Campaign '08

Another space policy debate

The Mars Society is hosting its annual convention later this week in Boulder, Colorado, and one of the highlights of the event is going to be a debate on the space policies of the presidential candidates, similar to the one held during the ISDC in Washington in late May. Representing the Obama campaign will be Lori Garver, who represented the Hillary Clinton campaign in the ISDC debate (which took place about a week before Clinton formally dropped out of the race). Representing the McCain campaign will be a familiar name to space aficionados: Apollo 7 astronaut Walt Cunningham. “This will be a perfect opportunity for the campaigns to articulate their policies,” said Mars Society executive director Chris Carberry. Or, perhaps explain some of the details of their policies, including how they plan to “close” or “minimize” the Shuttle-Constellation gap now that NASA has slipped its internal target for the first crewed Orion mission by a year and indicated there was little chance of shortening the gap.

18 comments to Another space policy debate

  • Norm Hartnett

    It is a very good sign that Lori Garver is now on Senator Obama’s staff, of the representitives that showed up for the ISDC debate she was the only one that knew what she was talking about. I can only hope that she has substantial access to the candidate.

  • I agree. It does the Obama campaign credit that they have hired her; that they care enough to find out who they needed and give getting her sufficient priority to make it happen. Maybe Mr. Obama has realized that near-total ignorance of spaceflight may no longer be tenable for a Presidential candidate.

    That said, Russia’s activities in Georga will make all of the impending decisions about who to buy Station supply from a whole lot harder.

  • Al Fansome

    ROBERTSON: That said, Russia’s activities in Georga will make all of the impending decisions about who to buy Station supply from a whole lot harder.

    In every crisis there is an opportunity.

    Since NASA now acknowledges that the CEV can not be accelerated to show up before 2014, perhaps one (or both) of the current candidates will look to solutions that can reduce the gap to much earlier than the CEV can show up. For example, NASA (under either McCain or Obama) could take $2 Billion for a new round of COTS focused on crew.

    With that funding amount, NASA could fund at least 4, and perhaps 5, competing crew solutions.

    Imagine a real space race between the following 5 companies for a humans in space capability.

    – SpaceX
    – tSpace
    – SpaceDev
    – Lockheed (and/or PlanetSpace)
    – Boeing

    At least one of these companies is likely to show up well before the CEV. If we get 2 or 3 successful companies, then we have a real competitive market place.

    FWIW,

    – Al

  • Chuck2200

    As much as I want to see more players in the field, I have to keep reminding myself that Boeing and Lockheed Martin are also commercial; it’s not just the little guys. So I’d like to see them included in the bid.

    Having said that, the best chance we have of beating the gap down to nothing with COTS is to specify that the EELV be used as the launcher. The winning entry shouold be able to fly on either the Atlas-V or the Delta-IV. That takes the launch vehicle card completely out of the game so the competitors can concentrate on the spacecraft.

    Steps would need to be taken, within reason, to ensure that neither Boeing nor Lockmart can give themselves a spacecraft edge. Just because their launchers will fly the spacecraft, that must not give them an edge in COTS-D.

  • Chuck2200: As much as I want to see more players in the field, I have to keep reminding myself that Boeing and Lockheed Martin are also commercial;

    Well, Lockheed might be, but only a little. Both companies have rockets that were designed from the ground up to operate at low cost if flown at high rates. Neither company, but especially not Boeing, has made any effort to create or find markets to keep the launch rates up, to persue what commercial business exists, or do anything except take rediculous amounts of your and my money to keep their largely idle production lines open — even at today’s high launch prices.

    If I sound disgusted, I am. We claim to be capitalists, but when it comes to launch vehicles, Europe and even Russia behave a lot more like it than we do.

    — Donald

  • me

    “Steps would need to be taken, within reason, to ensure that neither Boeing nor Lockmart can give themselves a spacecraft edge. Just because their launchers will fly the spacecraft, that must not give them an edge in COTS-D.”

    Mandated firewalls between spacecraft and launch divisions has existed for years but now it is not needed since ULA is separated from LM and Boeing.

  • me

    “either company, but especially not Boeing, has made any effort to create or find markets to keep the launch rates up,”

    That is complete garbage. There isn’t any new market for those size vehicles that would support a ROI.

  • Chuck2200: “The winning entry should be able to fly on either the Atlas-V or the Delta-IV.”

    Isn’t that what we were pretty close to back almost 4 years ago with the CE&R studies?

    Donald, I’m pretty disappointed in Boeing as well. They’ve got all of the right pieces, but they’ve got a bunch of MBA types who do Monte Carlo sims to determine the likelihood of any particular contract being profitable. (I’m simplifying a bit) Nothing wrong with that, as it is a good tool, but relying on it for business decisions kind of sucks the soul (and strategy) out of things. I feel particularly sorry for the guys at Phantom Works, who get to work on really cool stuff that the public never gets to see (I know, I got to see a display of their stuff when I interned at HSF&E). I can only wonder at the frustrated ambitions there. At least the Skunk Works has a degree of coolness and visibility about it.

    My personal thought is that the best thing that NASA could have done would have been to create a universal interface between launchers and crew vehicles. Another good step would have been to work with the international community to develop the kinds of universal interface standards in systems that have worked so well for the computer industry. It’s the kind of thing that enables creativity in suppliers, and a mushrooming in their number.

    Walt Cunningham had a long opinion piece in the March/April 2008 edition of Launch Magazine about ‘Closing the Gap’ wherein he advocates both extending the shuttle and accelerating Orion. I’ve never been against the shuttle continuing to fly, though it is a money-suck and should be announced as such each time they have to launch it because we don’t have an alternative. I’ve always been against ESAS, but won’t belabor the point.

    I regard the choice of Ms. Garver as a number of things, but mainly a very sly move on the part of the Obama campaign. We may be talking about the next NASA administrator, as she has the benefit of the same kind of assumed ‘buy-in’ amongst the space advocacy community that Dr. Griffin evidently had in the space engineering community, which completely rolled over and was like “Rub my belly, I’m so happy!”. Played properly, it can be portrayed as not only an olive branch to the Clinton supporters, but also as a ‘softer’ side of the space program (which really doesn’t need any more softness) as compared with the military-industrial complex association of anyone that McCain would choose, provided he even booted Griffin at all, which I kind of doubt would happen given the results that the Administrator has delivered thus far. (Remember – not everyone has your particular definition of ‘results’)

    My hope is that American industry steps up to the plate with the capital and the capability to deliver crews to orbit – public, NASA, military, whomever, so the U.S. can once again create a new industry for the benefit of everyone. Boeing and LockMart are the obvious choices, but each needs to grow a pair (however you define ‘pair’) and commit to doing so. SpaceX is the underfunded southpaw, the great hope of the NewSpace community. I think they want to get at least one, maybe two successful launches under their belt before going to an IPO, but if the billion dollars noted in a Bloomberg Markets article is correct, then I don’t think they would have much difficulty in a global offering. I know I’d throw a few of my pennies into the kitty. You think I can’t imagine more than a few Asian businessmen riding a Dragon to heaven?

    In the end, the point is to divorce human crew to orbit capability from its political overlords. (so we can sell it at a profit) So long as crew to LEO is solely the province of government then we will forever be held hostage to this kind of political nonsense, and the industry will continue to circle forever, going nowhere. That’s the real choice, even if no one wants to talk about it.

  • me

    The Gap is meaningless. If there is a real problem with Russia, then the ISS is doomed anyways, Progress vehicles are needed to supply propellant to the ISS for orbit maintenance. ATV can’t do it without Russian hardware (docking system for example) or support (Russians could deactivate the docking port)

    None of the US options can supply propellant neither.

  • Post Sputnik

    “None of the US options can supply propellant neither.”

    That’s because you ignorant Gomers and Goobers can’t get yerself a descent scientifical and methamagical post-sputnik edjication.

    One phrase : ‘Ares I’.

    QED.

  • Adrian

    Ken: your point about NASA playing a role in creating universal interfaces is a good one. ive always shook my head in amazement whenever reading about ISS resupply options, and an article notes ‘however, option X or option Y is incompatible with the US/Russian docking system’ – shouldnt all docking/mating equipment be universal on an international space station? and shouldnt all launch hardware follow universal guidelines for mating with human-rated capsules?

    i have personally lost a lot of hope in SpaceX’s ability to deliver cheap, human-rated access to space before the delivery of Orion/Ares, even if COTS funding were dramatically increased. no doubt Boeing and/or Lockheed Martin could do it – but at what cost? keeping in mind these are the companies responsible for the shockingly cost-overrun LCS and JSF, why can we in the space-enthusiast community expect these massive government coddled defense companies to deliver any more efficiently or quickly than a newspace startup? our hands arent tied here, they’re handcuffed and the key has been lost.

  • Me: There isn’t any new market for those size vehicles that would support a ROI.

    Nonsense. How about the comsat market that we hand to the Russians (who may soon get banned from launching American satellites) and Europeans? How about ISS logistics? How about taking some of the tourist flights away from the Soyuz? There are plenty of markets out there if we choose to take a risk and a short-term market-leading loss — that is, if we behave like we believe our own entrepreneurial rhetoric. With the absurd infrastructure subsidies plus the guaranteed military base market, if they can’t make a go of it now, there is no future for American commercial space. But, they have to act fast, while both the Chinese and the Russians are in the dog house and prices are high and likely to get higher. Or, they can play it safe and suckle the government teet and lose a once-in-a-decade opportunity to break into the global commercial market. Unfortunately, I know how to bet my money on that one. . . .

    — Donald

  • Nonsense. How about the comsat market that we hand to the Russians (who may soon get banned from launching American satellites) and Europeans? How about ISS logistics? How about taking some of the tourist flights away from the Soyuz? There are plenty of markets out there if we choose to take a risk and a short-term market-leading loss — that is, if we behave like we believe our own entrepreneurial rhetoric

    None of those by themselves, or all together, are large enough markets to amortize the development of a new commercial launch system.

  • spectator

    We might find ourselves thankful if losing the ISS is the worst fallout from this ever deepening crisis.
    I doubt Russia will just stop with Georgia, if this conquest is successful. At some point the US and Europe will have to stand their ground against Russian expansion.

  • Rand: None of those by themselves, or all together, are large enough markets to amortize the development of a new commercial launch system.

    If that is true, than how do you propose that the New Space folks finance their new launch vehicles? You just stated, in essense, that all is lost and whatever the government is doing is our only option.

    Fortunately, we don’t need to “amortize the development of a new commercial launch system.” We’ve already built the EELVs (and we have Elon to fund SpaceX). All we need to do is take a lesson from the folks across the Atlantic and market the EELVs, a la Ariane — which is not exactly a cheap launch vehicle itself yet manages to sustain itself as a commercial provider with far lower subsidies than Boeing and Lockheed Martin are being paid just to stand still.

    — Donald

  • me

    “a la Ariane — which is not exactly a cheap launch vehicle itself yet manages to sustain itself as a commercial provider with far lower subsidies than Boeing and Lockheed Martin are being paid just to stand still.”

    That is not true. The whole Ariane V development was paid for by Europe. LM and Boeing only got 500 mil each and the companies contributed 1 and 2 billion each. The Kourou facilities are underwritten by France.

  • me: Please do correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the EELV facilities are largely paid for by our government, plus something like $500 million subsidy each every year and rising.

    — Donald

  • If that is true, than how do you propose that the New Space folks finance their new launch vehicles?

    With new markets (as in fact they are, with suborbital). Existing ones won’t do the job.

Leave a Reply to Chuck2200 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>