NASA, Other

In defense of commercial spaceflight

One of the now-standard criticisms of NASA’s change in direction is that the agency is relying far too much on a commercial space transportation sector that, in the eyes of critics, isn’t up to the task, while at the same time abandoning existing, largely government-owned and -operated capabilities and the thousands of jobs that sustain them. It’s a complaint that agency officials, and others, have been pushing back against, and they found a receptive audience Thursday at the Next-Generation Suborbital Researchers Conference in Boulder, Colorado.

In a plenary session Thursday morning, NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver likened the current situation to the figure skating competition ongoing at the Olympics. “We are doing wonderful, beautiful, amazing things, but on very thin ice,” she said. Greater participation by the commercial sector, she said, was essential in making the general public feel more connected to, and interested in, spaceflight. “NASA and space belongs to all of us. Space needs to become something the people can personally participate in, rather than just marvel from afar,” she said. “We do hope that through programs like this, people will feel more connected.”

Garver announced at the meeting that the agency’s Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research (CRuSR) program, designed to support opportunities for flying research and education payloads on commercial suborbital RLVs under development. That program got $2.5 million in the current fiscal year budget, but Garver said that CRuSR would be funded at $15 million in the FY11 request, a level that would be maintained over the five-year budget planning horizon. “Suborbital puts us on a sustainable step-by-step path to build an industry that evolves to low cost access to orbit,” she said.

But what about the risks of relying on vehicle providers that have yet to prove their capabilities of flying suborbital payloads, let along orbital flights of cargo crew? “One of the criticisms that we’ve had is that there will be risk involved,” Garver said. “Well, folks, as you all know, NASA takes risks. That’s what we do all day.”

Later in the plenary session, George Nield, FAA associate administrator for commercial space transportation, weighed in on the debate about relying on the commercial sector, saying he was “a little troubled” by the intensity of some of the negative reaction to the new plan. “I’ve read some comments that have expressed disappointment, indignation, disdain, and even ridicule about commercial space transportation,” he said. “Although the critics seem small in number, their vehemence surprises me.”

Nield said he believes some of that concern stems from a mistaken perception that commercial space transportation is new, and thus by implication unsafe, when in fact it’s been around for decades, and companies have played a role in government space efforts since the beginning of the space age. “So I don’t see the value in bashing one of the partners just because the relationship going forward may be a little different than it has been in the past.”

“While it’s entirely legitimate to raise questions,” he added, “it doesn’t do America’s future in space any good at all to raise fears in what might be interpreted as an effort to undermine an industry that has served the nation well and is now prepared to expand its contribution.”

Nield concluded his remarks by referring to a book titled The Ordeal of Change by Eric Hoffer, a book about, according to its description, “the duality and essentiality of change in man throughout history”. “I suppose where we are right now in America’s space program is at a crossroads, where we can decide to make change an ordeal or we can make it a better deal.”

[Disclosure: while my employer does work for FAA/AST, we’re not involved in writing Nield’s speeches.]

72 comments to In defense of commercial spaceflight

  • Flying the Shuttle is risky and I sure we are taking risks with Cx. But, the most advance of the new commercial folks only has a 40% success rate so far. The already have a major effort to resupply the ISS and until that have been proven a success where is the need to increase our commitment. The other companies are even further behind SpaceX.

    This commercial take is primarily to give money to the group Garver has historic supported and to provide political cover to for their retreat from HST.

  • Ferris Valyn

    John,

    We’ve been over this before. Commercial does not equal SpaceX. The EELV guys have an incredible success rate, and they can be as commercial as SpaceX can. In fact, we want them to be commercial. So lets stop saying that SpaceX is the most successful, or only one. Hell, we can expand this discussion, to include OSC, and it gets even more in commercials favor.

  • Frank

    John,

    Have you read:

    Apollo, by Charles Murray and Catherine Bly Cox
    and
    Moon Lander: How We Developed the Apollo Lunar Module (Smithsonian History of Aviation and Spaceflight), by Thomas J. Kelly

    These will give you an insight in how involved commercial companies already were during the Apollo era. And yes, there were problems then too. But in the end it worked. So, they can do it and yes, they will have to monitored very closely, just like the airplane industry.

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy

    Many people on this site, and others, mix concerns so much that we don’t actually converge on options to discuss.

    There are two main facets of this discussion – should we transition from a government operated launch system (for people) or should we go with a commercial option? We seem to agree (I certainly do) that commercial operations can be just as safe and almost certainly far more efficient that government operated launch systems. And if we go with commercial companies – will there be a continuing role for the government labs and facilities that have been so critical to success so far? Will commercial operators have to duplicate them?

    My opinion is certainly that we should transition! The government has done its role of developing technology and procedures and commercial operators can move faster and offer more options – such as potential tourist flights to space.

    If we do decide to transistion – how to do it? Should we use proven commercial boosters such as the Delta? To take advantage of it’s flight history? Or should we depend on new vehicles such as Falcon?

    My opinion here is that Delta/Atlas boosters are ready to take over, and that Ares was not going to be economical to operate.

    But commercial capsules are designs and have not flown. Even the Boeing design, or SpaceX’s Dragon, are unproven. Before trusting them, let’s ensure that we capture the corporate knowledge of the people – mostly in the government sector right now – that have learned the hard lessons. Let’s not again experience that steep learning curve. Let’s not put critical spare parts and needed food on Falcon, to possibly have them end up in the water on one of the first flights of Falcon 9.

    And the thing we should be discussing is the brutal way that this transition is being made, by almost certainly having facilities, people, intellectual property, etc etc etc ending up on the wrong side of some dividing line. With having commercial operators not having access to facilities and not knowing how to get certification to dock with ISS.

  • EELV’s were developed through USAF dollars and with USAF oversight. So, to refer to them as commercial is a stretch. For years, the entrepreneurial space crowd has referred to ULA vehicles (and prior that Boeing and Lockheed) as dinosaurs. However, now that is in their interest to associate themselves with ULA vehicles, they are flocking to the fan club. I’ve talked to several ULA executives who are very amused with this turn of events.

    However, the Dela IV and Atlas V, and their proposed variants, have serious risks associated with them in the HSF areana based on their launch trajectories and abort scenerios — crews will face “significant organ displacement” — and that is the nicest way I’ve seen it put. EELVs are not the answer, and when you start looking at how to make them safe, you quickly realize you are talking about an entirely new approach.

  • None of this discussion is pertinent to suborbital flights, which was the topic of the post.

    Before trusting them, let’s ensure that we capture the corporate knowledge of the people – mostly in the government sector right now – that have learned the hard lessons.

    On what basis do you make this statement? By definition most of that “corporate” knowledge resides in the private sector (i.e., the contractor community), not NASA. In fact, this was one of the justifications that Mike Griffin used for doing Ares in-house in Huntsville — because NASA had forgotten how to do it, and needed to relearn.

  • CessnaDriver

    go commercial, with small letters.

    and

    GO NASA! with all capitals and exclamation point!

    They can be similar in capabilities, yet different enough that any logical person must accept that they cannot do fully what the other does.

    WE need to support NASA HSF beyond earth orbit!
    That’s the kind of thing NASA does because it is not about the quarterly report and stock price. It’s about positioning America and even humanity strategically.

  • “Hell, we can expand this discussion, to include OSC, and it gets even more in commercials favor.”

    As the only ground-up commercial venture pre-2000 still flying rockets I’d say OSC is more of a starting point than an expansion on the discussion. My issue with OSC thus far is that they’ve behaved in the more standard “we’ll build it but only if you ask us to and you pay for it” model. There’s no issue with that, per se, but it’s hard to imagine much innovation when they’re sitting on their hands waiting for the green light. I’m glad to see them taking initiative now with their resupply contract, but I want to see Orbital start talking about supplying something else beside the ISS (Bigelow, stand-alone experiments, space tourism, fuel depots, etc) without being asked first. That, to me, is what would put it more in the NewSpace camp.

    SpaceX is getting the attention because:

    1. They are brand new and in development.
    2. Their rocket is 100% brand new practically down to the bolts unlike pretty much every rocket for the past 3 or 4 decades (Soyuz is still flying on essentially modified V-2 engines).
    3. Unlike Blue Origin and Sierra Nevada, they’re talking about it, which means easier and faster press access.
    4. Unlike everyone up until Budget 2011 was released, SpaceX is saying where their program is headed (cislunar was mentioned in a 2007 talk in the UK, for instance).

    That’s an excuse for the average Joe Congressman to say SpaceX everytime they think commercial space, but ’round here we should be keeping the wider picture in mind.

  • “However, now that is in their interest to associate themselves with ULA vehicles, they are flocking to the fan club.”

    That commercial space is 100% behind ULA is new. It’s not a surprising as you’d expect though. We’re all now pushing for them because for once it looks like they’ll do something with the EELV’s besides launch satellites (not that that isn’t an important function). But commercial space folks have been talking up EELV’s at least over the last decade because, with the notable exception of SpaceX, almost all of the commercial space options rely on EELV’s to get to orbit.

    In short, as I mentioned in the last post, most commercial space proponents are tired of the “We won’t build anything until NASA says so and funds it” approach. And the ULA programs for a very long time seemed to be the embodiment of that approach.

    It makes business sense, for sure. Most companies wouldn’t invest in a nascient or possibly non-existant martket. This is especially true of ULA and it’s contributing companies who actually did get burned on a promise for regular EELV demand and have been around long enough to see plenty of ventures flare up, promise the world, and fall on their face. But at some point commercial space is going to make it work, and my opinion, and I think the opinion of most NewSpace advocates, is that that time is now. The reason support for ULA has been lackluster is because until now they didn’t look like they were going to put their hat in the ring unless NASA begged them to.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Jim D.- the EELVs were developed partially using Boeing & Lockheed’s money. And the oversight was not like it was under a cost-plus contract. And frankly, when everyone else involved, such as LM, Bigelow, the Augustine Committee, and the rest, endorse the idea of man-rating EELVs, you are going to have to demonstrate exactly how & where the organ displacement comes form.

    CessnaDriver
    You know, that would be great IF NASA had Beyond LEO human spaceflight. We didn’t have that, and Constellation wasn’t going to give us that. And frankly, to really do beyond LEO spaceships, its time to stop thinking about them like Apollo. There has to be a better way. And the Tech R&D that the president is proposing puts us on the way to do it

  • Robert G. Oler

    CharlesTheSpaceGuy wrote @ February 19th, 2010 at 10:01 am

    But commercial capsules are designs and have not flown. Even the Boeing design, or SpaceX’s Dragon, are unproven. Before trusting them, let’s ensure that we capture the corporate knowledge of the people –…

    NO LETS NOT…really LETS NOT

    aside from the mistakes made by Griffin and his thunderheads in the system that was put in place to implement the “vision” there are far more problems at NASA.

    NASA (and my remarks here are directed at the human space flight part of it) has lost its engineering competence. It has certianly lost it in regards to any engineering in relationship to cost…but I would argue that the issue goes deeper and its engineering competence is gone.

    Griffin and his thunderheads came up with a nutty system (Constellation) and did it in complete disregard of what the industry (who actually had operating rockets and the technical expertise) was telling him…thats a political problem.

    But once the structure was in place the “rocket scientist” at NASA then started to gold plate it and extend it to a point where it was not feasible for any real cost. There are so many examples of this. Boeing learned its lesson (which NASA convienantly ignored) about the problems of building a derivative vehicle where the parts are stretched to far…Delta III…but it goes farther then that.

    The entire discussion about what constitutes “Man ratable” and “abort modes” shows an agency where cost simply does not figure into the risk equation. One reason the cost climbed so high was that NASA piled on requirements for the vehicle(s) that not even Apollo or the shuttle could meet…and which were all aimed at some goofy statement of “Most safe vehicle”. These were (and are) for the most part completly arbitrary…and in fact were in play in the space station pricing it out of the market, until Dan Goldin brought some (strange) sanity to the entire process.

    No commercial spaceflight company which is trying in some fashion to make a profit is in any way capable of surviving a process which EVENTUALLY KILLED CONSTELLATION…just priced it out of the market.

    “The corporate knowledge” in human spaceflight from the shuttle et al is simply “throw people” at a problem. Every vehicle NASA has lost (both shuttles) was not because the problem “snuck up on them”…it was a well known problem that had armies of people studying it…but no real decision making process that would actually deal with any of the data being generated in an engineering competent way.

    Had Linda H. used the thought process she used on the shuttle with say a commercial airliner…she would probably have gotten a ticket before the Harris county grand jury.

    The transition is brutal. That is what one does when one is trying to save something …you have to cut the fat out and go forward. There are good people who on an individual basis can probably ride this out…but there are just to darn many of them.

    If SpaceX/Boeing/Lockmart/OSC get stuck with the shuttle “workforce” particularly the NASA management that has driven it into the ground…we will get exactly the same result with this new project as we have with shuttle. It is time for people who are new to this, people who can think out of the box…particularly in management.

    People who know how to tell someone who says “we have to have abort capability from launch to recover” …tell them “no we dont” and people who when told “the framastam is a problem we have to stop” will trust them and do that.

    I dont see many people at NASA management who are capable of that.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    What is unique about SpaceX is that it is the first organization in the rocket business designed from the keel up with a commercial business model.

    Everything that they have put together is designed to make the effort commercially viable.

    This does not mean that Boeing/Lockmart/OSC cannot do that. Boeing does it quite well in their commercial airplane ops. It does mean we are going to need to see more of that and less of the “NASA” mindset.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Space Guy

    Dear Readers: I know this is a thread on sub-orbital space but Rep. Bishop’s “defense” of Constellation in the Davis County Clipper (a Utah newspaper) was too good not to share.

    Rep. Bishop fighting defense, job cuts
    http://www.clippertoday.com/view/full_story/6398149/article-Rep–Bishop-fighting-defense–job-cuts-?instance=special_coverage_bullets_right_column

    Howler #1, the money defense
    Cancelling Ares “doesn’t save money”, and “The cancellation of the NASA Constellation program, including the Ares Rocket, was originally misrepresented by the President as a cost saving measure”

    Howler #2, the Iran and North Korea defense
    “If measures are taken to cut these programs, it only helps open the door wider for such rogue nations as North Korea and Iran to continue their missile development programs, Bishop said”

    Howler #3 The Chinese will “have the capacity to supplant the Russians, That’s not a good position to find yourself”

    Howler #4 “Without Ares, there will be no future American space vehicle”

    Howler #5 “American Astronauts will be forced to stand on the edge of space trying to hail a Russian taxi to the space station or back”

    Howler #6 [The administration’s proposal] “damages our missile defense and national security.

    Perhaps Space Politics should hold a competition to document the best defense of Constellation by an American politician. I double anyone will be able to top Rep. Bishop.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Space Guy wrote @ February 19th, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    most of the Ares supporters have no real grounding in reality…they are all just sort of in the “make it up phase”

    Robert G. Oler

  • red

    John: “Flying the Shuttle is risky and I sure we are taking risks with Cx. But, the most advance of the new commercial folks only has a 40% success rate so far.”

    That 40% is for the SpaceX rocket development program for Falcon 1 (not 9 which is the COTS rocket). If you’re talking about rockets, Ares I has 0 successes out of 0 flights. Ares I-X was nothing like Ares I. Ares I isn’t even close to having a test flight. The EELVs have been used many, many times. The Falcon 9 is close to a test flight, so even though we don’t know how many bumps there will be along the test flight road, it’s far ahead of Ares I. That’s why the Augustine Committee, even though it penalized both the commercial and Ares schedules, still assessed that commercial crew transportation would be available by 2016 at the latest and Ares I would be ready by 2017-2019 (tending towards the latter date).

    John: “The already have a major effort to resupply the ISS and until that have been proven a success where is the need to increase our commitment. The other companies are even further behind SpaceX.”

    That’s not necessarily true. Look at the EELVs. Who knows how far Blue Origin is. Who knows what Orion-derived concepts could be used, or Ares-derived for that matter. The point is that we need a competition, and the ones that bring the most to the table (meaning additional money, good business plans, progress in designs and tests, solid technical case, etc) win. We shouldn’t just pick SpaceX because we think they’re ahead.

    John: “This commercial take is primarily to give money to the group Garver has historic supported”

    The Vision for Space Exploration called for NASA to acquire (not build) transport to LEO. The Aldridge Commission called for broad commercial participation. The Augustine Comittee featured commercial crew in all of its reasonable options, and couldn’t come up with a plan that made sense that used Ares I. Did all of these experts do this because they wanted to give money to some group that Garver supports? What group? How did they know who would win the commercial crew competition, and that the winners would be the groups Garver supports?

    John: “and to provide political cover to for their retreat from HST.”

    If you mean Hubble, there’s no retreat from astrophysics, and there’s a decent chance that all of the technology development and Flexible Path approach will result in deep space observatory servicing types of capabilities.

    If you mean HSF (human spaceflight), there’s no retreat from that, either. Constellation was the retreat, since it wouldn’t result in anything useful until the mid 2030’s (and thus probably would have eventually been cancelled, leaving us with no HSF).

    With the current plan, we get to keep the ISS, expand the ISS, actually use the ISS, get multiple commercial crew to LEO options working, strengthen the commercial cargo options, keep the Shuttle until the ISS is built, do numerous in-space technology demonstrations like inflatable habitats, closed-loop life support, ISRU, in-space refueling, etc, do propulsion and HLV R&D, restart the line of robotic precursors that scout destinations for HSF for resources and hazards, use (and thus support) commercial suborbital RLVs of the sort under discussion at the conference, do a big modernization of KSC, and greatly strengthen NASA’s space technology work that will be relevant to both robotic and crewed spaceflight.

    Not only that, but we also get much more robust robotic science and and Aeronautics programs. Thus a constant source of conflict for HSF is resolved. HSF and robotics will help, not oppose, each other, to each other’s benefit.

  • Robert G. Oler

    ohn wrote @ February 19th, 2010 at 8:52 am

    This commercial take is primarily to give money to the group Garver has historic su..

    of all your comments this one is particularly “entertaining” to me. Because in my actual experience it is fundamentally untrue.

    I dont recall the dates precisely (although Rich Kolker and Mark Whittington …gasp were with me) when we spoke at a conference at DC on NASA and its future…my speech was more or less laid out along the lines of the policy that has taken root today.

    In fact it was titled “The New NACA” (it had a catchy line about the rebirth of Europe after the discovery of America)…and came amidst the backdrop of some discussion (which I and Rich had played a part in at a NSS convention in Alabama I think)…where we had called for Lori’s resignation from NSS. Indeed Ad Astra had published an op ed by me along the lines of “The New NACA”.

    We all met in DC…Goldin was attempting to revamp the space station into its current guise…Garver, Rich, and as I recall John Logsdon and a former astronaut (who I’ll leave his name out he is not a public figure) who ran a space company that had a sort of SpaceX effort to try and commercialize the space station…had a pretty heated (but polite) round table about the entire notion of privatizing NASA in particular “national identity programs” (as Logsdon called them then)…

    Garver was at that time openly skeptical of the political viability of policy directions which are in all respects like what is happening now. Kolker and I had the concept of “Liberty vehicle” for what is happening now. I do not recall Lori’s words precisely but they were fairly critical of the “reality” of making such a “scale down” and “redirection” (my words) go.

    (as an aside I Have seen TWS piece on line if you want to read it. I wrote it Kolker did a great edit and Mark got his name attached to it).

    Garver and I have “bumped” into each other since…and that includes when she tagged up with Gore for his campaign in 00 (Rich and I supported McCain) and again with Kerry in 04 (we supported Dean) but at each time we did Garver’s space policy for Kerry and Gore looked nothing like this. At no time have I heard or read a work product of her’s which pushed policy in this direction.

    There have been some other “interaction” (mostly second hand) that makes me think that she had not really had any real “change of heart” until she entered the Obama transition team.

    Charlie Bolden on the other hand has held many of these views for quite sometime. As I noted in the HOmer Hickem thread I believe he was passed over for that “Griffin fellow” because of his commercial views. I am pretty sure DeLay had a hand in nixing him. (I am told that by a former classmate whose Washington gossip is almost 100 percent reliable).

    So when did Garver change? My guess (and rumor) is that her conversion came during the Obama transition era. You really find the termites once you move into the house, and everything I have been told is that as they got the real “scoop” on how Constellation was proceeding…it became clear that the program is simply not doable for any real cost level. The AC almost confirms this with their “3” billion dollar figure…a blind man knows it will go higher as time marches on…they have not even started the “mega lander” yet.

    There was a reason Griffin acted like the back end of a donkey during the transition…and while that in part is his act…but in part it was because it was becoming clear that Constellation was a house of cards and he had been covering for it. I am told directly by two people who were on the Augustine C. that as well.

    I am not going to get in the position of defending Lori Garver, and she doesnt need me to either.

    But the charge that she is 1) the real power behind the throne or 2) is doing this for some personal profit reason needs to be knocked down by honorable people. There is no evidence to support 1 or 2 and to let people repeat them without evidence is to in some fashion stand by while good people who are serving The Republic, are slandered.

    In my view what Charlie and his staff are doing is trying to save human spaceflight in The Republic. And the people who are opposing them are the same group of thunderheads who chanted “stay the course” while Americans were dying senselessly in Iraq….

    You may disagree with that, and we can go at it on the policy differences…but when you make a charge like you did with Garver, unless you have some seriously good evidence, stuff that is so clear that it takes me about 20 seconds even with half a bottle of JD down (and that is not now) to recognize…. then I’ll cut your legs out when I can.

    Robert G. Oler

  • “This commercial take is primarily to give money to the group Garver has historic supported”

    This sort of charge against Garver has been made before. I’ll point out that, as her husband works for LockMart Space, she stands to lose out big time on canning constellation, especially since they have no plans for a non-Constellation rocket/capsule system that I’m aware of and no more experience with making manned launch systems than SpaceX. She has a conflict of interest alright, but in the totally opposite direction of what you suggest.

  • Robert G. Oler

    I would add one more thing about this policy.

    I am quite certain that at some point I will find something to disagree with on it.

    But what saddens me the most, as basically a person who believes in the genius of individual Freedom coupled with Free Enterprise and the glory that both brought the American economy…and the middle class…indeed it created it. Is that the people who profess to defend Free Enterprise most are now attacking a policy…which at its heart, it core is to enable what has worked in every other venue of American society…to work in human spaceflight.

    This policy is being attacked in the most ridiculous terms, by people who at one point were serious. Richard Shelby with all due respect is just making arguments that are incoherent. On the one hand, in a speech to a local group he is a champion of free enterprise; pillories Obama in not promoting it enough in Obama’s stimulus (a charge I find merit in) but then without shame or pause or even a modicum of “head spinning” launches into an attack ON FREE ENTERPRISE in defense of Shelby’s brand of socialism, which is a NASA run NASA governed, NASA maintained human spaceflight program.

    A program which is by no metric working well. Forget the billions spent on Ares; more then what it took in total to develop Atlas/Delta and even Falcon 9…forget the timelines which are so far into the future as to be simply vapor ware…NASA human spaceflight has so far killed 14 people in comical errors and sloppy management which only got a pass because it was spaceflight.

    If going back to the Moon was as important as people like Homer Hickem, Paul Spudis, and even our own Mark Whittington endlessly bang away…the program of record wont do it until 20 years from now. And that is if things keep going as they are going…and NASA has never met a timeline it could not stretch out.

    If the program were working well, then the cost might not be an issue…but it is not…so the cost are an issue…and if the cost were under control then a successtimeline 20 years from now might not be an issue, but it is. If the Chinese are going to the Moon (a statement with no fact) then surely they can do it in under 20 years…we did.

    Sorry, not a single person who has raised their intellectual powers in defense of Constellation has come up with a single thing that is anywhere near logical…all the while attacking one of the two foundations of The Republic, one of the two things that makes us different then every other nation on the Earth.

    My temptation, after being overseas and listening to endless stupid chants of “stay the course”…is to say to those people (some expletive phrase which better judgment has me deleting) but instead to all those who say “the Chinese are going we need to hurry” my line is

    show us something more then your fears.

    In the meantime I will reveal in the joys that human spaceflight is finally embracing one of the two tenents of American liberty…Free Enterprise.

    now all you folks who support Constellation…you be its enemy.

    Long Live The Republic

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    I wonder if John has every actually read the Vision for Space Exploration:

    “The Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter is enabled by Project Prometheus, NASA’s program to develop space nuclear power and propulsion technology. The
    nuclear power and nuclear-electric propulsion technologies that support this mission are also key to enabling other advanced robotic missions and
    human missions beyond Earth’s orbit. In addition to mapping new oceans, the systems on the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter will be a forerunner of the systems needed to send humans to other worlds, to supply power for human expeditions on these worlds, and to pursue other challenging robotic science missions.”

    ===

    “For human explorers to undertake lengthy research trips on other worlds, they will have to maintain their health in environments that possess higher radiation and lower gravity than Earth and that are far from supplies and medical expertise. Research aboard the International Space Station and at various laboratories on Earth is critical to understanding the effects of space environments on the human body, developing techniques for mitigating these hazards”

    ===

    “NASA does not plan to develop new launch vehicle capabilities except
    where critical NASA needs—such as heavy lift—are not met by commercial or military systems.”

    ===

    “In the days of the Apollo program, human exploration systems employed expendable, single-use vehicles requiring large ground crews and careful monitoring. For future, sustainable exploration programs,
    NASA requires cost-effective vehicles that may be reused, have systems that could be applied to more than one destination, and are highly reliable
    and need only small ground crews. NASA plans to invest in a number of new approaches to exploration, such as robotic networks, modular systems, pre-positioned propellants, advanced power and propulsion, and in-space assembly, that could enable these kinds of vehicles. These technologies will be demonstrated on the ground, at the Space Station and other locations in Earth orbit, and on the Moon starting this decade and into the next. Other breakthrough technologies, such as nuclear power and propulsion, optical communications, and potential use of space resources, will be demonstrated as part of robotic exploration missions.”

    Show me how constellation is in any way shape or form is fullfilling the VSE?

    1. NO new launch systems, ONLY commercial, UNLESS they need a HLV, it directly implied if no HV is needed, it is not to be pursued. NO Ares I.

    2. The CEV will be designed from the start to be launched by either commercial or existing ULA launchers.

    3. Assembled in space, reusable, space based, vehicles that will be fueled from orbital fuel depots using advanced nuclear propulsion.

    4. Griffin did everything exactly opposite of how the VSE was supposed to be executed.

  • frotski

    Ok, to address the articles point of : “Although the critics seem small in number, their vehemence surprises me.”

    This is totally false! I read these blogs all the time and before the new budget was released there were way more people saying cancel Constellation than those that wanted to keep it.

    Now, since the budget is released I have seen a big swing the other way, MOST people now want to keep Constellation, therefore, the critics are not small in number, they are by FAR the majority now. By FAR !!

    And the next topic of people not trusting commercial companies… They are taking this way out of context. I feel most all of us trust PUBLICLY traded large commercial companies like Lockheed, Grumman, etc…

    But, a PRIVATE company like SpaceX with 400 people, THAT is what people are not sure about. So don’t make a blanket statement that all commercial companies are viewed the same.

    A friend of mine was at a Super Bowl party with a manager from SpaceX and the manager told him that they are very new to all of this and don’t really even know where to start with the man rating portion of a vehicle.

    But hey, somehow they will be ready before big companies with lot’s of experience… OK, LOL

  • CessnaDriver

    “now all you folks who support Constellation…you be its enemy.”

    yeah right.

    Frank Borman, Gene Cernan, Scott Carpenter, Charlie Duke, Tom Jones, Harrison Schmitt, Homer Hickam, and many others disagree with you.

    http://web.me.com/michaelokuda/CONSTELLATION/VOICES.html

  • The fundamental flaw in private US commercial spaceflight companies is the fact that they don’t have any history in flying humans safely into orbit. In fact, they currently don’t have any manned spaceflight operations going on at all. Russia’s commercial Energia does but US companies currently don’t.

    And it will probably take 5 to 10 years before these private companies even launch a human into orbit and perhaps an additional 3 to 5 years before NASA is confident enough to send any of its astronauts aboard these vessels.

    Secondly, there’s not enough manned space traffic to the ISS to support more than one company from the US side so we’d be pretty much setting up a manned spaceflight monopoly for just one company while putting the other companies out of business.

    And, of course, one fatal accident puts this company out of business and opens up extensive Congressional investigations that will probably end up with NASA operating its own manned vehicles again.

    Trying to support these manned spaceflight companies with NASA contracts to ferry astronauts to the ISS is just economically stupid. These companies need to take NASA development money and do their own thing while focusing on space tourism and commercial satellite launches in order to compete against Energia, Arianespace, China, India, and maybe even Japan. And the US government needs to help these private companies by setting up a national space lotto system to help create the manned space traffic that these private companies need.

  • common sense

    “A friend of mine was at a Super Bowl party with a manager from SpaceX and the manager told him that they are very new to all of this and don’t really even know where to start with the man rating portion of a vehicle.”

    So who is this SpaceX manager? Would you care to share?

  • frotski

    common sense, I don’t know anyone who works for SpaceX so I didn’t ask my friend for his name. Would that matter if I put a name down? You can believe me or not but I have no reason to doubt my friend.

  • Ferris Valyn

    frotski –

    I am sorry, but you are wrong. I would say there are a number of people who weren’t commenting, who supported Constellation, who were keeping their mouth shut, despite all of the problems, for one reason or another. Then, when the unthinkable happened, a few of them came out of the woodwork, and started screaming.

    However, I would argue that they are not the majority. Nor are they right.

    Second – No one is saying you have to only trust SpaceX. Everyone here, who backs commercial, also backs using EELVs & Orion-lites (at least, most of those I know of – anyone who thinks otherwise say so now). And lets not forget someone else who IS a publicly traded company, Who IS providing at least Cargo to ISS, and discussed crew to ISS as well (IE OSC)

    In point of fact, we all want Commercial spaceflight to include both OldSpace & NewSpace – that is what is going on right now, an attempt to merge those 2 concepts. So, when people say they don’t trust commercial because its new companies, they are either being dishonest, or uniformed. Because its not just Commercial == SpaceX.

    Its Commercial == SpaceX & OSC & Boeing & ULA & SNC, to name a few.

    BTW, SpaceX is up to 900 employees, not 400

    CessnaDriver – Newt Gingrich, Buzz Aldrin, Sally Ride, Norm Augustine, James Cameron, and many others disagree with you. Your point?

    Marcel – Then, exactly what does USA do? and who built the space shuttle? Just wondering here.

  • common sense

    @frotski:

    I am sure the SpaceX execs would love to know who says such things inside their ranks. And no I do not believe you. Not as you stated anyway. Or let’s put it this way I do not believe your friend or the way it was reported to you. Look at this http://spacex.com/company.php and tell who is new to HSF?

  • @ Ferris Valyn

    Practically everything in America is built by private companies. And NASA is funded by the American tax payers. So the America people built the Space Shuttle and the American people put men on the Moon. And I’m proud of that!

    Last year, however, $8.4 billion dollars was spent for manned space operations related to the space shuttle, ISS, and Constellation program. The private commercial companies are only getting a tiny portion of the NASA budget, $1.2 billion a year. So this NASA vs. the private companies is a bait and switch ruse by the administration. The real question is how is the other $7.2 billion in manned space flight money being utilized. And how could it be utilized if it had been raised another $3 billion a year as recommended by the Augustine Commission.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ February 19th, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    The fundamental flaw in private US commercial spaceflight companies is the fact that they don’t have any history in flying humans safely into orbit. ..

    that is just ignorance. NASA could not fly the shuttle without private companies…and the “expertise” at NASA is questionable at best…they have killed 14 people.

    learn some facts

    Robert G. Oler

  • frotski

    common sense, that is your choice and fine with me. I looked at the spacex page you pointed out, was there something on there about how many humans they have launched into space and how long they have been launching humans into space?

    the company itself has only been around 8 years, not exactly what i would call “a long time”. maybe a mcdonalds franchise has become proficient in 8 years but that’s not long for launching humans into space.

    or wait, have they launched humans into space? you did say they were not new to HSF right?

    so, if they are not new to HSF, just go ahead and tell me how many people they have launched into space?

  • “Now, since the budget is released I have seen a big swing the other way, MOST people now want to keep Constellation, therefore, the critics are not small in number, they are by FAR the majority now. By FAR !!”

    You’ve seen a swing the other way on these sites. But these sites don’t represent American opinion (which from most surveys would mostly rather just be rid of NASA entirely). And most of the truly angry folks have died down a bit to the point where it’s more of a debate.

    “And the next topic of people not trusting commercial companies… They are taking this way out of context. I feel most all of us trust PUBLICLY traded large commercial companies like Lockheed, Grumman, etc…

    But, a PRIVATE company like SpaceX with 400 people, THAT is what people are not sure about. So don’t make a blanket statement that all commercial companies are viewed the same.”

    That’s 900 people and if stockholders were the issue then we weouldn’t have had to bail out the banking industry. Stockholders don’t make a company reputable. And having a board of directors telling Musk what to do would have resigned Spacex to the Falcon 1 long ago if not canned the company entirely. Musk will put the company on its legs before he does an IPO.

    “A friend of mine was at a Super Bowl party with a manager from SpaceX and the manager told him that they are very new to all of this and don’t really even know where to start with the man rating portion of a vehicle. ”

    So a friend of a friend of mine said he’d been to Mars and there was nothing to see there. Really? All you’ve got is a friend who was at a Super Bowl party with a guy who said he was a SpaceX manager? Give me a break.

  • “The fundamental flaw in private US commercial spaceflight companies is the fact that they don’t have any history in flying humans safely into orbit. In fact, they currently don’t have any manned spaceflight operations going on at all. Russia’s commercial Energia does but US companies currently don’t. ”

    Actually, that would be a pretty good argument against Orion. Orion was designed and developed by Lockheed Martin, in case you weren’t aware. Lockheed has never, not even once, flown a human-rated spacecraft. The closest they’ve come is the External Tank which is essentially a really big gas tank, not to mention being the single largest threat to shuttle safety. They have no more experience at any of this than anyone else. Boeing on the other hand has built several of our manned spacecraft and developed a few test vehicles as well.

    “And it will probably take 5 to 10 years before these private companies even launch a human into orbit and perhaps an additional 3 to 5 years before NASA is confident enough to send any of its astronauts aboard these vessels.”

    2016, perhaps. but the only people who agree with the most pessimistic of your predictions are congressional squeeky wheels who have neither the expertise, nor the objective viewpoint necessary to make that judgment.

    “Secondly, there’s not enough manned space traffic to the ISS to support more than one company from the US side so we’d be pretty much setting up a manned spaceflight monopoly for just one company while putting the other companies out of business. ”

    SpaceX has several booked Dragon Lab flights, and any one of these companies could supply Bigelow modules. In addition, there are a number of people willing and able to foot the bill to fly an orbital tourist flight. Heck there are people willing and able to buy cislunar Soyuz flights through Space Adventures. As Bigelow stated, the problem is not that there aren’t suppliers or destinations, it’s that there are neither. Bigelow won’t launch the BA-330 because there’s no way to get anyone up there at the moment.

  • “You can believe me or not but I have no reason to doubt my friend.”

    I don’t believe you, and we have every reason in the world to doubt your friend.

  • Robert G. Oler

    frotski wrote @ February 19th, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    what I doubt is that you understood what you were hearing.

    If NASA has anything to do with Human rating, then that statement is probably a correct one. My feeling is that NO launch vehicle can meet the requirements that NASA has or does on a daily basis lay down for human rating, that includes Ares. The difference is that as things roll on had Ares continued NASA would have at some point reached the end of the dollars and run up against reality and simply waived some of the requirements or satisfied them in a manner as to be absurd.

    If you want an “example” of that then go see how the “pole” works in the shuttle…It was a lot of money spent for essentially nothing.

    On the other hand if SpaceX and the other folks who know how to launch rockets have any say so in it, then there is no real doubt about how to human rate a vehicle.

    I think you are getting excited over nothing.

    Robert G. Oler

  • “I looked at the spacex page you pointed out, was there something on there about how many humans they have launched into space and how long they have been launching humans into space?”

    If you had actually read the page instead of skimming the intro you’d have noticed a long list of folks from established space companies who have experience in developing, testing, and maintaining human space components. Some highlights:

    “Bowersox also served as the director of the Johnson Space Center’s Flight Crew Operations Directorate and as an independent aerospace consultant, serving on the NASA standing review boards for Space Shuttle, ISS, Constellation, Orion and the Constellation Suit System.”

    “Mr. Mueller has a track record as one of the world’s foremost rocket engine designers and is responsible for building and managing an elite propulsion development group at SpaceX. Before being recruited to SpaceX, Mr. Mueller spent 14 years at TRW where he ran the Propulsion and Combustion Products Department, responsible for all liquid rocket engine activities.”

    “Shortly before joining SpaceX, Chris Thompson was given responsibility for all Test and Verification activities at the Boeing Huntington Beach Engineering Labs, which supports all development and qualification tests on Delta II, III, and IV, Titan IV, and Space Station. The T&V activities ranged from structural, dynamic, space simulation, material and mechanical properties, and complete system tests at Huntington Beach and various government test facilities.

    Mr. Thompson has also worked Delta II launch operations at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg Air Force Base. He also managed the precision inspection, non-destructive test, and Shuttle cryogenic test departments during his tenure at Huntington Beach.

    The point is that SpaceX may be new, but it’s staff, particularly it’s executive staff, have a long history of spacecraft design and testing including manned sytems such as STS and ISS. These are not hobby rocket folks. These are serious aerospace professionals with long and productive careers in the industry who in some cases left their jobs at those companies to work at SpaceX. You’re right, they haven’t flown people yet, but to discount them out of hand disregards the accumulated experience they have.

  • common sense

    “or wait, have they launched humans into space? you did say they were not new to HSF right?

    so, if they are not new to HSF, just go ahead and tell me how many people they have launched into space?”

    Sorry no I am tired of this line of argument. Clearly NASA think that SpaceX may work but you don’t. I am concerned with NASA.

  • Bill White

    @Marcel

    Secondly, there’s not enough manned space traffic to the ISS to support more than one company from the US side so we’d be pretty much setting up a manned spaceflight monopoly for just one company while putting the other companies out of business.

    Spot on.

    This is why “commercial” space needs destinations in LEO other than ISS, sooner rather than later.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Marcel & Bill

    The issue there is we don’t actually know what a fully manned fully utilized ISS would have in the way of traffic. There are possibilities that it would be quite high. But we don’t know

    That said, I do agree we need more destinations, but this can act as the first anchor.

  • Robert G. Oler

    “that is just ignorance. NASA could not fly the shuttle without private companies…and the “expertise” at NASA is questionable at best…they have killed 14 people.”

    So you hate NASA and believe only in the corporations. Well good for you!

    And the fact that 14 pioneers died on expeditions to the New Frontier is nothing new in the history of the US or humanity.

  • common sense

    @Robert G. Oler:

    Well well well. Things may be turning! I cannot just believe it yet…
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100219/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_public_option
    I am sure some on this site will blow a fuse but it is required today to get going on anything in the future including HSF and NASA.

    Hope…

  • Storm

    Jim D. wrote @ February 19th, 2010 at 10:03 am

    “However, the Dela IV and Atlas V, and their proposed variants, have serious risks associated with them in the HSF areana based on their launch trajectories and abort scenerios — crews will face “significant organ displacement” — and that is the nicest way I’ve seen it put. EELVs are not the answer, and when you start looking at how to make them safe, you quickly realize you are talking about an entirely new approach.”

    The launch trajectory and abort scenario is linked, at least to my understanding – The steeper launch trajectory of the Delta/Atlas EELV’s is a result of their lower performance in comparison to solid fuel. As a result EELV’s can’t sniff the daisy’s on their way up to LEO. As a result of their steeper climb communication to and from the craft, on the edge of space, don’t get through as well. I’m sure some of you will know what I’m talking about. Ares I negated this problem by climbing in a more gradual rate so that the rocket was more horizontal to the ground thereby facing the ground to receive the signal in case ground crews detected a launch failure, so that the abort could be initiated and communicated to the spacecraft. But note that this anomaly only takes place at a particular point during the ascent. Throughout most of the ascent communication between an EELV and ground crew would be solid. When comparing how much safer liquid fuel is than solid fuel I would be much more willing to take the risk considering the high success rate of the EELV’s.

    The other remark concerning the high thrust is false to my knowledge. There are many sensitive payload packages that the EELV’s have to launch – especially for DoD. Therefore EELV’s have a lower thrust capacity. I think its called variable thrust, which was one of the central goals in the development of the EELV’s.

  • And the fact that 14 pioneers died on expeditions to the New Frontier is nothing new in the history of the US or humanity.

    I agree. So why should the commercial providers be expected to do better? I think they will, but I don’t understand all of the concern about safety. When private companies kill people, they sometimes go out of business (e.g., Valuejet). When NASA does so, they get bigger budgets. Which incentive do you think is more effective for crew safety?

  • red

    Marcel: “The private commercial companies are only getting a tiny portion of the NASA budget, $1.2 billion a year. So this NASA vs. the private companies is a bait and switch ruse by the administration.”

    It isn’t a bait and switch ruse. The administration isn’t saying “NASA vs. the private companies” in the first place. NASA isn’t going away. That message is just hysteria from the Constellation interests. NASA is getting a budget increase. It’s still using contractors like it always has.

    All that is changing with this small portion of NASA’s budget is how the NASA contracts with private companies are arranged. Instead of NASA paying for the development, they will pay for some of it and the contractors will pay for some of it. In return, the contractors own the vehicle. NASA can purchase services that it needs from the companies, and the companies can sell their services for other purposes. They can go after markets like satellite launch, space labs (like DragonLab), ISS cargo, commercial space station transportation, space tourism of different sorts, or whatever else makes business and technical sense.

    Marcel: “The real question is how is the other $7.2 billion in manned space flight money being utilized.”

    There’s really no question about that. The 2011 budget proposal makes that very clear. It’s going for things like:

    – making sure the Shuttle finishes its job
    – demonstrations of essential techologies like in-orbit propellant transfer, inflatable modules, closed-loop life support, ISRU, in-space propulsion, automated rendezvous and docking, and more
    – robotic precursors (as opposed to robotic science missions) to search for resources and assess hazards to astronauts at HSF destinations (eg: ISRU demo at the Moon or an asteroid, Moon surface telerobotics)
    – R&D for heavy lift, in-space engine technology development and demos, and basic propulsion research
    – fully using the ISS
    – extending the ISS to 2020+
    – expanding ISS capabilities (eg: a centrifuge)
    – modernize KSC to make it more efficient and reduce launch costs
    – Constellation close-out costs

    Going beyond the HSF budget you were discussing, the overall NASA budget also includes significant increases in non-HSF areas like general space technology, planetary science, Earth science, and aeronautics.

  • Kat

    No one has been holding back the commercial sector in creating human rated space vehicles, so why haven’t they already built and marketed them? The reason is, they need the government to finance the cost of building them and then have the government pay the commercial companies to take the astronauts up to the station. Also they say that the commercial companies will be cheaper, but I doubt it, because the cost will escalate when the commerical vehicles have to meet all the regulations the government will demand to ensure safe human rated space flights.

  • Storm

    Kat

    “because the cost will escalate when the commerical vehicles have to meet all the regulations the government will demand to ensure safe human rated space flights.”

    Right, but have you compared Ares supplier/contracting model to SpaceX? Sure the cost will climb some, but SpaceX has always followed the NASA guidelines for Human Ratings Standards. I think the launch abort system will be costly, but SpaceX is following tough standards already. I would be shocked if Falcon ended up in even the same ballpark as Ares, which is already $6 billion midway through development.

  • Marcel F. Williams, Atlas V has a flawless flight history, and Orion Light is being targeted to sit on top of one. I think that Atlas and Falcon are going to be able to be man rated before the contract with Russia is up. Especially since SpaceX has complete 14 of 22 milestones with regards man rating Dragon as per COTS-A-C. The 5-10 year statement you have mad is an exaggeration. To go from pen and paper Falcon 9 to almost launching in 4 years is a remarkable achievement, especially since the whole process has been through meeting NASA COTS milestones, each process being more rigorous than the previous. If given COTS-D SpaceX could have a man rated vehicle by 2013. I expect SpaceX to get COTS-D once they complete COTS-A-C DEMO.

    Bill White, are you the Bill White I used to know from the early New Mars days? In any case, I agree with you, and as Brent Sherwood said on the Space Show (Feb. 14th), with orbital depots you give private space a place to go and refuel, which opens up cis-lunar space significantly. You wouldn’t need a big, slow, rocket to get there. You can use small cheaper rockets to get to LEO, refuel, and head on over to the moon. Also, since the depots would have to be refueled, you’re creating an industry right there alone. It is a win win all around, in my opinion.

    Good to see you, btw, if you’re who I think you are.

    Rand Simberg, private space can do better than STS because there has not been one American death during liftoff (or reentry) on an in-line rocket with an escape system on top. Not one. And they’re not sitting next to dry fuel which, once lit, will not stop. Basically the new designs are intrinsically safer.

    There’s a reason they went with the Ares I design. (Only it’s still much less safe than EELV, but I’m sure that discussion has been hashed out here before many times.)

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ February 19th, 2010 at 6:31 pm

    So you hate NASA and believe only in the corporations. Well good for you!…

    ridiculous conclusion…

    “And the fact that 14 pioneers died on expeditions to the New Frontier is nothing new in the history of the US or humanity.”

    yes and no…yes people have died in opening new frontiers…but neither of the two space shuttles was launched “opening a new frontier” both were lost because of the incompetence of the management staff at NASA…so to hear you sing their praises is a bit revolting

    Robert G. Oler

  • Storm

    Glad you haven’t lost you appetite for carnage Oler. We’ll see how much time you have for this stuff after your baby is born. Have you ever tried typing with a baby on your lap?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Storm wrote @ February 19th, 2010 at 9:36 pm

    Glad you haven’t lost you appetite for carnage Oler. We’ll see how much time you have for this stuff after your baby is born. Have you ever tried typing with a baby on your lap?..

    have some plans for the future have worked up having the baby carrier in the “study” so LJ can watch Hardball in particular, Meet The Press and of course observe the great dialogue on Space Politics. She should be use to “Lets play Hardball”…but of course there are the best laid plans of mice and men…

    lol

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    “No one has been holding back the commercial sector in creating human rated space vehicles, so why haven’t they already built and marketed them?”

    Show me the commercial certification program for licensing a human spaceflight rocket in the 1960’s? 1970’s? 1980’s?

    Where is the government’s “man rating” guidelines that commercial firms could follow to get a lic. or certification in the 1960’s? 1970’s? 1980’s?

    There has been so many roadblocks established by the military and NASA to protect a monopoly on human space flight that WHY would a company waste their time and money KNOWING there would ALWAYS be just one more rule to follow, just one more ton of documentation needed. Just one more ton of documents documenting the documents. Anything and everything to make any commercial attempt to expensive it would ALMOST cost as much as a NASA program. Because, god forbid, a commercial firm does ANYTHING successful in human spaceflight that puts a civilian into space at a lower cost then NASA and there goes the NASA pork train.

    You honestly believe a Porkster in congress getting all the campaign finance wants his pork train coming to an end with low cost access to space, in which case the American public would freak out over how much NASA spends for the same thing the commercial firm is doing at 50% of the cost that NASA is charging the taxpayers?

  • Bill White

    @ Josh Cryer

    Hi Josh! Check your NewMars PM in-box.

    . . . with orbital depots you give private space a place to go and refuel, which opens up cis-lunar space significantly . . .

    Indeed. Add an EML Gateway depot and a reusable lunar lander and we open up the Moon.

    Therefore I find I agree with Chris Carberry:

    “While the new space plan has some extremely worthy goals, it needs more definition,” said Chris Carberry, chairman of the SEA’s steering committee. “We plan to urge Congress, NASA, and the Administration to strengthen the plan by adding ambitious timelines for achieving its goals and making sure that there are worthy destinations for the United States space program.”

  • @red

    The ISS is the ultimate LEO program. I thought NASA was supposed to stop wasting its money on LEO and leave that to private industry. Now we find out that the ISS is going to receive even more funds.

    A beyond LEO program requires beyond LEO space craft. And there are no funds in the Obama program to immediately develop any new beyond LEO space craft. Its pretty obvious that Obama has very little interest in the space program and wishes someone else (maybe private industry) would take this program off his hands.

  • Bill White, always great to see familiar faces, and I can’t say I disagree with Chris Carberry. I have stated before (primarily on NASAWatch) that I think the new direction could have come with a robust plan. But those plans take time to formulate (I believe ESAS took several months). Bolden did say that when he met with the steering committee he would outline “the beginnings of a plan,” and I think there is a glimmer of hope that they aren’t going all out on this and do have a good focus from an outline point of view. Brent Sherwood talked about this in depth, best I just recommend a listen rather than try to write it all out in text, though.

    Good to hear from ya!

  • Marcel F. Williams, under Cx we weren’t going in to LEO for up to a decade (during the time period between ISS scuttling and Ares V). We weren’t going in to space, period.

    Keeping the ISS funded allows private space to have a destination, as long as private space can continue to develop, we will be getting somewhere. A fuel depot in orbit, likewise, would provide a destination that would require dozens of flights a year. As long as there is a demand for it (NASA needs fuel in the depots), there will be incentive to create more private space companies. So SpaceX would not be the only one with a “monopoly” on LEO or cis-lunar or the like. There will be more companies going about it a different way. Orbital, ULA, etc. A competitive environment, likewise, would help bring costs down significantly, and allow NASA to do what it does best.

    Develop high technology to survive and explore within space.

    Rather than rockets to get us there.

  • Storm

    Cryer,

    Yeah, we’ve told Marcel F. Williams and John the same thing in so many different ways. I just don’t know how they can continue thinking in the same regards.

    But check this out. I met this crazy guy Googaw in the Beware of those Alabama pigs forum on this sight. He had some amazing ideas that matched my perception quite well. He sure had a lot to say. Here is just a bit of what he touched on.

    “I should emphasize that the biggest benefit from refueling comes when we can’t predict or don’t want to lock in ahead of launch which spacecraft will be doing how much maneuvering. We can have a mobile depot that, by raising or lowering its orbit a bit, slowly makes its way around the heliocentric orbit, refueling each spacecraft in the constellation by however much it needs.”

    You see, what we’re talking about is mission versatility. This is extremely critical to defense possibilities for space survelance, but will also change the whole game for exploration, repair, assembly, astronomy, and almost any other activity you could imagine in space.

    Here it is in a nut shell you pro Cx hardliners.

    To divert all of our funding to a big expensive rocket, that at least 5 or 6 companies that I can name off the top of my head can build cheaper, is just not smart. In fact its a threat to national security. The Russians are in the concept stages of matching the Obama plan with ideas such as refueling depots. I can’t refer to anyone on this sight as a threat to national security since it got me in trouble last time, but put two and two together PLEASE!

  • Storm, I’ve been commenting to similar names on NASAWatch, but it’s nice to see that there’s a more balanced view here on SpacePolitics. I’ve been observing for a few days yet, but decided to comment tonight. Good post, btw.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Josh Cryer wrote @ February 20th, 2010 at 12:08 am

    welcome Robert G. Oler

  • “No one has been holding back the commercial sector in creating human rated space vehicles, so why haven’t they already built and marketed them? The reason is, they need the government to finance the cost of building them and then have the government pay the commercial companies to take the astronauts up to the station.”

    Actually Musk had every intention from day 1 of building manned rockets with or without the government. Furthermore, a host of other companies planned on doing manned orbital. Sadly few remain, such as Sierra Nevada and Bigelow (provided Orion Lite isn’t currently dead, which I’ve heard nothing on way or the other). But there are some still in the field, which didn’t happen in the last round of space startups.

    “Also they say that the commercial companies will be cheaper, but I doubt it, because the cost will escalate when the commerical vehicles have to meet all the regulations the government will demand to ensure safe human rated space flights.”

    Falcon 9 costs less than half as much per lb than any comparable rocket and less than half of Soyuz or STS. It would take a lot to push that price up by that much. Falcon 1 dropped performance and raised costs, but not by that much. Whatever the government demands I expect it won’t be much of a surprise to SpaceX or Sierra Nevada. A challenge, maybe, but not a surprise. I guarantee you prices will rise, but it’s almost as sure a bet they won’t rise that high. And compared to flight costs of Ares I at a point at which we don’t even have a test article just about any option would be cheaper. Spreading the dev costs over the flights at a rate of two flights a year it would take decades before the per-flight cost of Ares I would be even in the ballpark of anything flying or yet to fly.

  • “Glad you haven’t lost you appetite for carnage Oler. We’ll see how much time you have for this stuff after your baby is born. Have you ever tried typing with a baby on your lap?”

    Funny you should mention that, I have a two-year-old pinning my typing arm the the couch as we speak. Nothing a programmer can’t handle, though. Type sideways with limited range of motion while laying down? Not a problem. I used to fix call center databases remotely with a baby screaming and my phone link to the boss on mute at two in the morning. It’s not as challenging as you might imagine.

  • “And there are no funds in the Obama program to immediately develop any new beyond LEO space craft.”

    Actually there are funds appropriated to an HLV R&D program in the 2011 budget including direction to develop test articles, though admittedly no specific vehicle yet. They could R&D the heck out of it for 5 years and still have a rocket on the pad before Ares V left blueprints. Ares I couldn’t go to the Moon without Ares V and Ares V wasn’t going to see a dime until somewhere around 2018 provided the timeline didn’t slip. And Altair had been so mothballed the Apollo lander would fly again before it did.

  • danwithaplan

    “Falcon 9 costs less than half as much per lb than any comparable rocket and less than half of Soyuz or STS. It would take a lot to push that price up by that much”

    Falcon 9 has no flown history AT ALL, yet. The R-7 variants have flown over 1700 times successfully. That alone makes the soyuz a more preferable vehicle/capsule.

    Also, costs and prices are 2 different things (although related, ideally) Musk’s will go up as his company learns the ropes.

  • “Also, costs and prices are 2 different things (although related, ideally) Musk’s will go up as his company learns the ropes.”

    Yes, but not by a factor of 2 or more. And that, fundamentally, is my point. And to your cost vs prices argument that’s a very good point. I forgot the Russians were planning on significantly raising the price of a seat after the contract is up. Thanks for reminding me.

  • danwithaplan, SpaceX could go up by a factor of 5 and still be competitive. NASA would probably be fine with paying as much as a factor of 8 (per seat), to an American company. This is, of course, not ideal, and one would hope that NASA (and taxpayers) get a good deal out of it (I’m hoping for $20 million or less per seat). However, if ULA gets in the mix, if Orbital gets in the mix, if Armadillo (I know, I know, just another name I’m intimately familiar with) gets in the mix, you could be seeing some crazy price reductions.

    Granted, Soyuz has an impeccable flight history, but so does Atlas (albeit much shorter). So NASA may be more comfortable with an Orion Lite on top of an Atlas than they would be with an unproven Falcon 9. However, I hear that the rigorous rating program that NASA is going through is pretty tough, so if Falcon 9 gets the NASA stamp of approval, I believe it can be a successful rocket. But that’s still a good 3-5 years out yet.

    aremisasling, yeah, the Russians / Energia are raising the price of their seats when the contract is up in 2013 (never-mind that we are likely already paying for a full launch of a Soyuz with the price we’re fixed in to now). Even more the reason we should back NASAs new direction so they can release COTS-D funding as soon as possible. These companies can’t reasonably get to work on something until they know that they’re going to get paid if they do it.

  • Current costs for one seat on Soyuz is $51 million for us ($35 million for tourists, nice huh). Current cost per flight of shuttle is 60 million. SpaceX has published a per seat cost of $20 million. In both cases this includes training, in flight supplies, and ground support. Unfortunately I was unable to find the same number for shuttle as it’s not a number that really makes sense for an in-house system. Either way, it’s 2.5 times the price on soyuz by current estimates and that’s without the price increase, which we don’t know yet but have been assured will happen. It’s cheaper by a factor of 1.5 than the discount rate for tourists on Soyuz.

    While your comment on Soyuz’s flight reliability is certainly correct, I’ll note that as the most reliable and most frequently flown human spacecraft ever, and one of the better for any spacecraft at all, your argument would be equal justification for having never had a US manned space program to begin with. Shuttle has a MUCH worse record. And Soyuz certainly has a better record than Ares/Orion. If the only thing that was important was proven reliability, and it is important to be sure, the only manned spacecraft that would ever fly would be Soyuz.

  • googaw

    The theory that we should develop a hypothetical technology (depots) to enable a hypothetical market for another hypothetical technology to develop yet another hypothetical market (the market for orbital RLVs) is an argument that would make Rube Goldberg proud. The justifications for previous NASA “infrastructure” that was supposed to enable commerce, such as the Shuttle and ISS, were far better than that.

    To develop RLVs, the best routes are evolutionary ones that some companies are already pursuing: (1) make ELV lower stages reusable, probably with mid-air capture, then later work on the upper stages, and (2) develop RLVs for the surborbital tourist and science/education markets. Only after we’ve done those two things will we be ready for more advanced forms of orbital RLV.

    As Storm pointed out, there are good direct reasons to do R&D on depots on on-orbit refueling: they will allow us to far more efficiently adapt spacecraft to unpredictable events. Refueling provides what MBAs call “real options” which have a financial value that can be computed in the same way as financial options.

    A mundane but very important example: satellites end their life either by (1) running out of propellant or (2) with propellant still on board. In the first case we waste perfectly good hardware that often would have lasted much longer, in the second case we’ve launched often far more propellant than we actually needed. So refueling satellites will both give them longer average lifespans and will reduce the amount of propellant we need to launch at the start.

    The less predictable their operations, and the more satellites share an orbit, the more they benefit from a mobile depot that makes its way around the orbit giving refills. Many military and certain kinds of scientific operations benefit the most and should be targeted as early adopters. Mission planning will be radically transformed into a far more flexible path (to coin a phrase :-)) In the long run depots in some form, which we can’t currently predict, will also benefit astronaut missions beyond LEO by allowing them to launch without HLVs. But that’s a minor benefit by comparison — there are much more compelling and practical reasons of national security, science, and real commerce (satellites) do depot R&D.

  • GuessWho

    “that is just ignorance. NASA could not fly the shuttle without private companies…and the “expertise” at NASA is questionable at best…they have killed 14 people.

    learn some facts

    Robert G. Oler”

    ““Bowersox also served as the director of the Johnson Space Center’s Flight Crew Operations Directorate and as an independent aerospace consultant, serving on the NASA standing review boards for Space Shuttle, ISS, Constellation, Orion and the Constellation Suit System.” -Aremisasling

    So SpaceX is relying on the expertise of someone that was central to the organization that Oler credits with killing 14 astronauts. Well, to be honest, it’s not quite that bad, Bowersox was only in his JSC directors role for the Columbia accident. And Bowersox, while a much decorated astronaut with significant time logged in space and an Air Force pilot (heart-felt “thank you” for your service) has designed how many spacecraft, manned or unmanned?

  • Doug Lassiter

    ““No one has been holding back the commercial sector in creating human rated space vehicles, so why haven’t they already built and marketed them?”

    At least as far as orbital commercial vehicles, I find it astonishing that they have gone ahead and are doing so. Aside from what I consider the pie-in-the-sky prospect of a tourist hab in LEO, we were looking, over the last five years, at a cancellation of US involvement in ISS. Say what you will about the FY11 budget proposal, but it not only provides strong financial support for commercial spaceflight to LEO, but provides renewed commitment to a destination that it didn’t provide for deep space. Commercial spaceflight to LEO now has commitment to a place to go!

    The continuation of ISS is, at least from a federal spending perspective, a powerful incentive for commercial space flight. So is cancellation of Ares I, for that matter.

    From a deep space perspective, the FY11 budget is not highly encouraging. But the overall here is $$/kg to LEO, and the multifaceted embrace of commercial spaceflight is a huge step in addressing that problem. That will, I would hope, eventually lead to advantages for deep space.

  • brobof

    aremisasling wrote @ February 20th, 2010 at 8:01 am
    nice huh
    No economics and the difference between being a Flight Engineer and someone who just waves at the cameras!

    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17027.msg405660#msg405660

    et seq

  • Bowersox, while a much decorated astronaut with significant time logged in space and an Air Force pilot (heart-felt “thank you” for your service) has designed how many spacecraft, manned or unmanned?

    How many people at NASA have designed spacecraft, manned or unmanned?

    One of the reasons that Mike Griffin said that he wanted Marshall to build a new launch system was to learn how, because few of the people working there had ever done it. The expertise lies in private industry (Boeing, Lockmart, ULA, USA), not NASA.

  • “. And Bowersox, while a much decorated astronaut with significant time logged in space and an Air Force pilot (heart-felt “thank you” for your service) has designed how many spacecraft, manned or unmanned”

    Your post makes some fine points re: Bowersox though I’ll point out they’ve had foam release and tile damage issues since the very first flight of shuttle, it’s hardly his issue alone. In fact the first manned STS flights had in the neighborhood of 40 heavily damaged tiles and one of the earlier flights had hot gasses enter the wheel well as a result. Furthermore, having lost not only astronauts on his watch, but also some very close personal friends, I would argue that his experience in command of STS during Columbia is all the more reason why he’d be extra cautious with a manned program

    As for how many spacecraft he’s designed, that’s, again, an argument for not building any new spacecraft. Aside from a handful of old-timers the only people alive on the planet that have flown a brand-new rocket all hail from Asia. Surely you aren’t advocating we allow the Chinese, Koreans, and Indians be the only ones making new rockets? And again, the same can be said for Orion, which is being built by a company which has flown exactly as many manned missions as SpaceX.

    “No economics and the difference between being a Flight Engineer and someone who just waves at the cameras!”

    I’m honestly trying to respond to this one so don’t take any offense to this, but it’s hard to understand what this statement means. I understand that the tourist flights are filling extra seats not otherwise occupied. That makes sense and it’s a good point, though I’ll note that, unlike the airline industry, the space community generally charges a per-seat rate for manned flights and doesn’t usually do ‘fill the seats’ rates so it’s still a little odd.

    And to the flight engineer comment, I believe I covered that with my quote of Mueller’s resume as one of the leading engine designers out there.

    And Chris Thompson’s resume includes supporting “all development and qualification tests on Delta II, III, and IV, Titan IV, and Space Station. The T&V activities ranged from structural, dynamic, space simulation, material and mechanical properties, and complete system tests at Huntington Beach and various government test facilities.” To me that sounds very much like someone who knows a bit about the mechanics and physics of flight components including manned components (space station). He may not have designed them, but I don’t for a second think the leading rocket companies out there would allow someone who just “waves at the cameras” to do the testing for their vehicles. That he was involved in the testing during development suggests even more that he had a close relationship with the design and properties of these vehicles, and even better that he understands the potential pitfalls and problems associated with rocket designs. In engineering, whether it be software, civil, or mechanical, the sign of an experienced engineer is just as much about knowing what can go wrong as it is about good design.

    I mentioned Bowersox partly because he used to be in charge of astronaut safety, partly because he used to be an astronaut, and partly because most folks here know who he is. But I did mention other people in the post. Don’t be distracted by the big name and disregard the rest of the post.

  • common sense

    Re Bowersox:

    http://spacex.com/company.php
    KEN BOWERSOX – VICE PRESIDENT OF ASTRONAUT SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE

    In what way is he supposed to know how to “design” a vehicle??? GuessWho really has no clue what he is talking about yet he makes strong impassionate statements about someone and something he really doesn’t know anything about.

    As for his Air Force “credentials”… “Bowersox received his commission in the United States Navy in 1978 and was designated a Naval Aviator in 1981″ (http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/bowersox.html).

    So someday, any day now, GuessWho will take his reading lessons and then he will make compelling cases. In the mean time he forces us to correct his never endig nonsense. Thanks GuessWho.

  • […] FY10 after several years of no funding. This section of the budget also includes the CRuSR program, which NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver said last week would bet getting $15 million/year in the… (it’s part of a $17 million/year “Flight Opportunities” line item with FAST, […]

  • […] Garver and the changes at NASA from (what I consider to be) the reasonable side of the argument ([3] [4] [5]). As well as more sludge. In the comments posted on a newspaper article: A journalist with […]

Leave a Reply to Rand Simberg 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>