Congress, NASA

Proposed commercial space amendments to NASA authorization

There are at least two proposed amendments to the NASA authorization bill that the Senate Commerce Committee will take up that would address some commercial space issues. One, submitted by Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), would restore funding for the commercial crew program to the levels in the administration’s proposal. The funds would come from the crew capsule and the “Space Launch System” in the bill; the legislation would also make some other tweaks to the language in the bill, primarily about the commercial crew program as well as explicitly putting the crew capsule out for competition (instead of merely “pursue” development of it).

Commercial space advocates like the Space Frontier Foundation are sounding the alarm about the bill and endorsing the Warner amendment. “Does the US Senate want to preserve a few thousand politically important, government funded jobs for a few more years, or would it rather stimulate the creation of millions of new private sector jobs that will last into the 22nd century?” the organization asks.

A separate amendment, by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), is more narrowly focused on suborbital programs. It would explicitly authorize full funding—$15 million a year—for the Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research (CRuSR) program. The bill actually does have supportive language for suborbital research, including the use of “suborbital reusable vehicles, and commercial launch vehicles” among other platforms for conducting such research, but only authorizes “such sums as may be necessary” to carry out the overall suborbital research program.

77 comments to Proposed commercial space amendments to NASA authorization

  • Dennis Berube

    The idea that the private space industry can deliver on thousands of jobs is not proven as yet. Counting on that after one already has filed under Chapter 11, is a joke. What I forsee is private industry holding us in LEO for decades to come. No more ventures beyond Earth. Even if a few offer space services, I doubt if anyone here will make it to space, unless some of you are rich enough! It will still be our government paying the bill. How many cost increases do you think will advance once the private sector gets its hold on space, and we have no other access???? In the end it will not be cheaper!!!!

  • In the end it will not be cheaper!!!!

    So you are saying spaceflight for the public will never happen?

    It’ll happen, whether NASA supports it or not.

  • The idea that the private space industry can deliver on thousands of jobs is not proven as yet./em>

    The idea that the purpose of a space program is to create jobs in not proven as yet.

    Even if a few offer space services, I doubt if anyone here will make it to space, unless some of you are rich enough!.

    I’ve noticed that the stupider the comment, the more likely it is to have words in all caps, and exclamation marks.

    The same thing could be said of Hawaii, or Las Vegas.

  • ISSvet

    The idea that the (fill in the blank) industry can deliver on thousands of jobs is not proven as yet.

    Similar things were said during the 1940s about computers, and later about PCs. The same things were said about every new industry. Stupid then, stupid now. Really stupid if we let the blind rob us of our future.

  • ISSvet

    And, by the way, look at what SpaceX and Bigelow have spent to develop their capabilities. It’s already cheaper.

  • “Does the US Senate want to preserve a few thousand politically important, government funded jobs for a few more years”

    Think about it: Al Gore lost the election because of less than 600 votes in Florida, quite likely resulting from his support for the SWAT raid that deported Elian Gonzalez to Cuba.

    So why should anyone care about a few thousand votes in Florida???

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    The idea that the private space industry can deliver on thousands of jobs is not proven as yet.

    -United Launch Alliance employs 3,900, and it’s parents Boeing and Lockheed Martin employ a total of 294,000.

    -Orbital Sciences (COTS program) employs 3,600, and has a backlog of $4.9B in orders.

    -SpaceX (COTS program) employs about 1,000, and has a backlog of $2.4B in orders.

    I could go on, but just these three prove you wrong, and these are only the top level service & product companies – there are literally thousands of suppliers that are supported by contracts these companies receive.

  • Dennis Berube

    Does it prove me wrong????? They as yet have not launched a single person into space. Also no one answered on whether they believe the cost of spaceflight will be within their respective pay levels! Do you people really believe you will get to go into space?????? Stupid comments, my word how people have become so dis-respectful of their elders, or for that matter other people. Because someone supports a different view from yours does not mean they are stupid. Im a Vietnam vet of 62 years of age and Im quite sure I know more about the space program than most of you younger individuals. Ive even taught classes in public schools on spaceflight. So the stupid part is uncalled for. I simply capitalize to emphasize what I am saying. While it seems that Space X is on its way, would it be without the help of NASA funding???? Would they be without the launch facility at KSC????? One more point is: Will any of you get to spend a vacation on Bigelows inflatable space hotel?????

  • Dennis Berube

    Also to clear up what I said about private investors sending people into space. They will only do it for a profit. If no profit materializes, there will be no space services. I suspect that like the present, with Russia sending space tourests into space, only the rich will inherit the right to go. I doubt that anyone making minimum wage will be able to vacation on Bigelows orbiting hotel!!!! Pehaps you figure you will charge it and pay on the easy payment plan!!! What a joke!!!!!

  • Because someone supports a different view from yours does not mean they are stupid.

    No one said it does. And I didn’t say you were stupid, just that your posts are. And while I don’t necessarily subscribe to Forrest Gump’s dictum is that stupid is as stupid does, one of the things that stupid people do is indulge in logical fallacies and straw men.

    Thank you for your service in Vietnam, though.

    While it seems that Space X is on its way, would it be without the help of NASA funding????

    Yes. They had been going for a long time without NASA funding, and have several other customers.

    Would they be without the launch facility at KSC?????

    SpaceX has no launch facility at KSC.

    Will any of you get to spend a vacation on Bigelows inflatable space hotel?????

    Who knows? What difference does it make? As long as some people do, it creates a market that will drive down the cost of getting into and staying in space. You couldn’t have afforded the first videotape recorder, either. Does that mean we should have denounced its manufacturer as providing products only for the rich?

    By the way, one question mark is sufficient for us to understand that you are asking questions. The use of four is implying that we are stupid, and can’t figure that out.

    My suggestion is to calm down, think about what you’re writing and avoid logical fallacies, look at what others write, and the way they write it, and try to emulate it, if you want your opinions to be respected.

  • Also to clear up what I said about private investors sending people into space. They will only do it for a profit. If no profit materializes, there will be no space services.

    If the government is purchasing space services, there will be profit. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

  • common sense

    @ Dennis Berube wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    I will avoid the adjectives. But I will try to give you my point of view. I am definitely younger than you are but I have been involved with Constellation and am still with space so to speak. So I do have experience to this which is maybe more relevant than yours. This being said.

    The problem with what you say it seems is that you believe that only a government program will deliver access to space, to allow colonies, etc. The government has had about what 40 years since Apollo and 30 years since Shuttle to do anything of that nature. It is not about NASA only. It is about how those programs are/were being run/financed. It is true that the private industry seeks a profit. So what? The Lockheeds of the world do it too. They work as contrators on cost-plus contract for the government. So there is always a capitalistic bias. Further, I, we (?), want those contracts to be changed into fix costs (a la COTS) not cost-plus. And I believe this is where it all hangs. The usual players cannot really play with fixed costs. They are not really geared for such contracts. Hence the ongoing “war” between old and new space. The hope is that if we can keep cost on track and then the overall access to space will democratize. Probably not to you and I, not right away. But there is a big difference between going to space because you can pay for it and because you are a NASA astronaut. I am sure you can see it! Politicians have made this “war” look like the end of HSF and all kind of blablabla at NASA. Look at the current attacks on Gen. Bolden for his address on Al Jazeera… They will use anything they can to keep cash in their states/districts: It is their job. A lot of people from NASA will necessarily be hired from the privates since they have the expertise and the privates do not want to reinvent the wheel (again cost). But like in any industry some will not make it. Such is life.

    Now is there a real danger that it is then end of HSF? Absolutely. It is unfortunate but the return beyond prestige has not been as high as the investement. If this emphasis on private fails then we’ll probably send probes for the foreseeable future. And get a lot in return however much I hate to say it. But it is a fact.

    You are absolutely entitled to your point of view but I suggest you try to back it up with facts. It will help. And turn down the emotion a few notches too.

  • Dennis Berube

    You are correct Rand as the tax payers paid for the launch pad that Space X launched its vehicle from. Already we are supporting a private company????? How can it fail with government money? As I have asked here before, so do you Rand believe you will go into space and at what cost for your seat?????? As to Dragon making it to orbit, it was a dummy craft, just as the Ares 1X had a dummy configuration in its upper portions. No person could have rode it. Will or would Ares be cheaper to launch than say the shuttle. I think so. If NASA goes the way of utilizing shuttle tanks and strap ons, the cost for that configuration will not lower cost to space lbs! No matter which road is taken, the cost to space will remain high! I have already said that our government will foot the bill, so indeed maybe Space X will make a profit. What if their booster doesnt gain a very satisfactory safety record? Oh yes there is the Delta and Atlas boosters available too. I do think that private business should get into the space area, however they are not presently ready to wisk people to orbit yet. Should we pay the Soviets a constant supply of money to take us there? What will happen when people die in these private space ventures? How will their respective insurance companies feel about that?

  • I see you didn’t take my advice.

  • someguy

    Dennis Berube wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    They would be behind, but SpaceX would be working on it regardless. NASA has sped up their timelines, nothing more.

    Musk has said the reason for founding the company is transport of humans to space.

    If the government offers him a contract to speed up the work, then sure he’d take it. If they didn’t, he would still do it, just taking longer because he has to self-fund it from satellite launches and his own money.

    Why this is such a point of heartache I will never understand.

    Also, the flip side of the argument about “no market” is that Musk is also launching sattelites. If no human transport market shows up, who cares? He can still launch satellites.

    Dennis Berube wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    Other industries are like this, why is space any different? The rich do it first, providing profit that goes into lowering cost, so the next tier on down the economic ladder can do it. Rinse, repeat. Before you know it, you have an actual space industry that serves a market, rather than just the government.

    Cars followed this model. Aviation followed this model. And on and on.

    Modern case in point: Tesla Motors is following this model. First the Roadster for the rich people who buy expensive sports cars. Then the Model S, which is for the next tier down who buy luxury sedans. And then Bluestar later when the technology has been cheapened enough for the middle class..

    It’s an approach that’s worked elsewhere, and space doesn’t have to be different. It’s only different because Apollo happened and set up our entire cultural thinking about it to be about a space race and governments and national prestige, and we’ve never been able to shake it off.

    If we keep going like we have been since Apollo, with only the government employees going, then the rich people will never go. If the rich people don’t go, it means the day the regular public (or at least the lesser rich/upper middle class) can go will never eventually come.

  • amightywind

    Dennis, don’t let that nitwit Simberg bother you. His kind are on the way out.

    Before you accept Obama’s projections of ‘space jobs’ consider his ruinous projections of ‘green jobs’ in the private economy. He had half of the workers laid off by GM convinced they would soon be building windmills and solar panels. ‘Space jobs’ are just as illusory because the market without government subsidy cannot sustain them.

  • DCSCA

    “One, submitted by Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), would restore funding for the commercial crew program to the levels in the administration’s proposal.” “A separate amendment, by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), is more narrowly focused on suborbital programs. It would explicitly authorize full funding—$15 million a year—for the Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research (CRuSR) program.” OMG!!! Socialism! As James Cagney might say, “Sound the general alarm! Sound the general alarm!”

  • Dennis Berube

    Common Sense, I agree totally that the problem from the private sector like Boeing has been the constant overcost of these projects. Presently the Mars Science Lab is going through these problems, and I understand that some experiments have even been removed so as to cut cost. One always hears about how much NASA paid for a shuttle toilet seat, mostly as a joke of course, but more truth said in jest. I also agree that the politicians want to keep the money in their respecitive states. All of this however is where the point of spaceflight is lost. If the cold war had not progressed, it probably would have been many more years before a satellite would be placed into space. The cold war gave reason to push the technology. Now however there is no drive to explore or everyone seems to have no reason for going into space, so free enterprize should go to make a profit. If NASA needs direction I personally believe an important direction would be to go for the energy that our Sun constantly supplies to us. As our oceans blacked due to oil leaks and spills, and science fails to be able to produce nuclear fusion as a reliable alternative, why not go after the Suns nuclear power. It has been looked at many years ago, and a solar array at say L5 could give us plenty of juice to satisfy a growing need. This would be a direction for NASA, and one that could sustain a future of having plenty of energy while keeping the space program as a viable and important tool. Many talk of being able to stop asteroids that threaten Earth. Gearing up for utilizing the Sun would also give us the learned ability to do just that. No direction for NASA and cost over runs will be its downfall I fear….

  • common sense

    @ Dennis Berube wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    “Now however there is no drive to explore or everyone seems to have no reason for going into space, so free enterprize should go to make a profit.”

    You said it.

    “This would be a direction for NASA, and one that could sustain a future of having plenty of energy while keeping the space program as a viable and important tool.”

    It might but it is not NASA’s job. So far.

    The point a lot of us are trying to make is this: NASA should give what is “easy” to the privates, e.g. LEO access. So that NASA can actually focus on what really is really difficult, for example, and regardless whether I agree with you, improve energy delivery/usage/etc on Earth. But if NASA spends its resources on things that can be done a lot cheaper what you are dreaming of will just never happen. No NASA will not see an Apollo era like budget. If Congress was really interested in that they would have funded Constellation to its full extent. They did not and they will not. Because as you said “there is no drive to explore or everyone seems to have no reason for going into space”.

  • Dennis Berube

    People are all entitled to their respective ideas, and all should have the right to make them known. However calling names at anyone does not produce good manners nor relationships. Everyone here that believes that the private sector can deliver, is totally entitled to that opinion. I would also agree, IF, they were at a point where they could manage to take it over. They clearly are not. The Soviets can supply trips to ISS, can Space X? How long before their first attempt at a manned flight? China probably could supply us a seat too. Should we fund their space programs, while buying seats aboard their spacecraft? I often wonder if the Soviets have had their problems with cost over runs? If the private sector gets a grip on supplying orbital services, and many go into ruin due to failures of hardware, or whatever, will not certain ones gain a monopoly? Will not the prices skyrocket once again, and just wait until the Unions get in on it. The same thing will happen that has happened to the auto industry. The prices of autos are out of sight. I am all for the private sector becoming involved in LEO, but that is where we will be staying for a very loooooonnnng time, unless Congress gets its fingers out of its, well you know the rest!

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 3:52 pm

    Will or would Ares be cheaper to launch than say the shuttle. I think so.

    I also agree that Ares I would be cheaper to launch than the Shuttle, but the Shuttle could take 2 crew + 5 passengers and 50,000 lbs of cargo to LEO. Ares I can take 4 people total. However, the Augustine Commission estimated that the per/launch costs for Ares I would be $1B – that works out to $250M/seat to LEO. As an American Taxpayer, which would you rather pay – $50M/seat to the Russians, or $250M/seat for Ares I?

    Let’s look at the American commercial alternatives again:

    Delta IV Heavy can be man-rated for $1.3B (vehicle & facilities) and launch Orion (or anything up to 50,000 lbs) for $300M/flight.

    Atlas V can be man-rated for $400M and launch a 7-seat commercial capsule like CST-100 or Dragon for $130M/flight.

    SpaceX has only given a general number of less than $1B to man-rate Falcon 9/Dragon, but they have stated a price of $20M/seat after that.

    As a taxpayer, you can see that Ares I (which still needed $20B) was not the best use of our money, and that commercial alternatives offered better value.

    As far as the safety issue, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) recently issued a letter stating that commercial crew alternatives can be just as safe, if not safer, than government alternatives.

    No company will survive or get paid unless they accomplish their services, so they have the highest motivation to do things right. If a launch fails, they don’t get paid. If Ares I were to fail, everyone at NASA still gets paid, regardless of how many Ares I blow up. Harsh reality, but commercial companies have a higher motivation to do things right, and to gradually lower costs.

    If you don’t believe me, go ask American Airlines or Southwest if commercial companies can provide safe transportation at a reasonable cost.

  • Lynne Rivers

    Common sense hasn’t seemed to hold much weight in the last year as the administration has given thought to NASA’s future. However I hope we’re smart enough as a nation to not gamble on our future in space by putting all our eggs in the commercial basket.

  • common sense

    @ Dennis Berube wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    “I would also agree, IF, they were at a point where they could manage to take it over. They clearly are not. ”

    Back this up somehow! How do you know? A lot of astronauts disagree with you http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=31239

    “Will not the prices skyrocket once again, and just wait until the Unions get in on it.”

    Is this not called free-market/capitalism? Somehow.

    “I am all for the private sector becoming involved in LEO, but that is where we will be staying for a very loooooonnnng time”

    It is not the privates’ fault. Constellation was even worse…

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    The Soviets can supply trips to ISS, can Space X? How long before their first attempt at a manned flight?

    OK, here is the reason why some of us have a beef with what you’re saying. You don’t seem to be aware of any facts about the stuff you talk about. It’s OK to voice opinions, but you state your opinions as fact, and they have so many holes that people feel compelled to “correct” you.

    If you had been reading anything about SpaceX and their Dragon, you would already know that it has been built from the beginning to carry people. SpaceX was working on Dragon before the COTS program came along, and that’s why they are able to start flying the first COTS demo mission this year, instead of 2011 like Orbital Sciences.

    In order to dock with the ISS, the Dragon has to be “human-rated”, which means that it has to not have sharp edges, not use materials that would out-gas and kill the astronauts on the ISS, and many other things. Dragon is already equipped with an environmental system to keep biological material alive during transit to/from the ISS, so a leap to keeping seven humans is not that big. Just add seats and display/controls, and you’re there.

    Once SpaceX has finished being qualified for the delivering cargo to the ISS, the only thing it’s missing to deliver crew is a Launch Abort System (LAS). This is what drives most of the schedule if they want to offer crew services, and part of their budget would be devoted to actually flying test capsules and aborting them in-flight.

    During the meantime, SpaceX will be flying the same Falcon 9 launcher that would be used for crew. It already has all the “man-rating” systems needed, so each cargo launch is proving out the heritage for the crew launcher. By the time any crew service would be ready (2014), SpaceX would have flown 16 Falcon 9 flights with Dragon on 11 of those. How is that for proving themselves?

    By comparison, Ares I was planned to launch crew on it’s second flight, and no one has ever flown on a SRB-only launcher – there is no flight history that can be applied to this configuration. Scary!

    You tell me – who would you want your grandkids to fly on?

  • However I hope we’re smart enough as a nation to not gamble on our future in space by putting all our eggs in the commercial basket.

    I wish people would stop repeating this illogic.

    Under Constellation, we were putting all our eggs in a single NASA basket — Ares/Orion, and a very expensive basket it was indeed. With commercial crew, we are putting our eggs in multiple baskets — Atlas, Delta, Falcon, Dragon, CST-100, etc. To say that it’s putting all our eggs in one basket is exactly the opposite of the truth.

  • Dang, last two grafs were mine.

  • Dennis Berube

    While several astronauts disagree with me, quite a few do agree with me. Neil Armstrong for one, has said Obama did not receive the proper information. John Glenn yet another. So to state several astronauts disagree with me while correct, this is not one sided. Buss Aldrin while supporting Obamas plan, wants NASA to set up sometype of shuttle that can depart from the ISS and travel out to Mars. Again this does not exactly conform to Obamas plan either. There is no total agreement with Obama here either. Buzz Aldrins plan will never happen either! I agree that we should sustain the ISS, but why for just a few more years? It gives us a base of operations that should be constant. Everyone is yelling about the cost to sustain ISS now. Build these things and then let all that investment fall into Earths atmosphere to burn up! Talk about no planning. For now I am only saying, lets build Orion in its original configuration which was capable of deep space exploration. If money is tight, hold off on the lander Altairs until such a time that it becomes feasable. Also as to the cost of Ares, in all that talk, it seems one important factor was left out. Ares is reusable, Delta and Atlas are not. That makes for cost to orbit reduction also a plus. Servicing a solid rocket motor cost less than a liquid which has all the plumbing and other support that is not necessary with Ares. Orion was to have been reusable too. Is Bigelows Orion light, reusable? I dont think so! I am anxious to see how this all ends up!

  • Coastal Ron

    Lynne Rivers wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    However I hope we’re smart enough as a nation to not gamble on our future in space by putting all our eggs in the commercial basket.

    Sorry to say, but that is an ignorant statement.

    Look at the proposed NASA budget – it states:

    “NASA will allocate these funds through competitive solicitations that support a range of higher- and lower-programmatic risk systems and system components, such as human-rating of existing launch vehicles and development of new spacecraft that can ride on multiple launch vehicles.”

    NASA wants to develop multiple commercial crew services, specifically so no one company or service can shut down NASA again.

    Let’s look at what Constellation would have provided for crew:

    Ares I

    OK, how is using a single government launcher not putting all your eggs in one basket? Do you want the same thing to happen as did with the Shuttle, where a loss shuts down all of our spaceflight abilities? Remember how we kept astronauts going to the ISS after Columbia? We used the Russian Soyuz, essentially a commercial alternative.

    For less money than one government launch system, we can fund and get going multiple commercial LEO crew companies. They are also less expensive for NASA to use going forward, so NASA can devote more money to getting us out of LEO than with a government launcher. The choice is clear.

  • common sense

    @ Dennis Berube wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    “There is no total agreement with Obama here either”

    Why do you need “total” agreement? Who ever gets that?

    ” Ares is reusable, Delta and Atlas are not. ”

    Unfortunately it does not make it affordable either.

  • Not to mention that Ares isn’t reusable. It’s much less so than the Shuttle. And if you have a low flight rate (which Ares intrinsically does), then reusability makes it cost more than an expendable.

  • common sense

    @ Rand Simberg wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    Agreed. And most of the cost of the SRB does not necessarily lie in the recovered casing…

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    Gee, where do I begin, there is so much wrong here:

    I agree that we should sustain the ISS, but why for just a few more years?

    The Obama/NASA plan saves the ISS – it was the Bush/Griffin plan to end the ISS. However, they had to end it because Constellation was not possible as long as the Shuttle and the ISS were operating – Constellation needed $B’s to keep chugging along. That is also why it needed to be killed, so the ISS could continue. If you like the ISS, then agree with killing Constellation.

    If money is tight, hold off on the lander Altairs until such a time that it becomes feasable.

    You’re not keeping up with the news – Ares I and Orion were going so far over budget, that Altair could not even be started. Constellation is the problem here, not the Obama budget.

    Also as to the cost of Ares, in all that talk, it seems one important factor was left out. Ares is reusable, Delta and Atlas are not.

    Again, you don’t keep up with the news. Ares I was going to cost $1B/flight, and that was WITH being reused. Delta IV, Atlas V are not reusable, but they are also far cheaper. SpaceX has reusability as a major goal for Falcon 9 (and the -Heavy version), so I don’t know if that makes you happy.

    The bottom line is cost, and Ares I is 3X higher per flight in cost than any commercial alternative, and probably $20B more to develop. Money matters.

    Orion was to have been reusable too. Is Bigelows Orion light, reusable? I dont think so!

    Orion was planned to be reusable. The SpaceX Dragon is also planned to be useable, and most likely the Boeing CST-100 too (haven’t stated one way or the other).

    Bigelow does not plan to build a capsule. Bigelow has been talking with Boeing about their CST-100 capsule, which could be used for Bigelow or other customers.

  • Set it straight

    Coastal Ron:

    Again, you don’t keep up with the news. Ares I was going to cost $1B/flight, and that was WITH being reused. Delta IV, Atlas V are not reusable, but they are also far cheaper. SpaceX has reusability as a major goal for Falcon 9 (and the -Heavy version), so I don’t know if that makes you happy

    No sir, you are wrong.

    Ares I marginal cost is about 160 Million confirmed by Doug Cooke under oath.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Set it straight wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    Ares I marginal cost is about 160 Million confirmed by Doug Cooke under oath..

    the marginal cost argument is the one that the status quo folks always run to.

    The problem is that the marginal cost are not the total cost to fly the vehicle…until it is, then simply stating that number is misstating.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dennis Berube wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    more laughable comments.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Nelson Bridwell wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    So why should anyone care about a few thousand votes in Florida???..

    because the political situation is quite different…today

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    Set it straight wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    Ares I marginal cost is about 160 Million

    You don’t get to add the marginal cost until you have paid for the recurring costs, which were estimated to be $1B/year. 1st flight would be $1B, then you get to start averaging a lower cost – two flights/year would then average $580M/flight ($1B + your $160M), and so on.

    Ares I would have to do 6 flights/year to equal the $300M/flight price of the Delta IV Heavy, and that is completely discounting the $20B+ NON-RECURRING that you still need to spend to finish Ares I. Delta IV Heavy only needs $1.3B to become man-rated.

    Which would you say is the better value for the American Taxpayer?

    BTW, until Ares I development is finished, no one knows what the marginal cost is, and Wikipedia shows $176M, so all numbers are still a guess.

  • If the Florida economy is being decimated and everyone is fleeing the state (which is what the Constellation *and* Shuttle advocates would have us believe) then doesn’t that mean there will be *less* votes in that district come next election?

  • amightywind

    “…then doesn’t that mean there will be *less* votes in that district come next election?”

    Yes, but the 95% who stay will be embittered at their new found poverty and will be rightfully resentful. Why Obama is purposefully salting the ground in Florida is a pleasant mystery for the GOP.

  • amightywind, why would they be impoverished? Whenever a large number of people leave an area the remaining people are often better off.. typically because the supply remains for goods when the demand has gone down, so prices go down too.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    Yes, but the 95% who stay will be embittered at their new found poverty and will be rightfully resentful. Why Obama is purposefully salting the ground in Florida is a pleasant mystery for the GOP…

    odd it doesnt seem to be working in the Senate race.

    The GOP/tea party person has been raising money while dropping in the polls…as Charlie Crist seems to be gaining traction.

    or perhaps you know as much about politics as you knew about the Falcon 9 second stage/boilerplate making orbit.

    LOL

    Robert G. Oler

  • Millions?

    Millions of jobs? Millions?? Why not billions while were at it? Really?

    Ladies and gentlemen, we’ve found our way of the recession.

  • Brian Paine

    If Boeing had developed the 747 on the basis of 10 to 20 flights per year what would be the cost per seat. THAT is the problem.
    Regarding manned flight to LEO the market is limited, the potential market huge. This is the ideal “venture capital market,” but few want the “venture.” THAT is also the problem.
    So NASA is going to be used to kick start the market.
    What happens if the Russians get smart and drop the cost per seat to $20m next week?
    In a free market at this time the whole lot falls apart and the new commercialism ends up in the waste bin. That will not be allowed to happen…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Brian Paine wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    What happens if the Russians get smart and drop the cost per seat to $20m next week?..

    that would be entertaining and might should be expected. there are certainly ways to deal with it from an American perspective.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bennett

    I’ve read so many studies and projections over the last 4 months, so I’m not sure where it came from, but with a reasonable (as laid out) series of missions with a space based exploration ship, would give the players of commercial resupply something like 50 flights a year to divvy up, primarily lifting fuel to one or more depots.

    All for billions of dollars less than having NASA build some “super rocket” based on the bloated shuttle contractor workforce (hands in pockets for the next 11 months?).

    If Congress is smart enough to give ULA, SpaceX, and Orbital Sciences until 2015 with the funding program laid out in FY2011, we’d see more launches every single month than you could shake a really big stick at. We’re talking production line, mega-tonnage to orbit, for HSF exploration.

    By employing the tenets of capitalism, we (our government) can wisely spend precious taxpayer money to get the best space program possible, for a reasonable price, and in a way that helps create an industry where everyone profits.

    Just my thoughts.

  • Coastal Ron

    Brian Paine wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 9:45 pm

    If Boeing had developed the 747 on the basis of 10 to 20 flights per year what would be the cost per seat. THAT is the problem.

    You missed the whole point about the 747. The 747 was an incremental increase in carrying capacity, and not creating a whole new service. Boeing was asked by Pan Am to create a larger capacity aircraft to increase passenger counts without adding to the number of gates they needed at their destinations. Still, Boeing was taking a chance on how big the demand was for the 747, and that is a risk that all companies face for any product or service. Risks & Rewards

    Regarding manned flight to LEO the market is limited, the potential market huge. This is the ideal “venture capital market,” but few want the “venture.”

    Yes, the market is currently limited, but that is mainly because HSF in the U.S. has been limited to a government owned transportation system, so there is no open market to gauge demand. When Soyuz was opened up to private passengers, we did see that all available supply was consumed, so we know that there is a market for it at $20M/seat.

    We also know that many companies would like to enter the market, but are not in a rush to do so. Elon Musk has stated since the beginning that one of his goals for SpaceX was to take people to space in a cost effective manner. Boeing has been working with Bigelow Aerospace, and both have expressed a desire to create a commercial market in space.

    Musk was able to find outside investors (including VC’s) to join with him, and Bigelow is self financing at this point. Boeing can finance large projects by itself, and does not need to attract outside financing, same with Lockheed Martin if it decided to jump into the game. There are many people putting ‘skin the in the game’, and until they get to a public offering, no company would take on too many outside investors (too complicated to explain here, but it’s a startup thing).

    What the government (NASA) can do is accelerate the process, and lower it’s overall costs at the same time. Instead of sinking $25B more into Orion and Ares I, they could get three different commercial crew systems developed, tested and online for under $5B. Then all NASA has to do when planning BEO missions is add in the contracted price of getting crew to space, and build everything to get beyond LEO. That is much simpler and less costly than starting from KSC with every program.

    This is not some dream – this has been done many times before.

  • Coastal Ron

    Bennett wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 11:01 pm

    I’ve read so many studies and projections over the last 4 months… would give the players of commercial resupply something like 50 flights a year to divvy up, primarily lifting fuel to one or more depots.

    That may have been the ULA study called “Affordable Exploration Architecture 2009″ (AIAA 2009-6567), which was a proposal to create a sustained presence on the Moon. Great proposal, and it used currently available launchers and near-term hardware. No HLV needed.

    You can find the study on the ULA website under ‘Education & Exploration’ category.

  • Bennett

    Thanks Coastal Ron. It’s a good read for anyone who wants to see what we could actually accomplish in the next 10 years. Glorious possibilities.

  • DCSCA

    @coastalRon “…so all numbers are still a guess…” Something experienced, deep-pocketed, savvy investors know all to well. Capitalism 101- liars can figure and figures can lie.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 11:54 pm

    @coastalRon “…so all numbers are still a guess…” Something experienced, deep-pocketed, savvy investors know all to well. Capitalism 101- liars can figure and figures can lie.

    Of course I was talking about NASA not knowing what the Ares I future costs would be, and you somehow confuse it with commercial investors?

    Investors take varying amounts of risk depending on a number of factors including the management team track record and the potential marketspace.

    No one is stepping forward to invest in Ares I, so I guess that shows what investors think of it.

    Was that you’re point? You’re slurring your concepts…

  • As I read of Warner’s amendment, the thought that comes to mind is…”Run Forest! Run!” My prediction? Udall will win support, costing Warner his amendment.

  • Das Boese

    Dennis Berube wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    The Soviets can supply trips to ISS

    No they can’t. The Russians do, however. Commercially even.

    If someone can’t tell the difference after nearly two decades, their opinion shouldn’t be considered relevant to discussing 21st century space policy.

  • Rhyolite

    Dennis Berube wrote @ July 14th, 2010 at 4:22 pm:

    “The Soviets can supply trips to ISS”

    Only if they have a time machine. I know this is going to come as a shock to you but the Soviet Union broke up in 1991. Russia ended up with about half of the former Soviet population and much of its space program but is basically dependent on western money to keep it going.

  • Brian Paine

    I repeat that NASA is going to be used to kick start the “commercial” market! (5 Billion US dollars are not wrong..)
    This may be an excellent investment, time alone will answer that. If only our Australian Government would get on board I would love the chance to participate! Of course there would be a bun fight as each state with the most northern latitudes made absurd claims and common sense being what it is those Queenslanders would get the nod and it would end up in cyclone alley. Sound familiar?
    Now that is not going to happen so we rely on you guys getting your s..t together.
    These discussions would never happen in Russia or China…honestly, all the insults considered, thank God for the USA!!!

  • Space Cadet

    @ Dennis Berube

    “… tax payers paid for the launch pad that Space X launched its vehicle from …”

    And taxpayers paid for the airports that American Airlines flys from, and the air traffic control system, and the roads that you drive your car on …

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Rumour on the ‘Net this morning (UK time) is that the White House has promised to support the bill. The question, of course, is which bill and with which or even any of the amendments mentioned in this thread.

    Senators Nelson and Hutchinson are reporting a “breakthrough” and will have a press conference in the morning (DC time). Will they have more money to offer for their plan? Will the Appropriations Committee play ball? Much has yet to be revealed.

  • Vladislaw

    Dennis Berube wrote:

    Also no one answered on whether they believe the cost of spaceflight will be within their respective pay levels! Do you people really believe you will get to go into space??????”

    Money is dirt cheap, in relative terms, and it would only take 116k a month payment on a 30 year note for 20 mil a seat ticket price.

    Using Rutan’s numbers of 5 million you’re looking at a monthly payment of 30k a month. For a once in a lifetime adventure, I believe financing for it will appear.

  • Vladislaw

    Dennis Berube wrote:

    “As I have asked here before, so do you Rand believe you will go into space and at what cost for your seat?????? “

    I don’t believe you fully understand what we could be on the verge of seeing. So many toss around the phrase “joyride for billionaires”.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. If you had a networth of only 30 million giving you a five percent return, you could afford to take a trip to LEO. That increases the pool to over 20,000 and that does not include commercial companies, who routinely use 30 year financing, and virtually every country on the plant can now have a space program.

    Call me a wild eyed crazy man, but three things are happening that are classic economic signposts. The first stage is the speculation stage. We now have two new space venture capital firms. We are seeing the consolidation of small firms, like space dev, scaled composites, being bought up. We are seeing launch backlogs increasing. We also have a surplus of labor, putting downward pressure on wages. There are more signposts, if you would only look for them. We are on a tipping point and with Bigelow poised to launch in 3 years, and multiple commercial astronaut launch service companies with the potential to match that, we well on that road.

  • Brian Paine

    Vladislaw, I presume you jest…
    Stand up comedy is to be applauded.

  • Vladislaw

    I know a real estate developer, he owns about 60 small apartment buildings. He makes about 150k a month after taxes. We were talking space and he was the one who told me that is how he is getting into LEO. If SpaceX delievers on 20mil a seat, He said he would take out a 30 year note through his company and his payments would be about 110k a month.

    I believe him and would imagine there are others like him who will do the same thing.

  • Brian Paine

    Fair enough Vladislaw,
    unfortunately I design buildings which is far less profitable than selling them!
    If he gets to LEO then good luck to him, it can only help further the cause for humanity and the understanding of our place in “everything.”

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Ron wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 12:18 am <- You're going to have a steep learning curve, Ron, especially as the Age of Austerity arrives. (Remember Conestoga 1 of 28 years ago.) Commercial space really should just cut the promising chatter and get flying, even if it's some 'loss leaders' on a regularly scheduled basis- say every five weeks. Six months of successful flights would build confidence with wary investors, the 'free market' and with the public- not waving spreadsheets and playing with numbers.

  • Dennis Berube

    What, you guys dont like the term Soviets. Sorry I grew up with it. If you would rather Russians will be used. Congress wants a vehicle that can place 75 to 100 MTons into space! What vehicle today do we have that can do that? Who has it? Even Russia has not the ability to lift that much. The Saturn 5 could lift 50 tons to the Moon. If the long term plan is Mars, more lift ability is needed. Just a thought. By the way alot of people still use the term Soviets when addressing various points of view. Also what do you think of the military needing 33 billion to keep running? Soon all this will be decided and we will see what direction space exploration will take. If Space X is so ready to fly people, lets get on with it! I see no one yet!

  • Rhyolite wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 2:39 am
    “but is basically dependent on western money to keep it going.”
    FYI
    Mostly in the form of gas and oil *revenue.*
    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Balance-of-Trade.aspx?Symbol=RUB
    Russia is building a new capsule, two rocket families and a new launch complex. As well as updating their old Soviet military infrastructure.
    I haven’t heard that they are borrowing from the Chinese. Or anywhere else. They are, however, seeking *investment* apparently from Germany:
    http://english.ruvr.ru/2010/07/15/12397629.html
    Needless to say they are exporting Soyuz-Semyorka technology to any interested parties notably ESA and ISRO. And Angara to the South Koreans!
    Third time lucky!!!

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Remember Conestoga 1 of 28 years ago

    Again, you look to the past for limits, and I see lessons. Conestoga 1 was underfunded and their launcher was designed for the wrong market. I’m sure Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos could give you a lesson or two about how to avoid this.

    Commercial space really should just cut the promising chatter and get flying

    ULA and Orbital Sciences have been flying for quite a while, but I see you apparently don’t know about them. SpaceX and Dragon will have many COTS flights under their belt before they are ready for crew, and we could probably lump Virgin Galactic in this group too – they are making steady progress both with their customer backlog and their development.

    As usual, you keep seeing the problem from the perspective of the commercial companies, but the services they can offer the government (NASA) is where their real value pays off to the American Taxpayer.

    You’ve already made snide comments about not caring about deficits, but I doubt most American would agree with you. Americans also don’t really care who carries our astronauts safely to space as long as it’s a U.S. entity (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, SpaceX, etc.). If commercial space can do it just as good or better than NASA, then the U.S. Taxpayer would be thrilled to save $20B at the same time.

    The issue is who can do it better, and NASA’s charter & skill-set does not include being a transportation company.

  • Coastal Ron

    brobof wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 7:19 am

    Russia is building a new capsule, two rocket families and a new launch complex. As well as updating their old Soviet military infrastructure.

    Russia has been releasing happy announcements like this for the past decade, but they haven’t pulled the trigger on any of it because they can’t afford it. Look at any defense project they have been working on, and you’ll see they have been stretching out production – a sign that they are not getting enough funding.

    What Russia has been doing to get around this is partner with other countries. They have partnered with ESA to build a Soyuz launch pad at the ESA Guiana Space Centre, and India, China and others use Russian space hardware. The same is true for their military hardware such as their newest generation of fighters (co-production with India).

    Russia may have hopes and aspirations, but we’ll have plenty of notice when they finally decide to create something new – their development cycle is longer than NASA’s!!

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 11:43 am “As usual, you keep seeing the problem from the perspective of the commercial companies, but the services they can offer the government (NASA) is where their real value pays off to the American Taxpayer.”

    =blink= The ‘value’ to ‘free market capitalists’ is in returning the highest quarterly profit possible to your investors. It’s called capitalism — and you’ve got a steep learning curve ahead of you about it. Especially when it comes to peddling goods and services in the ‘free market’ with a limited demand for said product and services in an age of austerity. You propose that profit driven capitalists, ever hungry for the largest return on their investments, invest in a high risk venture that peddles its services to an unprofitable, losing concern, the U.S. government, which contracts for said services to the lowest bidder. Good grief. Try pitching that BS to deep pocketed private sector investors on the premise it ‘saves the government money’ and you’ll get laughed out of the room. Savvy investors, using the cold calculus of the marketplace, will sink capital in something like offshore oil drilling, where the return on investment delivers a much more profitable yield for much less risk. Jeez. If you’re going to be a proponent of capitalism to fuel your rocket companies you’d better start understanding how it operates. The goal of capitalists is to turn a profit for stockholders/shareholders/investors, not ‘save the government money.’

    “Again, you look to the past for limits, and I see lessons.” =blink= Past is prologue and you aren’t learning the lessons it is showing you.

    “ULA and Orbital Sciences have been flying for quite a while, but I see you apparently don’t know about them.” =blink= Uh, free market Earth to Ron, free market Earth to Ron— not nearly enough to elicit the kind of massive capital investment to establish private rocketry as a viable alternative to government funded space operations– because the demand for those services simply isn’t there. Learn a few lesson about the dynamics of free market capitalism. For starts, avoid pitching investors you’ll be ‘thrilling’ the U.S. taxpayer. Good grief. Start with Musk– the ‘free market’ has handed him a hard lesson– he’s broke. But he’ll build confidence with investors vowing to ‘save the government money’ when he waves to the crowd, climbs into the first operational commercial Dragon capsule and bravely rides it into orbit and pilots it safely back to Earth. Should be a good show– just like Destination Moon.

  • brobof

    Coastal Ron wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 11:54 am
    Agreed. Short of gobs of money to throw at a space program the RotW is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. My point was that Russia is far from being a charity case. And by using partnerships not only do you share costs you also spread expertise and good will. Whilst the PPTS (PTK NP) failed to tempt ESA it is, nevertheless, off the starting blocks. The Angara is already being tested in conjunction with the South Koreans. The cargo version is slated for a 2015 launch and crewed launch by 2018.
    However will the Nelson Heavy Lift Vehicle (NHLV) and CEV survive the next Congress. Draconian budget cuts in the next financial cycle?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tortoise_and_hare_rackham.jpg
    I wonder if we can talk up a new Race?

  • Coastal Ron

    brobof wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    . My point was that Russia is far from being a charity case. And by using partnerships not only do you share costs you also spread expertise and good will.

    Agreed. And I also think that more activity by other countries will spur our government to pursue the “We Always Have To Be First” policy, and invest more in space. Competition is good.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    The ‘value’ to ‘free market capitalists’ is in returning the highest quarterly profit possible to your investors.

    You apparently don’t own stock, and you’re not an investor of any kind. This is not a knock against you, but it does help to understand your ignorance of the capital markets, venture capitalists, and when investors get returns on their investments.

    Here’s a hint – Startup investors, or those investing in new markets, don’t typically see an ROI until there is a significant event like an IPO or trade sale (M&A). They invest for the long term, not “quarterly profits”.

    It’s called capitalism — and you’ve got a steep learning curve ahead of you about it. Especially when it comes to peddling goods and services in the ‘free market’ with a limited demand for said product and services in an age of austerity. You propose that profit driven capitalists, ever hungry for the largest return on their investments, invest in a high risk venture that peddles its services to an unprofitable, losing concern, the U.S. government, which contracts for said services to the lowest bidder.

    I don’t know what industry you make a living in, but it’s also clear that you do not work for one that sells products or services to the government. I have worked for a number of them, both large and small, mostly satisfying niche product & service needs for the government.

    You wouldn’t see it if you worked in food service (not implying that’s you, but who knows), but there are many companies that focus just on government contracts – and they do very well. One of my companies used to have a 30/70 split for commercial/government, and then decided to change to 70/30 because of the huge opportunities. They are doing just fine (~$10B in revenues).

    The DOD already uses commercial transport providers to move people and cargo around the safe parts of the world. For NASA, this would be equivalent to transporting crew to LEO. And just like all levels of government use tax dollars to pay for infrastructure (airports, roads, etc.), the government also provides direct assistance to many companies to help them acquire skills or capabilities they will need to perform work for the government. This also is nothing new, and this is what the commercial crew part of the NASA budget is meant to do.

    Whether it’s $6B over 5 years, or $1.2B over 3 years, commercial space doesn’t need the massive amounts of investment that any NASA vehicle does. Boeing only needs to build a capsule and LAS, and SpaceX only needs the LAS.

    Finally, you seem to think that commercial space must create a market. A market already exists, and it starts after the Soyuz-ISS contract ends in 2015. That is the big initial contract that everyone is targeting, and anything earlier (Bigelow, ISS crew increase, etc.) is just that much better. SpaceX can afford to bide their time, since they have the lowest cost & earliest solution. Remember, they said they could have commercial crew ready within 3 years, so they have plenty of time to focus on their COTS program and build up a supply of Dragon capsules. Patience is a virtue, in business as in life.

    Commercial space can wait for this budget mess to settle, and use Congresses shortsightedness with the end of the Shuttle to ride to the rescue and protect the U.S. Taxpayer from future Soyuz purchases.

    The future’s so bright I gotta wear sunglasses!

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 2:56 pm

    Start with Musk– the ‘free market’ has handed him a hard lesson– he’s broke.

    You need to get your AM radio fixed. First of all, he has stated he ran out of cash. There is a big difference between that and “broke”. But we already knew that you were not a financial expert (see prior post)

    Also, Musk sold some of his Tesla stock during their IPO and netted $24M, so he now has cash (even if that is your definition of broke).

    He also has those little things, oh what do you call them… oh yes, LOTS OF STOCK in Tesla and SpaceX, which will net him a nice sum as he sells it off.

    You’re a day late, and a dollar short. Actually many days and many dollars, but hey, we’re talking about you here, so it’s assumed you’re behind the times.

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Ron wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    =sigh= Ronnie, your ignorance of how capitalism operates is chilling. No wonder private rocket companies can’t get flying. You don’t seem willing grasp the core of it– return a high yield on investment for your shareholders/stockholders. That’s what it’s all about. You want — and need- investors who demand a return on those investments to give that up and invest in your high risk venture hoping the ROI will come at TBD time. Dealing w/t government, no less, who award contracts to the lowest bidder. Jeeez. Sure, some investors willing to play that game but the vast deep-pocketed majority arent and in the age of austerity they simply arent going to wait ‘hoping’ for a return on that investment from a high risk venture with a limited market. You’re going to have a very hard learning curve. Everything you post shows it:

    “I have worked for a number of them (selling to the gov’t) , both large and small, mostly satisfying niche product & service needs for the government.” =sigh= That’s nothing to brag about. ‘Nuff said.

    High time you see Destination Moon and duke it out in the private sector and see how unfettered free market capitalism operates. Musk learned the hard way. Looks like you will too.

  • DCSCA

    “The future’s so bright I gotta wear sunglasses!”

    Which may explain why you can’t see the light. Yeah, you “…got vision and the rest of the world wears bifocals” alright.

    Ronnie, stop talking. Start flying.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 15th, 2010 at 5:46 pm

    I can see my financial lessons are starting to sink into your brain. Instead of claiming that investors want “quarterly profit”, now you’ve upgraded your language to “high yield on investment”. Why pretty soon you’ll be able to talk about financial stuff in public without embarrassing yourself… ;-)

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Ron wrote @ July 16th, 2010 at 1:54 am – Why pretty soon you’ll be able to talk about financial stuff in public without embarrassing yourself… Don’t be so hard on yourself, Ronnie. It hasn’t stopped you. Someday you’ll learn how capitalism works– without the government as a customer, too.

Leave a Reply to amightywind 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>