is why few CEO’s blog, or at least Blog under their own name. Its also clear you have never been one, not for a real firm with investors or you would have recognized the carefully worded structure of his statements. There is nothing false in those statements that are in conflict with my predictions based on long experience in the business side of the aerospace industry.
Clearly your libertarian ideological dogmatism is getting in the way of you seeing the facts about “New Space†firms and their financing.
Taking Gleason’s statements as proof of your position and claiming SpaceX is not a government contractor is clear proof of your libertarian dogmatism impacting your perception of the world.
Just like the Conquest of Space was seen by the communists as symbolic of the superiority of their doctrine over the West, until the West proved its blended Capitalism model superior many libertarians like yourself see the Conquest of Space by “New Space†as symbolic of superiority of the doctrine over the blended Capitalism that has been the basis of the Western space success.
And like the communist ideologues you will not accept facts (like SpaceX contractor status or the dependence of New Space on government contracting, that conflicts with your beliefs in libertarian economic philosophy. So any logical debate with you based on facts is as much a waste of time as debating with a communist over the role of corporations in economic development.
I stand by my predictions. When and IF Lynx flies it will be because of government funding covering a majority of its costs. You believe differently. In a year or so we will see who is right and who clearly understand the reality of financing space ventures.
You may now continue your ideological based arguments in response. I will not waste my time responding to them further. The future will prove who was right.
It’s Greason, not Gleason. You’d think that, of all the other things you get wrong, you could at least spell his name right.
Despite your equating my beliefs with communism (how bizarre!), my arguments are not ideologically based. They are fact based, whereas yours are based on wishful thinking. And you’re right on one thing (the only thing, as far as I can tell)–we will see in the fullness of time.
I’m not in the Space Industry. But… Keep the Shuttle moving beyond 2010.
Who cares if it’s 20 year old technology; it works, it’s real, and it’s all we have. And it is awesome! One flight a year per Orbiter beyond 2010 until there is a REAL replacement of some sort ready for Lift Off .Buming off other Countries isn’t what a “Super Power” does. Just think about the new Status the U.S. will have: Land of the Freeloader? Ouch! The Shuttle workers have dedicated 20 years plus to keep us up in Space and entertain the public. Don’t you think they are due a bit more respect than a pink slip? Train the Shuttle Workers to be the new CEV Workers. It’s that simple. Put them all in paid training during “the Gap.” with a couple of launches on the side. I’d much rather hire a Shuttle engineer to launch my new vehicle than an ITT grad.
Comments for this post are now closed.