There is a plan that will indeeed lead to the “destruction of manned space flight” in the U.S. It has the initials SLS and does so just to give a few politicians’ constituents jobs for a few years working on a rocket that is impractical for exploration on a large scale (or any scale since Congress won’t budget enough money to get it done in a reasonable time) while ripping off the American taxpayer at large.

Reprising the history of the American space program, the three former astronauts state: “World leadership in space was not achieved easily. In the first half-century of the space age, our country made a significant financial investment, thousands of Americans dedicated themselves to the effort, and some gave their lives to achieve the dream of a nation.” No program in modern history, they state, “has been so effective in motivating the young to do ‘what has never been done before.'”

Nor was the development and design of the Constellation program haphazard or ill-conceived, they state. “The Ares rocket family was patterned after the [Wernher] von Braun Modular concept so essential to the success of the Saturn 1B and the Saturn V” rockets, which took them to the Moon. Although we will have “wasted our current $10-plus billion investment in Constellation,” equally important, “we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have destroyed.” This, for a second time, following the cancellation of the follow-on missions to Apollo, to live on the Moon.

The timing of this letter is no accident. On Thursday, President Obama makes a whirlwind stop in Florida, at the Kennedy Space Center, to try to sell this destruction of manned space flight. Three days ago, more than 4,000 people rallied nearby in protest, to tell the President what they think of his plan. There has been virtually NO support anywhere for this “outsourcing” of NASA. Out of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, ONE has backed the President. And he will see, again, the outrage of the American people.

The DIRECT crowd has been doing that for quite a while now.

The problem is that everyone but them knows it.

I’m afraid that NASA already anticipated the possibility of further cargo perhaps being necessary and thus the CRS program already is expandable to include such demand when it arises. Additional cargo demand on top of what has been purchased can be accommodated. As I said, NASA stated that they intend to stand by their bet on commercial cargo and will live with a reduced crew should its failure necessitate it. 3.1 negative 1.6 equals 1.5. Hard to see how the Shuttle can beat the low low price of 1.5 billion cap to cover further anticipated cargo needs especially when that number can be even lower based upon actual incremental flight price purchased. NASA saves money by not purchasing over capacity.

A penny saved is a penny earned.

SpaceX , $1.6 Billion, 12 flights of Dragon x 2,550kg = 30,660kg or $52,287/kg.

Orbital, $1.9 Billion, 8 flights of Cygnus x 2,700kg = 21,600kg or $87,962/kg

Total, $3.5 Billion, 20 flights = 52,260kg or $66,972/kg for cargo only capability.

This number may be conservative since the same GAO report also shows 20 flights for $3.5 Billion that delivers 36,900 kg or $94,850/kg? It’s not clear what the correct price is for COTS is but it must be between $66-94K/kg based on the GAO report.

The Authorization Bill puts the cost of 2 STS flights per year at $2 Billion dollars. These costs are based on actual quotes from the performing organizations. These two flights can deliver 32,000kg of payload to ISS. Using the MPLM this cargo can be 100% pressurized. There are also unique ISS elements that are needed to extend the life of the ISS to 2020 that only the Space Shuttle can deliver. Plus there are three ISS elements already built but left of the manifest because we didn’t think we could get them flown before 2010. These might be good early missions for the Jupiter-130/Orion.

Anyway back to cost, based on the lower COTS-CRS price of $66,972/kg the STS extension is worth $2.143 Billion dollars. Using the higher value of $94,850/kg and STS extension is worth $3.035 Billion dollars in future cost avoidance since the ISS is now to extended to 2020 plus the increased ISS utilization policy and life extension (supported by both the President and Congress) has increase the ISS logistics needs.

Also the Russians have now given us a market price for a crew seat to ISS at around $80 million dollars, with slim assurances that it won’t climb even higher if we get rid of their only competition at this point. So if we rotate four crew members (American + International Partners we are on the hook for) on each Shuttle mission that is worth $640 million dollars in terms of crew rotation cost avoidance per year.

So a conservative combined ‘value’ of an STS extension based of market prices is at least $2.783 Billion dollars or $231 million dollars per month. Using the higher COTS-CRS price per kg to ISS results in the value of ISS extension growing to $3.675 Billion dollars. If we did four STS flights per year that value doubles to $5.566 – $7.350 Billion dollars while the cost only moves up to $2.4 Billion based on John Shannon said the other day.

Bottomline, under all scenarios, the money spent on an STS-extension will actually lower the lifecycle cost of ISS support. We will either pay this money now or later regardless of the delivery method used (i.e. STS vs. COTS-CRS/Russians). All things considered the STS is in fact a better deal so it will actually continually lower the lifecycle cost of ISS support every year we fly until Jupiter-130/Orion is available which will lower the cost by a factor of 4. Combined with all the other advantages, technical, strategic and political and a STS-extension is looking better everyday.

I’m not suggesting that we don’t honor our commitments to the COTS-CRS vendors. What I’m suggesting is that given that they will be late and given that the utilization and required lifetime are now higher and longer respectively an STS extension ‘saves’ money. We have one LWT sitting in inventory at MAF plus parts for three more tanks. In two years we could have a new tank at the pad. Again one year of STS at 2 flights per year is lower in cost than COTS-CRS.

Sure we could save some money by implementing the Feb 1st plan by shut down ISS ($100 Billion Investment), destroying our existing HLV industrial base and workforce ($40 Billion Investment) and throwing way the progress that has be made on the PoR ($10 Billion Investment). I just think that throwing away $150 Billion dollars is wasteful, but that’s just me, I’m kind-of funny that way, a tens of billions dollars here tens of billions there before you know it your talking real money. Or we could implement option 4B and avoid all the damage above. Plus 50,000 families will thank you.

Waste not want not.

“COTS costs more than Shuttle”

You’re not making an honest comparison. The ISS cargo in question is pressurized cargo, while you’re contrasting Shuttle’s unpressurized cargo capacity versus the COTS provider’s pressurized cargo mandate. Shuttle’s pressurized cargo capacity is much reduced from its unpressurized capacity. Your narrow focus on the “per kg” number ignores that other COTS advantage, that one can order as much cargo as one desires or does not desire, rather than having to sustain a program of a high fixed capacity indefinitely. The entire multi mission CRS awards over the course of several years of ISS service is roughly the same as a single year of maintaining the Space Shuttle. If they wanted more cargo they could have ordered it; they didn’t. Don’t make the mistake of assuming the Shuttle’s capacity is the same as ISS needs. With Soyuz/Progress/ATV/HTV and COTS, ISS will be running at 6 crew unless COTS fails dramatically, which was the “bargain with the devil” made and publicly declared at the CRS awards.

I will state that Griffin didn’t much care for the ISS, and his priority would have been to minimize ISS costs while devoting as much resources to Ares development, so granted the amount purchased may not represent the amount that should have been. I imagine though that after the new admin examines the books they will make adjustments accordingly through increased purchases if more cargo is indeed required.

You can’t take back the CRS awards, any Shuttle extension will be on top of that, so no “Good Deal” for you, and it wasn’t a good deal in the first place.

GAO-00-618
“Commercial Partners Are Making Progress, but Face Aggressive Schedules to Demonstrate Critical Space Station Cargo Transport Capabilities”

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09618.pdf

The logistics situation at the ISS has gotten a lot worse since the June 2009 release of this GAO assessment, due to more slips on the part of ‘both’ COTS contractor’s schedule plus the policy requirement to fully utilize the ISS (old policy was 50% utilization) plus the new policy to extend the life to 2020 (old policy was 2015).

Both old policies were the basis of the June 2009 report. So shutting down the Shuttle will result in the shutting down ISS (ie two man crew) thereby violating international agreements.

Yep the Feb 1st plan just keeps getting better and better the more we look at it, massive layoffs into a swing state no less, destruction of America’s second HLV industrial base and workforce, shutting down the ISS for three years, absolute dependency on Russia for crew access, America HSF is gone, we pay twice the price we are now to get a kg to the ISS via ‘commercial’ low cost? approach.. What deal, where do I sign up?

Given that each flight of the Space Shuttle delivers half the mass of the entire COTS CRS contract (with free crew rotation at no extra charge) at a significantly lower price than COTS per kg, extending the Shuttle is also a good deal from a life cycle cost basis alone.

Leave it to the DC lobbyists to find a way to take something that is already too expensive and make it even more expensive in the name of lowering cost no less. Boy these guys are good. But first they need to take out the evil government system that is actually less expensive based on actual operational cost and not unproven wishfull thinking they are peddling.

As Jeff has correctly pointed out, if your are going to extend the Shuttle then the only HLV that makes sense is a SDHLV.

Option 4B is still a very good option. This is why the Augustine Commission included it for the policy makers. It is the most consistent with past and current Congressional Authorizations (passed and draft) and is the only one that closes the gap and enables the full utilization of the ISS thereby fulfilling international commitments. All other options fall short with regards to these significant policy requirements. Policy requirements that are supportable by the broader Congress.

You know the branch of government that can even force the President from office if they have 2/3. Given the Rep Wolf said he could only find one member of Congress (happens to have SpaceX in his backyard) that supports the Feb 1st plan I would say it’s a good bet that we could get 2/3 to support a compromise plan. The danger now is that they are so mad they will just force the PoR back at the Whitehouse just to make a point.

A compromise plan could still contain all the good ideas that came out on Feb 1st that the President wisely wants in order to fix the serious problems with the PoR. As Senator Nelson pointed out it just needs to be ‘perfected’ which I agree with.

Again only time will tell.

I also think that Andy Aldrin (ULA) was spot on:

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100402-commercial-crew-plan–hinge-risk-sharing.html

Wrong.

NASA Authorization Act 2005 passed 383-15″

That’s not one of the draft authorization bills. It’s an act from five years ago.

“The President’s plan violates both of these provisions.”

Says who? It’s all subject to “to the fullest extent possible consistent with a successful development program.” We tried the Shuttle-derived route with Constellation. It was not “a successful development program.”

“And it appears Congress hasn’t changed their minds in five years either.

Human Space Flight Capability Assurance and Enhancement Act of 2010″

On the contrary, the draft authorization bills back off from dictating a flavor of HLV, as the authorization act did five years ago. Read the language you quoted. It only asks NASA to include Shuttle-derived systems in a review.

“Right now the ISS will need to be shut down (ie two man crew) for about three years under the President’s plan.”

Reference? Evidence?

“Don’t make stuff up”

Doctor, heal thyself.

FWIW…

Wrong.

NASA Authorization Act 2005 passed 383-15

“The Administrator shall, to the fullest extent possible consistent with a successful development program, use the personnel, capabilities, assets, and infrastructure of the Space Shuttle program in developing the Crew Exploration Vehicle, Crew Launch Vehicle, and a heavy-lift launch vehicle.”

“The Administrator shall ensure that the ISS can have available, if needed, sufficient logistics and on-orbit capabilities to support any potential period during which the Space Shuttle or its follow-on crew and cargo systems are unavailable, and can have available, if needed, sufficient surge delivery capability or prepositioning of spares and other supplies needed to accommodate any such hiatus.”

The President’s plan violates both of these provisions.

And it appears Congress hasn’t changed their minds in five years either.

Human Space Flight Capability Assurance and Enhancement Act of 2010

HEAVY-LIFT VEHICLE DEVELOPMENT.— (1) REVIEW.—As part of the National Space Transportation system required in subsection (b) of this section, the Administrator is directed to conduct a review of alternative heavy lift launch vehicle configurations that may be developed by the United States government to transport crew and cargo to low-Earth orbit and beyond.
CONTENT.—The review shall—include shuttle-derived vehicles which use existing United States propulsion systems, including liquid fuel engines, external tank, and solid rocket motor technology and related ground-based manufacturing capability, launch and operations infrastructure, and workforce expertise;

The Administrator may not terminate the Space Shuttle Program as of a scheduled date certain.

TERMINATION CONDITIONS.—Termination of space shuttle missions operations shall be contingent upon—

(B) will not cause a degradation of the equipment, logistics, cargo up-mass and downmass delivery capability necessary to provide full utilization of international space station science and research capabilities for both United States National Laboratory and International Partner scientific research and experimentation which the United States is obligated by international agreement to provide.

Right now the ISS will need to be shut down (ie two man crew) for about three years under the President’s plan. I don’t think that lives up to the ‘full’ utilization requirement or maintains commitments to international partners. So we add five more years of life only to have three years taken away. Yah what a great plan.

Don’t make stuff up

Stephen Metschan: “And why I might add as well that we could get launch costs down to below $2K/kg if we just stopped forcing commercial users of these launch systems from paying a portion of the Government’s strategic fixed cost.”

Major Tom: “As I mentioned in an earlier thread, this would amount to a government subsidy for commercial users of those launch vehicles. It’s not clear that’s in the taxpayer’s interest.”

Actually, what we have now is anti-commercial space subsidy. An actual government subsidy is more like COTS, free money plus a sweet heart premium price CRS contract that actually cost more than Space Shuttle per kg and covers 80% of your launches for five years. Not a bad deal.

What I’m suggesting is that we stop having commercial companies pay for the fixed costs of the DOD. Call it a neutral subsidy, commercial companies just pay what the incremental cost is to use these strategic assets. That way the commercial utilization will not ‘increase’ the cost to the government will pay with or without commercial flights. In fact if this significantly lower cost to orbit increases the tax base by the expanding the commercial utilization of space the government will actually ‘make’ money under this plan. It’s a win win.

And for what’s worth it’s American private enterprise and workers that actually generate the wealth that pays for the government not the other way around. All I’m suggesting is that we use a strategic asset to help increase the commercial wealth generation capability from space that many believe is possible if the cost to get to orbit was lower.