Late Monday the House Science and Technology Committee announced that it has completed its draft of a NASA authorization bill and plays a markup session Thursday morning (10 am, Rayburn 2318). The press release states that the committee “is releasing the legislative text of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010″, although the text of the legislation itself is not included with the release. However, the release does provide some details about the legislation, summarized below in bulleted form:
- The overall funding for NASA in the legislation is at the president’s requested level for each of the fiscal years 2011-15.
- It provides for a balanced set of NASA activities in science, aeronautics, and human space flight and exploration.
- It funds science and aeronautics above the president’s proposed levels;
- It authorizes a new Space Technology program to develop innovative and transformational technologies and funds it at the president’s requested level;
- It provides more than $4.9 billion in funding for commercial crew- and commercial cargo-related initiatives
- It extends the International Space Station program to at least 2020 and adds funding for ISS research and for a ground- and space-based life and physical sciences microgravity research program;
- It funds the Space Shuttle program at the president’s requested level and adds funds to aid the Shuttle workforce and affected communities with the post-Shuttle transition;
- It funds NASA’s education programs at the president’s requested level and seeks to enhance the contribution of NASA’s existing programs to STEM goals;
- It restructures NASA’s exploration program to allow it to continue to make meaningful progress under a constrained budget, directing NASA to develop a crew transportation system that will both minimize the post-Shuttle human space flight “gap” and directly support the expeditious development of a heavy lift launch vehicle and capsule to enable challenging crewed missions beyond low Earth orbit.
A couple notes from the summary above: the $4.9 billion for commercial crew development is about $1.1 billion less than what was in the president’s proposal over the same period (2011-2015). [As the text of the legislation and the comments below note, the $4.9 billion is for both commercial crew and cargo, with very little clearly identified specifically for commercial crew development.] (This also suggests this is a five-year authorization bill, unlike the Senate’s three-year legislation.) Also, there’s no mention above of authorizing an additional shuttle flight, only that shuttle will be funded at the same level as in the administration’s proposal.
Update: The text of the legislation is now available. A quick read shows one major difference between the Senate and House authorization bills, namely, the priorities for developing a government launch vehicle and crewed spacecraft. The Senate version focused on the development of a heavy-lift vehicle (70-100 tons to LEO) that could carry a Orion-derived crew capsule. The House version, instead, focuses on the development of a crew transportation system that leverages previous work on Orion and Ares 1, but sets no specific performance target for the launch system. “[T]he Administrator shall pursue the expeditious and cost-efficient development of a heavy lift launch system that utilizes the systems and flight and ground test activities of the crew transportation system developed under this section to the maximum extent practicable,” it states. While the legislation sets a goal of having the crew transportation system in service by the end of 2015, “the Administrator shall strive to meet the goal of having the heavy lift launch vehicle authorized in this paragraph available for operational missions by the end of the current decade.” Whether either of those goals is reasonable with the projected funding levels is another matter.
“directing NASA to develop a crew transportation system that will both minimize the post-Shuttle human space flight “gap†and directly support the expeditious development of a heavy lift launch vehicle and capsule to enable challenging crewed missions beyond low Earth orbit.”
Sidemount is the only possible way to accomplish this.
Sidemount is on the way.
I’m still not convinced on the “need” for heavy lift, but I’ll be happy if the House keeps the Senate honest about space technology development.
“It provides more than $4.9 billion in funding for commercial crew- and commercial cargo-related initiatives ”
Pretty good return on a campaign contribution. I voted for him so I guess I should not complain. But I am.
“a new Space Technology program to develop innovative and transformational technologies ”
That would be nuclear pulse propulsion coming up soon. It is the only propulsion system that will work for BEO-HSF.
Gary – crazy question, but what the hey – where did you get your degree in aerospace engineering?
Ferris Valyn wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Palin University
Robert G. Oler
Robert – please don’t answer for Gary.
Gary – you make all these pronouncements, and you tend to avoid the providing reason. So, where did you get your technical knowledge to know all this, for 100% certain
Gary doesn’t know what he is talking about, has no insight into NASA and spams sites like this with his inane, idiotic and clueless posts.
NASA is not going to do work any wrt nuclear pulse propulsion .
Nor is sidemount going to be used.
Robert Oler wrote wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Ferris Valyn wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Palin University
Robert G. Oler
And the beauty of PU is you can quit – er – graduate after two years without having demonstrated any capability or knowledge and still get a well paying gig.
Sweet!
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/NASA_Authorization_Act_2010.pdf
http://science.house.gov/legislation/leg_highlights_detail.aspx?NewsID=2885
It sounds like they want something as close as possible to Ares I/Ares V/Orion:
“The plan shall make maximum practicable use of the design, development, and test work completed to date on the Orion crew exploration vehicle, Ares I crew launch vehicle, heavy lift launch vehicle
system, and associated ground support and exploration enabling systems and take best advantage of investments and contracts implemented to date.”
They want the government system to be ready for ISS use by December 31, 2015. The heavy lift system should use the systems of the government crew system.
$4.9B for commercial crew and cargo … I see tiny amounts like $50M for commercial crew and $14M for commercial cargo. There’s also a $100M loan guarantee each year. I didn’t see anything that would add up to $4.9B. Maybe they’re counting commercial cargo service payments in the $4.9B? Anyway, I didn’t see anything in my quick skim.
Exploration technology demonstration and development, and also robotic precursors, get tiny amounts like $5M. The government crew system should be able to house technology demonstrations.
The new Space Technology line is funded.
They want to assess an ISS centrifuge.
Commercial crew can be used if it’s assessed to be safer than the government systems and cheaper than those systems. I don’t know if they’re counting the $23B in development, $10B already lost in Constellation, or other figures in the cost of the government systems. I doubt it.
They want a plan for making use of NASA’s suborbital and airborne government assets. They also want the Space Technology program to make use of NASA’s government suborbital platforms to the extent practicable.
They want a plan for using commercial suborbital RLVs, focusing risks and so on.
They look to international participation to help achieve a lunar surface outpost or lunar landings.
The government exploration program would get something like $23B through FY2015.
It looks like commercial crew (assuming I didn’t miss something on that one), robotic precursors, and exploration technology development are dead in this one. I don’t know how you manage to come up with a bill where things like robotic precursor missions are deader than in Griffin’s Constellation era, which managed to run LRO/LCROSS, but it looks like that’s what’s here.
Let the endgames begin! Appropriators, conferees, take your marks – (behind closed doors).
Some surprises assured. Any predictions? Should be interesting…
It effectively kills CRuSR…
CRuSR funding cut in FY11 and FY12 (from $15M/yr to $1M/yr).
Forbids flights or building payloads in FY2011. Uses the $1 million on studies to “assessing capabilities and risksâ€
Science Mission Directorate is given an extra $5M/yr to “augment†its own “suborbital research programs,†to further entrench suborbital research in SMD which is hostile to commercial reusables.
Page 94 (Sec. 906) adds a set of restrictions before NASA can spend money on CRuSR, using identical language to the restriction on Commercial Crew in the same bill. For example, NASA may not proceed with an RFP until all indemnification and liability issues are settled and a report has been sent to Congress.
We will see who is clueless.
This is about Sidemount-“seeks efficiencies in program management and reductions in fixed and operating costs, requires a high level of crew safety, contains a robust flight and ground test program, facilitates the transition of Shuttle personnel, makes maximum practicable use of the work completed to date on the Orion, Ares I, heavy lift, and ground support and exploration enabling projects and contracts, and is phased in a manner consistent with available and anticipated resources.”
This means they know they are going to need massive shielding-
“Sec. 203. Space Radiation
Directs the Administrator to develop a space radiation mitigation and management strategy and implementation plan, and to transmit the strategy and plan no later than 12 months after the date of enactment of the Act.”
This is about Sidemount-“Directs the Administrator not to proceed with a procurement award for a commercial ISS crew transport system service if the provider’s crew transportation system has a predicted level of safety that is less than that predicted for the restructured exploration program’s crew transportation system.”
This is about nuclear pulse propulsion-“enable research and development on advanced space technologies and systems that are independent of specific space mission flight projects, including such areas as in-space propulsion,”
“So, where did you get your technical knowledge to know all this, for 100% certain”
You are the one saying it is 100% certain. I am giving it my best guess. Like everything you say is 100 percent. Right. We could go back in the archives and see which one of us likes to stretch the blanket tighter- and it would be you.
The most interesting thing about this bill is, like the Senate bill, it puts the Moon back on as a destination and even a venue for human settlement. A big rebuke for the President and his people.
This bill’s main problem is the crew transportation system.This is the section that probably won’t survive the Conference with the Senate.
I’m pretty sure that Sarah Palin has nothing to do with this thread, or space policy in general. But as with WMD and George Bush and Iraq, like a dog, Robert has to repeatedly return to his own politically ignorant vomit.
Not understanding the $4.9B – I see $250M for Commercial Crew, $500M in loans. $14M for COTS
Robotics Precursors get decimated much worse than Senate bill.
21st Century Launch Complex for KSC goes from roughly $500M per year to $50M a year ($1.5B in 3 years down to $250M in 5 years)
this also keeps Ares 1 and V alive. It also lumps the budget for Orion/Ares I and HLV in one big pot with no separation.
How much you guys still hating the Senate Bill?
I should have pointed out above that $250M is $50M a year for 5 years
It’s almost as though the House is trying to help the Senate bill look like sweet reason in comparison. A feat that I thought was impossible till tonight. If the House authorizers sold some of whatever it is they’re smoking, they might actually be able to afford their plan.
~Jon
Jonathan: All that the Senate and House smoke is a lust for more votes in November; and the Space Program and Country be damned!
Uses the $1 million on studies to “assessing capabilities and risksâ€
In other words $1M for studies designed to create further obstacles.
I’ve said this elsewhere but the debates and horse-trading between House and Senate as they try to reconcile these two bills will be interesting to say the least.
“I’m pretty sure that Sarah Palin has nothing to do with this thread, or space policy in general.”
I don’t believe that she has made her mind known about space policy. But, that was surely not Oler’s motivation for making his known.
Look people, Im glad to see that the politicians want something from the money already spent on Orion. Why have it be thrown away. Orion must stay, for deep space exploration. How it gets to orbit, is another matter, and whether it is from a side mounted shuttle stack, or Delta, and or Atlas, or for that matter Ares, the point is it will get there and back into deep space. I understand that Boeing is still working on the C 100 to ferry people to Bigelows inflatable hotel! All that is good too. We must keep pushing the deep space agendums forward, and not let up. It will cost, but in the end be worth it..
If they gut CCDev as is apparently being proposed here, then the American space program is doomed. However, there is the possibility that the NASA administrator can interpret “Restructured Space program,” to mean that NASA uses CCDev-style partnerships to build their rockets. Griffin happily reinterpreted NASA Auth. Act of 2005 how he saw fit, there’s nothing really precluding Bolden from doing the same.
Josh Cryer wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 8:04 am
Unless the Appropriators have a clue, the only hope is in what you suggest. Is this just a big shell game? Posturing and then leaving loopholes? Or has ATK bought more lawmakers than they need, for continued pork at the expense of a viable policy?
Clearly Ares I/Orion should be the priority since they provide access to the Space Station Freedom and because they are so far along in development. The house is just reauthorizing Constellation in everything but name. It looks like HLV will remain a muddle through this budget cycle. My guess is the Senate comes back to the Ares V as well.
Putting the fallacy of sunk costs aside, if this were to go through, a huge fight will ensue over the use of SRBs and ATK, or not.
One could imagine a launch vehicle making use of shuttle hardware and infrastructure sans SRBs, say, an SSME core (scaled down in diameter from the ET) with kerolox strap-ons. It would satisfy the requirements, negate the need for J-2X development, and make use of LC-39. It would also avoid the difficulties of SRBs.
Yes, it would still be old school and more expensive than need be, but it would satisfy the requirements.
ATK proponents, however, will go bonkers. The entrenched status quo loves to force the most expensive, least imaginative, higher risk solution down the government’s budgetary throat.
In reality though, essentially, this bill extends the gap, increases the costs, reduces the capabilities and hangs dinosaur technology around NASA’s neck while progress continues in the private sector, albeit at a slower pace.
Everyone find a new passion to replace spaceflight – this bill is the someday, maybe plan. The world’s most expensive and drawn out stationary bicycle of development.
By the way, how will Congress react when they are “committed” but the real costs become apparent? Just asking…
Church of no clue.
‘enable research and development on advanced space technologies and systems that are independent of specific space mission flight projects, including such areas as in-space propulsion”
That is VASMIR and not nuclear pulse.
Sidemount is less safe than inline and hence you are wrong again.
In reality though, essentially, this bill extends the gap, increases the costs, reduces the capabilities and hangs dinosaur technology around NASA’s neck while progress continues in the private sector, albeit at a slower pace.
The private sector seems to be our only hope. In general that’s a good thing. I don’t really have a problem with things going slowly and I find the New Space companies pretty exciting. But if vast amounts of taxpayers’ money are going to be spent on space, it would have been nice if that money would have been used to make things go faster. Imagine what commercial space (old and new) could have done with only 10% of NASA’s HSF funding.
Surprisingly, the hostility extends even to CRuSR, while I thought New Space was the safe fig leaf that big government space proponents could use to pretend that yes, really they were in favour of commercial space. It’s only a little bit of money, why would they cut even that? Spite, cluelessness or because they are untypically farsighted enough to realise that one day this new crop of companies will bring down their empire?
Historical analogies are far from perfect, but here’s a light comparison for thought.
In the 1920s, military air technology was behind what the private sector was up to. By a stroke of luck or behind the scenes foresight, companies like Grumman and Vought were called upon, in the mid to late 1930s, to design state of the art (and then some) fighters before war broke out.
I’m not predicting space wars here, just saying, if this proposal were to go through, we might find ourselves in the 1920s of space technology, with the government operation committed to an overpriced, cumbersome launch system, while the private sector continues to reduce the price point and increase its operational flexibility.
I’m guessing ULA and Arianespace are watching OSC and SpaceX. Who knows, they may aleady have working groups started to see how they might apply SpaceX’s approach to cost and operations.
With NASA FY11 we have the spectacle of those who must be obeyed, insisting they alone can define reality, it’s still the 1970s, and the world changing around them have no import.
Philosophically, this may be a divide between those who were inspired by Buck Rogers, Captain Video and Space:1999, and those who were inspired by Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov, chemistry, physics and economics. Practically, it is power losing sight of purpose.
“Clearly Ares I/Orion should be the priority since they provide access to the Space Station Freedom”
Another clueless post. It is clear that poster does not know what he is talking about
A. Space Station Freedom does not exist.
b. Ares I/Orion won’t be ready in time to be able to support the ISS.
“In 2010, the Space Shuttle — after nearly 30 years of duty — will be retired from service.”
– President George W. Bush, January 14, 2004
Barely a whimper then, a hurricane now. I guess politicians really do just live in the moment.
The House Bill and the Senate’s erstwhile ‘compromise’ answers Augustine’s rhetorical question, “Do we want a jobs program or a space program?”
Overwhelmingly the “jobs program” wins hands down.
I can guarangoddamntee that if any of these sausage products get passed, in 5 years we’ll still have nothing to show for it.
Except a finished Orion that’s BEO capable. Maybe.
And 25 billion dollars poorer.
And still no HLV either. With people whining, “Well, we spent a total of 20 billion dollars since 2005, but we can’t give up now, we have too much invested in it!”
Sure bet IMHO.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 10:57 pm ..
Sorry Kelly, none of that makes any sense. And it is not a personal attack to say that when it doesnt and indeed as at least one other poster has noted, you are missing most of the point.
The comparison you draw, the 707 and the shuttle makes no sense.
The “vectors” that formed to design and build the 707 and shuttle were quite different. you must not know the history of the Boeing.
The USAF wanted a new tanker, but in that era budgets mattered and there was no money for a new purpose built tanker. Besides, if you go read the articles of the time LeMay who was driving SAC acquisition knew a basic truth; commercial airlines were on the verge of designing one anyway…ie a new commercial jet transport; and all of SAC’s tankers (with the exception of the KB 50) came from the commercial airline market.
You dont seem to have a clue about the competition between Boeing and Douglas on what became the KC 135…in terms of there being a tanker version of the DC-8.
I am not going to educate you, other then to say that it is far different from what went on with the shuttle. Boeing in particular but also Douglas designed the vehicle(s) with concern for the market on their funds.
The shuttle was designed to whatever bottom line it was to get the buy in for federal funds to build it. As a result it is a crappy vehicle. There is nothing it has done that could not have been done with expendables and at a far cheaper price.
It has consistently driven the design of things simply to give it work.
That is why 707’s are still flying and the shuttle has just about run out…that is why the 707 has changed aviation history and the shuttle not so much.
As for the market size. There is another short sided statement.
The Falcon 9/OSC (but the 9 is far better positioned) competition is on a micro scale Boeing and Douglas for the tanker project. In particular the Falcon 9 has other customers beside NASA AND if it makes its price range will be very successful in that. The same “9’s” that launch comsats will launch Dragon, it is unlike Titan or Atlas “specials”…the human launch equaition is but a part of Musk business..
it is a visible part, but Boeing sold far more 707’s then it did KC 135’s…
what you argue is that human spaceflight must stay a government club until there is some hugh market…and yet you dont seem to grasp that this market never develops at all as long as billions are poured into government projects for lift in particular…that have no relevance outside of NASA.
That is how they think at NASA…and its wrong.
And Obama’s policy repudiates it
Robert G. Oler
amightywind wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 8:21 am
. The house is just reauthorizing Constellation in everything but name….
and the FAlcon 9 second stage with dragon boilerplate really is spinning out of control. Saddam really did have WMD (sorry Rand) and….
gee
Robert G. Oler
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 12:07 am
The most interesting thing about this bill is, like the Senate bill, it puts the Moon back on as a destination and even a venue for human settlement..
sure and the Chinese are racing us there…seesh
Robert G. Oler
Lordy, denial just ain’t a river in Egypt…
The House bill is just as underfunded as the Senate bill, if not more so.
From FY 2011 to FY 2014, NASA’s FY 2010 budget request for Ares I, Orion, and related program integration was:
FY 2011 $ 5,506 million
FY 2012 $ 5,447 million
FY 2013 $ 5,383 million
FY 2014 $ 5,578 million
Total $21,913 million
The same numbers in the FY 2011 House authorization bill are:
FY 2011 $ 4,156 million
FY 2012 $ 4,517 million
FY 2013 $ 4,514 million
FY 2014 $ 4,722 million
Total $17,909 million
Subtract the second set of numbers from the first set of numbers and you get the following shortfall:
FY 2011 $1,387 million
FY 2012 $ 955 million
FY 2013 $ 894 million
FY 2014 $ 881 million
Total $3,236 million
So, even though the House authorization bill dictates that NASA use “design, development, and test work completed to date on the Orion crew exploration vehicle, Ares I crew launch vehicle, heavy lift launch vehicle system, and associated ground support and exploration enabling systems and… investments and contracts implemented to date”, it provides $3.2 billion or 15% less funding than what NASA claims was needed for Ares I/Orion development.
This is actually a somewhat smaller budget shortfall than the Senate authorization bill. But the House bill also demands that NASA deliver an IOC by 2015, two years earlier than when NASA projected an Ares I/Orion IOC with a budget that was 15% larger. Moreover, an independent review by the Augustine Committee found that Constellation needed an additional $5 billion per year to meet that 2017 IOC, not a $3.2 billion cut. Even GAO has pointed out that J-2X development alone will take until 2017.
The human exploration content in the House authorization bill just doesn’t close programmatically. NASA can’t be expected to deliver a human space transport capability two years earlier than Constellatoin projected and for 15% fewer dollars than Constellation needed if NASA is also expected to carry out the same Constellation contracts, use the same Constellation technical content, and employ the same Constellation team. Per Augustine, if the House authorizers really want to carry out Constellation or a faster facsimile, then they have to more than double funding for the program, not cut it. It can’t be done within these constraints, and to give NASA such an unrealizable task is incredibly out of touch with reality.
Like Albert Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
FWIW…
“The most interesting thing about this bill is, like the Senate bill, it puts the Moon back on as a destination and even a venue for human settlement. A big rebuke for the President and his people.”
How? In his KSC speech, the President only stated that the first human exploration mission wouldn’t be to the Moon, not that the destination was ruled out forever (which he doesn’t control, anyway). And, among other lunar content, NASA’s FY 2011 budget proposal for ESMD includes a “Lunar Volatiles” demonstration project, which the House authorization bill would kill to fund Constellation Part Deux.
Don’t make stupid statements out of ignorance.
“Clearly Ares I/Orion should be the priority since they provide access to the Space Station Freedom and because they are so far along in development.”
Sigh… several points:
1) The Freedom design died in the early 90s.
2) The House authorization bill _cuts_ the exploration budget by 15% relative to NASA’s FY 2010 budget projection for Ares I/Orion, which wasn’t going to deliver an IOC until 2017, according to Griffin. There isn’t enough funding in the bill to create an Ares I/Orion-based crew transport capability before ISS goes in the drink.
3) Orion just completed its preliminary design review and Ares I still has outstanding PDR issues. The two projects are not “far along in development”. They have barely entered development.
Oy vey…
Like Albert Einstein once said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.â€
There’s never money to do it right and always money to do it over. They probably aren’t expecting success, they are expecting pork.
Has anyone put the WH budget, Senate authorization bill, and House authorization bill into a spreadsheet somewhere?
Ben Joshua wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 10:27 am
Historical analogies are far from perfect, but here’s a light comparison for thought…
that is a thoughtful post.
In my view we are in aerospace and in the national life in general kind of entering a period a lot like the 1930’s.
The era of the 30’s occurred because in all ways the government had stopped working. It is a tad scary if you go back and look at how the GOP had ruled DC between the Wilson and FDR era, but in many respects (including foreign policy) they more or less made every wrong decision possible…and eventually things just broke.
We are kind of slowly working our way there.
The 30’s however were a time of enormous innovation (although on a small scale) in terms of everything…and eventually they set the stage for a superpower to emerge.
One reason I am so optimistic about the space policy stuff is that while the old guard is taking a bit to die, it is. It simply cannot survive…
But the next 10 years or so I think right now are going to be very very hard on an individual level.
Robert G. Oler
Great Comment Awards go to…
Ben Joshua, dad2059, and Martijn Meijering
“(8) It is in the national interest for the United States Government to develop a government system to serve as an independent means—whether primary or backup—of crewed access to low-Earth orbit and beyond so that it is not dependent on either non-United States or commercial systems for its crewed access to space.
(9) Development of the next crewed space transportation system to low-Earth orbit should be guided by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board’s recommendation that ‘‘the design of the system should give overriding priority to crew safety, rather than trade safety against other performance criteria, such as low cost and reusability’’.
Parts 8&9 of Section 2 in the authorization bill
This bill seems to be getting worse the more I read into it. I would really like to know how it would be possible for NASA to develop a rocket that is not dependent upon commercial systems for crewed access to space? Is this implying that even the factories themselves are going to be government-owned and that all people on the assembly line are going to be government employees? I know this is supposed to be a pot shot at “New Space” and commercial spaceflight activities that aren’t 100% reliant upon government spending, but by trying to kill that kind of commercial spaceflight activity they are also killing other sorts of commercial activity as well. I don’t think this paragraph was well thought through when it was written, and if this policy was really followed it would be an elimination of ULA from future spaceflight activities as well.
No, I don’t expect that ULA is going to be kicked off the cape, but sometimes the legal language can be so draconian that this could give an excuse to do just that if some change in the administration of the government happened.
As for the “safety first” attitude, I hope those supporting this bill really understand what that means if it overrides all other considerations. I suppose that killing manned spaceflight entirely is a useful way to accomplish this goal as astronauts are most safe inside of a bunker… preferably under a mountain. Ships are also safe when in a harbor, but that isn’t what they are designed to do. While safety is an admirable goal, it simply can’t be the one and only design criteria for building a spacecraft.
Breaking news … The BBC reports that Russia will spend $800 million to build a new spareport in the Far East for its civilian launch operations:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10698433
It’s clear they intend to remain competitive. Pity our pork-addicted Congresscritters don’t get the message.
In addition, there is absolutely no reason to believe SDLV + Orion is going to be safer than Atlas + CST-100 or even Falcon 9 + Dragon. And no reason to believe concerns over safety are what is leading Congress to act the way it does.
“That is VASMIR and not nuclear pulse.
Sidemount is less safe than inline and hence you are wrong again.”
You keep saying I am wrong, but I have turned out to be right every time so far.
VASIMIR is not going to work for several decades, if ever; the specified “lightweight” 10 megawatt reactor is unobtanium- about as likely as anti-gravity. It will not be used on any 39 day missions to mars in this half of the century. The focus will shift to the only viable propulsion system.
Sidemount with Orion and LAS will satisfy the safety requirements. Considering the number of flights the shuttle hardware has put up and the lengthy testing of the LAS, the Dragon is a clear loser.
There is no reason to believe the Atlas or Falcon systems will be any safer than SDLV. There is reason to believe they will be difficult to make as safe; they are not manrated, have tested no escape systems, and are years behind development of Orion.
So the private space crowd is fantasizing and bloviating and engaging in false advertising….again.
“3) Orion just completed its preliminary design review”
At least it completed something.
“the next crewed space transportation system to low-Earth orbit should be guided by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board’s -”
Sidemount places Orion next to the upper section of the ET housing alongside the LOX tank. This is constantly harped on as being unacceptable because of the CAIB findings. I have looked through this several times and cannot seem to find any explicit statement saying the sidemount is a major hazard. Considering where the Orion will be mounted and the evidence that some of the Challenger crew actually survived the breakup of the orbiter and rode the cabin down to impact, the configuration is not a showstopper. Not perfect, but it is not a perfect world. There are problems with the Atlas, Delta, and Falcon proposed configurations also, not the least being they are not man-rated, and NASA is making a very big deal about safety; and if you are trying to go cheap, that is a showstopper; as the orbiter proved.
“Per Augustine, if the House authorizers really want to carry out Constellation or a faster facsimile, then they have to more than double funding for the program, not cut it. It can’t be done within these constraints, and to give NASA such an unrealizable task is incredibly out of touch with reality.”
The “faster facsimile” is Sidemount and Shannon has stated the amount needed to make it happen.
“-such an unrealizable task is incredibly out of touch with reality.”
I would say the same thing about going cheap on man-rating and sending people up in capsules that have not even tested an escape system yet.
A few random questions-
I wonder if there will be another round of letters from people like the CAIB, or astronauts just before the house markup?
Why has Bolden been so quiet? Is he on restriction?
Did anyone see a result of the Glenn/Obama meeting yesterday?
Does anyone see this version opening the door to more Ares test flights? NASA still needs something to do if this goes into an extended CR…
Robert G. Oler wrote:
“The 30′s however were a time of enormous innovation (although on a small scale) in terms of everything…and eventually they set the stage for a superpower to emerge.”
The period 1900-1945 in the US and Northern Europe was a period of explosive innovation without parallel in world history. In my mind it is due to the confluence of profound advances in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology as well the rise of the middle class in the belated industrial revolution in the US. Each discipline passed through a golden age: math: differential geometry, analysis, theory of computation…; physics: modern electro-dynamics, nuclear physics, general relativity…; chemistry: thermodynamics, physical chemistry, materials science…; biology: DNA, modern genetics… Such explosive progress won’t happen again for 1000 years. We live in exciting times certainly, but the latest iPod or modern remake of a 1960’s rocket reflect a more moderate rate of advance.
“One reason I am so optimistic about the space policy stuff is that while the old guard is taking a bit to die, it is. It simply cannot survive…”
Private space will take over when there is a great enough economic benefit to attract capital. Materials extraction and tourism are the most likely drivers. The crony capitalism and leftist artifice of Obama will accomplish little.
Stephen C. Smith wrote:
“Breaking news … The BBC reports that Russia will spend $800 million to build a new spareport in the Far East for its civilian launch operations:”
Brilliant! They will be reinventing Cape Canaveral only 20 deg further north with no access to low inclination orbits. I am convinced that the main reason the US stays on top is we are a heavy weight wrestling with midgets!
Once again, Congress is rejecting Ospace but since there are some sizable differences between the House and the Senate, could compromise return the Commercial program that President Obama wanted? In my view, no chance at all.
The House bill wants just $14 million for Cots this year and $150 million for CCDev over 3 years vs $6 billion called for in OSpace and $1.6 billion in the Senate’s bill. Any compromise on this vast difference will be much lower than the Senate’s. Commercial just keeps losing congressional support as the days wear on.
The extra shuttle flight the Senate wants but the House doesn’t will come out of the hid of the Senate’s $1.6 billion for commercial.
I don’t see that the House’s insistence on preserving as much of Ares I/V as all that different from the Senates call to rush a SDHLV since both bodies want shuttle derived and both want an all American solution at the earliest possible date, 2015. Any compromise here will be to generate bipartisan support for J2X, 4 or 5 segment SRM and Orion. Constellation keeps getting funds while commercial loses funds.
In a Congress with little bipartisan support for anything, we now see a most extraordinary demonstration of bipartisanship in rejecting most of Ospace. Considering that the Democrats on the Hill have embraced nearly all of President Obama’s agenda this is all the more remarkable that Nasa is where Congressional Democrats parted company with him.
I’d like to suggest that this is not accurate. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that they haven’t gotten anywhere near the level that they wanted.
amightywind wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Private space will take over when there is a great enough economic benefit to attract capital…
that is in fact happening, and is the miracle of SpaceX (at least so far).
Musk took a lot of his fortune and for reasons which are best known to him personally found that there was some economic benefit to creating a new launcher.
American economics is, so far at least, unique in the world. So far, although the political situation of the last oh say 50 years has worked to stop it…the folks who have a truly better mousetrap will eventually get a chance to try it on the market. It is a tough go. People like you who cannot think out of the established reality (sorry but that is you…and to be fair a lot of others…Whittington for instance) always are the harbinger of doom for such efforts…and mostly you are correct.
Natural selection is alive in our country and people with really new ideas who dont get it all perfect usually fade. But sometimes they suceed and the world changes.
Musk has put together a stunningly successful (so far) team that seems on track to build a product which changes the economic market place.
the odds still are that he fails…but there are glimmers that he succeeds and thats the change that forces every other company in the industry to adapt or fold. I think he (Musk) will succeed…but then I am an optimist.
As for your statement on history. I might think of that some more. Right off hand I dont agree at all with the “1000 year” comment.
Robert G. Oler
Glenns meeting went as expected. He told Obama to keep flying shuttles until a replacement can be acquired, whether commercial or government derived. Obama said that they could keep an open line of communications. So far no unexpected changes…….
Ferris Valyn wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Ferris. I voted for the loser in the last three Presidential elections, but I also am one of those people who think that the right wing of the GOP is on a path to oblivion and Rush/Beck are in a race to the bottom for the Father Conglin (spell) award. Having said that…
To me Obama has been a failure so far. Bush the last got elected by a 5-4 decision of the SCOTUS (although I think he won the vote in FL with all its flaws..but even that was narrow) and drifted for a bit until he found his moment on 9/11 and then drove The Republic exactly how he wanted to go. I would argue that is what put us in the ditch…but Bush did push his party (which controlled Congress) to give him what he wanted..
I would argue that is the measure of “success” of a POTUS…can one get the legislation through the Congress that enables the agenda of the Administration…no matter who controls it…and it should be easier if your party does.
So far by that measure Obama is either a flop, or he is a really bad producer of an agenda. I have started leaning toward the former, but I have seen and heard both sides argued by reasonable people.
Maybe it doesnt matter, because either is a prescription for drift in the legislative body; particularly one of your own party. And Obama has that.
In the end the only thing which might save him, is that the GOP is more inept in its own message then the Administration. One could not help but enjoy the squirming on MTP when several “GOP leaders” were pressed on cutting the deficit and couldnt name a single thing that they would cut. Just repeated rhetorical babble over and over.
Bill Clinton had the most hostile congress ever…and yet he outmanuevered them one day after the next. Obama so far has been unable to lead flies to warm excrement.
Robert G. Oler
Florida Today on today’s House bill:
http://space.flatoday.net/2010/07/house-committee-puts-nasa-focus-back-on.html
Oler wrote:
“As for your statement on history. I might think of that some more. Right off hand I dont agree at all with the “1000 year†comment.”
It is carefully considered. As we have come to understand and manipulate the forces of nature through mathematics and physics we naturally pick the low hanging fruit. That was the first half of the 20th century. The great open questions of math and physics are so specialized and technical it takes a large fraction of a lifetime for a gifted few just to reach the forefront of knowledge. It will take time for great minds to blow holes in modern physics and create whole new structures of mathematics and hopefully create new opportunities for technology. I the meantime most scientists and engineers are gainfully and productively employed filling the gaps using and stretching the existing tools that we have.
SpaceX has issued a statement on the Senate Authorization Bill.
It expresses a very positive take on the Senate compromise bill, and doesn’t mention the House version. It’s good PR position.
I also am one of those people who think that the right wing of the GOP is on a path to oblivion and Rush/Beck are in a race to the bottom for the Father Conglin (spell) award.
More political and historical (and off topic) ignorance from Robert about “right wingers.” Fr. Coughlin was a left winger. He berated Roosevelt for not being socialist enough.
Musk a.k.a. SpaceX can read the writing on the wall. With all hope for a rescue of the Obama debacle now dead with the announcement of the House bill that cuts even deeper into the commercial crew option, they have decided to take what they can and support the Senate bill.
Rand Simberg wrote:
“More political and historical (and off topic) ignorance”
More blather from SpacePolitics’ favorite net cop. Since a partisan battle over space funding is being waged in congress, is it surprising that a parallel partisan debate is being carried out here? Besides. You are not one of the technical voices here. Most of your comments are trivial one liners. Go away.
Oh, goodie. A troll asks me to go away.
Problem is the great Obama still has to sign it!!!!!!!!
“Fr. Coughlin was a left winger.”
An advocate for Hitler and Mussolini a left winger? Where do you get your history from – Fox News? Although that would explain you strange beliefs on NASA HSF being socialist…
An advocate for Hitler and Mussolini a left winger?
Socialists are socialists, national or otherwise. But again, getting way OT.
Hitler killed the socialists and hated the communists. Mein Kampf isnt about economic theory. He was an uneducated man who made a code of his personal resentment. Much like yourself Rand.
“Although that would explain you strange beliefs on NASA HSF being socialist…”
It is not strange nor a belief, it is the truth. NASA HSF is a jobs program. Mike Griffith even said it, one of the goals of Constellation work assignments was ten healthy centers.
A pointed question: Where is the Soyuz funding line?
Since this bill clearly requires the US to buy Soyuz seats for many years to come, what account is it coming out of? I assume that those contracts would be paid out of the ISS operations account. Can someone who understands the NASA budget better give a definitive answer to this?
More pointedly, if Soyuz seats can be purchased out of the ISS operations account, then why can’t a seats on a US commercial equivalent be purchased out of the same account? This appears to be left to the discretion of the Administrator and would resolve the discrepancy between the press announcement $4.9 Billion for commercial and the much smaller amount that appears under the exploration line.
Can anyone shed any light on this?
Hitler killed the socialists and hated the communists.
Stalin killed millions of socialists. Was Trotsky not a socialist? So did Mao. Like most socialist totalitarians, Hitler hated brands of socialism not his own. That doesn’t make him not a socialist, and it doesn’t make him “right wing.”
But this illustrates why the phrases “right wing,” “left wing” “WMD,” “Iraq,” “thunderheads,” “Palin,” “Rove,” etc. should be used as comment filters. It would dramatically reduce the number of senseless posts (and responses to them) that have nothing to do with space policy, which rarely has anything to do with ideology.
Rather than demanding that other blogs implement your filter words on their filters, has the alternative scenario occurred to you yet that you could just go right over to your blog and implement your filter words yourself? Just sayin …
On one level, I feel the need to respond to Oler’s comment, and I may do so later today (really worn out after some earlier things today). However, to turn the discussion back to space…
Ryolite raises a bunch of important points – where is the funding for Soyuz? And another point to consider, along with the Senate Bill – this furthers our dependence on Soyuz. Shouldn’t we be concerned about a need to extend the Iran nuclear nonproliferation act waiver? That was so much fun the last time
@Olertheastroturfer at work:First you say it’s a ‘crappy vehicle†Then you say on another thread “the Shuttle, while unique and capable, is an evolutionary dead-end.†THen deny it, proved wrong, then repeat here “As a result it [shuttle] is a crappy vehicle.”
@Ferris
I have been trying to figure that out, and I can only assume Soyuz and also the already awarded commercial cargo delivery contracts to SpaceX and Orbital are covered under Space Operations – Flight Services. If not there, I don’t know where either of those items would fall.
You’ll both have to be gentle with Oler. His ego has taken a huge beating with recent developments in the Senate and House and his abandonment by the Obama administration.
“Socialists are socialists, national or otherwise.”
Rand, you really are not doing yourself any good with such bizarre statements. Unlike the windy person and others, you do have good and sometimes very good points to make about space policy and business. Let it go at that.
DCSCA wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
@Olertheastroturfer at work:First you say it’s a ‘crappy vehicle†Then you say on another thread “the Shuttle, while unique and capable, ..
you are goofy I did not say the later F minus
Robert G. Oler
anon wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 2:49 pm
“Fr. Coughlin was a left winger.â€
no matter Coughlin’s politics (and they are not that indecipherable given the politics of the time) the reality is that he was a panderer to a group of people who did not care so much what he said because what they heard was what they wanted to.
Thats the Rush/beck line
Robert G. Oler
MrEarl wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
You’ll both have to be gentle with Oler..
thanks for the concern but my ego is well intact. Just finished watching Glenn on MSNBC comment on where things are going, he knows what I do, Obama has won
Robert G. Oler
Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 4:45 pm – Yes, you did- but you go on believing you didn’t. It’s amusing.
DCSCA wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
“@Olertheastroturfer at work:First you say it’s a ‘crappy vehicle†Then you say on another thread “the Shuttle, while unique and capable, is an evolutionary dead-end.†THen deny it, proved wrong, then repeat here “As a result it [shuttle] is a crappy vehicle.—
Uh oh DCSCA, I was the one that said “the Shuttle, while unique and capable, is an evolutionary dead-endâ€. It was on the Space Politics topic “Obama and Glenn to talk about space policy today”, and I posted it July 19th, 2010 at 6:21 pm.
OK, apologize to Oler for calling him a liar…
Folks, please keep the discussion on the topic of this legislation and space policy, not socialism, Hitler, Fr. Coughlin, and other irrelevant issues. Thank you for your cooperation.
Glenn’s appeared on MSNBC today noting his agreements and differences with President Obama on the direction of the space program– and shuttle. His argument is based on spending the money on US operations, not passing the bucks off to Russia, and to keep a redundancy in space operations for the United States. Particularly noting the downtime and losses incurred to personnel at space centers– and losing the heavy lift capacity of the shuttle, noting Soyuz carries a crew of three with room for an extra 120 lbs., which is a austere payload. One could not help but hear, between the lines, a little of his old Cold War competitivness, not wanting American astronauts to depend on the Russians for get into space as the epilogue to the space race.
@CoastalSocialistRon: He is inaccurate. But it’s quaint to see you fighting his battles. Best you do some homework on it. @Oler: First you say it’s a ‘crappy vehicle†Then you say “the Shuttle, while unique and capable, is an evolutionary dead-end.â€
Oler replies:“Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 9:15 pm “no I did not…try reading a little more closely then come backâ€â€¦.
Oler forgets:“Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 4:37 pm: First off, and perhaps the keel of the disagreement is that shuttle is not a “crappy DC-1″ it isnt a “crappy DC-1 wantabee†its just a crappy vehicle.—
DCSCA wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 4:45 pm – Yes, you did- but you go on believing you didn’t. It’s amusing…..
NO you got that wrong…and I pointed it out twice and you are not rigorous enough to do the research to do the hard work to find things out.
You are typical of extremist who have no real clue about how to engage in honorable debate. You are a shrill, who takes post and drives them to say things that it is not designed to do. You are like the Fox wing nuts who took the comments a woman made at a NAACP meeting and drove it for an entire eventing of hate, to busy to do real research.
Here is the exact post where Coastal Ron says what you claim I did.
I am enjoying stuffing it in your face. goober extremist goober
Robert G. Oler
Coastal Ron wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
DCSCA wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
“That is what Musk is trying to do. And will Robert G. Oler
And you drive a Tucker.â€
Same canard, same lack of understanding that you have – you just don’t understand how the free market system works, and how a government-run space transportation system skews true demand.
SpaceX may or may not ultimately succeed, but as long as the government controls the demand & supply sides of the equation for HSF, no commercial competitor will find it easy to enter the market. And as everyone knows, without competition there is little chance of innovation improving the market.
The Shuttle, while unique and capable, is an evolutionary dead-end. …
enjoy ..
Robert G. Oler
“I don’t see that the House’s insistence on preserving as much of Ares I/V as all that different from the Senates call to rush a SDHLV since both bodies want shuttle derived and both want an all American solution at the earliest possible date, 2015. Any compromise here will be to generate bipartisan support for J2X, 4 or 5 segment SRM and Orion. Constellation keeps getting funds while commercial loses funds.”
Sidemount is on the way. It has everything that commercial space does not. Orion- with an escape system, man-rated shuttle hardware, and an infrastructure to make it happen. And it will.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 5:19 pm <- inaccurate. But you go on believing it isnt. It's amusing.
“The Shuttle, while unique and capable, is an evolutionary dead-end. …”
The orbiter, not the hardware.
The SRB’s, SSME’ and ET will be back in the game as soon as they realize the only way to get their HLV is Sidemount.
“You are typical of extremist who have no real clue about how to engage in honorable debate. You are a shrill, who takes post and drives them to say things that it is not designed to do. You are like the Fox wing nuts who took the comments a woman made at a NAACP meeting and drove it for an entire eventing of hate, to busy to do real research.” In other words, you’ve been tagged out. Dont drift off topic (NAACP)– and don’t be so hard on yourself. It’s been a bad week for you. But you go on believing it isnt.
Okay, back to the question by Ryolite, where (in the bill) is the funding for Soyuz?
“I am enjoying stuffing it in your face. goober extremist goober” ROFLMAO so says ‘the Great Waldo Pepper.’ Bad week for you.
Bennett – I am not convinced its there. Which is pretty crazy
Of course, its no less crazy then giving NASA half the money they need, and expecting them to turn out Constellation in less time
Ferris Valyn wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
“Of course, its no less crazy then giving NASA half the money they need, and expecting them to turn out Constellation in less time”
Well Congress does have a track record of approving a program (Constellation), but then not full funding it, stupid though it may be.
I’ve written my representative to tell them how much I don’t like the House NASA bill. My Rep is a Republican, so I made sure to point our that they were siding with a government run transportation system as opposed to promoting jobs-producing commercial companies.
@CoastalSocialistRon/RobertGOler:
Yes, misread post as the earlier tag was included- but you concur. No excuse. Apology to Oler for misreading. But not for his repeated commentary:
Oler: “Obama’s space policy is inspired.”
It is not.
Oler: “My guess is that after the meeting Glenn will “come around†to the compromise and by defact the new plan.”
He is a cold warrior- He will not, as today’s MSNBC appearence shows.
Oler: “Really Shuttle was a crappy DC-1.”
It is not.
Oler:First off, and perhaps the keel of the disagreement is that shuttle is not a “crappy DC-1″ it isnt a “crappy DC-1 wantabee†its just a crappy vehicle.”
It is not. You imply the US has been flying a ‘piece of crap’ for 30 years. This is simply not the case.
@CoastalSocialistRon/Oler, re Musk: Yes, you both must drive a Tucker.
DCSCA wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
“He is inaccurate. But it’s quaint to see you fighting his battles. Best you do some homework on it.”
Hey, I just don’t you assigning credit for what I wrote to someone else. It also goes to your credibility, since everyone can go back to the other blog and see that you are wrong.
Go ahead, apologize to Oler – it will set a good example for your kids to see daddy fessing up to a big doodoo…
DCSCA wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
“@CoastalSocialistRon/Oler, re Musk: Yes, you both must drive a Tucker.”
Actually I drive a Honda Civic, which is really what the SpaceX Dragon is shooting for – dependable transportation without a lot of frills. And Honda seems to be doing OK with their small part of the market, so SpaceX has picked a good role model.
@CoastalSocialistRon@ July 20th, 2010 at 5:53 pm- Raise your eyes to the post ahead of yours. You’re a little slow— as usual.
@CoastalSocialistRon– “Actually I drive a Honda Civic.” Always encouraging to see an American supporting foreign competition.
Is Robert Oler the editor of this blog? He sure acts as if he is.
@CoastalSocialistRon- Musk is broke. SpaceX will be sold after a few flights and rightly so. And bear in mind, it has flown only one Falcon9, with some minor problems (to be expected). It has not flown an operational spacecraft and the company founder has publicly stated he wont ride his own vehicle up and down. Not a confidence builder for investors. Even Ford– and Tucker– drove their own cars; and the Wrights flew their own planes. Even Hughes piloted his own aircraft. Seems Musk has ‘the fright stuff’, not the ‘right stuff’ when it comes to playing at private rocketeer.
I can’t find any itemized spending documents but I think Soyuz comes from the ISS budget at least it has in the past. Really it isn’t very much money over all.
Does NASA publish itemized spending documents either physical or electronic?
@bandit “Is Oler the editor of this blog?†<- No, he just likes to see his name in print. You do have to acknowledge his tenacious advocacy, albeit stuck in the age of ancient aviation. Still, legend has it is he told Franklin to use wire instead of string for kite flying; suggested Kitty Hawk to Wilbur when he dropped by to get a bike chain greased; told Lindy that Paris was a nice place to land in the spring time; warned Yeager over beers at Pancho's not to ride horses before flying and, of course, he suggested matching silk scarves to match the parachutes of early barnstormers.
@DCSCA
When I got divorce I was broke too… wink wink.
Musk has a personal cash flow problem because he DOESN’T want to sell off any assets. SpaceX is stable and he enjoys the company very much. He has said that if he wanted to get rich(er) fast he wouldn’t have gone into rockets. He loves space and it’s more in line with his background. He has said he isn’t going to sell off his control of SpaceX but I’m sure he is always looking for investors.
(This is a summary of about 5 interviews and a couple of seminar presentations)
you must to be kidding me!! ..is this the spacecraft of the future??? Holy …
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Boeing_CST_100_Spacecraft_To_Provide_Commercial_Crew_Transportation_Services_999.html
@malkin
I tried to answer that question somewhere up above but it got lost it the flame war about fascism, socialism and little red hondas…
You know, I think this thread has lost any recognition of a discussion about space.
Of course, I think that is indicative of our over debate in general.
Ferris – No matter, I skip over it to get to the comments that are on topic. But right now my son is asking me to go and do some work at the new house, so back in a bit…
“Fox wing nuts”
More useful filter words. Along with “Fox News.”
So to try to answer again, my guess is commercial cargo and perhaps Soyuz comes out of Section 101 (5) (D) the $740.4M (for FY11) allocated for Space and Flight Support under Space Operations. I guess for Soyuz we could ask, where did it come out of the budget before, it is probably the same place.
Spaceboy wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 6:54 pm
“my guess is commercial cargo and perhaps Soyuz comes out of Section 101 (5) (D) the $740.4M (for FY11) allocated for Space and Flight Support under Space Operations. I guess for Soyuz we could ask, where did it come out of the budget before, it is probably the same place.”
I think the budget being proposed goes out thru 2015? If so, then that would cover the whole of the Soyuz ISS contract. That would also mean we would not see an opportunity for commercial crew to be funded for 2016 and beyond until the 5-year budget that gets put together next year.
Since the big target is to be ready for commercial crew prior to 2016, I think SpaceX would feel that they are OK to wait out this current budget battle as long as a government funded alternative is not a direct competitor. They will have the Dragon kinks worked out by next year, and should have a successful COTS delivery too. That will help allay congressional fears going into the next budget battle.
Boeing, who still needs to build their CST-100, should be able to build it and get it qualified within three years, so they may wait for government funding to loosen up too. They don’t sound like they want to build the capsule without NASA money, so nothing is going to happen for a year anyways. Too bad, since they have the funds available, but it’s hard to change your government contractor ways when you’ve been doing it for so long.
I am sure when the Tea Party gets in power they won’t support Obamaspace’s mercenary approach to space exploration, using for “hire astronauts” to explore space instead of NASA astronauts. Or requiring NASA astronauts to ride private taxi’s to ISS,
So really this bill is probably a good preview of the Tea Party’s space policy which will restore America’s pride by finishing Constellation and returning to the Moon just as we said we would after Columbia.
I am sure when the Tea Party gets in power they won’t support Obamaspace’s mercenary approach to space exploration, using for “hire astronauts†to explore space instead of NASA astronauts. Or requiring NASA astronauts to ride private taxi’s to ISS.
Actually, it seems like exactly the thing they’d support, if they want to be consistent with their stated principles of smaller government and more free enterprise. And unlike some Republican and “conservatives” with NASA-center jobs in their district/state, I suspect that they will stick to their principles.
Coastal Ron,
SpaceX has already come out in favor of the senate bill.
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20100720
I guess they see the gravy train of commercial crew is about to leave the station and want to get it on before it gets derailed in a Tea Party run Congress next year.
The Tea Party is also about patriotism and restoring American pride in our accomplishments. You won’t do that turning NASA into an out sourcing agency.
anon wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
“The Tea Party is also about patriotism and restoring American pride in our accomplishments. You won’t do that turning NASA into an out sourcing agency.”
So outsourcing the Shuttle processing to United Space Alliance was unpatriotic? Weird.
But not outsourcing crew flights to Russia – that must be patriotic, because that’s what George W. Bush did, and no one in the Tea Party ever called him unpatriotic.
It must be tough to live in your world…
Oh lord, yet another anon? Was it just 3 months ago that most of the comments here were worth reading? Back when windy was the only true troll. Now we have four or so resident ones and you have to scroll past a half dozen meaningless comments to get to anything of substance.
Luckily, the comments of substance are worth reading.
anon wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
“SpaceX has already come out in favor of the senate bill.”
Notice their statement came out after the House committee’s bill, so they are encouraging the better bill (the Senate). It still doesn’t change what I said, because they were unlikely to get any crew funding until after they make a COTS delivery.
They will be in a much better position next year to advocate for commercial crew, and there will still be plenty of time to qualify Dragon for crew before the Soyuz contract runs out. They have plenty of COTS work, and they can bide their time for now on crew until Congress figures out they are in danger of giving a contract extension to the Russians for Soyuz.
The Tea Party’s also about restraint on deficit spending. Simultaneously being in favor of Constellation and the funding it requires, would be a neat trick…
DCSCA wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 6:07 pm
“Musk is broke.”
Did the landlady forget to bring you her old magazines again? I guess you missed it, but Musk, who only said he was “out of cash” (I know you have problems with financial definitions), got $24M from the Tesla IPO.
“And bear in mind, it has flown only one Falcon9, with some minor problems (to be expected).”
Boy, you’re really scratching pretty deep to find something you can complain about. Falcon 9 had it’s first test launch, and attained all their major milestones. It went so well that they are talking with NASA about deleting one of the COTS Demo flights.
If you had been listening to what Musk was saying before the test flight, you would have heard Musk say they they expected issues to appear, and that was the purpose of the flight. Notice they did not claim it was a NASA COTS Demo flight, which they get paid for, so obviously they did not have enough confidence in their FIRST FLIGHT to expect perfection. Do you have such harsh expectations with others? Just asking…
“It [SpaceX] has not flown an operational spacecraft ”
Falcon 1 delivery of the Malaysia’s RazakSAT satellite to orbit was not operational? I do not think “operational” means what you think it means…
“the company founder has publicly stated he wont ride his own vehicle up and down.”
Wow, you are sure setting the bar for all future product inventors. I can see that you would call the CEO of Boeing a chicken for not riding the 787 on it’s first flight, and Kelly Johnson a chicken for not flying the A-12 on it’s first flight.
Of course what you left out is that Musk did say that he looks forward to riding to space, but that because of his children’s young age, he would postpone that until later. Besides, the first flights are for test, and since his specialty is being a CEO and designer, and not in being a test pilot, I think most people understand why he would not be the 1st flight test pilot. “Most” does not seem to be the category that you are in.
Maybe you’re having problem keeping fantasy and reality separate again, and you have him confused with Tony Stark?
The Tea Party is also about patriotism and restoring American pride in our accomplishments. You won’t do that turning NASA into an out sourcing agency.
This is stupid. NASA has always been an “outsourcing agency.” The only difference is that they will be purchasing launch services, instead of cost-plus labor.
Frank,
You don’t follow the Tea Party do you? Other then the attack pieces. The Tea Party is about restoring America greatness which includes NASA.
http://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/huntsville-alabama-day-9-of-the-tea-party-express-iii-national-tour/
Shelby is a Tea Party hero for standing up to Obamaspace and the workers who have spent their lives keeping America first in space that he wants to get rid of.
Of course what you left out is that Musk did say that he looks forward to riding to space, but that because of his children’s young age, he would postpone that until later. Besides, the first flights are for test, and since his specialty is being a CEO and designer, and not in being a test pilot, I think most people understand why he would not be the 1st flight test pilot.
Beyond that, it’s hard to imagine his shareholders (and yes, despite the fact that the company is not public, he does have other shareholders) would allow him to take that risk. Some people are clueless about the constraints under which CEOs operate. In fact, this particular person is pretty much clueless about everything. That plus its anonymity helps define it as a troll.
Shelby is a Tea Party hero for standing up to Obamaspace and DEFENDING the workers who have spent their lives keeping America first in space that he wants to get rid of.
One of the worst examples of idiocy comes from an article in Space News on the House Bill. My favorite is in reference to the “Loan Program” for commercial crew development:
“A House Republican staffer said the loan program is designed to ensure that U.S. taxpayer money is reimbursed — with interest — before the government risks billions of dollars to nurture a commercial crew transportation industry.
“By offering a loan and loan guarantee program, we hope to leverage the talents of the free market and at the same time hopefully reduce wasteful and unproductive efforts,†the aide said. “The bill provides up to half-a-billion dollars to companies that demonstrate responsible, rational and credible plans. If a legitimate, free-market-based business case for commercial crew can be demonstrated, then borrowers will be able to repay the loans to NASA, allowing the taxpayers to reap some of the financial rewards for making such a large capital outlay.â€
But providing 23 billion dollars to fund what is recognized by the Senate as a failed program is just fine and dandy? Is Constellation a “responsible, rational and credible plan”?
“This is a bipartisan bill that embraces many of the president’s goals for our space program while also ensuring that we have an executable and fiscally responsible plan.†Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.)
Which, of course, is exactly what it doesn’t do.
It makes me weep to see such dysfunction.
CoastalSocialistRon wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 8:24 pm =yawn=…have problems with financial definitions. Indeed, you do. Doesnt do Musk much good to have assets that can’t sell.. Maintaining cash flow is capitalism 101– but you’ll learn that further up that steep curve or you’d enjoy working for free for him. Why don’t you relax tonight and celebrate the 41st anniversary of Apollo 11’s lunar landing under a waxing moon by polishing the ol’ Tucker. We’ll be rerunning the video from July 20th, 1969 for the kids tonight. It’s still an awesome government funded and paid for experience.
Rand Simberg wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 8:32 pm “Some people are clueless about the constraints under which CEOs operate.’
Indeed, but we don’t hold it against you. Making excuses for Musk displaying the ‘fright stuff’ is amusing. You can make book that Branson will take a ride in his rocket. Musk never will flay aboard his– but investors may very well be taken for a ride all the same.
anon wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Coastal Ron wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
“So outsourcing the Shuttle processing to United Space Alliance was unpatriotic? Weird.”
Not to mention outsourcing the Apollo vehicle to North American, Saturn S1 to Boeing, Saturn S2 to North American, and Saturn SIVB to Douglas.
I suppose we also shouldn’t mention how Gemini was outsourced to McDonnell and the Titan it flew on was outsourced to Martin.
Similarly, we shouldn’t mention that Mercury was outsourced to McDonnell and the Atlas it flew on was outsourced to Convair.
Apparently patriotism is determine by whether contracts are awarded on a cost plus basis in the right districts. Firm fixed price contracts in the wrong districts is unpatriotic.
DCSCA wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 8:55 pm
And we haven’t been back since 1972. It was basically the functional equivalent of a military conflict, but neither side wanted to actually fight a war where people died because it would lead to trading nuclear shots at each other. That was the only thing that kept Apollo going and that justified the expense. Since there is no “war” to win anymore, the government program that requires a lot of funding will never happen again. Basically where we are today, NASA wishing for more money, but never getting it.
And capitalism 101 says that businesses have cash flow problems all the time, and get short-term loans and such to cover the payroll and expenses during those periods. These loans are then paid back when the revenue comes in, such as meeting a milestone and getting a milestone payment.
The functional equivalent for Musk was asking his friends for personal loans, which we would pay back once some of his assets became more liquid, such as the $20-odd million he made from the Tesla IPO. Obviously his friends, who are also rich, thought he was good for it, otherwise he would not have gotten the loans to begin with.
Rand Simberg wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
DCSCA wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
Hey, I have an idea. Let’s ask the Lockheed board if Robert Stevens, their CEO, can fly on Orion. They’ll say no, of course, then we will have clear cut argument for killing Orion based on DCSCA’s twisted logic.
Rhyolite,
Sad, comparing jobs at Boeing to jobs in Russia and saying they are the same.
anon wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
“Shelby is a Tea Party hero…”
You mean the same Richard Shelby who was named Porker of the Month by Citizens Against Government Waste in June 2010.
http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/porker-of-the-month/
I believe he is the only Senator who has won that award twice.
Bennett,
Don’t worry, I will leave you Obama lovers to trying to figure why America is rejecting Obamaspace and go back to the Tea Party website where they understand its about American leadership, not the greed of Obama’s space millionaires hijacking NASA’s budget.
anon wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
So paying huge amounts of money to ATK to duplicate existing capabilities (Ares I/Delta IV Heavy) is patriotic, but paying two orders of magnitude less money to SpaceX is hijacking NASA’s budget?
I don’t think “fiscal responsibility” (the Tea Party mantra) means what you think it means.
“They will have the Dragon kinks worked out by next year”
They do not even have an escape system yet. The “hypergolic pusher” is sounding more like a joke as time goes by. Show me the escape system Ron and I may consider your “next year” statement. Until then, I have to say- uh uh, no way. Orion with LAS on Sidemount is looking like the winner in this whole budget battle.
“Rhyolite,
Sad, comparing jobs at Boeing to jobs in Russia and saying they are the same.”
I am no tea party idiot- but I have to agree. Paying Russians those hundreds of millions really really rrrr……….makes me unhappy.
Bennett wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
One of the worst examples of idiocy comes from an article in Space News on the House Bill. My favorite is in reference to the “Loan Program†for commercial crew development:…
yeah.
This is more GOP nonesense about “repayment”.
The GOP has no problems “risking” money on their favorite pork rides (as does the Dems) but threaten the established order and the GOP free enterprise people fall like a cheap suit.
The good news is that apparently Musk is in it to stay…and has a product that will survive a lot of the turmoil now. Two years from now we will have heard no more of Shuttle derived vehicles…and I predict Musk will be on the verge of flying his first crew…one he put together.
Robert G. Oler
Ferris Valyn wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
Bennett wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
I have done a little bit more looking and from the original budget request documents it would appear to me that Soyuz is being funded out of the ISS Operations line. It also looks like the CRS funding is also currently coming out of the ISS Operations line.
Section 241 sets policy to make “use of United States commercially provided ISS crew transportation and crew rescue services to the maximum extent practicable;” and requires the Orion derived vehicle to be used only for “non-ISS missions once commercial crew transportation and crew rescue services that meet safety requirements become operational;”
It looks very clear to me that ISS operations funds can be shifted to commercial cargo and crew services without any further authorization from congress as a natural consequence of extending ISS, the current practice with Soyuz and CRS, and the policy outlined above. Commercial crew services will simply replace the Soyuz funding wedge.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Watching last week’s This Week In Space” interview with Ken Bowersox still puts a smile on my face. “I keep volunteering to be the first, and he keeps smiling.”
Rhyolite@10:14 pm
Thank you for the research! I have to say, any light filtering through the roadblocks is welcome news indeed.
“Bennett wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
SpaceX has issued a statement on the Senate Authorization Bill.
It expresses a very positive take on the Senate compromise bill, and doesn’t mention the House version. It’s good PR position.”
Indeed, they’re very good at issuing statements and generating PR. Not so much when it comes to just getting on with flying. But then, Preston Tucker had the gift of gab as well.
…and news from over on Rand’s blog, a slightly modified version of the Senate bill, pure allocation adjustments.
Given the number of programs affected by the policy shift, I got to thinking that the very smartest folks working in those programs, the really creative and disciplined engineers and techs, ALL have their resume in at SpaceX, Masten, XCOR, and Bigelow – have you contemplated how high the the caliber and expertise of folks that New Space has to pick from going forward?
SpaceX is up to 1100 employees. I’m reasonably sure they are among the most talented people in their fields.
“anon wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
I am sure when the Tea Party gets in power they won’t support Obamaspace’s mercenary approach to space exploration, using for “hire astronauts†to explore space instead of NASA astronauts.”
Nope. It’s a luxury and not mentioned in the Constitution so they’d chop it off at the roots. No tax dollars to subsidize wasteful government spending like subsidizing private rocketeers with borrowed government money when they can attract investors in the private sector to raise capital for their private venture. They don’t need government help.
Rhyolite wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 9:29 pm LOL except, of course, Lockheed doesn’t have to prove itself as a competent aerospace corporation- Musk’s SpaceX does.
Rand Simberg wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 8:32 pm- Uh huh… just like Halliburton services the government is a cost effective manner. Good grief.
There is some interesting information over at Space News on the $4.9 Billion:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/100720-house-nasa-bill-brakes-commercial.html
“In the news release, the House Science and Technology Committee said its measure would authorize $4.9 billion for “commercial crew- and commercial cargo-related initiatives.â€
According to the bill text, commercial crew programs would get just $50 million annually through 2015 and another $500 million over that same time period via direct government loans or loan guarantees. Although the bill fully funds the $4.2 billion sought for routine commercial cargo resupply runs to the space station starting in 2011, it reduces the president’s $312 million request for NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Service (COTS) program next year to just $14 million. The Senate version provided $300 million for the agency’s COTS providers in 2011. ”
This suggests that there is $4.2 Billion for commercial cargo tucked under one of the budget lines but it is not clear where.
“make maximum practicable use”
This word practicable littered through out the Sec. 202, which covers the restructured exploration program. What is practicable is in the eye of the beholder. It requires NASA to have a crew transport system available by 2015 taking “best advantage of investments and contracts implemented to date”. But that leaves a lot open to interpretation.
Let me take a stab at what might be practicable:
IOC by December 31, 2015 would require an acceleration of Orion so right away we are going to have to push most of the diminished exploration funds into Orion. Sec. 202 does permit the crew transportation capabilities to be phased in so we can descope it to something equivalent to CST-100 to get it in under schedule and cost constraints. That takes care of the existing Lockheed contract.
Sec. 202 also requires a “robust flight and ground test and demonstration program”, which implies orbital testing before IOC 2015. Ares I would not be available until 2017 because of the J-2X development , even if it were fully funded, so Ares is out of the picture. To comply with the flight testing and IOC requirement, we are basically constrained to existing launch vehicles. Fortunately, we can start testing with Atlas V with an investment of a mere $400M for man rating. Nothing in the current bill prohibits that.
Of course we can also keep the Orion LAS going. De-rating a LAS for an EELV environment is a lot easier than developing it in the first place. That takes care of the OSC contract.
At this point we may be able to make some use of the Boeing Ares I upper stage contract by converting it into some thing like the ACES-41, which would be useful in a lot of exploration architectures.
By this point, however, we are probably out of money. Remember that there wasn’t enough money to do Ares I/Orion by 2017 in the first place and there is less money now. Maybe J-2X and SRB development can limp along with keep alive funding but that would be a stretch. Sorry Utah. Sorry Canoga Park. Funding them is just not practicable.
Any HLV development can be pushed out beyond 2015 into the murky future.
This scenario provides a reasonable Orion on EELV system by 2015 and it complies with the letter the law – but it is probably nothing like the pork barrelers had in mind. I am sure the administration will come up with its own version of practicable. How they interpret the bill will have a tremendous effect on the outcome and what is practicable leaves them with a lot of flexibility.
Let me try that again:
The word practicable is littered through out Sec. 202…
The functional equivalent for Musk was asking his friends for personal loans, which we would pay back once some of his assets became more liquid, such as the $20-odd million he made from the Tesla IPO. Obviously his friends, who are also rich, thought he was good for it, otherwise he would not have gotten the loans to begin with.
Hmmm. Such are the thresholds for investment in the private sector for high risk ventures. Which is a sound argument you’ve made for commercial space, a luxury- not a necessity– seeking said investments from the private capital markets and not whining for government subsidies for that luxury from a deficit riddled treasury that has to borrow the money further burdening the U.S. taxpayer to fund it.
Rhyolite wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 1:42 am
Let me try that again:
The word practicable is littered through out Sec. 202…
and that is the magic word…it literally leaves General Bolden a lot of maneuvering room
Robert G. Oler
GaryChurch wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
“They do not even have an escape system yet.”
Cargo version Gary. The cargo version of the SpaceX Dragon is scheduled to fly to the ISS next year (maybe more than once), which would provide a big perception boost if it goes off well.
They (or their supporters) could then argue that they are ready to take on the next level of competence, which is adding the LAS and crew specific innards to the Dragon. That still gives them plenty of time to be ready for taxi service in 2016.
I don’t see a lack of crew funding as a big problem for SpaceX, but more of a problem for Boeing, SpaceDev or any others that may be interested in the capsule market. SpaceX already has a capsule, and they are will be getting lots of relevant testing done on the COTS program, so they have a big lead on everyone else.
However, to ensure a robust marketplace, we need to get to more than one provider as soon as possible, and in fact Bigelow may not launch their habitat business unless there are more than one provider.
> Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 10:52 am
>>Kelly Starks wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 10:57 pm ..
> The “vectors†that formed to design and build the 707 and
> shuttle were quite different. you must not know the history of the Boeing.
Vectors?! Why would anyone care other then someone in the biz? I mean we could go off no the political games for each (frankly I think Shuttle had more blatant corruption no NASA side, but its a mater of opinion)
> == The USAF wanted a new tanker, but in that era budgets
> mattered and there was no money for a new purpose built tanker.==
Were there ever any purpose built tankers? Weren’t they all adapted from something, or part of a multiuse aircraft program?
>== commercial airlines were on the verge of designing one anyway…ie
> a new commercial jet transport; ==
Understood, though Boeing at least mentions the work (and funding) for the tanker program, and tech spin offs from the B-52, as driving and forming the 707, and leading to the 707 being ass successful as it was. You could argue that there were a lot of other factors, and perhaps if the DC-8ish tanker had won the cash flow would have put them in a position to dominate jet air travel to this day – but I think the 707 was shoved into being really being a better plane for that era, and the AF reqs had been a significant factor.
Shuttle certainly had a very different, and increasingly less results oriented political climate, but it was originally driven to be a do anything multi purpose space truck that could serve any purpose and market (gov or commercial) they could think of, with lower costs and high reliability and capability.
> == The shuttle was designed to whatever bottom line
> t was to get the buy in for federal funds to build it. As a
> result it is a crappy vehicle. ==
You oversimplifying. It got – dirtier then that. Low bidder, highest quality P&W was passed over for Rocketdyne which had the highest bid, and were told to copy the P&W designs by NASA. Grumman’s (?) orbiter config was given to Rockwell to build. Program folks were given 3 days to change the big 2 stage design for shuttle into “something with all the on-orbit capabilities, bur half the dev costs). And the result operated ni a environment where Congress wanted it to cost as much as possible – as long as the money went to the right districts.
>== There is nothing it has done that could not have been
> done with expendables and at a far cheaper price.
Thats flat wrong. Hell the argument now is how much won’t even be maintainable with out shuttle (things like Hubble and ISS)
You are right that showing off the shuttle became a big driver for NASA, but given NASA had no mission at all but to spend and generate good PR, demonstrating what they could do if asked isn’t that dumb or wasteful a idea.
>==
> what you argue is that human spaceflight must stay a government
> club until there is some hugh market…==
No I wasn’t arguing that. I was just noting the gov is now the bulk of all business for large space launch or HSF. I.E. they are the bulk of the market. On the NASA side they are reducnig planed purchases dramatically – I.E. forcing a market place reduction.
>== you dont seem to grasp that this market never develops
> at all as long as billions are poured into government
> projects for lift in particular…that have no relevance outside of NASA.==
No, you don’t seem to get NASA and DOD are BUYERS. When they stop buying, the sellers Boeing, L/M, SpaceX, etc don’t get paid. Removing market (I.E. customers) makes it harder, not easier, for space industry to develop. There just isn’t a much of any commercial market now.
You seem to suggest that where Boeing and L/M building, servicing, etc everything for shuttle flights and handing the keys to astronauts is bad a suppressing space industry. But Boeing and L/M building, servicing, etc everything for CC flights and handing the keys to astronauts, but getting paid 1/5th as much given the downscaling of NASA) is a revolution opening up space, and funding massive new space industries, which I find COMPLETLY nonsensical.
In contrast it would make more sense to argue about allowing craft designed for NASA to be used (or copies built for commercials used), by commercials (like Boeing allowed to build and market 707 liners from the tanker airframe design), rather then traditional NASA refusing to allow/support commercial shuttle owner operators. If they demand a specific custom capsule (or worse a capsule LV combination) be developed for them that no one else could use (or would want to), then they are putting themselves in the same high cost box.
Or alternately the issue of scale of operations vs. market size. Two companies bidding for markets of dozens of flights per year would be driven to compete and lower margin costs and prices. 2 companies fighting over 10 flights a year – the fixed overhead costs for both would dwarf any possible savings – so you’ve doubled your cost per flight with competition vrs a monopoly awarded to 1. Like how multiple electric companies in the same town increase prices for customers.
> Major Tom wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 11:05 am
>== the House authorization bill dictates that NASA use
> “design, development, and test work completed to date
> on the Orion crew exploration vehicle, Ares I crew launch
> vehicle, heavy lift launch vehicle system, and associated
> ground support and exploration enabling systems and…
> investments and contracts implemented to dateâ€, it provides
> $3.2 billion or 15% less funding than what NASA claims was
> needed for Ares I/Orion development.==
A point is if you keep the above language but use a HLV/Orion concept. The HLV could use Ares related work (of which there hasn’t been much), Orion off a Ares-I (especially if it could pork out on a HLV), would be quicker and cheaper to do. You can use all the off the shelf shuttle stack stuff for the HLV, which gives ATK as much money as Ares-I would.
..It would be a cheaper quicker concept.
> Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 11:35 am
>== The era of the 30′s occurred because in all ways the
> government had stopped working. It is a tad scary if you
> go back and look at how the GOP had ruled DC between the
> Wilson and FDR era, but in many respects (including foreign
> policy) they more or less made every wrong decision
> possible…and eventually things just broke. ==
HA?!!
Wilson laid the ground work for the rise of the Nazis and was a horrid president (racist, , socialist, authoritarian, etc). The post Wilson period with the GOP was a economic boom (roaring 20’s, ever hear about it?). FDR is credited by economists for greatly extending and deepening the depression, and his institution of widespread monopolies and board controlling everything from the price of steel to the price of a shoe shine, strangled the economy.
I will agree we are in a era where the gov just doesn’t work, and the gov controls far to much. The post WW-II explosion in the scale of gov, and of course gov being ruled by political winds, make a huge inefficient beast not even directed toward doing productive things. Giving it increasing control over all facits of the nation adn public, means they can’t work efficiently/productivly either. Its possible the tea party and related public outcries, and general backlash against the wave of highly unpopular Obama mega gov programs, will move us away from that – or were trashed as a country.
> Rand Simberg wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
> This is stupid. NASA has always been an “outsourcing
> agency.†The only difference is that they will be purchasing
> launch services, instead of cost-plus labor.
For some inexplicable reason, that seems incomprehensible to many around here. To here folks, you’ld think NASA built their own craft in back rooms of KSC, and hardly a commercial contractor can be found no agency grounds.
“Cargo version Gary. The cargo version of the SpaceX Dragon is scheduled to fly to the ISS next year (maybe more than once), which would provide a big perception boost if it goes off well.”
Why would you make a reusable cargo pod? That is one of those things I am not getting about SpaceX. Why spend money sending up a cargo pod and then recovering it? It was a mistake with the shuttle, why is it not a mistake for SpaceX?
@ GaryChurch,
Because a recoverable cargo pod can carry large objects down from space, such as expensive scientific instruments and bits of structure that need to be assessed in labs as to how well they have withstood more than a decade in space. Cargo down-mass is certainly a major selling point of the Dragon system, as no other system currently offers this capability.
Furthermore, if you re-use, you are not having to pay the cost of a new one. The issue is, is the cost of recycling more than building a new one? No one has tried that with a capsule so no one is exactly sure. In any case, the bar for a cargo vehicle is lower than a crewed vehicle, so it may be cost-effective to do so. I believe that SpaceX wants to use pre-used capsules for their DragonLab long-term robotic orbital science product.
Why spend money sending up a cargo pod and then recovering it?
a) It saves money and b) it allows cargo to be returned. Not to mention c) it allows it to double as a crew module, which it does.
It was a mistake with the shuttle, why is it not a mistake for SpaceX?
Anyone who believes that it was a mistake with the Shuttle doesn’t understand much about the Shuttle.
Clueless Church,
More idiotic statements.
“Why spend money sending up a cargo pod and then recovering it?”
1. Because NASA has a requirement for cargo return, i.e. experiment results.
2. Because in spiral development, a cargo spacecraft that can return from orbit can be upgraded to launch and return crew.
Let’s see what the next stupid question will be
 Bennett wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
“Given the number of programs affected by the policy shift, I got to thinking that the very smartest folks working in those programs, the really creative and disciplined engineers and techs, ALL have their resume in at SpaceX, Masten, XCOR, and Bigelow – have you contemplated how high the the caliber and expertise of folks that New Space has to pick from going forward?
SpaceX is up to 1100 employees. I’m reasonably sure they are among the most talented people in their fields.”
Bennett there are actually a couple problems with the above statement. First of all I do agree, that SpaceX has a very talented and very dedicated work force. But to say they are the most talented? I would question that. From what I understand from friends who have gone to SpaceX, hours are long and pay is low. For that you get to move to one of the most expensive places in the country. So, many if not most people with families and a house in other locations (Houston, Florida, Alabama) are not going to run to LA for a big pay cut. That doesn’t mean they aren’t attracting great people, it just means that some of the most talented are staying where they are.
The next problem is, many of us are here because we want to work on a Lunar program or a BEO program. SpaceX will not give us that, so no matter how much we admire them, they will not help us toward that goal. That being said, Masten is interesting to me, because they are clearly interested in working on lunar landers, so excellent point there. As for XCOR, I don’t know, I may be wrong but I get the feeling they are a few years (at least) behind SpaceX.
Bigelow, really? Seriously, nobody is going there. Everybody who went there quit 4 years ago, those who didn’t quit were fired by the tyrant 3 years ago. I have little to zero faith in Bigelow. Not because of the design concept, the design is solid. The problems stem from the leader.
Besides, of those companies, SpaceX is now getting pretty big (1100!) but Masten, XCOR and Bigelow are tiny.
Spaceboy wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Good points. I would feel the same way about moving from northern Vermont to SoCal, a place that I dislike quite a bit. Thank for the inside perspective, I’ll keep it in mind.
You keep doing what you’re doing, I hope you get to see your work fly!
Spaceboy wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 4:19 pm
“From what I understand from friends who have gone to SpaceX, hours are long and pay is low. For that you get to move to one of the most expensive places in the country. So, many if not most people with families and a house in other locations (Houston, Florida, Alabama) are not going to run to LA for a big pay cut. That doesn’t mean they aren’t attracting great people, it just means that some of the most talented are staying where they are.”
In startups it usually is as your describe (hours are long and pay is low), because what they offer is to do what no other company is doing, and that is exciting for some people.
In management I certainly saw first hand that people are willing to trade monetary compensation for the opportunity to work on something that excites them. SpaceX is apparently finding enough people that believe in their goals, and are willing to survive “competitive wages” and the California sunshine tax in order to work for them.
“The next problem is, many of us are here because we want to work on a Lunar program or a BEO program. SpaceX will not give us that, so no matter how much we admire them, they will not help us toward that goal.”
I agree, that is not what they are promoting today. But I also see that what they want to do would ultimately lower the cost to get crew and cargo to LEO, which is the stepping off point for BEO.
We have a window of opportunity after 2015 when NASA would be open to paying commercial companies to transport ISS crew. That is a solid demand that commercial companies can use to start their businesses, and allow other companies to then start planning their own destinations (Bigelow, Google Lunar X Prize, etc.). SpaceX has a cargo business that they can use to keep them afloat while the crew market develops (as could Boeing and others), so I think the pieces are there for finally happening.
With commercial crew and cargo services, BEO trips can become within reach of more people and companies, especially the Masten and XCOR’s of the world. SpaceX already offers 10 ton payloads to LEO for $56M, which is less than half what Atlas V can offer, so the it’s already starting to become cheaper to mount space missions, and cost has been the major factor in doing anything in space, LEO or BEO.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 12:00 pm
“FDR is credited by economists for greatly extending and deepening the depression, and his institution of widespread monopolies and board controlling everything from the price of steel to the price of a shoe shine, strangled the economy.”
Which economists would those be? They would have to be innumerate.
The average per capita GDP growth rate from 1933 to 1940, inclusive, was 5.5% per year. Note that I am excluding the war years here. For reference, from 1981 to 1988 the per capita GDP growth rate averaged 2.5% per year. FDRs first two terms saw more than double the growth rate of Regan’s Morning in America.
You can find the raw data to do your own calculation here:
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=264&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Year&FirstYear=1929&LastYear=2009&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid
In fact, no 8 year period since then has seen higher growth average rates including the WWII years. It is a testament to how deep a crater Hoover dug that it took until WWII to climb out of it in spite of the unmatched growth rates during FDR’s first two terms.
There are many valid criticisms of FDR’s economics but deepening and extending the depression doesn’t hold water when compared to the growth rates of any other period in the modern era.
Growth rates are nice, but employment is better. Roosevelt sucked at that. It didn’t recover until he sent off much of the unemployed work force to the war and stopped screwing with the economy. And then died…
> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 4:48 pm
>==
> In management I certainly saw first hand that people are
> willing to trade monetary compensation for the opportunity
> to work on something that excites them. SpaceX is apparently
> finding enough people that believe in their goals, and are
> willing to survive “competitive wages†and the California
> sunshine tax in order to work for them.
On the other hand SoCals had a general exodus, and folks sneer at companies there that try to “pay you in sunshineâ€.
As for SpaceX – how long can they attract folks with their “newness� Its not like Falcon/dragon are blazing some new design or technology trails, and if their cost competitiveness is bought on low wages the excitement (and market advantage) could wear off quickly.
Really with Boeing moving into the HSF market – they could easily drive SpaceX out of busness.
Really with Boeing moving into the HSF market – they could easily drive SpaceX out of busness.
Not without a completely new vehicle development.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 10:08 am
“On the other hand SoCals had a general exodus”
Nope. According to the Census Bureau, California had one of the largest population increase from 2008 to 2009. Where would they go – North Dakota?
“As for SpaceX – how long can they attract folks with their “newnessâ€? Its not like Falcon/dragon are blazing some new design or technology trails, and if their cost competitiveness is bought on low wages the excitement (and market advantage) could wear off quickly.As for SpaceX – how long can they attract folks with their “newnessâ€? Its not like Falcon/dragon are blazing some new design or technology trails, and if their cost competitiveness is bought on low wages the excitement (and market advantage) could wear off quickly.”
One of the exciting things for SpaceX is that they are actually launching things, which creates a sense of accomplishment. I don’t know how close you were to the factory floor, but in the part of the world I worked, we had parties when we shipped “The 1st” of anything. Folks at ULA would probably tell you that they don’t get bored firing off a launcher/month, as it’s real hardware moving out the door.
I don’t know if you’ve heard of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, but money is not the #1 attraction for most people to work. It varies by person, but generally it’s down around #4 or 5, and HR departments know exactly what the going wage is by function within their industry. SpaceX will pay competitively, and then use their internal opportunities (new products, more responsibility, more perks, etc.) to be the difference.
As for how long SpaceX will be “new”, that depends, but they still have a few years to go. It also depends on how much other “new” stuff starts popping up, because that’s when the “really new” companies start poaching the “veterans” from the “older new” companies like SpaceX. I was poached from an older startup to work on a newer one, and that newer one was raided for experienced people not too long after. It’s great to be an employee at that time, but as a hiring manager it was a challenge for us. These are good things for the industry, because it means there is more work overall.
Nope. According to the Census Bureau, California had one of the largest population increase from 2008 to 2009. Where would they go – North Dakota?
They’re going to Texas.
Rand Simberg wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 6:10 pm
“They’re going to Texas.”
Both CA & TX grew the largest in population. In California, L.A., San Diego and San Francisco all continued to grow 4-8%, and the bedroom counties of Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario even grew at the same rate as Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown (~25%).
No, if people were leaving anywhere to go to Texas, it was from Pittsburgh, Detroit, New Orleans and Cleveland. Ya’ll gettin’ some diversity down there…
> Rand Simberg wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 11:48 am
>> Really with Boeing moving into the HSF market – they could
>> easily drive SpaceX out of busness.
> Not without a completely new vehicle development.
I think the CST-100 would be enough. It will be much easier for a customer to put their people on something flown by Boeing with 50 years experience, vrs spaceX or someone right out of the box.
What I wonder though, is what did Bigelow show them to convince penchant fund investors to green light it?
> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 12:10 pm
>> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 10:08 am
>>“On the other hand SoCals had a general exodusâ€
> Nope. According to the Census Bureau, ==
Sorry I meant aerospace or busness exodus.
>> “As for SpaceX – how long can they attract folks with their
>>“newness� Its not like Falcon/dragon are blazing some new
>> design or technology trails, and if their cost competitiveness
>> is bought on low wages the excitement (and market advantage)
>> could wear off quickly.=
> One of the exciting things for SpaceX is that they are actually
> launching things, which creates a sense of accomplishment. ==
Yeah, but get a offer from a better paying place doing things — say Boeing if the HSF commercial business scales up, SpaceX could have a hard time attracting folks to high cost San Fran with low wages.
The catch-22 of Newspace was always if the market breaks, they will have proven its viable to investors of big firms with far more ability to thrive in that market. Effectively if they can’t open the DOOR they starve out. If they can, and prove its a viable market, big boys beat them up and take it away.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 8:43 pm
“> One of the exciting things for SpaceX is that they are actually
> launching things, which creates a sense of accomplishment. ==
Yeah, but get a offer from a better paying place doing things — say Boeing if the HSF commercial business scales up, SpaceX could have a hard time attracting folks to high cost San Fran with low wages.”
Maybe you didn’t read what I said about startups and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, but better pay is not necessarily what people are always looking for. Younger workers especially are looking for exciting things to work on – I moved from my second job to my third for a pay cut, because I perceived the opportunities were better.
Once you get a family and mortgage, money and benefits become more important, but as I’ve pointed out, SpaceX pays competitive wages – not higher, not lower, but competitive. HR departments stay on top of these things, and as a hiring manager, I always knew what the going rate was for all of my staff positions.
The other thing to keep in mind is that established companies are not always paying better rates either, because their HR people don’t want the company overpaying for positions (it screws up the pay structures). Usually only quickly expanding companies pay above normal rates, and there aren’t many out there for aerospace right now.
Lastly, I’ve worked for large companies, and I’ve worked for small companies and emerging startups. The work environment in emerging startups is so much better, and you can move up the ladder or become a “veteran” so much quicker at a young company than an old one. That matters to some – usually the most motivated workers.
Who’s in San Fran?
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 8:43 pm
“The catch-22 of Newspace was always if the market breaks, they will have proven its viable to investors of big firms with far more ability to thrive in that market. Effectively if they can’t open the DOOR they starve out. If they can, and prove its a viable market, big boys beat them up and take it away.
Would you call Orbital Sciences NewSpace? If so, then they are doing OK with $4.9B in order backlog.
SpaceX has $2.4B in backlog, and has been cash positive for three years. No one can match them on launcher prices for their market, so I don’t think they have much to worry about as long as they keep succeeding – but that can be said for any company.
SpaceX already has investors, and I predict that their next level of outside funding will be with an IPO (that’s when investors get paid back). Musk knows how to take companies public, and SpaceX is in a much better position revenue-wise than Tesla was.
However he doesn’t need any additional money right now, so he can wait. They are just about done developing Dragon for cargo, and that will allow them to fulfill all of their current backlog. Even if COTS went away, they would be able to survive on their commercial contracts. They are here to stay.
If they decided that they want to add crew services without NASA funding (~$300M according to them), I think that will be when they do an IPO. If NASA pays for upgrading Dragon to crew, they could still IPO and use that money to finish development of Falcon 9 Heavy, and that will really hit ULA where it hurts, since Falcon 9 Heavy will be cheaper and lift 4 tons more than Atlas V Heavy.
And if you think ULA is going to somehow figure out how to chop half the price off their launchers, I think you’re deluding yourself. ULA has a big decision coming up soon – they have to decide if they are going to invest in building a new generation of less expensive launchers, or eventually exit the business.
Oh ULA still has a few years to think that over, but once SpaceX gets it’s first NASA satellite contract (or especially DOD), then the writing will be on the wall. And NASA is already paying SpaceX for 12 COTS/CRS delivers, so they will have a launcher with known heritage in the next couple of years. Just in time to offer ISS rides for a price lower than the Russians.
Lastly, Boeing’s CST-100 is a great idea, and I hope they move forward to build it. But no matter what launcher they stick it on, it will still cost more that Falcon 9/Dragon. if they use the ULA Atlas V, that will cost $130M/flight, or $18.5/seat just for the launcher, and then you need to add in the cost of the capsule and everything thing else. SpaceX says they can offer rides to LEO for $20M/seat, so that’s going to be a monetary challenge for Boeing. I predict that their prices will be higher, but that will be deemed the cost of having a second transportation company – like the dual sourcing the Air Force does with jet engines (50/50, 60/40, 70/30, etc. sharing).
> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 1:28 am
> Maybe you didn’t read what I said about startups and
> Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, but better pay is not necessarily
> what people are always looking for. Younger workers especially
> are looking for exciting things to work on ==
Yes, and that was my point. SpaceX isn’t exactly developing cutting edge stuff. If you can do the same or more exciting stuff at Boeing for more money…
>= The work environment in emerging startups is so much
> better, and you can move up the ladder or become a “veteranâ€
> so much quicker at a young company than an old one. ==
I’ve heard mixed things about SpaceX in that regard – and obviously financial troubles or not great market success can darken those horizons.
> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 2:03 am
>> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 8:43 pm
>> “The catch-22 of Newspace was always if the market breaks, they
>> will have proven its viable to investors of big firms with far more
>> ability to thrive in that market. Effectively if they can’t open the
>> DOOR they starve out. If they can, and prove its a viable market,
>> big boys beat them up and take it away.
> Would you call Orbital Sciences NewSpace? If so, then they are
> doing OK with $4.9B in order backlog.
>
> SpaceX has $2.4B in backlog, and has been cash positive for
> three years.
Yeah those are pretty small markets for most big aero firms – or most big firms – so, so far they can’t convince investors its worth investing much to go after them. However if say Bigelow really breaks to the degree they are kind of preparing for (say 10-20 flights a year maybe?), so Boeing is seeing several billion a year in flights, a apparently sustainable market at those levels, and a lot of obvious market demand for lower cost flight. That would look like a market putting the kind of commercial resources a big biz jet or small airliner takes. Say for a CATS RLV of similar capacity. Low maintenance, high flight rate, costs WAY down. Or even just more moderate investment on a RLV that replaces the second stage and capsule of their EELV stack.
>==
> And if you think ULA is going to somehow figure out how
> to chop half the price off their launchers,==
They offered replacements to NASA they guaranteed at least a 10 folks reduction in launch costs from, and internally they thought in a busy enough market could lower costs 100 fold. Its not hard to do even with off the shelf tech.
> Lastly, Boeing’s CST-100 is a great idea, and I hope
> they move forward to build it. But no matter what launcher
> they stick it on, it will still cost more that Falcon 9/Dragon.
> if they use the ULA Atlas V, that will cost $130M/flight,
> or $18.5/seat just for the launcher, ==
Doesn’t mater. They don’t seem to be to much higher, and they have a huge record and reputation that makes it worth it to customers.
ULA is not going to develop a new launcher. It has the EELV’s. More so, it does not have to cut costs by 1/2. Spacex costs are going to increase and be closer to ULA costs. Spacex has already failed to get a NASA contract. F9 does not have the performance required for most of the missions. DOD has issues with putting Spacex on contract and they are wed to the EELVs for many more years.
Some great discussion going on here.
On EELVs:
Remember, their original model had the rockets flying much much more often than they do today. Once Teledesic with its hundreds of satellites and other commercial dreams of the late 90s failed, the driver to high launch rates flopped. The AF then reinforced the idea that high flight rates weren’t important by giving both EELV companies a cash infusion in the early 00s instead of just ordering the number of flights (launching bags of sand or other low-tech payloads making the launch vehicle the prime driver of the launch date) that money would have bought.
On a tour of the Boeing launch facilities at The Cape, my tour guide told me that they (Boeing) had the capability to produce 42 common cores per year. My bet is that there’s been some atrophy in that number, and that range support for such a flight rate is nonexistent, and that they’d need another pad, etc, but if their flight rates jumped by a significant amount (say to 20 a year) there would be some motion down on their cost per flight. Having a ‘new kid’ charging less (SpaceX) would only help drive costs to the government lower. New thought: Would the government accept lower prices on EELVs, or perceive the lower prices as accepting more risk?
From what I’ve seen, the Senate bill is a “D’oooh” and the House bill is a 5X “D’oooh.” Each goes to varying degrees of starving the new idea while keeping the old idea on life support, but just barely.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 9:29 am
“Yes, and that was my point. SpaceX isn’t exactly developing cutting edge stuff. If you can do the same or more exciting stuff at Boeing for more money…”
Kelly, you must of had a boring work life.
SpaceX is the only rocket manufacturer that builds virtually their entire product in-house. What other company could you work at where you can walk around the factory floor and see rocket engines being assembled, rocket bodies being assembled, capsules being assembled… you get my point. I don’t know about you, but this is exciting stuff to me. And they design all that stuff in house, so you have virtually every discipline within a couple of cubicles (even Musk has a cubicle).
Coming from a manufacturing background, I can tell you that variety is the spice of life, and I know a lot of engineers that would love to work at SpaceX. Being a small company makes it easier to move between products, so you’re not pigeon-holed like in big companies. The simplest way to describe it is like being back at college working on a senior project full-time, and they pay you good money! You should try a startup some time.
Boeing, while a good company, is doing the same stuff SpaceX is, but on a much larger scale, and with more outsourcing. One of my best friends works for a division of theirs, and they pay competitive pay rates just like SpaceX.
Bottom line, exciting is what you make of it, and there are lots of young (and not so young) professionals that would love to work at a startup in their field, and SpaceX is one of the more prominent (and well funded) ones in aerospace. They just added 200 people over the last two months, and I have no doubt they had their pick of the best.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 9:29 am
“so far they [SpaceX] can’t convince investors its worth investing much to go after them.”
They already have investors, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. They have been revenue positive for three years, and they don’t need outside money for their current backlog. Falcon 1 is already developed, Falcon 9 just had a successful first test, and Dragon has been passing all it’s milestones for the COTS program, as well as getting ready for it’s first test launch this year. Why would they need an injection of outside capital?
You should stop getting your information from blogs, and read the actual information sources…
byeman wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 10:41 am
“ F9 does not have the performance required for most of the missions.”
A simple check of the SpaceX and ULA websites tells us this:
Delta IV can carry 20,170 lbs to LEO
Atlas V can carry 21,600 lbs to LEO
Falcon 9 can carry 23,050 to LEO
For the -Heavy versions:
Delta IV Heavy (currently flying) can carry 49,470 lbs to LEO
Atlas V Heavy (not flown, no orders) will carry 64,820 lbs to LEO
Falcon 9 Heavy (not flown, no orders) will carry 70,548 lbs to LEO
SpaceX doesn’t look like they plan to offer intermediate versions of their launchers that use strap-on boosters like Delta IV and Atlas V, but for their classes, they have the best performance and price. Assuming they get some good launch heritage, they are poised to start taking more business away from ESA, Russia and ULA.
I said most of the missions and they aren’t to LEO. So go check another website and you still will be wrong, since Spacex’s numbers are based on the unflown Merlin upgrade nor have they been validated (in fact, the basic F9 numbers have yet to be validated by flight data).
“but for their classes, they have the best performance and price”
Which is sub EELV and their prices will climb as they find the real cost to keep a fleet successfully flying.
You also forgot the RS-68A upgrade for Delta IV
Byeman wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 4:53 pm
“I said most of the missions and they aren’t to LEO. So go check another website and you still will be wrong”
OK, GTO numbers then, all from the manufacturers websites:
Delta IV to GTO = 9,480 lbs
Atlas V to GTO = 10,470 lbs
Falcon 9 to GTO = 10,000 lbs
Looks like Falcon 9 is right in the middle of the pack, and for $56M, Falcon 9 is about half the price of Atlas V. How about for the Heavies, just so we’re complete here:
Delta IV Heavy to GTO = 28,620 lbs
Atlas V Heavy to GTO = 28,660 lbs
Falcon 9 Heavy to GTO = 42,990 lbs <– WOW!!
And if you consider again that Falcon 9 Heavy would be almost half the price of Delta IV Heavy, they have lots of wiggle room for price growth IF that were to happen.
"…since Spacex’s numbers are based on the unflown Merlin upgrade nor have they been validated (in fact, the basic F9 numbers have yet to be validated by flight data).”
As of the fourth flight of Falcon 1, they have used the Merlin 1C, which is their current engine, and it was also used on the first flight of Falcon 9. This is their production engine, and I know of no other major upgrades they have announced. The second stage of Falcon 9 uses the Merlin Vacuum engine, which is a variant of the 1C. Both did quite well. So I guess you’re wrong about the “unflown” part.
SpaceX publishes prices and performance, so it would be pretty silly of them to not meet one or both. I think they have enough margin to do their numbers, and their customers will be the ultimate judge of whether they are telling the truth. So far $2.4B in order backlog says a lot.
“You also forgot the RS-68A upgrade for Delta IV”
Now who is pushing non-existent hardware. The RS-68A is a planned upgrade that is not due to come online until next year. I hope they do, but time will tell if they meet that schedule. I wonder what that will do to their prices?
Until then, SpaceX is competitive in payload, and way more competitive in price.
Coastal Ron wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Last line should has said “Even then, …”.
Motivating thinking outside the box attitude is a better way of inspiring new rocket scientists to produce cutting edge technologies.
Rocketeer wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 10:13 pm
The great thing about lowering the cost to access space, is that it becomes easier to test out technologies, no matter how far fetched they may seem on Earth…
“their customers will be the ultimate judge of whether they are telling the truth. So far $2.4B in order backlog says a lot”
Not true. Take away CRS (Tang, t shirts and toilet paper) which is not performance critical and was “fixed” competition due to COTS being fixed. Take away the Iridium contract, since the spacecraft have yet to obtain financing and what does Spacex have left? They haven’t won any NASA spacecraft contracts or any major comsats.
“I know of no other major upgrades they have announced.”
You didn’t read the fine print on the Spacex F9 website
“Data reflects the Falcon 9 Block 2 design. ”
So none of the numbers you quoted are applicable to the vehicle that just flew or the ones that are going to fly in the near term.
So I guess you’re wrong about the “unflown†part and many other points in your posts.
So, SpaceX is not competitive in payload, and not way more competitive in price and as thing are going, Spacex costs are going to increase.
Know something more than quoting websites.
Byeman wrote @ July 24th, 2010 at 8:48 am
“So none of the numbers you quoted are applicable to the vehicle that just flew or the ones that are going to fly in the near term.”
Let’s examine that statement. If you had read the Falcon 9 User’s Guide, then you would have read this:
“The initial flights of the Falcon 9, currently planned in 2009 and 2010, use the Falcon 9 Block 1. Beginning in late 2010/early 2011, SpaceX will begin launching the Falcon 9 Block 2. Block 2 features increased engine thrust, decreased launch vehicle dry mass, and increased propellant load †combined with lessons learned from the flights of the Falcon 9 Block 1. This results in increased massâ€toâ€orbit performance for the Falcon 9 Block 2 when compared with Block 1 performance.”
Having come from a manufacturing background, what this tells me is that their test unit was probably one of their first production runs of everything, which usually means they are heavier and have slightly less performance. Follow-on production is optimized as they build more, so their weights come down (less rework and over-building) and the performance can be tweaked up to design specs.
Since they don’t specify what the Block 1 specs were, you have assumed that they were dramatically different, whereas I think they were probably on the order of 5% or less.
If you read the User’s Guide, you would have also seen this statement concerning performance:
“The performance shown is the maximum capability of the Falcon 9 Block 2 with margin withheld by SpaceX to ensure mission success.”
So like any good manufacturer, they are not presenting the maximum capabilities of their vehicle, but the maximum guaranteed capabilities.
And again, since they publish their specs and prices for the world to see, their customers will be the ultimate judge of whether they do what they say – and SpaceX only gets paid for performing a job as contracted, so it is not in their interest to fail on a contract, because they won’t get paid.
Byeman wrote @ July 24th, 2010 at 8:48 am
“Take away CRS (Tang, t shirts and toilet paper) which is not performance critical and was “fixed†competition due to COTS being fixed. Take away the Iridium contract, since the spacecraft have yet to obtain financing and what does Spacex have left? They haven’t won any NASA spacecraft contracts or any major comsats.”
I think this quote is relevant here:
“Did you ever observe to whom the accidents happen? Chance favors only the prepared mind.” – Louis Pasteur
You see the SpaceX win of COTS as some sort of conspiracy? Weird.
Did you ever think that maybe they were in the best position to win the contract? Think about it. They had a medium lift launcher that was in development, and would be available in the timeframe needed. They financial backing and seemed on solid financial footing. And they had already started developing their own capsule to make the deliveries. For NASA, that seemed pretty good, especially when you consider that no one else had a capsule being designed, much less in development like SpaceX.
You don’t seem to understand what their customers alternatives were when they placed their orders with SpaceX. SpaceX offers a lot more for the money than the closest competitor, and really there are no close competitors with regards to price. You think the price will go up over time, and most likely it will, but so will their competitors, and SpaceX will not need to raise prices by much, so they will still be the clear price leader. Don’t worry, they’ll be fine…
You see the SpaceX win of COTS as some sort of conspiracy.
No, the exclusion of others was the conspiracy. There were more viable, cheaper and quicker alternatives that used existing launch vehicles. Which could have solved the ISS support issue sooner.
“You don’t seem to understand what their customers alternatives were ”
yes, I do and hence my comments. I have served in a launch vehicle selection process and know what is out there.
“you have assumed that they were dramatically different, whereas I think they were probably on the order of 5% or less.”
I did no assuming, I know. Falcon 9 Block I GTO capability is around 8000lbs
Byeman wrote @ July 24th, 2010 at 3:15 pm & 3:22 pm
“There were more viable, cheaper and quicker alternatives that used existing launch vehicles. Which could have solved the ISS support issue sooner.”
If you have knowledge, then why don’t you share it? Educating with facts is far better than debating with opinions. I assume you have sources you can identify?
“Falcon 9 Block I GTO capability is around 8000lbs
Versus their advertised Block 2 capacity of 10,320 lbs for $56M. Considering that they are selling the Block 2 capacities, your beef seems to be that you don’t believe that they can improve that amount from Block 1 to Block 2? Is that the issue here?
While you’re at it, maybe you could venture a guess why a savvy businessman like Musk would publicly advertise a capacity that they could have easily de-rated? Is there something in the launch business that would drive them to, according to your assertion, overstate their abilities publicly.
>>Kelly Starks wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 9:29 am
>>“Yes, and that was my point. SpaceX isn’t exactly developing
>> cutting edge stuff. If you can do the same or more exciting
>>stuff at Boeing for more money…â€
> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 12:11 pm
> Kelly, you must of had a boring work life.
> SpaceX is the only rocket manufacturer that builds virtually
> their entire product in-house. ==
Yawn. Boeing L/M does everything from Mission control, to shuttle and KSC support, to cutting edge hypersonics, RLV research, etc.
SpaceX is just do ‘50’s-‘60’s style boosters and capsules.
>Coastal Ron wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 12:23 pm
>> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 9:29 am
>> “so far they [Boeing, L/M, etc big areo] can’t convince investors its worth
>> investing much to go after [the commercial space market]
Hence my comment that if the alt.space firms actually prove there is a real market – major firms can show investors its worth developing something for. If they do develop, they are capable of doing it to a far more advanced and economical design then the current offerings.