Congress, NASA

COTS contradictions?

Mike Griffin has made it clear on a number of occasions that, while he is open to international collaboration in the exploration vision, he is not happy with the current state of affairs regarding US dependence on Russians for ISS access and resupply once the shuttle is retired.

“Do not confuse my desire for international collaboration for a willingness to rely on others for strategic capability,” he said in open remarks at a subcommittee hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee last week. Dependence on Soyuz “is not an option we would choose, but it is where we are today. In fact, we must seek an exception to the Iran Syria North Korea Nonproliferation Act because we have no immediate replacement for the shuttle and no other recourse if we wish to sustain the ISS.”

Given that statement, you would think that Griffin would be interested in accelerating domestic commercial options like COTS that would lessen or eliminate an reliance on the Russians. Yet, in his comments later in the hearing, he was not that interested in pursuing a crew option for COTS (also known as Capability D) on an accelerated schedule.

“Is COTS an answer in terms of beefing up COTS to take people up there, where we’d have our own kind of version of a Soyuz?” Sen. Barbara Mikulski, chair of the subcommittee, asked Griffin. “There’s a lot floating around that COTS could be the answer to the gap.”

After providing an overview of COTS, he said, “we are focusing initially on cargo because, I just want to be clear with everybody, we already have a mechanism for getting crews to the station with the Soyuz system, but unless we can bring some new commercial capabilities online, we really have no cargo resupply. So, actually, of the two, the most important COTS capability to me right now is cargo, and I must be honest about that.”

He added that he would “very much like to see” a COTS crew capability developed, but that he doubted that “even with their [the COTS companies’] best efforts, even if more money were provided, that COTS crew transportation capability will arrive in time to be available after the shuttle retires or even by the end of the current contract with Russia in 2012.

Mikulski then summarized that there was no “silver bullet” for solving the US government human space access gap once the shuttle is retired. “At the same time, sure, COTS has promise, but you [Griffin] want to make sure what is firmly in place is the cargo capability, but while they’re developing their technologies, of course, we would look forward to possibilities of adding a human element. But that’s an add-on to the mission. Do I have that right?”

“Yes, ma’am,” Griffin managed to get in before Mikulski started talking again.

“So the only prudent fiscal way to go,” she concluded, “is to accelerate Ares and Orion by two years and, at the same time, keep COTS on track so we have the cargo capability.”

“Ma’am, I think you have it perfectly,” Griffin said.

Mikulski then apologized for spending such a long time on the topic (which also included discussions of Soyuz purchases and accelerating Constellation), saying, “there are a lot of ideas in the ethers out here.”

Meanwhile, in another twist, at the same time that Griffin was testifying on the Senate side of Capitol Hill, Richard Gilbrech, NASA’s associate administrator for exploration, was telling a hearing of the space subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee that NASA was finishing up a study on accelerating the COTS crew capability, and would share the results with members of Congress once it is completed.

77 comments to COTS contradictions?

  • Hmm. Leadership and a unified strategy really is the most important thing that NASA needs at this point. There is only so much of that you can have in a presidential election year, but COTS seems like a straightforward enough thing to put your weight behind.

    On the other hand, Griffin didn’t say that he was against crewed COTS. He just made a vote of no confidence in SpaceX and Orbital or anyone else who is around when its time to pay for the crewed flight. It’s too bad. I think that SspaceX can do it. Why might Griffin think that they wouldn’t be able to pull it together?

    Maybe he is just covering his bases so congress doesn’t neglect to get the Soyuz flights lined up.

  • anonymous.space

    “After providing an overview of COTS, [Griffin] said, ‘we are focusing initially on cargo because, I just want to be clear with everybody, we already have a mechanism for getting crews to the station with the Soyuz system, but unless we can bring some new commercial capabilities online, we really have no cargo resupply. So, actually, of the two, the most important COTS capability to me right now is cargo, and I must be honest about that.'”

    This statement is completely and patently false. After Shuttle retires, there are THREE (3!) foreign systems providing ISS cargo, including the existing Russian Progress, the now-proven European Advanced Transfer Vehicle (ATV) and the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV).

    On top of that, NASA is also pursuing THREE (3!) domestic paths for ISS cargo, including Falcon 9/Dragon (COTS contractor Space-X), Taurus II/Cygnus (COTS contractor OSC), and SOMD’s near-term cargo resupply contract (which will probably result in an EELV contract).

    That’s SIX (6!) options, two of which already exist in a proven operational state, for ISS cargo.

    If there is a weak link in the ISS servicing plan, it is in crew transport, for which there is only ONE (1!) option, the Russian Soyuz system, in the period between when Shuttle retires in 2010 and before Ares I/Orion IOC in 2015. The real problem is not that we’ll be reliant on the Russians, but that Soyuz could have a bad day and strand a crew at ISS (bad for the crew) and/or leave ISS uncrewed (bad for ISS) for some period of time. Forget foreign policy — just from the point of view of operational risks, we (or the ISS partnership) arguably needs a crew transport backup to Soyuz ASAP.

    “[Griffin] added that he would ‘very much like to see’ a COTS crew capability developed, but that he doubted that ‘even with their [the COTS companies’] best efforts, even if more money were provided, that COTS crew transportation capability will arrive in time to be available after the shuttle retires or even by the end of the current contract with Russia in 2012.'”

    The issue is not the timing of a COTS crewed capability relative to Soyuz or Ares I/Orion. The issue is whether there is any backup to either Soyuz or Ares I/Orion for ISS crew transport. Soyuz is arguably the most reliable crew transport system in the world, but it has had bad days and could have another and go offline before Ares I/Orion comes online. And even if everything goes well technically (which it is not), Ares I/Orion has only a 65% probability of meeting its 2015 IOC within the existing budget. Worse, GAO released a report last week reiterating the likelihood (among other problems) that the long-lead J-2X upper stage engine development will require two additional years, putting Ares I IOC out in the 2017 timeframe. And even after that, Ares I/Orion will be a new system, and may well suffer infant mortality issues of its own.

    With all these risks, there is a very strong case for exercising COTS (or other, if they exist) crew transport options. It really doesn’t matter whether these options deliver in 2010, 2012, 2014, or 2016. For all intents and purposes, ISS crew transport is hanging by a single Soyuz thread during that whole timeframe. And if we can’t get crew to and from ISS, we risk losing crewmembers and/or the ISS itself.

    Progress and Soyuz saved the ISS after the Columbia accident. We should have learned from that experience to have a backup to Progress AND Soyuz. That’s the primary reason that NASA pursued COTS in the first place.

    Griffin’s focus on cargo and dismissal of crew transport is inexplicable given the two existing options and the four additional options being pursued for ISS cargo and the single-string nature of ISS crew transport after Shuttle retirement. I don’t know if Griffin has unlimited faith in Soyuz, doesn’t fully comprehend/appreciate the situation, or just doesn’t want competition for Ares I/Orion crew transport. But regardless of the reason, it’s a dangerous mis-ordering and neglect of priorities on Griffin’s part.

    “‘So the only prudent fiscal way to go,’ [Mikulski] concluded, ‘is to accelerate Ares and Orion by two years'”

    Even with a couple billion more dollars, this is highly unlikely to happen. More money will only shore up the iffy 65% probability of Ares I/Orion hitting its 2015 IOC. It will not accelerate the Ares I/Orion schedule — the testimony at last week’s House hearing attests to this.

    Better to put money on a backup system than flush it down the drain trying to accelerate an Ares I/Orion schedule that is very iffy.

    (Besides, Mikulski should want dollars spent in Maryland, which exercising more COTS options has a chance of doing through the use of the Wallops facility.)

    Of course, Mikulski’s chances of securing such funding, and actually directing to the human space flight program, are slim and verging on nil.

    FWIW…

  • Habitat Hermit

    A truly excellent comment anonymous.space although I don’t think Mikulski’s “conclusion” was anything but a request for clarification of Griffin’s opinion. I’d call it rope.

    About having multiple options for human-to-LEO transport let’s not forget t/Space and their CXV capsule. In deep sleep (as far as I know) but not gone.

  • Griffin’s focus on cargo and dismissal of crew transport is inexplicable

    No, you’ve explained it below.

    given the two existing options and the four additional options being pursued for ISS cargo and the single-string nature of ISS crew transport after Shuttle retirement. I don’t know if Griffin has unlimited faith in Soyuz, doesn’t fully comprehend/appreciate the situation, or just doesn’t want competition for Ares I/Orion crew transport.

    Bingo (emphasis mine).

  • Ray

    Jeff: “He added that he would “very much like to see” a COTS crew capability developed, but that he doubted that “even with their [the COTS companies’] best efforts, even if more money were provided, that COTS crew transportation capability will arrive in time to be available after the shuttle retires or even by the end of the current contract with Russia in 2012.”

    Griffin may be thinking about the INA when he focuses on this date, but it’s pretty irrelevant to the decision on whether or not NASA should be encouraging capability D through COTS or other mechanisms.

    One point is that the longer NASA waits to get around to funding that phase of COTS, the longer NASA will have to beg Congress for exceptions to the INA. A correlary is that if NASA had started funding capability D a couple years ago, Griffin might not be having this embarrassing conversation.

    Another point is that even after Ares/Orion are ready, capability D will be needed in some kind of economical form because Ares/Orion are going to be too expensive to service the ISS without sinking the NASA budget.

    Another is that, while Griffin may be specifically referring to the 2 existing funded COTS companies, there’s no reason why a COTS capability D phase would have to fund these particular companies, although of course they should be considered. If NASA isn’t convinced they would be ready or they’d have the finances, maybe some competitor with an existing launch vehicle would stand a better chance? Maybe a competitor with support from Bigelow and Space Florida would stand a better chance? If NASA thinks development of the full U.S. capability would be too risky, maybe some kind of hybrid U.S./foreign capability would be less risky – e.g. one where an existing foreign launch vehicle launches a new U.S. human space vehicle, or vice versa.

    Jeff: ““So the only prudent fiscal way to go,” she concluded, “is to accelerate Ares and Orion by two years and, at the same time, keep COTS on track so we have the cargo capability.””

    Keeping COTS cargo on track is fine. However, if funding is available to improve the situation, given a choice between trying to accelerate Ares/Orion and getting a COTS capability D in place, capability D is a much better choice for several reasons:

    1. It’s much more likely that it will be successful given X dollars. Changing the direction of the Ares/Orion supertanker is going to take a lot of effort. The COTS option, however, can be a lot more nimble and responsive to funding, since it doesn’t have to address the lunar/Mars capabilities, it doesn’t have to be oversized, it doesn’t have to have to be constrained to support specific old infrastructure and constituencies, it can use existing hardware, and so on.

    2. It can benefit from shared investment (e.g.: private, state incentives) and shared markets (e.g.: tourism).

    3. Even if Ares 1/Orion could be brought online sooner, the cost to supply ISS will be too great.

    4. From the point of view of national interest, it’s more important to have a commercial human space transportation system than a NASA space transportation system. It’s way more important to have the commercial system at all than to have the NASA system that’s coming anyway a bit earlier.

  • Researcher

    The need for a second crew option is all the more reason to keep the Shuttle flying until a NASA replacement is operational. Afterall what happens if Russia loses a Soyuz and grounds the system?

    In retrospect Shuttle retirement may be as bad an idea for ISS as the retirement of the Saturn IB was for Skylab Why don’t we learn from history?

  • “The need for a second crew option is all the more reason to keep the Shuttle flying until a NASA replacement is operational.”

    Among other issues, the problem with Shuttle as an alternative to Soyuz is its huge expense. At $4-5 billion per year, it’s almost third of NASA’s annual budget. That’s no backup capability — actually, it’s the budget for developing a couple new crewed capabilities on existing ELVs or in COTS.

    FWIW…

  • Researcher

    But how many COTS/Soyuz flights would it take to deliver the same amount of supplies and crew to the ISS? One Progress delivers about 2300 kg of cargo to the ISS per flight. A Shuttle delivers 23,000 kg of cargo. A Soyuz delivers one NASA astronaut as a passenger, the Shuttle 7 astronauts. (Yes, the Soyuz is a 3 person vehicle, but only one U.S. astronaut is allowed per flight…)

    It would take 7 Soyuz flights and 10 progress flights to deliver as much supplies and American astronauts as 1 Space Shuttle mission. It would take 28 Soyuz flights and 40 progress flights to equal the cargo/personnel of 4 Shuttle missions per year. Could the Russians even achieve that type of launch rate? Could the ISS even handle that many dockings each year?

    Really even with COTS and Jules Verne the ISS will be reduced to survival mode.

    You spend 100 Billion dollars to build a world class orbiting laboratory and then are not willing to provide the support you need to use it as a laboratory. This makes sense?

    And could the Progress/Soyuz add new modules like the Shuttle to enhance the ISS capability? (And aren’t there ISS modules that will never fly because of the 2010 retirement date?

    If you allow 50 million a Soyuz or Progress flights that is 3.5 billion USD a year, versus 4 billion USD for a Shuttle already existing. And to save that $500 million USD a yearyou basically trade thousands of gold collar U.S. jobs for thousands of Russian jobs using U.S. Tax payer dollars.

    Its just a NASA version of foreign out sourcing.

    No, it makes far more sense to use the Shuttle to support science on the ISS then scrape it and send those jobs to Russia.

  • Researcher

    This actually brings to mind a great bumper sticker for the Save the Shuttle campaign. “Stop NASA from sending U.S. engineering jobs to Russia.”

  • anonymous.space

    “It would take 7 Soyuz flights and 10 progress flights to deliver as much supplies and American astronauts as 1 Space Shuttle mission.”

    If we really wanted to replace Shuttle flights kilogram for kilogram, then a smaller number of ATVs and/or HTVs, with their ~8,000 kg payloads, would probably be used rather than a larger number of Progresses and their ~2,500 kg payloads.

    “You spend 100 Billion dollars to build a world class orbiting laboratory and then are not willing to provide the support you need to use it as a laboratory. This makes sense?”

    It depends on the costs, risks, and benefits.

    At $4-5 billion per year, keeping Shuttle operational another five years will cost $20-25 billion. If Ares I/Orion don’t deliver on time (high likelihood given their budget, schedule, and technical issues), keeping Shuttle operational another, say, ten years will cost $40-50 billion.

    On top of that, recertifying Shuttle for flight after 2010 (per the CAIB report) is estimated to cost in the neighborhood of $10 billion. So we’re talking about a total cost of $30-60 billion to keep Shuttle flying another five to ten years. That’s a 30-60% increase on top of the dollars already sunk into ISS development and deployment, and we havn’t even paid for any research, yet.

    Worse, continuing to fly Shuttle runs a substantial risk of another accident. 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). At a flight rate of four missions per year for five 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. At a flight rate of four missions per year for ten years, we’d run about a 66% (40-in-60 or 2-in-3) risk of another Challenger- or Columbia-type accident based on the demonstrated figures. Such an event would permanently ground the fleet (nevertheless leave enough orbiters to do the job), leaving the ISS and NASA in the lurch.

    And we’re still going to have to buy Soyuzes from the Russians because the Shuttle can’t provide the emergency egress capabilities that NASA is committed to provide to partners. Continuing Shuttle operations does not keep U.S. taxpayer dollars from going to Russia.

    And we’re still going to have to lay off at least some thousands of Shuttle workers when the Shuttle is retired five or ten years later. Even if a Shuttle-derived vehicle is the replacement, it won’t use the labor-intensive Shuttle orbiters (and probably SSMEs, too.). Those jobs are going to go away at some point, it’s just a question of when. Extending Shuttle operations only defers, but does not eliminate, those job losses.

    You’re absolutely right that retaining Shuttle will preserve Shuttle jobs for some time. But that’s about the only benefit. We’ll still have to pay the Russians in the interim, and we’ll still have to lay off Shuttle workers at the end of that period. And we’ll spend tens of billions of taxpayer dollars for the privilege, deferring investment in replacement systems, and we’ll run the risk of another Shuttle accident that leaves the ISS and NASA up the creek without a paddle.

    Not a good deal, at least in my opinion. Better to take our medicine now and spend those dollars developing new capabilities that allow the ISS to be serviced affordably, that allow the U.S. to forgo Russian payments, and that don’t run such a substantial risk of leaving the program without flight capabilities

    “No, it makes far more sense to use the Shuttle to support science on the ISS”

    If microgravity research, and not Shuttle jobs, is the real concern, then the advisable course of action would be to diversify the platforms on which that research can be performed so that it is not beholden to, and can be conducted independently of, the hard-to-access, very expensive, and always delayed and overrunning ISS. Between Bigelow, COTS, new microsatellites, older free-flyer proposals, and commercial suborbital vehicles, there’s gobs of affordable opportunities to get researchers access to microgravity environments. The key would be restoring the microgravity research budget that Griffin nixed to pay for Ares I/Orion, and then allowing that research community to decide what platforms it wants to pursue, rather than directing all microgravity research onto the ISS.

    FWIW…

  • GM

    1. ATV, HTV and Progress do not satisfy US requirements nor obligations for cargo
    2 “NASA is also pursuing THREE (3!) domestic paths for ISS cargo, including Falcon 9/Dragon (COTS contractor Space-X), Taurus II/Cygnus (COTS contractor OSC), and SOMD’s near-term cargo resupply contract (which will probably result in an EELV contract).”

    incorrect. CRS is the only domestic path. COTS I is only demo flights and not cargo is delivered. Spacex and OSC will have to compete to be on the CRS contract. Also assuming only an EELV solution will win is not based on any logic because:
    a. there can be multiple contracts
    b. An EELV with TBD spacecraft still has to do a self funded demo
    b. EELV costs along with the TBD spacecraft is going to be not competitive.

  • Dave Huntsman

    GM –
    “1. ATV, HTV and Progress do not satisfy US requirements nor obligations for cargo”

    Specify, please.

  • anonymous.space

    “incorrect. CRS is the only domestic path.”

    My earlier post was counting vehicles, not procurements. In terms of vehicles, there are three domestic paths: Falcon 9/Dragon, Taurus II/Cygnus, and EELV with an HTV/ATV/other in-space stage.

    “Also assuming only an EELV solution will win is not based on any logic because:
    a. there can be multiple contracts”

    There is no such assumption in my earlier post, only the prediction that CRS will “probably result in an EELV contract”, especially for near-term flights in 2010-11.

    That doesn’t preclude other winners.

    “b. An EELV with TBD spacecraft still has to do a self funded demo”

    Depends on the in-space stage. Not all will be unflown by 2010. ATV is now proven and HTV is scheduled to fly in 2009.

    “b. [sic] EELV costs along with the TBD spacecraft is going to be not competitive.”

    Depends on the competition. If no other competitor can deliver by 2010 (likely), then EELV with HTV or ATV is the default position for the first award(s)/flight(s).

    I’m pulling for COTS and black horses, too, but we have to be realistic about the 2010 need date.

    FWIW…

  • spazimodo

    It seems to me that too many people are looking for the holy grail of carrying a lot of people to space. It would be much simpler to just take the exact mold lines of the Apollo capsule and Service module, outfit them with modern materials, avionics, and propulsion, and you would end up with a commercial system far sooner than what people are doing right now.

  • Spazimodo, I believe that was pretty much the original version of the VSE. Had we stuck with that, we’d have been a lot closer to the moon today.

    — Donald

  • Spazimodo, I believe that was pretty much the original version of the VSE. Had we stuck with that, we’d have been a lot closer to the moon today.

    No, not really. The original version of the VSE didn’t specify crew size. Steidle was going to select two contractors and have a prototype fly off (which would have occurred by now on the planned schedule). Griffin killed that because it would have taken too long…

  • GM,
    Could you clarify this:
    “1. ATV, HTV and Progress do not satisfy US requirements nor obligations for cargo”

    Is this due to technical limitations? Ie is there some sort of cargo the US has to ship that can’t fly on one of those, or is it political?

    I haven’t recently seen much of a breakdown on what the US obligations and requirements are for cargo delivery to ISS. If you could comment (or suggest some urls for research, that would be helpful).

    ~Jon

  • Anon

    The big question is what do you do at the end of the ISS service life? How would you use Soyuz or the CEV or even COTS to diassemble and safely deorbit ISS? Or do you just do one big deorbit burn and hope for the best?

    I think 10 years from now space experts like those here arguing to kill the Shuttle will argue that the emotionally driven decision to kill the Shuttle was a huge mistake, on the same level as abandoning Apollo to build it. They will mourn for the science lost on the ISS as a result and for the lack of an option for safely deorbiting the ISS. Just to create a bunch of “new space” jobs and support the Russian space industry. They will talk of the good old days when real space ships like the Shuttle were available for space missions.

    I seem to recall the same kind of arguments in favor of an engineer like Griffin replacing O’Keefe as the head of NASA a couple of year ago. Now most seem to be wishing that O’Keefe stayed and that NASA stayed on the path to Shuttle replacement he was following. Be careful what you wish for. You might get it and regret it.

  • me

    There is no need to disassemble the ISS. By using Progress spacecraft and the SM’s own engine (with the FGB propellant tanks), the it can be deorbited. Anyways, why would Soyuz or the CEV or even COTS be needed to disassemble it? You must be thinking Shuttle paradigm. Heck, space stations (see Mir) could be built without a shuttle. The ISS could have been built to be assembled like Mir but it was designed to give the shuttle a job. The shuttle is not a real “space ship”, it was a launch vehicle. It tried to do too much with too little. 10 years from now space experts will wonder why the shuttle wasn’t killed earlier.

  • me

    Each ISS partner is obligated to provide X amount of cargo to the station each year. X varies according to each partner. ATV, HTV and Progress are used to satisfy ESA, JAXA and RSA requirements and some US. The US uses the shuttle and will use CRS. The US obligated for around 20 tonnes a year I believe.

  • HR

    ‘New guy asking those who’ve thought through our Iraq-in-space a lot longer. Sure, I’d like to land on Mars someday, and the Moon is a useful step within limits, but I think maintaining America’s manned space flight capability in and of itself should come first. I’m not sure it’s wise to decide we’ll just rely on other countries, friendly or not, or on Dextres.

    Barring “COTS” CEVs, Orion represents our future manned space capability, whatever the destination. Yet Griffen even now bristles at putting it on a Titan or Delta, supposedly because they can’t reach the Moon, and perhaps they can’t. So what? With its cost/schedule now becoming apparent, forget even LEO: NASA might well ride Ares into a black hole, taking robotic interplanetary research, earth observation, and aeronautics with it.

    Other curious things: even if on schedule, Ares would come too late to do the ISS much good. I also realize big aerospace mans much of Bush’s cabinet; but if we had to downsize to Orion alone, even a smaller one, his friends in Boeing and LM could still make bank putting it on another vehicle. Further, although Bush is crazy enough to think his mandate would actually survive multiple administrations, I have to think a lot of people seriously didn’t back in ’04.

    Which begs the question, what is so special about Ares? To whom or what else is Bush and Griffen so beholden? Might Constellation not have to do so much with any exploration, as with Bush’s pet project, BMD? After all, by its size, Ares V could put a Death Star in LEO.

    – HR

    Since the ISS goes lights-out in 2016, did Bush think we needed a greater mandate to justify manned capability? Did he really believe both Moon and Mars were going to survive multiple administrations?

    Why does Griffen bristle at the suggestion of going to something other than Ares? He says a Titan V won’t cut it because it can’t get us to the moon, only LEO. Well forget LEO

    someday, but not at the cost of losing American manned spaceflight capability. It seems to me,

    , the Mars Rovers, Earth atmo/exoatmospheric research,

    Orion’s slipping to 2015, possibly 2017 as the GAO implies. ISS goes lights-out 2016, leaving no obvious project for American astronauts to work on. Is this why Bush and Griffin – or someone – suddenly decided we needed to go to the moon and Mars, to provide a greater justification for manned flight? Isn’t the

  • I also realize big aerospace mans much of Bush’s cabinet;

    You do?

    Surely, then, you can provide some examples, because I sure don’t realize that.

  • Question to consider: why would we want to de-orbit the Space Station at all? As many point out, there are many disadvantages to the way the ISS was built, but it seems to me that the principle advantage of it’s modularity is that it is, well, modular. When something wears out, de-orbit that and replace it with something else. Other than the cross-truss, I can’t think off the top of my head of any core structure that cannot be changed out (if I’m wrong, please feel free to suggest others).

    Historically, outposts like the ISS tend to have tremendous inertia, economic, political, and cultural. The countries that establish them are very reluctant to let them go. (Recall how much pressure it took to get Russia to drop Mir; and note the existance of similar resistance to change in Texas and Florida, and elsewhere.)

    I would not be surprised — and this is a prediction — if there were some structure recognizably directly descendant from the ISS (even if it doesn’t contain many, or any, of the current components) in orbit on the day I die.

    — Donald

  • GM

    “Other than the cross-truss, I can’t think off the top of my head of any core structure that cannot be changed out (if I’m wrong, please feel free to suggest others).”

    The following can’t be switched out:
    Node 1, Node 2, the Lab*, Z1 truss, FGB, SM and the main truss (except the outer segments) . Basically the main core of the station.
    Why?
    1. What “holds the station together” while the piece is removed?
    2. There are many interconnections that can’t be disconnected.
    a. Station power goes from the lab to the partners (including stay alive)
    B. same goes for cooling and ECS.
    3, The station would have no propulsion without the SM. The FGB was the active spacecraft during SM docking and rendezvous. It is not capable of performing the same task in the current ISS configuration.
    4. The Lab is where all the ISS Avionics are. No control of the ISS systems (solar arrays, CMG’s, comm) is possible

    * I don’t use the PR names

  • GM: Node 1, Node 2, the Lab*, Z1 truss, FGB, SM

    Why not? These are docked elements, are they not? Was NASA stupid enough to use a docking mechanism that cannot be undocked?

    What “holds the station together” while the piece is removed?

    Un-dock one element, dock it somewhere else, then remove the element that needs replacing, replace it, re-dock the “outer” element. And, so on. Or, why will this not work?

    There are many interconnections that can’t be disconnected.

    Like? Why not cut them and replace the connection with a new one. The astronauts are stringing many electrical and fluid connections (especially the former) outside of modules already.

    Station power goes from the lab to the partners (including stay alive)

    Re-route, as above.

    The station would have no propulsion without the SM. The FGB was the active spacecraft during SM docking and rendezvous. It is not capable of performing the same task in the current ISS configuration.

    Dock a new propulsion module.

    The Lab is where all the ISS Avionics are. No control of the ISS systems (solar arrays, CMG’s, comm) is possible

    Plan now for a replacement lab.

    — Donald

  • Vladislaw

    The longer NASA can drag out getting the ARES/orion operational the more likely the private sector will put something up. The longer NASA can forego ungrading/supporting the ISS the more likely Bigelow will get something operational in space.

    Personally, I am to the point, I hope Griffen can increase the gap to 10 years, maybe I should vote for Obama and just let the market place take care of it and stop worrying about NASA and manned flight.

  • Habitat Hermit

    I think you’re right about the longevity of the ISS Donald. And even if the ISS is abandoned some of the elements like the trusses, CMGs, the Canada-arm and so on (probably a very long list of items and components) could be used with otherwise new stations as long as they’re in working order. Dead modules could even be used as dumb mass for shielding or as counterweights in rotating assemblies.

    Even if it is financially sensible to disband the ISS (and I’m not at all convinced that’s the case) de-orbiting it is not. In my opinion the only reason for a de-orbit should be safety concerns (uncontrollable breakup of a damaged and/or abandoned station, uncontrollable orbit decay, or debris issues).

    Some of the modules were moved around during construction.of the ISS, would be strange if most of them didn’t have that ability.

  • GM

    All your points incorrect.

    “GM: Node 1, Node 2, the Lab*, Z1 truss, FGB, SM

    Why not? These are docked elements, are they not? Was NASA stupid enough to use a docking mechanism that cannot be undocked? ”

    If you are paying attention instead of making smart ass comments, you would know that a CBM or PMA can be disconnected. But that is not the issue. The truss to lab is a permanent connection (it is not a “docking” mechanism)

    “What “holds the station together” while the piece is removed?

    Un-dock one element, dock it somewhere else, then remove the element that needs replacing, replace it, re-dock the “outer” element. And, so on. Or, why will this not work?”

    That is not viable. like I said the “what holds the station together” while the piece is removed? The ISS is like a moving train. A car in the middle of the train can’t be removed while it is moving. Once the car is disconnected the train is no longer. Also, power, and air for the brakes is no longer available to the aft part of the train. see below.

    There are many interconnections that can’t be disconnected.

    “Like? ”

    See my A &B response above

    “Why not cut them and replace the connection with a new one. The astronauts are stringing many electrical and fluid connections (especially the former) outside of modules already.”

    See train analogy. Cutting the lines kills utilities to the remaining modules

    “Re-route, as above.”

    Not possible, most utilities go thru the modules. The astronauts just added jumpers

    “Dock a new propulsion module.”

    Not viable. You wanted to replace modules. . Adding a new propulsion module does not replace the SM

    “The Lab is where all the ISS Avionics are. No control of the ISS systems (solar arrays, CMG’s, comm) is possible

    Plan now for a replacement lab.”

    First of all, with what money? There are no replacements planned for the ISS. Anyways, it still doesn’t matter if there is another lab, It is not viable
    Replacing it is just like doing a brain, lung, and heart transplant on a awake and moving patient (also see train analogy). (also see first point).
    ISS was modular for construction. It was never intended to be maintained with replacement modules

  • GM

    As for the longevity of the ISS, once the US pulls out, the ISS is dead. No US, no ISS.
    1. US (Boeing and/or NASA) is needed for sustaining engineering
    2 JSC and TDRSS are needed for control of the USOS
    3. US is liable for the disposal of the USOS.
    4. Hence controlled deorbit is only option

  • GM, I think you are unnecessarily pessimistic, and that you underestimate human inventiveness when it comes to engineering — look at the history of Mir — but you are correct that I do not have the knowledge to debate you on this.

    — Donald

  • Vladislaw

    According to Robert Bigelow’s last published business plan, he calls for having two space stations in orbit by 2015. Each station will be comprised of one sundancer module and two BA 330 modules, with a total manned compliment of 24-36 people for both stations at any one time. He plans on leasing a BA 330 for 88 million a year and half of module for 54 million a year. If he does manage to maintain this schedule by 2016 as the ISS is decommissioned, do you HONESTLY believe NASA will get 3 BILLION a year to run the ISS PLUS transportation costs if they use the ARES/Orion when they can get over 300 cubic meters of space for 88 million a year?

    If Space X does get the Block D for cots and achieves manned flight with the dragon it will be in the neighborhood of 400 million a year to run a 6 person crew in space, year around, at a Bigelow station swapped out every six months. There is no way NASA can even come close to achieving these costs and if they try and recommend ANY more support for the ISS after 2016 congress would go through the roof.

  • reader

    Donald, NASA just said the delivering the AMS on anything else than Shuttle is “unfeasible”, so while you are correct that in general engineers are amazingly inventive, that does not necessarily apply to 21st century NASA .

  • GM

    “NASA just said the delivering the AMS on anything else than Shuttle is “unfeasible”, so while you are correct that in general engineers are amazingly inventive, that does not necessarily apply to 21st century NASA .”

    That wasn’t an engineering assessment but a financial one. AMS can go on an ELV.

  • Habitat Hermit

    When talking about BA modules remember that they don’t come with all that much innards so depending on what you want to put inside them you can increase that price (and of course when you leave you’ll probably have to take it all away too).

    Even if GM is correct (I don’t think so) there are valuable parts that can be removed from the ISS and put to good use on other stations, private or not.

    The trusses are worth an awful lot and can be put to excellent use for, as an example, a fairly high capability yet straightforward station with a rotating segment (tethers complicate things to the point that if one has a choice one doesn’t use them). If one wants KISS artificial gravity one puts those trusses to good use with some minor modifications. Physically severing the trusses from the modules shouldn’t be too hard even if they were welded together (which they’re not), especially if one doesn’t have to worry about the modules themselves.

    I really don’t get why so many loathe the ISS to the point of wanting it gone. I understand the feeling of it not being worth the cost but that cost didn’t disappear into space and most of it has circled through the economy many times over by now. In addition I don’t get the talk about “no science”, the ISS itself and the passengers on it is the main science and considering how nothing comparable exists it is unique (and thus arguably priceless).

    I’m a big fan of Bigelow Aerospace but that doesn’t mean the ISS, and before it Mir, and before that Skylab, were somehow pure waste. Hell without the ISS there would not even be any BA modules since its conception was as NASA technology aimed at ISS use. I know BA has made an awful lot of progress with the stuff they got from NASA but that doesn’t mean they got squat at the outset.

  • GM

    ISS components are like LEGO’s, they go together with each other but they don’t work with Tinkertoys or Duplo’s

    The ISS truss is not a standalone structure, nor are the other pieces. The truss has no propulsion, no attitude control, no control avionics, power conditioners, etc It can’t exist apart from the USOS.

    IF the ISS core (the USOS) were to be taken apart, it would have to be done in reverse order (the train analogy).

    Also since use of the hardware in another station is close to nil. the use in private stations would be even less due to Boeing’s involvement

  • Vladislaw

    I do not think the ISS is a waste, I only offered up my opinion about life AFTER the ISS. If you reveiw BOTH the Russian and Nasa websites and look at the lists of completed science experiments since the start of the ISS you will find it is a pretty HUGE list, even if ALL the POSSIBLE experiments were not completed. With the recent addition of the Columbus/Jules Verne and the Kibo/HTV you are going to see a doubling of experiments.

    Granted some of the experiments WILL be done again, but if you follow a science path in school you will repeat the same experiments from high school through college. You will see the same thing start happening more and more on the ISS as room increases and each country focuses on their unique interests and start creating their own baselines.

    Personally, I think the japanese will be the real surprise with bringing something to the commerical marketplace.

    I agree that some elements can be salvaged from the ISS, Russia has hinted before at having their own MIR type station again rather then sharing and I would not put it past them to salvage what they can for a future project. I know they were really burned that they couldnt keep sending tourists to the ISS.

    I think that when the 2016 timeframe approaches NASA would rather drop the ISS into the ocean then let the Russians, japanese and Europeans have it, or auction it off as government surplus.

    But I still believe that if Bigelow/SpaceX is up and running by 2016 NASA will have a pretty tough sell to congress on having their own station in LEO when leasing will be so much cheaper in the short run and beable to keep a LEO long duration program active (6 months plus).

    The russians have been after NASA for a while to increase it to 9-10 months per mission rather then the current 6 months. To either lower their costs and open up more slots for tourists or build up more man hours in space. NASA could adopt that mission path after 2016 for the Mars build up and start building longer durations on bigelow stations reducing costs even more.

    Nasa had some blurb before relative to Bigelow, to the effect that, if Bigelow adds this or that NASA would consider funding it or adding that to the lease for off the shelf test equipment et cetera. Time will tell.

  • Vladislaw: I hope all of that happens, but they are very, very big ifs, especially collectively. Mr. Biglow has no demonstrated market and it remains to be seen if he can obtain transportation at low enough a cost to find one. SpaceX, while I have great admiration for what they are attempting to do and I hope with all my heart that they succeed, have yet to achieve a fully successful flight.

    In any case, neither of these organizations really change my argument. They are being financed by extremely wealthy individuals for essentially ideological reasons and thus do not need a market, at least not yet. At least in a financial sense, they are behaving like a government — they are doing something that makes no sense to their own pocketbook because they feel that for “higher” reasons it is the right thing to do.

    _If_ and when they succeed, I will change my tune, at least to the extent of arguing that the ISS is no longer needed, it’s time to strip off anything useful, and abandon the rest. That time is not yet here.

    Reader: Unfortunately, you have a valid point.

    Habitat Hermit: Now, that’s the kind of thinking I was hoping for. Good for you!

    I really don’t get why so many loathe the ISS to the point of wanting it gone.

    It has to do with money and ideology, respectively. Impatient scientists who was quick and dirty results during their lifetimes, and don’t really care about the long-term, resent the money that could be used on their projects. (The probable fact that it wouldn’t be, if it weren’t being used on the ISS, seems to escape them.) The other group are people who willfully see only the entrepreneurial half of the American success story and who want to pretend that those entrepreneurs do not ride on top of a lot of government R&D and projects — the people who think the Internet was created solely by the likes of Steve Jobs. Nothing you say will bring these people back into the real world. They know the answer and are not amenable to anything that does not fit into their already established image of the world.

    — Donald

  • Habitat Hermit

    GM I don’t know what you’re referring to with the Lego analogy since you’ve yourself stated the most common berthing mechanisms (bad pun) can disconnect (and probably the Russian ones can as well). Some of the truss-to-module connections also use those berthing mechanisms (I know at least Z1 does –a PCBM on the truss). I don’t believe anyone here thinks on can let’s say connect an ACBM to an APAS if that was your point, it obviously needs to be connections that fit.

    Now that this topic has sunk in a bit I remember that the trusses have been moved around from one location to another as the ISS evolved so I doubt it’s somehow impossible to do that again. And if they have a fitting receptacle (including any resources needed) it shouldn’t be any more difficult to move them to something else than the ISS itself.

    No one has said they’re planning to use any truss segments completely on their own connected to nothing at all, don’t know where you get that from. It’s not like a CMG or Canada-arm floating on its own in space makes any sense either; they would of course all be connected to a new host providing any resources they need.

    You might be right about the core central modules and either way they would be tricky but even so the fact remains that an awful lot can be done; there is a lot of flexibility for future changes for whatever reason. The more I think it over the more convinced I am of the correctness of Donald’s view on this.

    Your last paragraph didn’t make any sense to me at all, not sure what you’re getting at but all of this is largely hypothetical for now anyway and the ISS might even last in its current configuration so long as to make it all moot (about fifteen years should hopefully do the trick, at that point deorbiting might have become the exception rather than the norm).

  • me

    “me of the truss-to-module connections also use those berthing mechanisms (I know at least Z1 does –a PCBM on the truss).”

    That is the only one and the Z1 “truss” is separate from the rest of the main truss. The main truss has a specialized connection to the lab to anchor it.

    “Now that this topic has sunk in a bit I remember that the trusses have been moved around from one location to another as the ISS evolved so I doubt it’s somehow impossible to do that again.”

    It was the P6 truss and it was specially modified to do such a thing. It is very different from S6 on the opposite side.

    “here is a lot of flexibility for future changes for whatever reason.”

    Incorrect, my point is that there is little or no flexibility

    “SS might even last in its current configuration so long as to make it all moot (about fifteen years should hopefully do the trick, at that point deorbiting might have become the exception rather than the norm).”

    Iss will be long gone by then and deorbiting will still be the norm because LEO flight rates will still be low. (GTO and polar will still dominate)

  • Habitat Hermit

    You wouldn’t happen to be Anon as well would you? Either way you plainly just don’t want to get the point even when you corroborate it yourself.

  • Habitat Hermit, in reading your response, it occured to me that even if the current modules will not directly dock to anything but their current docking port — which strikes me as extremely improbable, even for NASA — the solution is to use a new module with the required docking ports at each end, respectively.

    — Donald

  • GM

    “You wouldn’t happen to be Anon as well would you? Either way you plainly just don’t want to get the point even when you corroborate it yourself.”

    The point is that the ISS hardware can’t be used in other stations, because it can’t be taken apart other than in reverse order and the truss and core can’t exist apart from each other

  • Anon

    Without the Shuttle flying the ISS will dependent on the Soyuz. If the Soyuz is ever grounded, and the ISS demanned asa result, the ISS will be finished as it is not designed for operation without a crew. The question is when will the law of averages catch up with the Soyuz?

  • Anon: The Russians see things a little differently than we do, and I doubt they will ground the Soyuz for years at a time.

    — Donald

  • Anon

    Donald,

    It wouldn’t take years. Just a few months without a crew would be enough to doom the ISS.

  • Chris In A Strange Land

    The Soyuz capsule only has a ~180 day shelf life. If there is even a single failed soyuz launch the current crew will have to abandon the station before their lifeboat is useless.

  • Habitat Hermit

    The current Soyuz TMA can be operated automatically or from the ground, no crew needed and thus one could launch just to play the odds of reaching orbit and providing a replacement return craft (and one might as well stock it with expendables). Such launch gambles (would one get away with calling it Russian roulette? ^_^ Perhaps a bit too machismo for general consumption) could be done more than once & overlapping to provide enough time for solving whatever happened.

    Soyuz TMAT is in the works by the way and might be available soon, it’s meant to be able to stay for a year. Would be strange if it didn’t have the auto and ground control capabilities of TMA.

    I’m sure one could fit them on other launchers too and do that fairly fast (at least Ariane). Lots of options would come crawling out of the woodwork. I’m convinced that at the very least the Japanese would go to truly extreme lengths to save Kibo (hope).

  • Anon: It wouldn’t take years. Just a few months without a crew would be enough to doom the ISS.

    Would you (and / or GM) be willing to quantify that for us? What do you think would limit the survival of the ISS without a crew? I mean this question quite seriously.

    Thanks!

    — Donald

  • Vladislaw

    “Vladislaw: I hope all of that happens, but they are very, very big ifs, especially collectively. Mr. Biglow has no demonstrated market and it remains to be seen if he can obtain transportation at low enough a cost to find one.”

    Actually, Bigelow DOES have a demonstrated market, the russians sending tourists to the ISS at 20-30 million a pop for a week/ten days. The Foltron report is also the data used in all the current business plans, it showed there WAS a market for LEO tourism at just about EVERY price point. From a suborbital hop to a LEO orbital stay, to a longer term stay in a station.

    It also shows SpaceX what the american government is willing to pay an outside provider for a manned flight to the ISS, 41 million a seat JUST for the ride to the ISS and not even providing the week of consumables that russia provides the tourists they sent there.

    True there as been no actual manned anything from either of them, BUT we are talking about the 2016 timeframe, EIGHT YEARS from now, I can not even in my most negative timeline see it taking eight more years for space X to get a manned launched or it taking eight more years for Bigelow to get the sundancer module launched.

    Also in that same eight year time line I can not imagine ULA sitting still and not going ahead with man rating at the very least the atlas 401, everything I have seen so far leads me to believe they are in the process of getting it man rated for some kind of capsule. When bigelow started waving his checkbook with that almost BILLION dollar launch contract and the MOU he signed with ULA to me suggests that if Space X does not achieved manned flight fast enough ULA will grab it.

  • Vladislaw

    Donald, did you read this doc. from ULA?

    “The flexibility inherent in the Atlas and Delta families of launch vehicles ensure compatibility with the majority of existing and proposed transfer vehicles including: Progress, Soyuz, ATV, HTV, ARCTUS, DreamChaserTM, Dragon, and others, Figure 3. Depending on transfer vehicle capability, NASA can tailor the delivered payload through the addition of SRB’s or RL10’s. The combination of a NASA defined transfer vehicle and ULA’s launch services can provide ISS cargo services at very competitive prices, Figure 4.

    http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications/ULA/ISS%20Cargo%20RFI%20Final%2009062007.pdf

    So ULA is suggesting here if NASA would be willing to buy a ton of launches giving ULA economy of scale they will launch ANYTHING.

    “ULA is working closely with SpaceDev to investigate the compatibility of flying the DreamChaserTM on an Atlas. As a lifting body, the DreamChaserTM provides unique challenges to integrate on an existing launch vehicle, including loads, controllability, and performance, in addition to the human-rating considerations. Our initial studies have
    leveraged the considerable experience gained during NASA’s Orbital Space Plane (OSP) Program that baselined EELVs for launch of numerous OSP configurations, including similar lifting body concepts. This provided an excellent baseline from which we conducted numerous Trade Studies focused on risk reduction and design integration to meet an ILC of 2011. The initial studies have indicated that the risks associated with
    integrating the DreamChaserTM on an Atlas are manageable and can be accomplished.”

    I believe that if Space X fails, and even if they succeed, ULA is going to go after those same markets in cargo and manned flight.

  • Habitat Hermit

    Nice link and quote Vladislaw, thanks.

  • anon

    Donald,

    Basically NASA researched the issue just before Columbia when Russia was threatening to stop Soyuz flights due to budget issues and found that if the Shuttle was to make visits every couple months then the odds were good the early configuration of the ISS could last a least a year without a crew. James Oberg reports on the result of the study here.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078023/

    However without the Shuttle as back-up the probably of the lost of the ISS increases greatly as noted in a 2004 NASA Study reported by Florida Today when NASA was considering taking the crew off because of a lack of capacity to support the ISS.

    http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ft_station_disaster_040607.html

    The basic problem is the ISS is a very complex piece of machinery with many failure modes. Many are able to be fixed if humans are available to react quickly. But with no crew on board a problem could quickly spiral into a situation where control of the ISS is lost or the ISS is no longer able to be inhabited. So its basically a form of Russian Roulette when you take the crew off. You may go months or a year without a problem. Or you might have one that requires fixing quickly. Having the Shuttle available for flights every two to three months, with an option for a rapid launch if needed, cuts the risk because the crew is able to perform safety checks and preventive maintenance. And perhaps return quickly to the station to do repairs.

    Needless to say, as the ISS ages and given its increased complexity with the new modules added the risks of a major problem while uncrewed increases. But just ask yourself. How many problems has it had in the last 8 years that were contained because the crew was on board to make an emergency repair? And how many of those would have spiral into a situation where the station would have been lost?

    Also a related problem is that the limited cargo capacity of the Soyuz/Progress limits the types of replacement components that could be sent to the station. The ATV should help, but is still not a capable as the Shuttle for repairing the ISS. Again its Russian Roulette.

    The harsh reality is that the ISS was designed to be built and serviced by the Shuttle. Taking the Shuttle out of the mix creates additional risks for ISS operation. NASA needs to consider these risks as well as the risks of flying additional Shuttle flights before repeating the mistake of Apollo/Skylab.

  • Vadislaw: Bigelow DOES have a demonstrated market, the russians sending tourists to the ISS at 20-30 million a pop for a week/ten days.

    You’ve actually proved my point. Without the ISS, this market would not be proven and Mr. Bigelow, SpaceX, OSC, et al, would not be able to use the demonstrated fact of space tourism as part of their business plans. I do not disagree that private markets should displace the Space Station, but we are not quite there yet, and I’d rather keep the government market in place until it _is_ displaced than let it go too soon and end up with nothing.

    So ULA is suggesting here if NASA would be willing to buy a ton of launches giving ULA economy of scale they will launch ANYTHING.

    Again, this proves my case. If the government provides an initial market, ULA will invest money in their vehicle to launch other spacecraft. They’ve made it very clear in your quoted statements that they will not risk that money on their own. (Boeing won’t even go as far as Lockheed Martin already has.) Without the Space Station, NASA would have no reason to consider buying “a ton of launchers.” With the Space Station, they might — though right now, SpaceX and OSC probably have the best hand to get those launches.

    It is my hope that once NASA establishes a lunar base (with the VSE, ESAS, or anything else), we will see a similar outpouring of interest in commercial supply for that base, and additional commercial bases. But, everything in the history of LEO development (or lack thereof) in the past three decades implies to me that little will happen until the government establishes that initial market. Believe me, I would love to be proven wrong in this — but the crucial fact is that I haven’t been, at least not yet. Your suggestion that I might be in just a few years does not change that fact.

    Anon, I don’t disagree with your analysis. However, the Shuttle is too dangerous and too expensive to continue flying. If we keep flying the Shuttle, we cannot afford to do anything _but_ support the Space Station, and maybe not even that; and even then, when we lose the next Shuttle (which we will) we’ll be where we are now but without a planned and orderly shut-down. Even if the Space Station is the only thing you consider, we would be far better off cancelling the Shuttle as soon as the last module is launched, adapting the EELVs to launch the spare parts and human spacecraft (per Vladislaw, above), and / or greatly increasing the subsidies to SpaceX to develop their human vehicle.

    The Shuttle is a dead end that, if we continue it, will almost certainly mean the end of the government-supported human space program, either by losing another vehicle while delaying its replacement, and / or by guaranteeing we do not have the financial resources move beyond the Space Station. I would rather gamble the Space Station’s human support for a hopefully short window on the Soyuz, than have that outcome.

    — Donald

  • Vladislaw

    Come on now Donald, that is NOT what you said, you said: “Mr. Biglow has no demonstrated market ” You can not then turn that around to say your point was proven. You stated bigelow has no demonstrated market. As far as the ISS, the russians were already selling slots to the MIR station, so it was demonstrated BEFORE the ISS was even started.

    “Again, this proves my case. If the government provides an initial market, ULA will invest money in their vehicle to launch other spacecraft.”

    No this does not, because if you read through that document you will find a couple instances were ULA spent their own dime on studies for compability studies, e.g. dreamchaser. The point was that there is plenty of cargo launch capability and ULA wanted to lock it ALL up with that document, ULA was trying to lock up ALL the cargo and most mission launches which would have not helped competition regardless if ULA said their plan would enable it.

    The foltron report showed that at all price points, at all stages of space flight, they projected there WAS a market for the services. Granted all aspects of flight had not actually been tested in the market place but I would contend that Virgin getting MILLIONS in deposits for FUTURE flights once again DEMONSTRATES that their is a market for suborbital flights, and MIR/ISS demonstrated there was a market for a stay in LEO. I would imagine if russia offered a 3 day orbital “pop and drop” without an ISS visit they could sell that too.

    That document by ULA was a “RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES” they were not actually trying to show anything that they could launch, only that they could achieve a better economy of scale IF nasa decided to use a SINGLE launch provider with a LONG TERM contract for basically ALL launches NOT just ISS, but science missions as well and then nasa could toss a bone here and there to the “competition”.

  • Vladislaw

    “But, everything in the history of LEO development (or lack thereof) in the past three decades implies to me that little will happen until the government establishes that initial market. ”

    Actually the IS NOT a history of commerical manned LEO development because the government banned commerical manned activities, NASA had and maintained a lock on ALL aspects of manned flight. Look how NASA responded to TITO, nasa has NEVER wanted the competition, EVER. Only with the space act was manned flight ALLOWED to take place. AGAIN I contend that if the military ( who has wanted suborbital and orbital space planes since the 50’s and have always been blocked in congress from getting them and having “weapons in space” ) said “Suborbital flight poses a threat to national security” suborbital tourism WOULD NOT be happening. The military greenlighted suborbital tourism for ONE REASON, because there is NOTHING a civilian can have that the military can not. Once suborbital tourism is no longer considered something new, the miltary can order suborbital planes and no one will think twice about it because civilians are already doing it, it is no big deal if the military does.

    Burt Rutan would NOT have been able to fly SS1 WITHOUT a greenlight from the government. NO ONE could because no one can just start launching rockets, not even the astronaut farmer.

  • Vadislaw: “Mr. Biglow has no demonstrated market ” You can not then turn that around to say your point was proven. You stated bigelow has no demonstrated market. As far as the ISS, the russians were already selling slots to the MIR station, so it was demonstrated BEFORE the ISS was even started.

    Fair enough, I misspoke. However, I still maintain that abandoning the facility that is feeding that market before a replacement is in place is the height of commercial folly.

    ULA spent their own dime on studies for compability studies, e.g. dreamchaser

    Lots of people spend money on studies. Again, you don’t give up the facility that is feeding your market until hardware is in orbit.

    I would imagine if russia offered a 3 day orbital “pop and drop” without an ISS visit they could sell that too.

    If that is so, why is everyone waiting for the government to a). develop their launch vehicle or b). buy Soyuz from the Russians and market them?

    the government banned commerical manned activities

    First, I do not believe this is true. Second, it definitely hasn’t been true for at least a decade. Third, if there were really a market, people could simply go off shore to supply it. If the market were there, and if it were large enough to support the development, in three decades somebody would have fulfilled it. Your trying to get someone to deploy hundreds of millions of dollars of Grandma’s retirement money for a market that you hope will be there. Ain’t going to happen.

    That said, I do think we are close. I hope that Mr. Biglow does succeed, and that he does cut his deal with Lockheed Martin — but, as far as public data is concerned it hasn’t happened.

    Our debate here does not make much sense. If you are correct, the ISS is at worst a waste of money. If I am correct, it’s still essential to support a commercial launch industry. But, if either of us are correct, this industry may well be just around the corner, but I am not ready to gamble everything on one market when, with the Space Station cargo requirements, you have at least two, one of which is very large and, shortly, will no longer be supported by the Shuttle.

    Why rock the boat by changing the game just when things are beginning to come together?

    — Donald

  • anon

    Vladislaw

    Actually the IS NOT a history of commerical manned LEO development because the government banned commerical manned activities, NASA had and maintained a lock on ALL aspects of manned flight.

    Having been in the space industry, and working with startups for decades I am curious. WHAT federal law or regulation BANNED manned commercial space activities? Specifics please? I know this is an urban myth and a point of faith, among the libertarian New Space movement, but do you have actually evidence that is or was true?

    Now you do need to get a license to fly a rocket. But guess what, you also need to get one to drive a car. Just try building a car in your back yard and driving it down the street without a driver’s license or license plates. See what happens when the police pull you over

    But that is not banning private autos, merely insuring that the people driving them know what they are doing. . And that is not a bad ideas as when I drive my car down the street I want to know the other cars will operate safely and the drivers at least know how to drive them. Having seen some of the X-Prize schemes I don’t think having the FAA AST need to license them was that bad an idea.

  • Vladislaw

    “However, I still maintain that abandoning the facility that is feeding that market before a replacement is in place is the height of commercial folly.”

    I agree with you on that 100%, we have it up there so let’s milk that cow until NASA decides to deorbit it.

    “I would imagine if russia offered a 3 day orbital “pop and drop” without an ISS visit they could sell that too.

    If that is so, why is everyone waiting for the government to a). develop their launch vehicle or b). buy Soyuz from the Russians and market them?”

    Because Russia has NEVER offered to launch a soyuz/tma for JUST a three day orbital excursion. As I said “IF” russia offered.Russia is currently ONLY building them at a rate that satisfies their ISS obligations, but if you read the russian websites they are planning to DOUBLE the production in 2009 because Space Adventures has told them they can sell whatever seat russia has available, orbital or an ISS visit.

    “First, I do not believe this is true. Second, it definitely hasn’t been true for at least a decade. Third, if there were really a market, people could simply go off shore to supply it.”

    Yes it is true, rocket launches is THEE most regulated aspect of flight there is in the USA. Heck even MODEL rockets are regulated and if you google model rockets/banned/regulations you will find even the model rockets have been under threat for a HUGE increase in regulations.

    If you google barriers to entry in economics you will find that government regualtions is a way to create a barrier to economic activity. Read about BEAL and what NASA pulled on him with regulations, they were going to say that Beal HAD to launch from the Cape, would ban him from launching in a foreign country AND beal would have to ASSUME ALL environmental damages at the cape since the 60’s NOT just his flights, but would have to assume the enviromental impact of ALL of NASA’s flights from the cape from the beginning. http://www.bealaerospace.com/

    As far as people going off shore THAT is EXACTLY what Tito HAD to do, he HAD to goto to russia because no one was allowed to compete with NASA. EVEN THEN nasa tried to get tito banned from using a russian rocket to visit the ISS because NASA knew what a can of worms that would open up if it was allowed to take place. This ONLY happened AFTER the cold war was over, before that a US citizen couldnt do it regardless.

    If you listen to what Bigelow has said REPEATEDLY the biggest obstacle he faces is US GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS! Beal said the same thing, EVERYONE says the same thing our government and NASA has ALWAYS been the obstacle. http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/commercial_space/#regulations

    You can also just look at the space act itself and what it now ALLOWED commerical firms to do from what they COULD NOT DO under the old laws.
    http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/commercial/CommercialSpaceActof1998.html

    Commerical activities were in effect banned because of the regulatory environment. It was ONLY through this act which ALLOWED these commerical activities to even be considered.

  • anon

    Vladislaw

    The FAA AST regulations merely require you to show you aren’t likely to kill someone with your rockets. Just like a driving license shows you at least know how to drive a car.

    Beal was an idiot. Florida or Texas would have welcomed Beal with open arms, and tax breaks. Instead he almost caused a war between Guyana and Venezuela when he cut a deal for a launch site in a swamp both countries claimed. The UN had to step in to cool the situation down. And this was AFTER he was kicked out of the British Virgin Islands for wanting to plow under a nature reserve for a launch site. Its one thing building a launch site overseas. Its another to stir up the local hornets nest because you are too stupid to look into the local politics.

    And Beal stopped his rocket development because the LEO Comsat market he was focused on disappeared. NASA was just an excuse to save face and blame someone else since NASA does NOT regulate commercial space activities in the U.S. The FAA AST does and are very supportive of commercial space activities. Just ask Burt Rutan and the Space Ship One team.

    Bigelow’s problems are with ITAR. The regulations were past AFTER Loral transferred technology to China that they used to develop their MIRV systems on their ballistic missiles. They were created to protect American technology from being stolen by foreign countries like Russia, not to stop American firms from going into space. Given Russia’s track record on industrial espionage they are probably needed, although they could be administered with a bit more common sense.

  • GM

    That post is full of misinformation
    “Read about BEAL and what NASA pulled on him with regulations, they were going to say that Beal HAD to launch from the Cape, would ban him from launching in a foreign country AND beal would have to ASSUME ALL environmental damages at the cape since the 60’s NOT just his flights, but would have to assume the enviromental impact of ALL of NASA’s flights from the cape from the beginning.”

    NASA doesn’t have jurisdiction over the Cape, the USAF does. Beal is full of crap. He made mistakes and needed an out.

    Space launch licensing is easier than aircraft certification.

  • Vladislaw

    “Beal was an idiot”

    Since you start with a fallacy of logic I must assume you are not about to present a logical arguement.

    Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic
    Argumentum Ad Hominem

    Abstract: The argument concerning the attack of a person’s character or circumstances is characterized and shown to be sometimes persuasive but normally fallacious.

    Beal had to be an idiot, I mean he only owned ONE bank earning 50 million a year. Since you OBVIOUSLY are NOT an idiot like Beal you must own several banks.

    Beal could have been as dumb as a red brick but did NASA want Beal to succeed or not. NASA has the pure talent in managerial and engineering to make even a trained monkey a successful launch provider with fully funded targeted milestones, contracts and launch facilites. To concede that NASA does not have this ability and technical expertise is to admit they need to clean house. In 2002 – 03 nasa was supposed to be spending, as federally mandated 23 percent and change to small business. A small business is defined as less then 1000 employes. NASA got bad marks because they were only giving 13-14 %, short changing small business by a BILLION dollars a year. Instead that billion dollars was going to the big primes not going to companies like Beal to ensure they were a successful start up.

    What is NASA charged to do by congress? NASA is legally obligated to “seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space” [Source: Title I, Section 102 c) of NASA’s Congressionally mandated charter. Read that again:
    “seek and ENCOURAGE, to the MAXIMUM extent possible, the FULLEST commercial use of space” By 1996 in a NASA funded study on space tourism NASA knew there was a market for LEO and suborbital. You can not consider the fullest commercial use of space WITHOUT including manned suborbital and LEO. By 1997 NASA knew both the transhab and HL20 if done in the commerical market would be many times cheaper then the 600 million PLUS they were shelling out for the space shuttle per launch and the 50 billion on the station. Both of them were shelved. How is NASA fulfilling its mandate when they nickel and dime new start ups and pile on the cost plus contracting to the big primes, OVER and OVER and OVER. Beal could have been led through the hoops with targeted funding on a path NASA engineers designed and laid out to ensure every milestone is met while making sure it is fully funded by spending the money they are mandated to spend on small business to ensure the targeted company is a succees.

    Almost without exception every NASA center has a tourism center, doesn’t matter how delicate the science you can go visit. Are you saying if NASA would have been giving 500 million each per year to transhab and an HL20 along with the Shuttle, we would not have a commerical tourism center operating at the station by now 12 years later? Beal, Kistler, SpaceHab, Space Dev, Benson Space, it doesnt matter, if NASA CHOSE to make one of those successful, they would be. NASA has consistantly done this. After the Tito incidence and NASA went along with it, they were asked by congress in 2001 to show a tourism path to the station, they still have never did this. For how many years has NASA drained money AWAY from a small business success and shelved the technology.

    There is an up coming gap, if nasa chose to fund small businesses to build capsules to fly on manrated ULA launch vehicles for manned commerical launches to the ISS, it WOULD happen. INSTEAD what does NASA do? Directs money away from small business and back to the big primes with Ares. NASA has a budget big enough to get things started that would have competed with the shuttle and ISS, they have just consistantly made sure none of technology was fully funded to the point of american commerical success. NASA would rather give a billion dollars to russia for launching astronauts, then to give a billion dollars for competition like to space dev for the dream chaser or a billion to Tspace for a capsule or Scaled for the HL 20 or another billion to SpaceX and create an america success that will compete against the shuttle and now the ares. The only thing that matters is NASA never wanted to Beal to succeed, or he would have. NASA was MANDATED in 1984 to “seek and ENCOURAGE, to the MAXIMUM extent possible, the FULLEST commercial use of space” Are you going to honestly defend NASA and make Beal the bad guy when the policy they have been running is contrary to what they are mandated to do, violates federal guidelines for small business ratios and failed to fund start ups TO commerical success?

  • anon

    Vladislaw

    In the United States you don’t need intelligence to be rich, just lucky. Look at Paris Hilton.

    Also you haven’t a clue how spaceflight works in the U.S. NASA could care less what the private industry does. And has zero interest in Beal or the Comsat industry he was building a rocket to serve. Heck, if he succeeded they may well have bought a launch or two, just as they have buying commercial launches from Orbital Science, Boeing and Lockheed for decades. You sound like you have been overdosing on the junk put out by that Space Frontier group.

    Beal’s problem was he wanted to be an outlaw, not get a license and tried to go outside the U.S. to avoid the law. He had the option to obey the law like Space Services, Burt Rutan Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk, but choose not to and tried to find a way around it. Then covered up his mistakes by blaming NASA which has noting to do with commercial space launch in the U.S.

    As a result he made two very bad decisions about launch sites, the last one of which got him in trouble with the UN. He could have just gone to Brazil, or Australia, or some island nation in the pacific and build a launch site on a piece of land that everyone agreed about ownership. But no, he has to go sign a deal for a piece of land claimed by Guyana, Venezuela and the local natives who don’t recognize either government. Yes, that was pure stupidity as its not even a good location to launch from.

    So once again, NASA does not, nor never has, regulated space launch in the United States. The Federal Aviation Administration Associate for Space Transportation has had that job since 1984.

    Here is their website. Read and learn.


    http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/

    Commercial launches take place at commercial launch sites or USAF launch pads. Both are very interest in working with commercial rocket people and have for decades. Ask SpaceX, or Orbital Science, or Space Services. By contrast the only orbital launch pads NASA controls are designed ONLY for the Shuttle. They are of zero value to commercial rockets.

    NASA’s objection to Dennis Tito was the risks of a non-astronaut on ISS while it was being constructed, not that he was a space tourist. The ISS is operated under an international treaty and all parties need to agree on issues like Dennis Tito. The Russians, in a rush to make money, just charged ahead without consulting the U.S. treating the ISS like it was Mir where Dennis Tito was originally suppose to fly. If anyone was to blame for NASA actions it was how the Russians handled the flight.

  • Beal had to be an idiot, I mean he only owned ONE bank earning 50 million a year. Since you OBVIOUSLY are NOT an idiot like Beal you must own several banks.

    Beal was good at banking. That didn’t make him an expert on either rockets, or space politics. His actions demonstrated that he was far from competent at either. Had he taken some advice from people who understood the business, he might have been successful but, like many self-made men, he decided that he was smarter than the people who had the cleat marks in their backs from previous attempts. Now he’s got a few of his own, and less money.

  • Vladislaw

    Rand, that is my exact point, Beal could spend his own money in any direction he wanted, just as Musk can, Beal could have been encouraged to move in another direction by targeted funding. Musk gave up on the Falcon 5 and went with the Falcon 9 following the money. Nasa could have presented Beal with an alternative course by offering contracts etc. It is a question of does NASA want Beal to ultimately succeed or not. If they do not want him to succeed, just let him burn his own money up, if they want him to succeed offer another path through milestones and money.

  • Rand, that is my exact point

    Since what you wrote seems orthogonal to what I wrote, I don’t think that’s true. My point was the exact opposite of yours.

  • Vladislaw

    “NASA could care less what the private industry does.”

    THAT is EXACTLY my point! Nasa is mandated by congress to know EXACTLY what private industry does!

    What is NASA charged to do by congress? NASA is legally obligated to “seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space” [Source: Title I, Section 102 c) of NASA’s Congressionally mandated charter. Read that again:
    “seek and ENCOURAGE, to the MAXIMUM extent possible, the FULLEST commercial use of space”

    The fact that NASA did NOT want a tourist at the ISS is EXACTLY opposite of what they should and are mandated to be doing. In a committe hearing in 2001 a congressman asked NASA to “SHOW” a tourist path to the ISS. NOT FUND a path to tourism at the ISS. JUST show a commercial PATH to civilian tourism to the ISS. EVERY Nasa center has a tourism center. Since the russians were going to use the ISS for tourism how could the US do it also. NASA has never shown or offered that path.

    The transhab would have been ideally suited for that very thing. AGAIN, if NASA truely wanted it to happen, it would have.

  • anon

    Vladislaw

    Beal was targeting the LEO comsat market with his rocket. A COMMERCIAL launch market aready served by a number of COMMERCIAL launch systems. He was unable to close his business case through a series of VERY poor decisions and failed. Period.

    Why would NASA, which had no need for a LEO comsat system have been forced to subsidize him? Especially when other commercial launch alternatives, domestic and foreign (EELV, Ariane 5, Sea Launch, Proton) were already available or under development at the time for launching COMMERCIAL LEO comsats?

  • Vladislaw

    orthogonal? How is that. Musk was not an expert in rockets or space politics either, considered a maverick and wanted to go his own path. But ultimately followed the money path. Beal was also seeking funding if the funding would have been offered but in a different direction would he have followed it to grab the cash or not.

  • You implied that Beal was a genius because he owned a bank (and that that genius should be transferable to the rocket business). My point was that didn’t mean that he knew anything about rocketry. You have said nothing to refute my point.

  • Vladislaw

    I did not imply Beal was a genius, I implied he was not an “idiot”.

    I said “Beal could have been as dumb as a red brick but did NASA want Beal to succeed or not.”

    The point I was trying to make is that with a 16 billion dollar budget NASA has enough wiggle room and has the talent within the agency to overcome any shortfall a potetial company has. They can do this by putting forth milestones, contracts and funding to ensure a company becomes successful IF that is what NASA truely wants.

    Nasa HAD an individual willing to spend MILLIONS of his own money on a space venture. How many individuals, at any one time, does NASA have willing to spend their fortune on a space venture?

    So here comes joe blow banker with a big check book and willing to spend it and what did NASA do to “seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space”? They DIDNT have to seek OR encourage this POTENTIAL commercial space company. Did they maximize this potential to the fullest extent possible? In MY opinion they did not, they could have offered funded milestones and contracts to put him on a path of success. THAT is their mandate.

  • Vladislaw

    Look at the two outcomes:

    Beal becomes successful, it would ENCOURAGE MORE people to try an do something in space.

    Beal becomes a failure, it would ENCOURAGE more people to NOT try and do something in space.

    Nasa’s mandate is to do those things that ENCOURAGES commerical ventures in space. EVERY success story Nasa

  • me

    “they could have offered funded milestones and contracts to put him on a path of success.”

    Wrong. That is not NASA’s job. NASA had no need for Beal’s vehicle, therefore no need to fund it. It doesn’t just throw money at every Joe’s Rocket Company.

    Also your are wrong with ““seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space””

    Funding launch vehicles is not “commercial use of space”

  • Vladislaw

    It was a launch vehicle to launch com sats, how is that NOT a commerical use of space. It was also his plan to use it for ISS resupply. How was that NOT something NASA could use, especially now when they are talking about a resupply gap.

    If someone does not have a nickel to their name and says I wanna build rockets give me some money and someone willing to invest 200 million of their own money is NOT the same thing.

    “that’s not NASA’s job” .. NASA’s job is to “seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space” [Source: Title I, Section 102 c)

    Does having MORE launch companies competing for contracts raise or lower launch costs?

  • me

    Just because someone has money doesn’t mean their concept is valid. Beal is a perfect example of this.

    In 2000, NASA had no need for resupply and let the comsat companies fund new launch vehicles instead of the US Gov’t.

    NASA would have spent more money that it could have saved with the “additional” competition.

    Beal could have on ramped to the NASA NLS contract, if he continued and succeeded. But he chose to use NASA as a scapegoat, when his own decisions were the issue

    Again, “use of space” is not space launch

  • […] NASA is not focusing on crew transfer services as part of the COTS program right now, it is pretty much going all-in on cargo resupply with COTS. Aerospace Daily reported […]

  • DataPoint

    That is not surpising given the delays at SpaceX and how thier COTS schedule has slipped.

    Once the Falcon 9 is flying, and Once the cargo version of the Dragon has docked with the ISS would be the logical time to consider it. But for now it is premature. And not something you want to make your plans on.

Leave a Reply to anonymous.space Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>