Also, if I’m wrong and volume is not critically important to lowering overall cost and improving mission capabilities then fine the government can remove its fixed cost support effectively shutting it down. We have finally found the answer to Jeff Greason’s question of what is the smallest biggest piece. This won’t be the first government attempt to foster a new commercial tax base and positive trade generator that failed nor the last. You win some you lose some.

What do you say to the fact that the cost overruns (driven in large part by having to stuff 10lbs into a 5lbs box) of just two unmanned programs JWST and MSL would have paid the half the development cost of the Jupiter? It seems to me if we are willing to pay for the cost overruns why not the solution?

What about the significant military and scientific breakthrough uses enabled by the high volume capability of the Jupiter-130? While these missions would be infrequent (because of the high cost of the spacecraft and mission not the launch cost under this plan) they would also be much more note worthy than send yet another small probe to somewhere in the solar system. As I see it even unmanned exploration problems is finding it harder to out do past missions based on current capabilities. That is without blowing their budgets by pushing the spacecraft packing density beyond where it cost optimally should be.

If you want to subsidise commercial development of space, sure you could pay for fixed costs. Unless you want to crowd out private investment, you’d have to have multiple firms compete for such an ELC-like contract. It seems unlikely the shuttle stack could win such a bid, given its high fixed costs.

If true why not try to foster the commercial development of space at the same time we are meeting our strategic objectives?

That is exactly what I’m proposing. The trouble with going for your proposed lower launch costs in the short term (apart from the fact that I’m skeptical about your numbers, especially compared to EELV Phase 1) is that it ensures R&D into things that will lower launch costs by one or two orders of magnitude will remain unprofitable. For comparison, I’d be much less opposed to NASA developing a small RLV, although I don’t think it would be any more likely to succeed this time round than it did with SLI and VentureStar.

Look I get where you coming from. It just doesn’t make sense to me to destroy $50 Billion on hardware, tooling, infrastructure and workforce investments to once again chase some low cost rainbow dependent on science fiction technology breakthroughs or personality cults using the same technology we have today.

Those are sunk costs. Future shuttle stack fixed costs have not yet been sunk and can still be saved. And EELVs are just as available. The shuttle stack just isn’t needed. I can understand why people would not want to lose a capability they have (8.4m core, SSME). I used to feel the same way and I’ve tried very hard to find schemes that would accommodate both SDLV and commercial development of space. It’s the payload volume of propellant for exploration I’m after, not crew launches. One way to save both would be to use the throw weight of an SDLV to do single launch crew launches to L1/L2 or some other high energy orbit. In this way you put a smaller amount of mass through a larger delta-v without taking away payloads from commercial launchers. Your friends wanted nothing to do with it. They kept coming up with technical objections that could be dismissed, which led me to the sad, belated and very reluctant conclusion they just weren’t being honest with me. I’ve given up all hope NASA would ever agree to such a scheme, the interests of the shuttle stack just seem diametrically opposed to those of commercial development of space. The concept of an HLV is nice, but I think SDLV is just too expensive and HLV won’t be needed for another fifty years or more.

Your the remark about rainbows and science fiction is just posturing. EELVs are mature technology and ULA is better at developing launch vehicles than today’s MSFC which is no longer Wernher von Braun’s shop. Market forces are able to do more with the same technology than government bureaucracies, which is why the USA won the Space Race and the Cold War. They are also better at developing new technologies. This has little to do with the individuals in the organisation, competitive processes just tend to work better.

All the arguments you make for proven technology, large payloads, subsidising fixed costs apply even more strongly to EELV Phase 1.

Neither of us is likely to change their mind of course, which is why I’ve largely given up on debating Team DIRECT. What can I say?

True commercialization of Space will only happen once the dominate use of Space is by commercial companies primarily selling products and services to other businesses and consumers.

If the government really wanted a quick and simple way to lower launch costs and foster a significant expansion in the commercial development of space they would just cover the fixed cost of the launch systems. An argument can be made that space access is a strategic imperative for the United States so one way or the other the fixed cost will be borne with or without commercial utilization. If true why not try to foster the commercial development of space at the same time we are meeting our strategic objectives?

This would get the launch cost instantly down to $1-2K/kg to orbit based on the actual recurring cost of each launch paid for by all users private and government. We don’t need to wait for some science fiction breakthrough, or follow the cult like belief that the same technology in different hands will produce a radically different cost. A stroke of the policy pen on a piece of paper will do just fine. Ironically the cost to the government is virtually the same under this business model as it is today given how dominate the government use of the launch services is vs. commercial applications.

Hopefully based on the significantly lower cost to orbit new commercial markets will emerge and ultimately grow to the point where the new tax revenue would offset the government’s fixed cost coverage investment. At which point we could then shift to a zero g zero tax policy and do away with any government fixed cost support for the launch systems. Eventually this commercial market would dwarf the government’s consumption rate of launch services and generate enough profit on its own to develop second generation launch systems that are even lower in cost than the SDHLV or EELV/SpaceX initially used to jump start this new industry.

Look I get where you coming from. It just doesn’t make sense to me to destroy $50 Billion on hardware, tooling, infrastructure and workforce investments to once again chase some low cost rainbow dependent on science fiction technology breakthroughs or personality cults using the same technology we have today. Not when government supported economic development 101 may do the trick using what we already know works is paid for and available.

If you are right than a significantly changing in the cost of 5% of the market should generate a many fold increase in the other 95%. The good news is we can find out if you are right very easily by just change the rules of the game.

It’s holding back commercial development of space, which is what I care about. Your mileage may differ. You don’t have to choose between exploration and commercial development of space, but you probably do have to choose between commercial development of space and SDLV. I’d go for commercial development and exploration, you would go for exploration and SDLV. People’s mileage may differ.

Zero- The SSME will definitely be expendable by virtue of the design, but I don’t think that is the point you were making. Actual improvements to lower the cost of key SSME elements were actually in work and scheduled for implementation until Columbia happened. We have direct confirmation from P&W that they these engines will be significantly lower in cost under a Jupiter paradigm, not to be confused with the current STS paradigm everyone like Dr Crawley uses incorrectly. The combined affects of lower cost production and higher quantity amortizations of the fixed cost significantly lowers the cost per engine. In addition we don’t need to carry the fixed cost of engine refurbishment any more. Plus we have almost 19 engines in the inventory so we have six launches were the engines are free. Ares-1 was even so kind as to build a brand new launch tower that we can use. Free is very good price wouldn’t you admit? Or are we to believe that the low cost 101 principles above of, use what you have, expendability, and price discounts for volume ‘only’ apply EELV and SpaceX?

One- Yes, but it’s the scale difference that makes all the difference. Unlike the PoR’s Ares-V the Jupiter-130 uses the existing flight proven man-rated main engines/solid rocket motors, tooling, launch infrastructure, transportation equipment, and the most important of all workforce. In chasing the bigger is better rainbow the Program of Record did none of the above. Hence why the Augustine Commission drew a clear distinction between Ares and SDHLV. Something that you are glossing over.

Two- Jupiter-130 using the existing 8.4m core tooling can be on the pad with flight qualified engines, boosters in 36 months. The only new components are an aft thrust structure, payload fairing, and flight boxes. The final flight boxes are the tent pole so the test flight will be using the Shuttle systems with the CG moved to dead center of the stack. An adjustment feature the flight software uses on every STS mission. The tent pole for a full-up Beyond LEO capability is Orion not the Jupiter.

Three – Well this is bit of Catch-22 don’t you think? Actually from the DOD side there are definitely game changing missions directly applicable to improve our ability to fight the new kind of war we are in that would be uniquely enabled by the Jupiter-130. So much so that I’m sure once other nations found out what we were doing they will build their own HLV just for this purpose alone.

So in summary you advocate the destruction of $50 Billion dollars of in place tax payer funded flight hardware, tool, infrastructure and workforce experience. Just who is destroying what again? America’s second HLV is very much alive and kicking in fact there is a man-rated spacecraft in orbit right now because of it.

No, the dead horse is attempting to sell everyone that we can somehow use the same technology to generate a radical shift in the cost of doing business. SpaceX primary national role is to provide competition to ULA. Nothing more nothing less.

Back to the matter at hand, at least when we destroyed America’s first HLV and Beyond Earth Orbit capability we had truly new technology in work that gave us some hope that a significant shift in launch cost was possible (ie RLV vs ELV).

So now that I have answered some of your question maybe you could answer a few of mine?

Why are we foolishly destroying yet another multi-billion dollar capability?

How is it that launch services, which represents less than 5% of the world wide total cost of Space exploration and development, is what is holding us back?

That’s all and good but you need to look at the basic facts :

0) SSME expendables – ain’t gonna happen.

1) J-130 is still 75% of the scale of the so called stretched four engine NLS variant, and 60% of the scale of some of the numerous Ares V designs.

2) 8.4 meters is a HUGE engineering effort.

3) There are no near term payloads.

The best you can hope for now is to put together a proposal to use the remaining SSMEs on five meter cores for flight testing reusability concepts because tossing away flight worthy SSMEs is ludicrous to the public.

You need to stop beating a dead horse – even Mr’ Musk’s business plan is contingent upon creative and innovative recovery concepts, and evolutionary upgrades into the heavy lift environments, something he knows he can do without selling the farm or stifling his competition.

Martijn, perhaps the description of ‘Heavy’ Launch Vehicle is getting in the way. The key attribute of the Jupiter-130 is its Volume not its lift capacity.

Mass staging in orbit is not the issue since most mass is propellant. The key problem with an ‘all’ EELV approach is volume staging in orbit. The one example we have of constructing a spacecraft in orbit using 5m chunks (ie the ISS) cost $100 billion dollars and took 50 launches over 2 decades. Doesn’t sound all that cost effective to me vs using an HLV to launch a ground integrated unit in one launch (ie Skylab).

A lot of the new technology focus is for demonstrations rather than research. I take that to mean flight hardware, probably usually in space. For example, from the budget documents:

“Flagship demonstration program: …
Demonstrates critical technologies such as in-orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules, automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, and other next-generation capabilities.”

“NASA will implement and manage a broad test program of next-generation technologies in multiple flight demonstrations over the next decade.”

“In-space advanced engine technology development and demonstrations”

There is also flight hardware for robotic HSF precursor missions. Possible missions include:

“Landing on the Moon with a robot that can be tele-operated from Earth and can transmit near-live video.
Demonstrating a factory to process lunar or asteroid materials for use for various purposes.”

There’s also new ISS hardware for flight:

“Increase Station capabilities through upgrades to both ground support and onboard systems”

“New capabilities could include a centrifuge to support research into human physiology, inflatable space habitats, and a program to continuously upgrade Space Station capabilities.”

The ISS will not just be used for R&D, but also for technology demonstrations:

“The goal will be to fully utilize the Station’s R&D capabilities to conduct scientific research, improve our capabilities for operating in space, and demonstrate new technologies developed through NASA’s other programs.”