there is a big difference between “can”, “will” and “has the money”.

There is no doubt in my mind that Lockmart/Boeing have the technical capability to come up with commercial access to space…and I believe that they have the money as well. (although I am less sure of the later).

The “will” is an issue..but that is not a technical problem.

When SWA appeared on the scene Braniff was the dominate carrier in Texas and around Dallas…slowly but surely Braniff faded because they 1) did not understand that the ground had shifted under them and 2) although they had the “parts” to compete with SWA, they never had anyone like Kelleher who could put it all together in their own “way”. All that BI could do is try and “copy” the SWA model and they failed.

That is not uncommon. I had “some amount” of influence in a company called Western Pacific. This was an attempt by the guy who founded AmWest to try and yet again “redo” SWA by more or less (in my view) copying SWA.

Musk has started from day one, in my view assuming three things. 1) that the ground was or would shift in the American launcher industry, 2) he has designed a low cost (in terms of people) product to compete and 3) has put the resources (mostly his) into the project in what I see as a very smart way.

If he can succeed (and that has yet to be determined) it will be because 1) the ground did shift and 2) he can make the low cost part work. If neither of those things is accurate…then he will fail.

Boeing and Lockmart are like BI. They are in many respects hoping 1) the ground doesnt shift (and are using their political clout to try and stop it from doing so) and 2) Musk is wrong, that he cannot meet those cost numbers.

If Musk succeeds the trick will be to see if Lockmart/Boeing can find the management expertise to drive a shift in their product. BI could have survived had it been able to shift in a way that drove the market instead of just trying to mimic SWA.

Boeing and Lockmart have a tremendous advantage (in my view). They have proven launch vehicles. But that might not be enough.

Aside from all this. NASA is almost irrelevant. Corporate NASA has done nothing (other then bark at its political friends) to try and preserve human spaceflight in this country. Indeed it has been the thing that has almost smoothered it.

Robert G. Oler

Boeing and LockMart, a.k.a. United Space Alliance, may have the expertise to launch the space shuttle, but they would not have the money or funding to do so. This is the essential point of being commercial. These companies have never operated a commercial human spaceflight program. Nor have Boeing and LockMart put any substantial investments into developing commercial human spaceflight despite the fact that they had developed launchers on which to base such a program. Furthermore, these two companies were unwilling to invest capital without NASA funding first. Contrast this to companies like SpaceX and Scaled Composites who put developed their vehicles from private funding. SpaceX eventually won the COTS contract and the even larger CRS contract because Elon Musk invested nearly $100 million dollars into his company which successfully developed Falcon 1. Scaled Composites has never accepted government funds for the development of suborbital spacecraft SpaceShipOne. I have far more confidence in SpaceX and Scaled Composites developing and operating profitable commercial spaceflight programs than in companies like Boeing, LockMart, and their subsidiary United Launch Alliance.

I find the “discussion” you and Major Tom are having entertaining…and was content to read along until this

“You do realize that Boeing and LockMart do not own the space shuttle? The space shuttle was a government designed and developed vehicle. Yes these companies helped developed and build it. And NASA contracted out launch services to these companies. But these companies do not have any independent human spaceflight capabilities or any indepedent operational crew vehicle”

your last sentence is irrelevant.

Lets put it this way.

If either the contractors or NASA were to “walk out on strike”…while it would be a fair statement that with either gone the shuttle could not fly…it is also a fair statement that with the contractors gone NASA would simply be unable to even attempt to fly the shuttle…and yet the reverse is not accurate. USA has the expertise easily to fly the shuttle (and make it ready for flight) without NASA being in the picture.

Every really bad decision about the shuttle (ie the ones that cost lives) was made not by contractors but by NASA folks.

Boeing and Lockmart could easily operate a crewed vehicle. They would find the people to assemble it, launch it, control it and even fly it. NASA couldnt assemble a rocket by itself if it had to.

Sorry but that is reality

Robert G. Oler

Here is the relevant section for heavy lift in terms of spaceflight beyond LEO found in Augustine report:

“Using a launch system with more than three critical launches
begins to cause unacceptably low mission launch reliability.
Therefore a prudent strategy would be to use launch vehicles
that allow the completion of a lunar mission with no more
than three launches without refueling. This would imply a
launch mass to low-Earth orbit of at least 65 to 70 mt based
on current NASA lunar plans. Vehicles in the range up to
about 100 mt will require in-space refueling for more demanding
missions. Vehicle above this launch capability will
be enhanced by in-space refueling, but will not require it.
When in-space refueling is developed, any of these launchers
will become more capable.

I will assume you have the link to the Augustine II report. 3 launches of a 65-70 mT launch mass vehicle in order for lunar mission to become feasible. For more demanding missions, which one could infer a number of lunar missions will be more demanding such as establishing a permanent lunar facility, a launcher of less than 100mT will require inspace refueling or above 100 mT without refueling.

My comment:

“Considering that none of these companies had any operational crew launch vehicle or had very limited experience in developing crew launch vehicles.”

You do realize that Boeing and LockMart do not own the space shuttle? The space shuttle was a government designed and developed vehicle. Yes these companies helped developed and build it. And NASA contracted out launch services to these companies. But these companies do not have any independent human spaceflight capabilities or any indepedent operational crew vehicle. Lockheed Martin attempted to develop a SSTO vehicle the VentureStar, putting up a great deal of its own capital, and failed miserably after almost billion dollars were invested into its development. So yes their experience in developing and operating a commercial crew launch vehicle is nonexistent and limited.

My comment:

“The situation of the ‘gap’ is not RSA’s fault.”

I did not attribute this comment to you or to anyone else, so I am not sure how I am putting words poster’s mouths. My comment is a respose to your comment:

“Even setting aside issues like relying on foreign countries for crew access, RSA having NASA over the barrel when it comes to Soyuz prices, or maintaining US industry expertise in crew launch operations, there are very strong engineering justifications for getting commercial crew transport going ASAP.”

RSA having NASA over a barrel? This is why I was amused, over your comments, not the situation of the ISS which is serious. Please don’t put words in my mouth. When the space shuttle Columbia was destroyed, RSA stepped up and kept the ISS alive and operational for nearly two years through its Soyuz and Progress flights placing a considerable burden on RSA and its prime contractor RKK Energia. Yes, RSA has been raising prices on Soyuz flights on both private and government flights. Hardly surprising, since the Russian economy has been growing and they have the only human spaceflight game in town.

Next time I will make sure not to round my numbers and instead be more precise, so instead of 30 years, I will say 38 years, 6 months of safe operational record without loss of human life. Yes, that is right, the Soyuz accident that caused 3 deaths, happened more than 30 years ago on June 30, 1971. And yes, just like any other launch system, Soyuz has its close calls.

I believe the ISS is crucial to the development of commercial spaceflight which is why I support extending station past 2020. Michael Griffin is also on record saying that he supports extending ISS. In that link to his testimony I provided above, he commented that there was never any intention on the part of NASA to ax ISS after 2015, just that the funding for ISS only kept it operational until 2015. He had fully expected that the President and Congress would want to continue ISS operations past 2015.

My comment:

“Human space travel is nor more necessary to space exploration as is aviation necessary to Earth exploration.”

Your response:

“The second part of this statement is factually wrong. For example, Antarctic exploration today relies critically on air transport. ”

Again, you completely misuderstand my comment. I did not say that that aviation could not be utilized for Earth exploration, I said that it was no more necessary to Earth exploration. Yes, airflight plays a critical role to Antarctic research, but that is a secondary role. Aviation main role is to provide transport of goods/equipment and people over long distances in short amounts of time. Are there other ways Antarctica could be explored without airplanes? Yes there are. Perhaps not as convenient with greater danger, but still possible. Also, there is a perment facility in Antarctica so there is a market and demand for air transport services. Sorry, but my comment is not factually wrong.

So let us look at my statement here yet again. Without your emphasis.

My statement:

“I seem to recall that one of Griffin’s reasons for rejecting the adoption of a commercial architecture was the inadequancy of the heavy lift launch vehicles proposed or completely absent in these competing architecture plans.

Your repsonse:

Your “recall” is completely wrong. The Boeing study looked at HLVs up to 100mT+, LockMart settled on 70mT, NG looked at 55mT and 130mT and settled on the former after finding the latter unaffordable, OSC settled on a STS-derived 80mT HLV, etc.

Your response implies that I was saying these companies came up with no heavy lift concept for their CE&R. Where in this statement did I state that none of these companies had developed a heavy lift concept for their CE&R? My comment was to state that Dr. Griffin argued against a commercial architecture, specifically in the context of lunar architecture and not ISS crew and cargo. In my statement the specific reasons for Griffin’s argument were got given, just that the heavy lift concepts offered by the CE&R were inadequate or absent. By the definition of what the Augustine, a heavy lift vehicle necessary for Earth Departure Stage for flights to the Moon would require a minimum LEO lift capability of 65-70 mT. So by that critieria, some of these CE&R do not have the heavy lift system required. Also, you take this statement too literally. This is a paraphrase of many of Dr. Griffin’s speeches and comments and not a direct quote.

My statement:

“I said that Griffin had argued that none of these companies offered affordable heavy lift concepts over 100 mT that was adequate for a lunar architecture within the time frame and budget proposed by VSE.”

This statement was a rephrasing of the first comment adding additional details for clarification, instead of simply quoting my original comment.

Here is a direct quote from Dr. Griffin in his testimony before a Congressional hearing just this last September:

“

An architectural approach based upon the use of numerous smaller vehicles to stock a fuel depot is inevitably more expensive than putting the necessary payload up in larger pieces. Further, a fuel depot requires a presently non‐existent technology – the ability to maintain cryogenic fuels in the necessary thermodynamic state for very long periods in space. This technology is a holy grail of deep‐space exploration, because it is necessary for both chemical‐ and nuclear‐powered upper stages. To embrace an architecture based upon a non‐existent technology at the very beginning of beyond‐LEO operations is
unwise.

”

Here is the link for reference: http://legislative.nasa.gov/hearings/9-15-09%20Griffin.pdf

The above quote is particular apt because it directly deals with the many of the CE&Rs whose heavy lift concepts involved fuel depot system with t/Space among them. This is just one of his arguments. He made a number of arguments against an open commercial lunar architecture for many reasons. He did advocate for ISS crew and cargo commercial architecture as a starting point for commercial spaceflight. He also advocated for a fuel depot system, but not as the initial push beyond LEO, especially since the fuel depot technology is as yet undeveloped.

You state that I was looking at preliminary CE&R from an older link. So provide me with a link to the final CE&R reports. I assume since you are giving me this info that you have access to the final reports. BTW, the heavy lift information you gave me about various companies’ CE&R are also listed in those ‘preliminary’ CE&Rs.

Again, I have no problem with this general idea. But I do have a problem with their conclusion that the extension of human civilization beyond Earth will– first occur on Mars! Its a lot more expensive to colonize Mars than the Moon.”

You’re still confusing “extension of human civilization” with “colonization”. As I said, we’ve extended human civilization to Antarctica, but no one would say we have a “colony” there. We extended it to the Moon too, but then we decided to leave for a while.

I’ll say it one more time. There is NO national mandate, either from the White House or from the Augustine Committee to colonize anything. So until they tell us that there is, it’s odd to keep harping on it.

“For the Mars romantics, the fastest way to colonize Mars is to begin colonizing the Moon first.”

And for the rest of us, flexible path provides a measured, strategically sustainable, and sensible way to get to many places.

This is factually incorrect.

Nowhere in the Augustine Commision report does it say that human expansion of human civilization will occur first on Mars.

The report does say that they think human expansion to Mars is the *ultimate* goal. But they make it pretty clear they think we could get there through multiple routes, and that we should not (nor need to) make the decision now about which route to take (thus the flexible path), that we may choose to go to the Moon first before going to Mars, and that we should not make that decision now.

FWIW,

– Al

“There was consensus among the subgroup that the underlying reason why we do human spaceflight is the extension of human civilization beyond Earth and that this will first occur on Mars” Augustine subcommittee

Again, I have no problem with this general idea. But I do have a problem with their conclusion that the extension of human civilization beyond Earth will– first occur on Mars! Its a lot more expensive to colonize Mars than the Moon. Plus the Moon is much more likely than Mars to help grow the US economy: lunar tourism, lunar burials, satellite manufacturing and launching.

The Flexible Path is a ‘stealth program’ for Mars when right now we need a real program for the Moon. For the Mars romantics, the fastest way to colonize Mars is to begin colonizing the Moon first.