One of the key elements of the summary report of the Review of US Human Space Flight Plans Committee (aka the Augustine committee) issued yesterday is the role that commercial providers of crew transportation services can play. “As we move from the complex, reusable Shuttle back to a simpler, smaller capsule, it is an appropriate time to consider turning this transport service over to the commercial sector,” the report reads. And in the report’s concluding summary: “Commercial services to deliver crew to low-Earth orbit are within reach. While this presents some risk, it could provide an earlier capability at lower initial and lifecycle costs than government could achieve.”
The question is, when will commercial providers be ready? Depending on who you talked to yesterday, you got very different answers.
SpaceX CEO and CTO Elon Musk said that he felt “confident” his company would be ready in two and a half to three years after a contract was let, with the long-lead item being the development of a launch escape system. His statements came during a telecon organized by the Commercial Spaceflight Federation and the Next Step in Space Coalition to provide a commercial viewpoint on the Augustine committee’s report, and are with what he said in the past.
At the other extreme is ATK vice president Charlie Precourt, who spoke at a National Space Club luncheon in Florida yesterday. Precourt, a former NASA chief astronaut, suggested it would be many years before NASA would be willing to fly its astronauts on a commercial vehicle. “I wouldn’t be if I were the chief astronaut. You have to understand what the risk is,” Precourt told Florida Today.
The committee report, meanwhile, didn’t align with either extreme. The report states that a commercial crew transportation option “creates the possibility of lower operating costs for the system and potentially accelerates the availability of U.S. access to low-Earth orbit by about a year, to 2016″: more optimistic than Precourt, but less optimistic than Musk. I talked briefly with MIT professor Ed Crawley, a member of the committee, late yesterday; he said that the details behind that conclusion would be in the full report scheduled for release in the coming weeks, and so couldn’t go into details about that estimate at this time.
I’d really like these private companies to show some proof behind their claims–as well as how they’re going to keep from getting delayed and/or going bankrupt themselves. How much are they going to invest in all the new infrastructure needed? How much transparency will the public have into their operations??
Just doesn’t make sense to me to scrap everything after 5 years of work, then build new infrastructure just so that a few people can take a huge risk with the (in my view, remote) hopes of making a few bucks. I think it’s going to cost more and take more time than these guys estimate.
The assumption that the “capsule” is “simpler” is wrong. The complex Orion crew module, with its complex service module, service module encapsulation shroud, LAS motor, LAS shroud complete with hatch and scores of ordnance and purges, assembly and servicing facilities; all with largely throw-away subsystems, is not “simpler” than the Orbiter. One only needs to look at the operating cost estimates published by the Committee to understand that statement is complete stretch at best, and totally false at worse (but understandable; a “capsule” seems on the surface that it ought to be “simpler” than an Orbiter). In fact, on their Q&A website, the Committee showed that the seat costs are over three times that of Shuttle. Orion manufacturing, assembly and operations costs are a significant piece of that. I guess they didn’t make it “simpler”; they sure didn’t make it more affordable for an individual to get to space.
Derrick – well, some of them have a good history – Orbital Sciences can hardly be regarded as a naive fresh face newcomer. And ULA is not what I would consider particularly risky, since the Atlas V is already flying.
The commercial spaceflight industry isn’t just SpaceX, and a few other people – LM, Orbital Sciences, Boeing, ULA, Sierra Nevada Corporation – these are all respected names. And they could easily go after (and there is reason to suspect they would) compete for crew transport
As for “scraping everything and building a new infrastructure”
1. Much of the infrastructure is already in place, particularly if the company uses an EELV
2. What infrastructure has Constellation actually produced, in terms of getting humans to LEO? Ares I is, at a minimum, 8 years away (which would mean that from inception to first flight was 12 years – not a particularly impressive record)
Risk is accepted when the rewards are high enough. At least ULA has a lot of experience with both Delta and Atlas and large parts of the system are well proven. Ares is a huge risk with unknowns everywhere.
And Mr Precourt would not accept the risk of flying on a commercial launch vehicle? Why would we have accepted the risk of flying to the Mir back a few years ago? When we almost lost a crew to a fire (the fire extinguishers were still bolted down, air masks did not work) and to a collision (the KURS/TORU system was very unreliable)? We accepted the risks since NASA was told that the rewards were worth it. The Chief Astronaut (Brandenstein if I remember right) certainly accepted those risks.
Ares also is really only a couple of years “old” since they had to go to the 5 segment design. We are certainly not on the original Ares configuration.
So of the two paths that we have – one pretty well understood, one a big unknown. Maybe the commercial booster path is more worth the risk than the other one!
With all due respect to Mr Precourt and his accomplishments to date, he (& ATK) should put his money where his mouth is. Show the world that ‘old space’ ATK can build a better rocket for less money than ‘new space’ SpaceX. Do it on your dime, not the taxpayers. Get out there and compete.
Maybe then you won’t sound like a Bronx cheer.
The committee report, meanwhile, didn’t align with either extreme.
Which means it’s probably closest to the mark. SpaceX’s history so far suggests they can do what they say they can, but it takes a lot longer than they suspect. That is hardly a surprise, or even a mark against SpaceX.
Orbital does not even pretend (any more) that they can keep costs dramatically lower, and I am not aware of any prior human spaceflight experience on their part, but they are an experienced launch company and I would tend to trust their judgement on what they can do, probably more so than SpaceX.
In both cases, these companies have plenty of time to try and fail and fail again, before Constellation flies anything useful at all. Since (in my opinion) establishment of a commercial human space transportation industry is the single most imporant next step needed toward ultimate human expansion into the Solar System, it is worth gambling a bit of money to try and speed this development along.
And, I agree that ATK should put their money where there mouth is, as should Boeing and Lockheed-Martin.
— Donald
What is baffling about Charlie Precourt’s statement is that I guess he is admitting that ATK is not a commercial company.
Robert Oler
Just doesn’t make sense to me to scrap everything after 5 years of work
We don’t need to scrap everything; just back it up. It should be straightforward to take the $3 billion worth of Ares 1 PowerPoints and PDF documents created over the last couple years and burn them to disc.
so that a few people can take a huge risk with the (in my view, remote) hopes of making a few bucks.
Marshall and ATK have been making more than a few bucks the last couple of years on Ares, with worsening delivery dates and escalating cost projections. Let’s try a different path for better results.
I think it’s going to cost more and take more time than these guys estimate.
It very well may. But more than Ares? Thankfully, instead of spending $34+ billion on the Ares 1 budget buster, NASA can hedge the cost and time risks of future space transportation service by engaging the private sector in a COTS-like manner: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1461/1.
We don’t need to scrap everything; just back it up. It should be straightforward to take the $3 billion worth of Ares 1 PowerPoints and PDF documents created over the last couple years and burn them to disc.
….
LOL
Robert
Never put all of your eggs in one basket. So we need– a public option– when it comes to human access to orbit until these private companies develop a reliable history of successfully placing humans into orbit and bringing them back safely to the Earth.
I predict that rockets originally developed by the Federal government through government funding will be the vehicles of choice for private industry for many decades to come. And I’d like to see NASA or the military develop a simple shuttle derived expendable SSTO booster using the ET and about 6 SSMEs that could launch about 25 tonnes of payload into orbit. That would be the simplest and safest rocket booster ever developed and would be attractive for NASA, the military, and private industry for both manned and unmanned launches to orbit.
I predict that rockets originally developed by the Federal government through government funding will be the vehicles of choice for private industry for many decades to come.
In other words, you’re predicting that SpaceX will fail.
I’d like to see NASA or the military develop a simple shuttle derived expendable SSTO booster using the ET and about 6 SSMEs that could launch about 25 tonnes of payload into orbit. That would be the simplest and safest rocket booster ever developed and would be attractive for NASA, the military, and private industry for both manned and unmanned launches to orbit.
Yes, it will be very attractive to people who have unlimited funds, and are completely indifferent to reliability or cost. That’s a huge market…
[…] di un post pubblicato ieri da Jeff Foust su SpacePolitics per affrontare un tema che il rapporto del panel Augustine ha reso […]
[…] di un post pubblicato ieri da Jeff Foust su SpacePolitics per affrontare un tema che il rapporto del panel Augustine ha reso […]
@ Rand Simberg
The Space Shuttle Main engines have already been developed and have been successfully used for more than 28 years without any serious incidents. And economies of mass production should significantly, if not dramatically, reduce the cost of the disposable SSMEs that would be used on a Jupiter SSTO vehicle or on the Sidemount HLVs.
A single stage fuel and launch Jupiter vehicle should be extremely economical since there would be no stages or side-mounts. And in theory, a Jupiter SSTO vehicle could also be launched from inland locations since the booster would be carried all the way into orbit.
Marcel. Nothing that uses any hardware currently flying on the shuttle system is going to be “cheap”…that is why at least in part none of it has made it to the commercial world.
there is a reason for that. Rand is right on target here
Robert G. Oler
As far as new infrastructure goes I guess I’d refer to this discussion on the “Deep Space” option (with commercial booster) by the Augustine Commission @ 1:07:00:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RwqYIw_C-4
Other points well taken.
@ Robert Oler
The high expense of the current Space Shuttle is mostly due to the complexity of side-mounting four different components (one shuttle orbiter with SSME that have to be refurbished after every flight, two solid rocket boosters that have to be retrieved and rebuilt and refueled after ever flight. The simplest part is the external tank that simply gets thrown away.
A Jupiter SSTO booster eliminates this complexity by using just one simple booster to achieve orbit. This would be far less complex and a lot safer than any multistage rockets that the military or Space X has developed.
Marcel. you wrote :The high expense of the current Space Shuttle is mostly due to the complexity of side-mounting four different components
Wow I would have to see that in some cost analysis to buy it…not saying it isnt accurate but doubt it severely. There is nothing about any SDHardware that is cheap.
Space X is coming up with a rather unique concept in the falcon9 and its derivatives.
Safety is not always found in simplicity.
Robert
@Robert Oler
“Safety is not always found in simplicity.”
It most cases, it is! I tend to be a strong advocate of the US military’s KISS philosophy: keep it simple stupid. The space shuttle uses three rocket boosters plus a side-mount ET (very complex) and most current space rockets use two to four rocket boosters to achieve orbit (also very complex). A shuttle tank derived Jupiter SSTO (what I call DIRECT-lite) vehicle would use just one! And fewer boosters means fewer statistical chances of serious malfunctions during a launch.
Marcel. Jupiter SSTO….OK all the Jupiter direct versions I have seen have Solids…
The problem with the shuttle system is not how it is “mounted”. NASA would find away to employ 25000 people on the vehicle if all it was was a two stage straight down the stack vehicle
Robert
@Robert
You have hit the nail where it lives. It doesn’t matter what launch vehicle we come up with; if we can’t reduce the overhead it will be just as expensive. That standing army of civil servants needs to be cut by ~30%.
@G Clark. there have been quite a few cases where NASA has stubbornly rejected the entire concept of “less” people.
It would be interesting to see some concepts from some universities and a few other “non profit groups” as to how, for instance one could “run” ISS on a lot less people.
to be fair to civil servants however it is the contractor army as well that needs to be cut.
Charlie Precourt is a good place to start (grin)
Robert G. Oler
@Robert Oler
A Jupiter SSTO vehicle is actually an old Gary Hudson concept (long before the Jupiter idea for the ET was conceived) that simply uses the external tank with 6 SSME placed underneath the tank for a SSTO launch with no SRBs. You can read his article at the following URL:
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_to_orbit_thought_experiment.shtml
Supposedly the greatest delay of the SpaceX Dragon capsule manned spaceflight availability is development of a launch escape system. Certainly a launch escape system is a valuable aid to crew survival and should be developed.
But what’s stopping SpaceX from flying manned Dragon missions before the launch escape system is ready? Taking that option might reduce the manned spaceflight gap by as much as two years. A Dragon capsule without a launch escape system is probably no more dangerous than the current Shuttle which also has no launch escape system.
Marcel,
You keep missing the final point, which Gary states at the end of that article
@Ferris Valyn
Gary Hudson’s interest was not in a– disposable SSTO booster. His interest was in developing a totally reusable SSTO vehicle. The point of his article was to prove that a shuttle derived SSTO booster launch to LEO was possible.
My interest in a simple shuttle derived disposable SSTO booster is that it could be a vast improvement in safety, simplicity, and cost over current multistage and side mounted rocket boosters while also being a major stepping stone towards eventually developing a totally reusable SSTO vehicle.
Brad. the biggest problem SpaceX faces on a launch escape system is “where” their launch pad is vrs where the “water” is. Ie there is a lot of time “feet dry” and that makes the launch escape system somewhat more complex since there needs to be a water landing.
Flying without a launch escape system…HMMM that would be a little more risky then “I” would accept.
Robert G. Oler
Rather, we suggest that a sensible and low risk program be initiated to explore the limits of present technology before spending vast sums on unproven or speculative programs.
Marcel. I agree with the statement above…the “programs” that (left on its own devices) NASA came up with to return to the Moon are typical of the dead end thinking at the agency. And the article you point to is of course (as other people Jim Oberg comes to mind) out of the box thinking…and we need that.
But having said that I dont see the advantage over say Falcon 9. Six engines common tank as opposed to 9 engines common tank…and doubtless some of the payload in the SSTO would be some type of second stage (or propulsive stage) otherwise the thing is a dead elephant in orbit.
The SSME’s are running at 109 the Falcon’s run fairly conservatively…
it is a great thought experiment, it doesnt seem to be practical hardware (as the study states)
Robert G. Oler
A 6 SSME Jupiter SSTO could lift an Orion CEV into LEO or payloads between 27 to 32 tonnes into LEO with just one 6 engine booster. Once the Jupiter SSTO booster reached a circular orbit, the Jupiter booster could be de-orbited in order to crash into the ocean while the fueled Orion vehicle should be able to reach the ISS or some other orbital destination.
A Falcon 9- heavy could also lift an Orion into orbit or a payload of 28 tonnes. But it would require 3 Falcon 9 boosters, each with 9 rocket engines (27 in total), plus a second stage rocket. That’s 4 times as many fueled rocket boosters with the potential to fail than a single stage Jupiter SSTO booster.
Marcel….trouble is that while it seems like fewer SSME’s would have a lower fault risk…that isnt necessarily so Cost wise I bet it isnt even close
Robert G. Oler
Robert, over a dozen SSMEs exist right now, with spares for dozens of flights, and will be free and good to go by 2012. Cost wise the only thing preventing them from beating the costs of the RS-68, indeed, even beating the F1 by a factor of two, is flight rate. Not leaveraging those existing assets in a test flight program of incremental reusability advances would be the biggest mistake the United States has ever made since retiring the F1 and J2.
Rocket stuff…I dont know what the inventory of SSME’s is…but say there are 21…
if the Jupiter thing needs three per flight…thats seven and then the show is up or we have to build more.
“incremental reusability”…ok how do we do that? I know that at one point many years ago they had done some work with an SSME or some substitute in the water off the Gulf…but the instant one starts the recovery process the cost go up very very fast….
Look I dont really see the need for a heavy lifter. To me it is a vehicle looking for a mission. ISS taught nothing if it didnt teach how to assemble things on orbit and I think we should make use of that knowledge
Robert G. Oler
I dont know what the inventory of SSME’s is…but say there are 21…
There aren’t. There are a dozen, possibly mid to high teens if you scraped.
If the Jupiter thing
Who said anything about that ‘Jupiter’ thing? The Direct guys bragged about tossing existing SSMEs away, even with a core carried all the way to orbit, which the SSMEs can easily do, especially with large segmented SRB help.
“incremental reusabilityâ€â€¦ok how do we do that?
We already do it, we recover and refurbish the SRBs and SSMEs. Elon Musk already intends to recover his hydrocarbon booster cores and engines, and ultimately his upper stages. Since we have created an almost intractable orbital debris problems with disposable upper stages and their payloads, wouldn’t it seem reasonable to immediately reverse that behavior, since the cost or remediating near earth orbit of its debris could cost … trillions?
Ditto global warming, asteroid impacts, any number of catastrophes, nearly all of them human induced, if only by their neglect.
but the instant one starts the recovery process the cost go up very very fast….
Relative to say, a new engine development program?
Look I dont really see the need for a heavy lifter.
Who said anything about a heavy lifter? SSMEs are lightweights, compared to say, Russian hydrocarbon engines. Hydrocarbon engines are lightweights as well, as opposed to say, large segmented solid rocket boosters.
ISS taught nothing if it didnt teach how to assemble things on orbit and I think we should make use of that knowledge
You mean like the incremental advance of extending our knowledge of assembling things in orbit, to disassembling things in orbit, and shipping them back to Earth? Time hasn’t sharpened your reasoning abilities at all, Robert.
Rocket Stuff…”time hasnt sharpened your reasoning abilities at all….”
I dont see the point of using any shuttle derived hardware…even the motors nor do I really see a point in rushing toward re usability. REusability implies a maturity that comes with a lot of operational experience, in WWII for instance most “motors” of warfighting airplanes were “nearly” expendable…
The shuttle is not in any of its components reusable. It is serviceable. Reusable is a Boeing 737 landing at Hobby, having fuel and other consumables put into it and then taking off again in 30 minutes.
The engines on a Boeing are reusable. The SSME is serviceable…and since I know that it would be cheaper to just toss the solids then to recover them…I bet the same is accurate of the SSME or at least close to it. Particularly after they splash down in salt water.
From everything I have seen or read of SpaceX the “rush to reusability” is more on paper then anything else. They have done some systems work, and flown some hardware…but I would bet money that in their rockets we are 5years or more toward him reflying a engine.
As for assembling things in orbit…ISS has certainly not been incremental and that knowledge will I suspect be a big part of the advance into the future of assembling larger and larger platforms.
One final thing (and we can pick this up in another thread if you want)…I dont think that the debris problem is mostly upper stages. It is their payloads and the “junk” associated with those payloads (unless the stage explodes and that has mostly been taken care of). the upper stage boosters are large, make nice radar targets and are “mostly” worked into disposal orbits.
I just dont see the need to do anything with the remaining SSME’s but put them in museums.
As for reasoning…..it is all in the eye of the beholder isnt it? Some people think that the last 8-10 years were well thought out…I never did.
happy Sunday.
Robert G. Oler
nor do I really see a point in rushing toward re usability.
Which is why I clearly pointed out that we are already engaged in a slow steady incremental path to reusability, where the shuttle has already played a important part in that development, and I have clearly outlined how that endeavor can continue to proceed in an affordable and sustainable manner.
Nobody is rushing anywhere in space. Jeez. I thought you knew that? I’m pretty sure the Augustine Committee settled that analytically as well. Not that is should have been necessary after another four full years and ten bullion dollars, after the first three years after the Columbia disaster.
I just gotta wonder why the rubes just don’t get the big picture yet. I can understand why the cost plus industry is disseminating the propaganda, but I just can’t understand why space creationists still drink the koolaide, after clear methodological and analytical techniques have been applied.
Rocket Stuff…from my viewpoint we are moving “no where” toward re usability with the shuttle. I dont live with it on a day to day basis…but nothing in the processing chain has seemed to me anywhere “close” to moving toward Boeing airplane (or even SR71) type operations.
for instance.
had the engines been anywhere near designed for re usability they would have been ”FIRED” to whatever number of cycles they were expected to be reusable to, verified that this number works and then in ops that is the level of “care” that they would get…ie they wouldnt be demounted every flight…(which I assume still happens).
I am not aware of a single major component in the shuttle (including the shuttle avionics which come from commercial background) that are treated that way. If I am wrong I would love to hear it.
Indeed NASA doesnt have a clue what constitutes reusability.
Robert G. Oler
Rocket Stuff…from my viewpoint we are moving “no where†toward re usability with the shuttle.
That’s because the shuttle was the first attempt at reusability, was always intended to be an interim solution, and we haven’t even attempted to move beyond it yet, except for the construction of the ISS, which is reusable.
If I am wrong I would love to hear it.
You’re wrong. The ISS is ample demonstration of that. Now all we need is a way to get there. Since clearly every upper stage will get to the ISS intact, that defines the upper stage reusability, since wherever you go, there you are. So full reusability hinges on recovering the boosters, whether they be SSTO or side mounted or core hydrocarbon boosters. Therefore reusability involves either recovering or reusing side mounted or core boosters, or, here is the nub of the logic, giving the core booster SSTO capabilities.
The SSME clearly is capable of the latter. Jeez, it’s almost like you guys don’t WANT to go to space. You’re wimps, not rocket men, trust me.
[…] When will commercial crew be ready? – Space Politics […]
I’m afraid we’ve waited too long to establish ourselves permanently in space. The international economic and political problems are going to be complicated by a cluster of environmental ones and no one wants to spend what it takes. Even the pressure of other nations going to the moon will not allow an American president to spend what it takes. The commercials will have trouble filling in. It takes concerted international cooperation, and we are just not there yet, as a species.