At the launch rates that this level of commercial demand would entail the fixed cost would go from being dominate portion of the price to minor portion of the price. As such it would be no big deal to just incorporate that fixed cost into one price for all users whether its government or commercial.

Then again maybe the government could continue to pick up the fixed cost thereby justifying their bumping rights which I don’t see them changing anyway based on the national security nature of some of these government flights. Similar to how the airlines price seats and determine who gets bumped when the flight is overbooked (ie the backpacker who paid $100 vs the CEO who paid $2000).

I sure as heck think this has a better chance of working than simply trying to find yet another variant not so new approach to government contracting for launch services (ie COTS).

In addition to the baseline commercial cargo, baseline commercial crew, propulsion research, and propellant depot opportunities, the new budget:

– adds several Earth observation satellites. These need launches.
– adds a general space technology demonstration program. These need launches.
– adds a smallsat technology demonstration program. These need launches.
– adds a huge exploration technology demonstration program (which includes the propellant depot demo). This will require launches.
– adds capabilities to the ISS. This implies more ISS cargo.
– adds full use of the ISS. This implies more ISS cargo.
– adds years to the ISS life. This implies more ISS cargo.
– includes inflatable/lightweight technology demonstration. This may encourage a commercial space station, which could enable more commercial launch business.
– includes new lines of small and large robotic HSF precursors missions. These will require launches.
– allows NASA to buy commercial services on suborbital RLVs. This may enable future low-cost reusable orbital space launches.

What is modest about Shuttle alternatives that are launched by Ares I? Certainly not the development or operational costs. Maybe you’re talking about the capabilities delivered or the schedule.

By the way, a modest version of Orion is in the 2011 budget. An unaffordable version of Orion was in Constellation.

Who is betting the farm on SpaceX? That is a completely false and bogus argument. First of all, the only “betting the farm” on 1 thing that’s going on is Constellation, which bet literally everything on Ares and Orion.

The 2011 budget funds multiple commercial providers of crew services. There is on “betting the farm” or “eggs in 1 basket” since there are multiple competitors.

Plus, the Orion CRV can serve as a hedge. If commercial crew didn’t work out (much less likely than Ares not working out, barring Congressional pork attacks against space), that CRV could always be used as the basis of a crew vehicle (presumably at the expense of doing any exploration).

Even if all commercial crew vendors and Orion CRV failed, the U.S. would still be much stronger in space than with Constellation because it woudl still have a capable and well-used ISS, commercial cargo, a strong robotic precursor program, a strong technology demonstration program, a strong general space technology program, a strong Earth observation program, a strong propulsion program, and so on.

Not only that, but SpaceX isn’t going to win all of the commercial crew contracts. SpaceX might not even win any of them. SpaceX didn’t win one of the CCDEV contracts. NASA is looking for a mixture of “big aerospace” like CCDEV winners Boeing and ULA, and medium or small aerospace.

Hopefully the Ares supporters continue to focus on such obviously false arguments. I suspect that means that’s all they have, which should ensure it ends.

I’m not going to get into the liberal vs. conservative debate. As far as NASA is concerned, though, it’s pretty obvious that the new plan favors American engineering and technology. Constellation just about wiped out the NASA technology budget. The new budget has big new lines for Space Technology, Exploration Technology Demonstrations, and Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology and Research.

As far as the American part of the quote is concerned, Constellation would have wiped out American human spaceflight by NASA by destroying the ISS (by taking its funding), preventing NASA from funding purchase of commercial crew services, delivering Ares I/Orion capable of reaching the ISS in 2019 (well after the ISS would have been gone), and so on. Essential NASA HSF would have been dead. Much of the rest of NASA would have remained unfunded or underfunded as well.

The new budget keeps NASA American HSF going by keeping the ISS, adding to the ISS, ensuring the ISS is fully built, fully using the ISS, bolstering the commercial cargo effort, adding the commercial crew effort, restoring the VSE’s robotic HSF precursor line, actually working on propulsion and heavy lift, purchasing commercial suborbital RLV services, and doing some serious HSF exploration technology demonstrations in space.

Some areas that the 2011 budget funds American versions of (where Constellation funded Russian versions) include crew transportation and crew rescue (expected to be delivered long before Ares I/Orion could have, thus decreasing reliance on the Russian Soyuz), PU-238, and an RD-180 equivalent engine.

What’s magic about 50/50?

http://csis.org/node/24909

“Allow commercial launch vendors to charge commercial satellite customers the marginal cost of launch. This practice is not excluded as a matter of policy or regulation today. However, the current structure of the contract between the government and ULA intertwines fixed and marginal costs in a way that that does not permit marginal launch costs to be identified clearly. Renegotiation of the ULA contract would be necessary to allow only these marginal costs to be charged for commercial satellite launches. A further issue here is the sound stewardship of government funds, since the government would voluntarily pay a higher price for launch than commercial launch customer. While the government wants to secure itself the best cost, allowing launch vendors to charge only the marginal costs to commercial launch consumers could increase the number of launches by U.S. vendors, and in turn enhance production efficiency and lower cost for U.S. government launches.” Page 39

Sounds very familiar to me. And no this isn’t a subsidy, the commercial users pay for the marginal cost increase of each additional launch so their use of a strategic national asset is cost neutral to the government. The difference is that commercial users will no longer be required to pay a portion of the government’s strategic fixed cost. A cost the government will pay with or without commercial users the lack of which is a very frequent occurrence these days.

Once we get to a more 50/50 relationship between government and commercial users we can revisit this arrangement but until then every new private dollar flowing into the Space Industry increase the tax base, improves trade balance and provides a stronger foundation for this national strategic asset.

For the I-don’t-know-how-manyth-time, how are Lokheed Martin, Boeing, and Orbital Sciences not commercial providers? Can someone on the apparently anti-commercial side of this argument please explain that to me? Please??

Jeff,

To expand a little on that, the President’s budget *potentially* does much more on commercial launch than commercial crew. (ISS Cargo delivery has been around for years.)

The President’s budget for NASA includes $3 Billion for propulsion research, some of which could go to stimulating commercial rocket engine development.

It also includes development of “propellant depots” as a major new element in NASA’s human exploration architecture. This is a potential HUGE demand driver for U.S. commercial space transportation.

Page 65 of the Augustine Committee Report, published last Fall states:

“As an additional benefit of in-space refueling, the potential
government-guaranteed market for fuel in low-Earth orbit
would create a stimulus to the commercial launch industry
beyond the current ISS commercial cargo-services market.”

FOUST reports that Berteau of CSIS said: “We did not anticipate the president’s budget decision, and had not incorporated that into our approach at all,”

That does not add up … he needs come up with better excuses. It sounds like he does not have enough experience or knowledge of the issues in this sector.

First, NASA’s purchase of ISS Commercial Resupply Services was not new. It was a well published $3 Billion contract.

Second, “commercial crew” has been coming for years. It was announced in President Bush’s original VSE, as the “Commercial CREW Cargo” program in 2004. The “crew” part was “COTS D” in the COTS competition, of which there were two rounds of competition. “Crew” was clearly supported as an option by the Augustine Commission, and anybody who understood this segment, would have seen this coming well before the President’s budget came out.

Third, “propellant depots” have also been around for some time. They were in the Augustine commission report as well, in great detail.

FOUST said: Berteau said at Friday’s event when asked about that. “I think from a market-driver point of view, there’s an impact. I don’t think we can quantify that.”

That is another cop out. He can’t quantify some of the issues they are looking at in some of the other options mentioned.

CSIS could at least document the potential increased demand if NASA does what the President wants to do, point out the uncertainties, and then state the obvious that NASA buying more of its needs from U.S. commercial suppliers in a commercial manner (as required by the Commercial Space Act of 1998, as well as national space transportation policy) that it could significantly stimulate the U.S. commercial space transportation industry.

FOUST said: “A third option would go in the opposite direction, with the US government taking a bigger role in the launch market, including “picking a winner” among domestic launch providers and/or providing direct subsidies to them.”

Why does the U.S. government need to “pick a winner”? Why isn’t it an option to use the tax code to “subsidize all U.S. space transportation firms”?

Who are these guys?

FWIW,

– Al