On President Obama’s schedule today is a meeting with former senator and astronaut John Glenn. (The meeting with one of the Mercury-era astronauts comes, ironically, the same afternoon as a different Mercury meeting for the president: an appearance with members of the Phoenix Mercury, last season’s WNBA champions.) The closed meeting, scheduled for about 2 pm this afternoon, is intended to allow the two to “discuss the President’s plan for an ambitious and achievable space program”, POLITICO reports, citing White House guidance.
The meeting comes less than a month after Glenn released a letter with his views on space policy, calling in particular for an extension of the space shuttle (something, as noted here, he’s been suggesting for some time). While that clashes with the president’s plans for NASA (as well as the Senate’s version of a NASA authorization bill, which calls for only one additional flight), the two are on the same page on other aspects of the policy, such as continuing ISS and deferring a human return to the Moon.
Go! Go Johnny, go! Johnny, be good.
Yes, lets hope that John Glenn can shake some sense into Obama!
I worked as hard as I could to persuade the administration to extend Shuttle with additional missions, not the meaningless delay. Unfortunately this was opposed by so many after Obama’s election that now we cannot extend shuttle unless a lot of people admit they did the wrong thing. It’s much easier to say “it’s too late, YOU should have made that decision years ago” than “I helped make that decision, and I was wrong, let’s correct it”.
Moreover, there are still too many who still feel “trapped in LEO” and think the taxpayers will simply hand them $150 billion for a joyride to Mars. There are too many who are so bitterly politicized they ignored their own impending job losses as long as Bush was in power and now place a higher priority on seeing Obama fail than on helping NASA succeed. There are too many who are still fighting for meaningless Constellation jobs that will drain away billions for years to come and produce nothing useful.
So today I think it may be too late. Human spaceflight may well devolve into rides to ISS on Soyuz until SpaceX comes on line, and even then we will be limited to primitive capsules for the next 15-20 years. The best hope for spaceflight at a practical cost is is for the new RLV initiative that will be funded by the now somewhat expanded aeronautics program and will rely on unmanned reusables, and thus may be, at least for the moment, free of the stifling bureaucracy, arbitrary requirements, and excessive cost of human spaceflight.
Obama must try to stem the mutany in the democrat party. It is the only way to salvage any of his leftist spaceflight vision at all. Good luck turning solid Americans like Glenn or any other of the top tier astronauts who have come out against Obamaspace.
vulture4 wrote:
“The best hope for spaceflight at a practical cost is is for the new RLV initiative that will be funded by the now somewhat expanded aeronautics program”
If aeronautics research, NASA’s poor man, is to save the day then it is a pretty dim hope. The gap between the scramjet ‘models’ they have been testing and a full size RLV is enormous.
I suspect that by the end of the day, Commercial Spaceflight will have a new advocate in the form of John Glenn.
That really is the only route forward – Ares I is dead, and there isn’t enough money for the proposed HLV & Orion derived capsule. Thats DOA
I suspect that by the end of the day, Commercial Spaceflight will have a new advocate in the form of John Glenn.
What makes you say that?
Hope and change
If so, then this will be the third major surprise from the Obama administration, after February and last Thursday.
Most likely the meeting with Glenn, Space Hero and former Democrat Senator from Ohio, is that the Prez can come away saying that Glenn has convinced him that Orion, a.k.a. MCTV and the SLS would be needed as an alternative or backup to commercial space plans.
Hey Ferris!
Hows that hopie changy thing workin’ out for ya?
Am NOT a Palin supporter but it’s a great line.
That seems more likely (but less desirable) to me too. We’ll know soon enough.
I don’t mean to sound the eternal pessimist, but politics and space do not mix well. The only thing that seems to get accomplished is that loads of money gets spent in endless jobs programs without any actual space program being advanced. Constellation was the perfect example of this. Billions spent and nothing was ever going to come of it except that legislators would be able to point to it as a great jobs program for their district and get re-elected because of it. Oh wait, that is the point, isn’t it – It’s not about space. Its all about votes. All of us space advocates have been strung along with grand promises of a great HSF future with programs like Venture Star and Constellation when all that’s really been happening is that taxpayer money has been lining aerospace corporate pockets via cost plus contracts endorsed by morally and ethically challenged legislators. The system works great, just not for HSF.
The recent bi-partisan work in the Senate is a case in point. Everyone is aglow that they could work together across the aisle to spend money in their respective districts. They declare that they are saving HSF by making sure we rely on the Russians as long as possible, while we rob seed money for commercial to finish work on human-rating rockets and capsules that are finished or nearly so, so that jobs are saved treading water on developing a SDHLV that will be starved of funds from the start and never actually get built. But again, isn’t that the point. Who cares about lengthening the spaceflight gap, so long as we save jobs in our district and get re-elected! When they say they are saving HSF what they really mean is they are saving space jobs that will not actually produce any real forward movement in HSF development and they are ensuring that they will get good consultant jobs in aerospace after they retire.
It’s not like this is rocket science (well the programmatic and economic part, that is). The math is pretty simple really, spend a little to get current programs (Atlas, Delta, Falcon) ready for commercial crew in three to five years. Don’t build a HLV until is is actually needed and save big bucks. But that does nothing to line ATK’s pockets nor elect any legislators, so why should we expect such simple math to matter? Indeed, it doesn’t and we are naive to think it should.
Regardless what Glenn and Obama can agree on, I think we will find a ready solution to advancing HSF only when we stop relying on government wasted space programs and turn to the private sector. We need to no longer keep our HSF eggs in one basket.
Curtis Quick
Errrr… There’s the “Ares I is DEAD” line again from yet another phobic hater of the concept… but… in reading the draft of the bill I don’t see the Ares I “dead” or “canceled” or anything else. In fact- the bill appears to to stand silent on the subject.
Ferris… Ares I!
Doh! Like scratching a blackboard ain’t it?
This would be an interesting meeting to be in, I must admit that I am no fan of President Obama but even with that – what could he say to John Glenn? John is a combat veteran, test pilot, space pioneer, highly experienced Senator, with decades of contributions, etc etc etc. President Obama is a guy learning how Washington works – obvious from his roll out of the proposed NASA budget. President Obama is certainly focused on the Congressional races and also on his re-election campaign. Senator Glenn almost certainly would like to fly in space again (might he hope to get another Shuttle flight???) but hopefully he has given up on that.
Hopefully President Obama will take notes – good enough to restore some sense to our policies but NOT good enough to get re-elected.
Hopefully we will trust industry to do what it has proven it can do – build reliable rockets – and rely on the government to develop a new capsule. It is great to support commercial companies that want to build a capsule as well, but we need the government facilities, corporate knowledge, test stands, labs, etc. A government program will ensure that those are available. If the commercial folks can dump enough of their money into ther companies to complete development (with some government assistance) more power to them. Once a capsule is proven – turn it over to industry for routine operations.
“… in reading the draft of the bill I don’t see the Ares I ‘dead’ or ‘canceled’ or anything else. In fact- the bill appears to to stand silent on the subject.”
The bill requires the new SLS to deliver a minimum 70 ton payload to LEO. Ares I, even with the help of the Orion SM, is nowhere close to that.
The bill takes SLS straight to an HLV — do not pass go, do not collect $200.
FWIW…
“The bill requires the new SLS to deliver a minimum 70 ton payload to LEO. Ares I, even with the help of the Orion SM, is nowhere close to that.”
i.e., Ares I is dead. Any potential resurrection of Ares I has vanished.
Ares IO dead? Nah.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1413
The Orion launcher may be renamed, but expect ATK, Boeing and the Utah and Florida delegations to make a powerful case for ‘the stick’!
Something I do not understand with all you Constellation haters. One Obama said he wants our astronauts to go to an asteroid and then on to Mars. Did he or did he not say this? In NASAs plans for Constellation those were the goals set ahead of Obamas. How indeed would we have gained nothing? Also everyone claims that Orion is nothing more than a oversized Apollo, old tech, so to speak. Nothing could be further from the truth. Have you seen her flight deck? All touch screen. Also the shape of the Orion vehicle is dictated by the need to enter the Earths atmosphere at planetary return speeds. All Obama did was put all of this off. All you hear too is no money is available for these things? Funny how we will let these politician vote themselves in big raises wheneveer they want them, and they always have money for that! Ive always said No MAN should have the ability to vote themselves raises of any size, and everyone should be answerable to someone. Why not post a question on the ballots at election time asking if the politicians have done a good job and deserve a raise. If not, no raises. As to jobs, well Im for them, and if the shuttle C concept can indeed keep jobs I say go for it!
How many here think John Glenn will sell out???????? I say No! If he doesnt agree with Obama, what will they cut is retirement checks?????
>How many here think John Glenn will sell out????????
John Glenn is a democrat, which means he is a sellout by definition. He is on the same side as illegal immigrants, minority quotas, public unions, confiscatory tax policy, and over bearing regulation. That said I think he still takes pride in Americas space achievements and would not see them willfully destroyed.
Jeff: “While that clashes with the president’s plans for NASA (as well as the Senate’s version of a NASA authorization bill, which calls for only one additional flight)â€
Page 20 of the ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010’’.
SPACE SHUTTLE CAPABILITY ASSURANCE.—
DEVELOPMENT OF FOLLOW-ON SPACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS.—The Administrator shall proceed with the development of follow-on space transportation systems in a manner that ensures that the national capability to restart and fly Space Shuttle missions in addition to the missions authorized by this Act can be initiated if required by the Congress, in an Act enacted after the date of enactment of this Act, or by a Presidential determination transmitted to the Congress, before the last Space Shuttle mission authorized by this Act is completed.
Jeff, the Senate Bill and John Glenn are not in conflict. What we have in effect under this Authorization bill is stay of execution for the Shuttle until next fiscal year. Within the bill are also key studies that need to be done concerning ISS support until the retirement of Shuttle will be allowed to proceed.
I think this is a very level headed approach to Shuttle retirement because it makes sense to see if we can still support the ‘newly’ expanded ISS mission (100% Utilization + 2020 Life) ‘without’ the Shuttle ‘before’ we can longer fly it. Plus it will give another year for SpaceX and Orbital to demonstrate progress towards fulfilling the all important CRS contracts. Right now under an abrupt Shuttle shutdown and additional CRS delays the ISS would be effectively shutdown as well. Not a great way to leverage the life extension or a $100 Billion dollar national lab IMHO.
Max Peck wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 10:31 am
Look harder. I did when I posted this several threads ago:
“Sec. 304 – Utilization of Existing Workforce and Assets in Development of Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle – In developing the Space Launch system, NASA shall utilize existing contracts, workforce, capabilities, etc. from the Shuttle and former [my emphasis] Orion and Aries I [do.] projects, and should minimize the modification and development of ground infrastructure. Requires timely and cost-effective development of the SLS and crew vehicle.”
“Aries” Oh ye Gods! Unless of course…
To be on the safe side I would use Heinlein’s Razor rather than Hanlon’s!
Yea, it must be he sells out – there is “no evidence” that Obama might think he has a better way, with Commercial Crew. Yea, a 1sentece bit in a proposed education policy white paper (not a speech, a white paper) shows that Obama is all about the destruction of human spaceflight
MrEarl – It works out pretty good when you have a decent president, like Obama. Its a lot harder to make it work when you don’t have a side that is at all willing to talk compromise, unless you agree to do exactly what they want. Particularly after repeated attempts at compromise.
common sense wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 1:10 am
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 16th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
What’s your bet? It feels like the fading already started to accelerate. This WH was supposed to be the big change and so far… Why do you think another WH would be so great? Not slave to WS? Or Health insurance? Or oil? Or you name it? ..
good question.
In many ways the debate on space policy has become a fairly easy to see and understand microcosm of the larger debate facing America.
Those who support the “Programs of records” are people who in one form or the other have bet on 1) the status quo and 2) a version of the future that is divorced from reality. The later is important because it illustrates The Republics problems.
No matter what ones views on human exploration of space, the reality is that no one who is thinking really can look at the plans for Ares/Constellation and take comfort. Ignore the cost for a moment…the plans themselves are nonesense. Ares 1 wasnt going to fly until the “end” of the space station (and it was suppose to service that) and the moon thing doesnt happen for decades.
People like Whittington and others have deluded themselves into some fantasy world that 1) this is exploration and 2) somehow its going to get fixed (ie speeded up or made cheaper). Hence the fantasy appeal “well wait until the Chinese go to the Moon wow then there will be lots of cash”.
The entire ethos of the debate in The Republic is caught up in that sort of fantasizing. “We pay to high taxes” is the mantra from the right wing, yet overall taxes in The republic have never been lower as a function of wage and the folks shouting the loudest are the people who have no trouble wanting a multi hundred billion dollar return tot he Moon and 10 =20 billion a month in Afland and ….the list just keeps going. Sarah Palin, who is the undisputed leader of the “facts dont matter” group now is even making up words comparing herself to Will the poet.
We had a chat the other day with some friends who on the one hand are all for privatizing medicare and social security, but want to fly more shuttles (they both have jobs there).
What has dissapointed me a lot about Obama (I voted for the other guy) is that he has failed so far as a leader. His policies bother me some but then again he won the election and I think he gets a pass to put those into affect (as I thought with his predecessors) …but his politics alarm me.
Bush won the Presidency with a 5-4 vote of the SCOTUS (he also I think won the ballots in FL) and then proceeded, like the direction or not, to lead aggressively. Obama won a sweeping victory and seems to be having a hard time leading flies to warm excrement. The American people in troubled times fall in line behind someone who demonstrates leadership. For the most part in troubled times we have been blessed by the creator with someone who can think issues through and resolve them.
So far in this century we have drawn “the jokers” but we have had runs of flawed and bad presidents before and eventually the system works its way to a real leader.
I think eventually it will. We are just not at that point yet (as grim as things seem).
I would have liked a more clear cut change in space policy along the lines of what Obama proposed, but given the forces of inertia and fear…I think what we got so far is a good course change.
At some point I think that the entire country will do a little course changing as well…and when it does, the two parties will come out of it radically different.
Robert G. Oler
And once again, we see why abreakingwind and other such people are making it hard to have any sort of discussion or compromise (and really, you talk up Armstrong so much, and Glenn served in the military – at least have some respect for him)
“John Glenn is a democrat, which means he is a sellout by definition. He is on the same side as illegal immigrants, minority quotas, public unions, confiscatory tax policy, and over bearing regulation. .”
So that also means he will be for a socialistic rocket like the HLV ? Therefore any non sellout (Republican) should be for commercial space and not support any NASA developed launch vehicles.
“Over bearing regulation” is also applicable NASA managed programs.
Windy, you can’t have it both ways. If you are going argue based on political beliefs, then you must apply it equally to all facets of the gov’t. If you are going to wave the anti Democrat banner, then you should be championing commercial space instead of NASA managed big gov’t pork programs like Ares I & V. You can’t make exceptions for NASA just because you like spaceflight, otherwise you are hypocrite.
Also, getting rid of Constellation does not destroy American’s space achievements. They are in the past and happened, hence they will always exist. Nor does keeping Constellation ensure America of more space achievements. In fact, Constellation would have done the opposite and would have been a millstone around NASA’s neck with its obscene costs.
Dennis – there was never enough money in the NASA budget to deliver the Constellation program on time. Hate it or like it, but it was never there – It wasn’t there when Griffin first proposed it, it wasn’t there when Congress endorsed it, it wasn’t there when Congress endorsed it again, it wasn’t there when Bush endorsed it, it wasn’t there during the 06 elections, it wasn’t there during the 08 elections, and by the time Obama was elected, it had already had severe schedule slips, and evidence was mounting that it was only going to get worse. In otherwords, before Obama did a thing to it, the program was in so much trouble. The gap didn’t happen overnight.
Second, as for getting more money for NASA – you can believe NASA is the best federal program out there. Guess what – the American public doesn’t agree with you, and so we are going to be stuck with the very limited budget we have. Further, we are facing a situation that is likely to result in further budget squeezes for all federal programs and agencies – Why should NASA be exempt? More importantly, what evidence do you have that leads you to believe NASA has a chance of not only retaining its current budget, but is going to get a budget increase, even as everyone around it looses their budget?
Forgive me if I am not a believer in the idea that we can get more money for NASA.
MrEarl wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Hey Ferris!
Hows that hopie changy thing workin’ out for ya?..
From a person who thinks that the US needs to spend more on defense so that “our military can remain number 1″ (that is a direct quote from Ms. Palin) …when we already spend more money then the rest of the world combined….making a comment is almost self defeating.
Obama’s space policy is inspired. It takes from American history the notions that have always worked in terms of developing new technologies and capabilities and puts them to work in making space “change” our economy.
It is being oppossed by people, like you who fantasize over exploration as some sort of talisman even when there is no exploration despite a lot of money spent.
In general Obama has been disappointing…but at least he has tackled events in some frame of reality…not the fiction world that people who support the program of record live in
Robert G. Oler
Stephen Metschan wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
well …thats goofy.
The authorization act can say what it wants to, but in the end unless there is money to maintain the shuttle system and the people it will go away…and in appropriations that money will go away.
NASA is already making smart moves to make sure that the shuttle is restartable ONLY ON PAPER.
So…what are you up to now that DIRECT is as dead as Ares?
Robert G. Oler
CharlesTheSpaceGuy wrote:
“Hopefully we will trust industry to do what it has proven it can do – build reliable rockets – and rely on the government to develop a new capsule. It is great to support commercial companies that want to build a capsule as well, but we need the government facilities, corporate knowledge, test stands, labs, etc. A government program will ensure that those are available. If the commercial folks can dump enough of their money into ther companies to complete development (with some government assistance) more power to them. Once a capsule is proven – turn it over to industry for routine operations.”
——
I think the problem here is the presumption that the government is the solution, and that government resources ought to be expended for the development of spaceflight vehicles. This is the problem that has put the American spaceflight industry into a tailspin of dependency on government money for nearly everything that it does, and dares not move on anything unless they have government permission to act. With 537 sources of opinion on the topic (presuming the judiciary doesn’t get involved with space policy) and most of them with contradictory opinions on that policy, I find it a wonder that anything gets accomplished at all.
To me, government space has failed altogether and simply doesn’t work. There perhaps is some far reaching research that could do some good and at the very least could do no harm to private efforts, but there is much that does harm too. Rocket test stands, labs, materials science research, and more can, has, and will be done by private individuals and businesses. At best, could you imagine how much money would go into spaceflight if the federal government simply declared a “tax holiday” for both income taxes and federal corporate taxes directed at spaceflight? It wouldn’t cost the government in terms of “lost revenue” more than an Ares I-X flight, perhaps less.
John Glenn at least knows the appropriation process and might have some insight for Obama in terms of selling his vision for spaceflight better. In other words, to put some real leadership into the process. If somehow Obama gives some actual consideration to what needs to be done and acts… does something… perhaps some good will come from it. The White House has taken a very quiet role in the space policy debate this year, and with the exception of his big speech in Orlando, he has generally stayed out of the fray. Certainly there is dissent within the ranks of the Democrats in Congress, much less Republicans taking on the role of the “loyal opposition”. Most likely, Obama will nod in agreement and nothing will happen from this meeting.
My guess is that after the meeting Glenn will “come around” to the compromise and by defact the new plan.
the shuttle and Constellation are dead
Robert G. Oler
Robert Horning wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
nice post
Robert G. Oler
Oler:
I see you have reached stage 2 of grief, Anger. Why me…. Who’s responsible….. ect. ……
Only 3 more stages to go. At this rate you should be at Acceptance by this time next week.
Terminate the gap by extending the space shuttle program until manned successor vehicles are ready. This preserves jobs and America’s prestige while preserving ISS safety.
It could also allow us to deploy, assemble, and test Bigelow types of space stations in an orbit more easily accessible by space vehicles launched from American soil. This could serve as a prelude to the age of space tourism, the market that will allow private manned space launch companies to sustain themselves without the need for tax payer dollars.
MrEarl wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
you are the one who quoted Ms. Palin. chose better next time
Robert G. Oler
Dennis Berube wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 11:45 am
The reason why ‘we’ er… ‘hate’ Cx is because it became a post ESAS POR that would have failed to deliver the Bush VSE. “Moon, Mars and Beyond” became “Apollo on Steroids” If that. Ever. Per Augustine II: Cx was unsustainable, unaffordable and unlikely to be “Simple, Safe, Soon.”
IMHO the Obama VSE is almost the same as the Bush VSE but more “Flexible.” We can argue about destinations until the cows come jumping over the Moon, NEOs, P&D, Mars,… But unless NASA is very nimble and expedient with your political class and their MIC lobby. Alas: “Meet the new Cx same as the the old Cx”, to paraphase Pete Townsend, we WILL get fooled again.
And you don’t “hate” bad engineering. Vide: Titanic, Tacoma Narrows, etc. You learn from it, modify it and move on. If only your Congress could do the same
As to the (other) science content:
Nothing mystical about touch screens: ’40’s tech. (It’s wikifact so it must be true :); The Apollo capsule shape: Soyuz capsule with a beefed up heatshield can do a lunar ballistic return! So can (waves hands) aero shells/ ballutes/ hypersonic gliders/…
Take a look at the original LockMart CEV proposal and educate yourself.
As for your politicians; there is the voting machine. If Deibold can be trusted. Here in the UK we used them once. Had so many problems we went back to pencil and paper. Some times the old ways are the best. Like Kerolox.
Robert Horning wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
“John Glenn at least knows the appropriation process and might have some insight for Obama in terms of selling his vision for spaceflight better.”
There is a trend here. Despite legislative ‘successes’ Obama has plummeted in the polls despite constant selling. Why is that? Because implementing a socialist agenda is not consistent with what America wants, jobs, a strong economy… and a space program we can be proud of.
Robert G. Oler: “So…what are you up to now that DIRECT is as dead as Ares?â€
Robert perhaps you enlighten us all and explain the ‘vast’ differences you perceive between this bill and what I showed before the commission a little over a year ago?
And yes appropriations is on board. Given the magnitude of the shift this year they had to do a lot more coordinating in parallel than normal.
Yea, but they don’t want to actually fund the thing to operations – just enough so everyone stays employed.
Stephen Metschan wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Robert perhaps you enlighten us all and explain the ‘vast’ differences you perceive between this bill and what I showed before the commission a little over a year ago?..
Stephen. I dont sadly keep your comments handy or categorized for quick reference, and the ones before teh commission were difficult to follow (for them as well at least according to three of them that I have spoken to sorry no names so you can just take or not take my word on that)…
but in the end shuttle goes away after the LON (if it flies) and Ares is dead and any SDV is quite unlikely as the infrastructure fades.
Did you predict that?
Robert G. Oler
Stephen Metschan wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Given the magnitude of the shift this year they had to do a lot more coordinating in parallel than normal….
and there are DoD payloads for DIRECT that you cannot tell us about.
There is no chance that the folks in appropriations will dole out 200 million a month to maintain the infrastructure, the layoff notices continue…and when that infrastructure is gone, so is the chance to fly the shuttle in reality.
you need to learn how things work in DC
Robert G. Oler
Ooops….
Looks like Oler has slipped back into denial.
The course of grief is never a straight line.
I was at first public hearing for the Augustine committee and remember Stephens talk. The Senate compromise looks a lot closer to what he suggested than the original FY’11 budget.
Appropriations has worked very closely with authorizations on this and we’re not likely to see any big changes.
NASA doesn’t have to dole out $200 million per month to keep the necessary skills and infrastructure. A core group will be maintained that have experience with the SRB’s, SSME’s, and ET’s, will be retained and put to work on the SLS. The vast majority of contractors to be layed off will have expertise only with the orbiter.
LON 335 for STS134 will become STS135. The SSP and ISS team has already identified payloads for STS135. One would be the VASIMER demonstration if it’s ready by June ’11.
> Dennis Berube wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 11:45 am
> Something I do not understand with all you Constellation
> haters. One Obama said he wants our astronauts to go to
> an asteroid and then on to Mars. Did he or did he not say this?==
Talks cheap, especially from a politician, and the deeds weren’t following the words. There weer not even design requirement for Orion that would allow it to do that. (I wrote some of the specs for it about 2 years ago.)
>==
> Also everyone claims that Orion is nothing more than a
> oversized Apollo, old tech, so to speak. ==
Largely true – especially with Griffin calling it Apollo on Steroids – but though it had modern tech – it was a old design.
>==Have you seen her flight deck? All touch screen.
That’s pretty trivial. Its like claiming your car is much more advanced with a LCD display on the dash.
>== Also the shape of the Orion vehicle is dictated by the
> need to enter the Earths atmosphere at planetary return speeds. ==
No that’s false. There are lots of shapes that have been used (much less could be used) for that.
> Ferris Valyn wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
> Forgive me if I am not a believer in the idea that we can get more money for NASA.
Though its worth noting congress HAS increased NASA’s budget year after year.
> Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
>== Obama’s space policy is inspired. It takes from American
> history the notions that have always worked in terms of
> developing new technologies and capabilities and puts them
> to work in making space “change†our economy.==
What are you smoking? How you can see anything like that in what Obama proposed is beyond me.
Rhetoric, doesn’t trump deeds.
VASIMR demonstration won’t be ready until 2014 or so now.. read that somewhere.
> Marcel F. Williams wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
> Terminate the gap by extending the space shuttle program
> until manned successor vehicles are ready. This preserves
> jobs and America’s prestige while preserving ISS safety. ==
I’m not sure how it preserves ISS safety? (Operability yes, but safety?)
On the other hand it would be the political and practical solution. By now they’ld have to undo a lot of shuttle shutdown efforts. Have to see what comes about.
By the way, since you were the one saying “Qbama gets his way”, up till Thursday, and on some level still believe that, maybe you need to learn how things work in DC.
This compromise was not done in a vacuum. Democratic members of the House and Senate were increasingly grumbling about the fact that they did most of the heavy lifting for Health care, stimulus, ect. and they were the ones catching flack for it. It’s no coincidence that the WH support for the compromise came after a WH visit by key Democratic members of the congress. As you have said, NASA or HSF is not a high priority for this president or many others. I think this was a bone that the WH threw out.
Sorry;
Obama not Qbama
MrEarl wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
LOL
appropriations puts dollars to items…if there is not 200 million or so a month to maintain the shuttle infrastructure then it goes away. There wont be 2.4 or even 1.2 billion to keep people sitting around.
Second the LON will probably fly…but it is not a done deal. They have to figure out how to deal with the need to get the crew down if the shuttle cannot reenter…then there is the matter of the payload.
Third…The shuttle and Ares are going away.
as for the “grief” thing…gee that is just a step below or above in internet conversation the river in Egypt thing..
Robert G. Oler
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
What are you smoking? How you can see anything like that in what Obama proposed is beyond me….
that is probably because you have worked on non “free enterprise” programs to long or just like the POR or I dont know.
Whenever in a country based on free enterprise, free enterprise is empowered even by government spending, it does amazing things.
The failure of Obama’s stimulus package to really move the job numbers (except in the rhetorical case of “it could be worse”) is that for the most part the stimulus package KEPT jobs that were not free enterprise oriented…and should be jobs that the people of the state (both state and federal government) should pay for, if they want.
These are jobs, some of which do important task…but which are not by their nature innovative in our economy. Most “state and federal” jobs are like that. And almost none of this spending went toward creating “new capabilities” but maintaining old ones.
The problem with people (I assume you, Mr. Earl Whittington etc) who support the POR is that the excitement is the program. Its “WOW we are going back to the Moon” (OK two decades from now) or “Wow we are sending people into space”…
it is not in what the program actually accomplishes. For that the supporters of the POR need a scorecard “a goal”…
Douglas when he built the DC 1-3 did not have a goal to accomplish one great feat, what he had was the goal of enabling a capability and that capability allowing others to accomplish things.
That is what Musk is trying to do.
And will
Robert G. Oler
More contradictory statements from Windy.
“Because implementing a socialist agenda is not consistent with what America wants, jobs, a strong economy… and a space program we can be proud of”
Funding NASA to have NASA developed vehicles is a socialist agenda.
How clueless can one get?
Not too much of a diversion here, but let me address a reply that Robert Horning made to my earlier comment – that points out an omission in my comment (and many others on this topic).
He said:
> I think the problem here is the presumption that the government is the
> solution, and that government resources ought to be expended for
> the development of spaceflight vehicles.
and here he is very correct.
Why is the government in the critical path here? Commercial operations have not yet gotten access to/built their own test stands, software simulators, launch pads, etc. Even SpaceX launches from a pad on an Air Force facility. The government is the only entity that can certify vehicles for approach/docking to the Space Station. As time goes by, more of that capability and corporate knowledge will be available in the commercial sector but it isn’t there yet.
As a former Lockheed employee – I certainly trust them to build and launch any rocket. They could design and execute an approach and docking. But the ability to certify a vehicle rests with the government. We need to outsource that – to some consortium – but when we will start that???
Ares 1 is a dead stick..DEAD…anybody that yet not understand?
>Funding NASA to have NASA developed vehicles is a socialist agenda.
I would argue that NASA developed vehicles are a nationalist agenda.
“there isn’t enough money for the proposed HLV & Orion derived capsule.”
To put a finer point on this, I went back and compared the total funding for the Orion-based Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and the Shuttle-based Space Launch System (SLS) in the amended NASA FY11 authorization bill against the budget for an Orion, Ares I, and their related program integration activities in NASA’s FY 2010 budget request. (In prior threads I was only comparing MPCV to Orion.) If you assume that the MPCV and SLS are going to cost at least as much as Orion and Ares I, then over the years covered by the amended bill (FY11-FY13), there’s nearly a $5.4 billion or 33% shortfall. Here’s the numbers:
Orion/Ares I/ProgInt in NASA FY10 Budget Request
FY11 $ 5,506 million
FY12 $ 5,447 million
FY13 $ 5,383 million
Total $16,336 million
MPCV/SLS in NASA FY11 Amended Authorization Bill
FY11 $ 2,900 million
FY12 $ 4,050 million
FY13 $ 4,000 million
Total $10,950 million
Shortfall (Orion/Ares Minus MPCV/SLS)
FY11 $ 2,606 million
FY12 $ 1,397 million
FY13 $ 1,383 million
Total $ 5,386 million
And to be brutally honest, $5.4 billion is arguably the _minimum_ shortfall, for several reasons:
1) The FY11 authorization bill requires a 2016 IOC for MPCV/SLS. The FY10 budget numbers above only supported a 2017 IOC for Orion/Ares I, and most likely 2019, according to the Augustine Committee. That’s a 1-3 year schedule gap, on top of the $5.4 billion budget shortfall. At these funding levels and with this content, NASA will be lucky if MPCV/SLS are flying by 2020.
2) The FY11 authorization bill requires the MPCV to be much more capable than the Orion vehicle in the FY10 budget. Orion in the FY10 budget was just an ISS crew transport vehicle, while the MPCV must perform “delivery of crew and cargo to the ISS”, “regular in-space operations… in conjunction with payloads delivered by the Space Launch System in preparation for missions beyond low-Earth orbit or servicing of assets… or other assets in cis-lunar space”, and “crew transportation… for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.” Given all the additional requirements, the MPCV design is almost certainly going to be more complex and take more time and money to develop than Orion, on top of the 1-3 year schedule gap and $5.4 billion shortfall.
3) Ares I was designed to put something less than 25 tons in LEO, while the authorization bill requires the SLS has to put at least 70 tons and up to 100 tons into LEO in its initial configuration. Mass is usually the first order driver of cost in space systems (and most engineering projects), so the SLS is almost certainly going to cost more to develop than Ares I, on top of the additional requirements and complexity levied on MPCV, the 1-3 year schedule gap, and the $5.4 billion shortfall.
It’s hard to imagine how to break a program coming out of the gates more severely and in more ways (budget, schedule, requirements, mass) than how the NASA FY11 authorization bill treats MPCV and SLS.
“That’s DOA”
MPCV and SLS aren’t DOA unless the House authorizers or the White House put the kibash on the Senate authorization bill or the appropriators reinterpret it in their bills. Remains to be seen, starting later this week with the appropriators.
But assuming the MPCV and SLS budget numbers, schedule, and content from the Senate authorization bill stand — and NASA does nothing to creatively interpret that direction — then these two programs are definitely stillborn. You can’t take a program that already required an infusion of cash to stay on schedule ($5 billion/year per Augustine), add capsule requirements, shorten the schedule by 1-3 years, and take away 33% of the budget — and provide no flexibility in terms of components and contracts — and expect to do anything more than waste time and money until the next programmatic implosion and independent review.
FWIW…
amightywind wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I would argue that NASA developed vehicles are a nationalist agenda…
sure you would but then again you said goofy things about FAlcon9 dumping into the ocean, ridiculous things about Iraq …well the list is endless.
you and Sarah deserve each other.
Robert G. Oler
MT:
Nice work but the top set of numbers for the Ares I, Orion, are no longer relevant.
MrEarl wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
MT:
Nice work but the top set of numbers for the Ares I, Orion, are no longer relevant…
only if one believes that NASA can do better now…and that is foolish
Robert G. Oler
“Nice work but the top set of numbers for the Ares I, Orion, are no longer relevant.”
Of course they are. Section 304 of the authorization bill is titled “Utilization of Existing Workforce and Assets in Development of Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle” and it requires the NASA Administrator to:
“utilize existing contracts, investments, workforce, industrial base, and capabilities from the Space Shuttle and former Orion and Ares 1 projects, including Space Shuttle-derived components and Ares 1 components that use existing United States propulsion systems, including liquid fuel engines, external tank or tank-related capability, and solid rocket motor engines, and associated testing facilities, either in being or under
construction as of the date of enactment of this Act.”
More complex and heavier vehicles that are forced to use the Orion and Ares I “contracts, investments, workforce, industrial base” are not going be less expensive than Orion and Ares I. The FY10 numbers for Ares I/Orion set the baseline, and these vehicles are going to be more expensive than that baseline. That’s why those FY10 numbers are still relevant.
FWIW…
>sure you would but then again you said goofy things about FAlcon9 dumping >into the ocean, ridiculous things about Iraq …well the list is endless.
Does that still rankle? I was going on the best information that was available! (LOL!) And the rest of you were so delirious I felt someone needed to inject some objective commentary. Spaceflightnow called an early 2nd stage shutdown. I just put 2 and 2 together. Let’s face it. Musk launched an unrealistically light Dragon simulator and deceived everyone! I am keenly interested in the next launch.
>you and Sarah deserve each other.
All I can say is Todd Palin is one lucky guy. That is a fine woman.
IW…
amightywind wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Does that still rankle?..
no it doesnt rankle it just illustrates your level of “thought” or to use your comparison “addition”.
Palin? a person who doesnt have a coherent thought a “fine woman”? Well ok we are back to the above “graph”
glad you are happy in the world you have chosen.
Robert G. Oler
MT:
By eliminating Ares I, and it’s oscillation problems and lower than expected performance, that eliminates the development costs associated mitigating theses shortfalls on the Orion.
Keeping development of the J-2 and 5-segment SRB for a Block II version of the SLS will more than satisfy the requirements you mention above and lower the development costs of both the Orion and SLS.
@ Major Tom,
Your error is assuming that the difficulty and expense of building and operating Ares-I is broadly similar to the difficultly and expense of building and operating SLS.
However, is it not possible that SLS will be much cheaper? Yes, this is possible. This is because performance is not proportional to the cost of development. If the device is simpler then it will cost less. As has been repeatedly explained and re-explained over the past four or so years, a D-SDLV In-line is simpler to develop than Ares-I, ergo it will not need as much money to do so.
The closest anology I can come up with is to compare a large pick-up with a state-of-the-art racing car. Because of the extreme sophistication of the race car and the extremely narrow engineering tolerances of its operation, it costs far more to develop than a much larger vehicle. This is what we will probably find when we compare costs for Ares-I and SLS. The Ares-I, because of its various engineering issues, would cost far more per year to develop than the relatively simpler SLS. It isn’t exactly a ‘big dumb rocket’, but it won’t need sophisticated oscilation dampners, a custom-designed roll control system for the core or a new U/S engine (at least not for the LEO version). It doesn’t even technically need the 5-seg SRM. If anything, like most mass-production vehicles, it will be copying, adapting and re-using already-extant systems.
The jury is still out and we probably won’t have much idea for at least a few months how much the machine will cost, but I guarantee you that if it is similar to or greater than Ares-I, then NASA is padding for some suicidal reason.
Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
@ Major Tom,
Your error is assuming that the difficulty and expense of building and operating Ares-I is broadly similar to the difficultly and expense of building and operating SLS.
it is.,
Ares 1 is sort of unique as it is a solid boost stage vehicle (and an underperforming one at that) but the ONLY thing that affected was the cost to mitigate those things on Orion.
NASA has shown an amazing ability to make almost everything it touches seem expensive…there are no incentives to lower cost
Robert G. Oler
And the costs of those mitigations were pretty high (and not yet fully defined) Robert. Remember the liquid oxygen ‘bellows’ dampner? A lot of this stuff was going to have to be developed from basic theory with no previous actual operational experience.
> Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
>> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 1:44 pm
>>What are you smoking? How you can see anything like that in
>> what Obama proposed is beyond me….
> that is probably because you have worked on non “free enterpriseâ€
> programs to long or just like the POR or I dont know.
I’m a contractor now a days – I work no all sorts of things.
free enterprise needs a commercial market that can support it.
>== The failure of Obama’s stimulus package to really move
> the job numbers (except in the rhetorical case of “it could be
> worseâ€) is that for the most part the stimulus package KEPT
> jobs that were not free enterprise oriented…and should be
> jobs that the people of the state (both state and federal
> government) should pay for, if they want.
Agree with this…but..
>==The problem with people (I assume you, Mr. Earl Whittington
> etc) who support the POR is that the excitement is the
> program. Its “WOW we are going back to the Moon†==
>== it is not in what the program actually accomplishes. ==
Not me. I don’t support the POR, though Obama space is SIGNIFICANTLY worse due to the scale of damage it does to us gov/corporate space capabilities and infrastructure.
From my point of view both POR and Obamaspace move us backwards away from developing and/or exploring space. Given the scale of space operations is down, the market size needed to support space industry declines. Also the capabilities, most of the capabilities are being eliminated, and all attempts to foster a “DC-1†like technology and space industry are eliminated.
>== Douglas when he built the DC 1-3 did not have a
> goal to accomplish one great feat, what he had was
> the goal of enabling a capability and that capability
> allowing others to accomplish things.
>
> That is what Musk is trying to do.
That is NOT what Musk is doing. Musk is redoing ‘50’s era Titans with ‘60’s era capsules, and thinking its revolutionary.
Really Shuttle was a crappy DC-1. I.E. a designed by committee (as in a camel is horse designed by committee) DC-1, but it was a major step. The next step logically should have been a cleaned DC-3, instead from NASA to Musk they are recoiling from low cost/high reliability/high capability space craft, to crappy old capsules on converted ICBM designs. Folks talking about the glories of Soyuz capsules, or Dragon! It’s like if instead of DC-3, we weren’t beck to build new Wright flyers talking about how that was the real true way to commercial air travel – no airliners, just huge numbers of Wright flyers!! Ok they will cost several times more to do a minimum capability then a RLV or space plane would (Constellation was at LEAST twice as expensive as a all RLV based systems), but they are the true path.
POR and Obamaspace move us backwards, and are maddeningly unproductive. But POR or Nelsenspace, at least down burn the house down preventing others (with half a clue) from moving forward later.
As to your statement:
>>> Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
>>>== Obama’s space policy is inspired. It takes from American
>>> history the notions that have always worked in terms of
>>> developing new technologies and capabilities and puts them
>>> to work in making space “change†our economy.==
If I’m to understand you you think Obama is “enabling†some Musk/Boeing/ULA DC-3 development – which will somehow spawn/facilitate space somehow changing our economy?
PW Rocketdyne just joined the Commercial pack (news released today) and ULA has done it a few months back so now both the vehicle and the engine guys are on board commercial. As Elon said it from the beginning, he’s expecting those wolfs in the pack to get the larger share at whatever scrap meat falls from the current messy table of the admin + congress. But this means the new game is already being established, if not fully then to a large extent. And what commercial means, at this point, has only two esential differences from before: i) the competition is not only at proposal level, after which a contractor is selected and NASA pays for the development and DRIVES the design – now the competition is for the final product: payload delivery; ii) NASA will not DRIVE the design, the vehicles+propulsion design solutions are the contrator’s business.
The question remains: what is it going to happen with the NASA workforce? The amount of talent and expertise there is enormous, yet it wouldn’t fit the business model above.
“By eliminating Ares I, and it’s oscillation problems and lower than expected performance, that eliminates the development costs associated mitigating theses shortfalls on the Orion.”
No doubt thrust oscillation was a schedule, and therefore, cost issue for Orion/Ares I. But even if we make the unrealistic assumption that MPCV/SLS will have no design or developement problems at all, the reality is that MPCV/SLS are going to be much heavier and much more complex vehicles than Orion/Ares I, just by dint of the multiple additional requirements that the authorization bill levies on MPCV and the nearly three-fold increase in payload tonnage that the authorization bill levies on SLS.
Now I’ll be the first to admit that with the right team and technical elements, NASA or another organization could be very clever and efficient and figure out a way to meet the additional requirements set in the authorization bill for less money and in less time than Orion/Ares I.
But the authorization bill doesn’t provide NASA with the flexibility to pick the right team or the right technical elements — NASA has to use the same Shuttle elements and same Constellation contracts that produced the current budget and schedule disaster. Only now this same team, this same set of contracts, and this same set of technical elements has to produce new vehicles that do a lot more than Orion/Ares I and for less money and in less time.
It can’t be done — the technical content, contracts, and elements required by the authorization just don’t fit in the budget and schedule box required by the bill. And the authorization bill doesn’t provide NASA with the flexibility necessary to make the intelligent program decisions that are going to be required to make it fit.
It’s like directing Honda to reduce the cost of next year’s Civics by 33% using 1970s Cadillac parts and Chevrolet assembly lines and unions. It makes no programmatic sense.
“Keeping development of the J-2 and 5-segment SRB for a Block II version of the SLS will more than satisfy the requirements you mention above and lower the development costs of both the Orion and SLS.”
Deferring J-2X and 5-segment SRB won’t lower MPCV costs. J-2X never posed a technical problem for Orion, and the 5-segment thrust oscillation issue is solved by any rational SLS configuration in which the SRBs are still used as boosters attached parallel to a large liquid stage.
And like any aerospace engineering project (and probably any engineering project generally), SLS cost will be driven by mass first and foremost. The SLS payload mass is a factor of the three increase over Ares I. Deferring J-X and 5-segment SRB might keep SLS costs from being a factor of three over Ares I — maybe a factor of two or 1.5. But it’s not going to reduce SLS costs to 33% less than Ares I, which is what the budget in the authorization bill requires.
(And the reality is that you’d have to defer J-2X regardless of budget issues — per GAO, it won’t be ready until 2017 at the earliest, which blows the 2016 IOC in the authorization bill by at least a full year.)
FWIW…
another one joining NASA new direction..
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=31263
MT:
This can be done in the budget allowed.
As you seem to agree the development cost of the Orion can be reduced by having a launcher that dose not have the osculation and power problems of the Ares I.
The SLS development costs can be greatly reduced by using existing parts along the lines of Direct and the Boeing AIAA 2010 presentation. Using the existing 8.5meter core instead of the 10 meter of Ares V, the existing 4-segment SRB instead of the 5-segment. Avionics would be much closer to the shuttle than the Ares V would have had. The only pieces left to develop from scratch would be the fairing and the thrust structure. Not trivial but not a huge expense either and easier to predict that the Ares V.
“However, is it not possible that SLS will be much cheaper?… If the device is simpler then it will cost less.”
No. Cost estimates for aerospace vehicles (and probably large engineering projects in any field) scale first and foremost according to mass. Triple or quadruple the payload mass (or dry mass) of Ares I, and you’re going to roughly triple or quadruple the cost of its SLS successor. This is especially true if you’re required to use the same contracts, the same technical elements, and the same team that Ares I used.
Now, if SLS is designed to be simpler than Ares I, its cost per unit mass may go down. A kilogram of SLS dry mass may cost less than a kilogram of Ares I dry mass. But that’s not going to overcome the fact that we’ve tripled or quadrupled the mass of SLS and the costs associated with that tripling or quadrupling. Maybe if it’s designed really smartly, SLS will only be 2x or 1.5x as costly as Ares I. But a 3x-4x bigger SLS is not going to be anywhere close to 33% less costly than Ares I, which is what the authorization bill requires. Again, this is especially true if NASA is required to use the same contracts, the same technical elements, and the same team that Ares I used.
“The closest anology I can come up with is to compare a large pick-up with a state-of-the-art racing car.”
I’m not trying to be overly critical here, but that’s not a good analogy because those two vehicles are of relatively the same scale.
A better analogy would compare the racing car to an 18-wheeler, or some other analogy where one vehicle has a mass that’s many times that of the other vehicle.
You’re not just battling costs associated with complexity. You’re also battling costs associated with a large multiplier in scale.
And worse than than, even if the 18-wheeler is a simpler design, the authorization bill is still requiring NASA to use the same contracts, parts and team that NASA used to (try to) build the racing car. It’s not going to be a rational 18-wheeler made solely out of 18-wheeler parts on an efficiently automated 18-wheeler assembly line. It’s going to be an somewhat irrational 18-wheeler built mostly out of racing car parts in a handcrafted racing car shop.
“I guarantee you that if it is similar to or greater than Ares-I, then NASA is padding for some suicidal reason.”
It has nothing to do with “padding”. It has to do with the requirements we levy on a program at its outset and whether those requirements fit the cost and schedule box that we’ve put the program into.
We’re not talking about a margin of 10% or 20% here. Depending on whether they try to build a 70-ton or 100-ton SLS, NASA has to bring the costs of SLS down three-fold or four-fold from what historical cost models would project just to match Ares I. And then they have to reduce those costs by another 33%. And they have to do it with the same contracts, parts, and team used on Ares I. And they have to do it 1-3 years sooner than Ares I.
It’s the definition of programmatic suicide.
FWIW…
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
I dont agree with much of your post.
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.
Government in a country run by free enterprise by definition cannot design a commercial product. It can, by law set goals and standards that vehicles that drive/operate on public facilities must meet, but there is not a single instance in The Republic of government designing aproduct that had commercial appeal or success.
The reason is simple. Throughout the history of The Republic and particularly in the “big government” era since WW2 the only cost factor involved in any government program has always been “is it less then the cost of doing nothing” or more correctly “is it less then the cost of maintaining the status quo”.
Years ago Convair having worked out all the bugs in the B-36 figured that they could design a commercial people carrying version of the airplane…they built a couple and not even the government could afford the airplane. Or more correctly the government was quite happy to live with the restrictions imposed by the then crop of cargo carriers and didnt want to pay the cost of the “improvements”. Private industry, the airlines just laughed at the design. As one airline executive put it “even if I sold every seat for the comparable price of my current fleet, I would lose money”.
The shuttle was like every other project since Apollo…a “give NASA something to do” project. Ares/Constellations only sin was that on the dollars people were willing to pay, it became the XC-99. The shuttle has simply run out of a make work mission…it built its makework project…the space station.
You say that there is no market for commercial space.
no market for commercial space will ever develop unless 1) government stops operating its own vehicles and 2) it stops funding make work projects that take work and effort away from comparable commercial products.
Now there may not be a commercial market for human spaceflight any more then there is a market for the civilian equal of nuclear submarines. And if that is the case then the only thing to look forward to is human spaceprojects that come because of make work government efforts by governments with excess cash.
If there is no market for human spaceflight, then the notions of off world settlements etc are doomed…and that ends the requirement for exploration of the solar system passed robotic probes.
I think that there is a market for human spaceflight, and Obama’s policy was/is the functional equivelent of the airmail project/program in the 30’s. The entire thrust of which was to use government dollars to subsidize airline/airplane development in The Republic.
Now you may like how the last fifty years have played out…but I think we have seen quite enough of pure government spending…and it is time in my view to give another venue a try. We can hardly in my view do worse.
“If I’m to understand you you think Obama is “enabling†some Musk/Boeing/ULA DC-3 development – which will somehow spawn/facilitate space somehow changing our economy?”
in general yes. It is at least a different approach to the problem, the current approach having driven us to where we are today which is no where. We wont get the DC-3, we might just might get the Model 247 or even an earlier step. And I find it hard to imagine that the current aerospace “legacy” folks can compete in a real private enterprise environment (they have failed so far in spaceflight of all types) but…new folks can and should be given a try.
We have nothing to lose. And that includes the “contractor/government workforce”…in human spaceflight, they are just so much useless fat. If government stopped teh subsidies…they all die.
Robert G. Oler
“As you seem to agree the development cost of the Orion can be reduced by having a launcher that dose not have the osculation and power problems of the Ares I.”
No, I don’t. Reread my post. I stated that deferring J-2X and 5-segment (i.e., setting aside Ares I performance and thrust oscillation issues) doesn’t change the fact that MPCV has more requirements levied on it than the 2010 Orion, which is going to make the MPCV heavier, more complex, and more costly than Orion.
“The SLS development costs can be greatly reduced by using existing parts along the lines of Direct and the Boeing AIAA 2010 presentation. Using the existing 8.5meter core instead of the 10 meter of Ares V, the existing 4-segment SRB instead of the 5-segment. Avionics would be much closer to the shuttle than the Ares V would have had. The only pieces left to develop from scratch would be the fairing and the thrust structure. Not trivial but not a huge expense either and easier to predict that the Ares V.”
No doubt reducing SLS complexity relative to Ares V will reduce SLS costs relative to Ares V. No argument.
But the budget in the authorization bill requires NASA to reduce SLS costs by 33% relative to the _Ares I_ budget, not the _Ares V_ budget. That’s a very, very tall order given that SLS is going to be at least three, and maybe four, times bigger than Ares I. SLS costs are not just battling complexity, which is a second-order cost driver. SLS costs are foremost battling mass, which is a first-order cost driver for aerospace development projects.
In order to make up for the overall increase in SLS dry mass, the per unit cost of SLS dry mass is going to have to be 3-4x less than the per unit cost of Ares I dry mass. And then it’s going to have to come down another 33% to meet the budget in the authorization bill, which is 33% less than the Ares I budget. And given that SLS has an IOC 1-3 years earlier than the Ares I IOC, that budget is going to have to come down even more to make up for the budget that Ares I would have spent on development in 2017-2019. We’re probably looking at least at a 5x decrease in SLS dry mass unit cost relative to Ares I, and maybe something more like 10x.
It’s one thing to wave a magic wand and claim that an 18-wheeler is going to cost 2x less than a car on a per unit mass basis. Maybe. But it’s an entirely different thing to claim that the per unit mass cost of 18-wheeler is going to be 5x less than the per unit mass cost of a car. Unless you’re using radically different technology bases (a Studebaker compared to a modern Freightliner) — and the authorization bill doesn’t permit that because it requires NASA to use Ares I components, contracts, and teams — it can’t be done.
FWIW…
Ya that ole’ “amightywind” is blowing again with his “confiscatory tax policy” jingo about Obama’s 270 billion tax cut, a part of the stimulas package.
2009 Taxes Paid Lowest In 50 Years
“Federal, state and local taxes — including income, property, sales and other taxes — consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.”
The United States is entering a era of severe labor shortages, if you think we have immigration problems now, wait until the migration problems starts. The sad truth is, no one in congress will do anything about it. They know that in as little as five years we start to see the effects with the coming shortage of nurses.
The baby boom is retiring and we will be falling short 2 million replacements per year. We only allow about 650,000 to legally come in, as wages rise, and they will, the flood gates will open.
A quick addendum to the discussion above, if we have to reduce MPCV costs relative to Orion — as the budget in the authorization bill requires, by 33% — then we have to reduce Orion’s mass and complexity. Boeing’s CST-100 does that:
boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=1323
Of course, the CST-100 is not bound by the MPCV requirements levied in the authorization bill or by having to use Orion components, contracts, and teams, as required by the authorization bill.
There’s no free lunch. If we want to have a human space exploration program within the kind of budget envelope NASA has had for almost 50 years now, then it has to be based on small, simple vehicles built and operated by small teams. We can’t, as the authorization bill does, levy more mass and complexity, take away 33% of the budget and 1-3 years of schedule, and dictate the use of the same big contracts and teams, and expect to get a different answer than what we already got on Constellation (and SEI before it and ALS/NLS before that and Shuttle before that and Apollo before that).
FWIW…
Too bad we don’t have a live blog of the Obama / Glenn conversation.
The most interesting political words spoken about NASA FY11 have been spoken behind closed doors.
Nelson brought impressive skills and raw political power to bear on the authorization process. My hat’s off to him, the way he shoe-horned his version of Jupiter Direct into the requirements.
Still, there is that pesky money issue. That’s one reason why the appropriations amounts and language will be so interesting, as NASA FY11 continues its Congress Trek.
Jupiter folks and POR folks used to be rivals, passionately backing their plans and criticizing the opposition, sometimes with hissing and glaring. Nelson has now joined the two rival camps at the hip.
Oh to be privy to the conversations between POR and Direct these days!
By the way, if you could ride an Orion atop a Jupiter Direct or a current version of the Jarvis, say, an evolved Atlas Heavy, which would you choose?
a launcher that dose not have the osculation and power problems of the Ares I.
You must remember this, a kiss is still a kiss…
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
Is Oler the editor of this blog?
@robertGOler- “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.” <- Nonsense, as usual.
Curtis Quick wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 10:30 am
I don’t mean to sound the eternal pessimist, but politics and space do not mix well. =blink= It’s been part of the mix since the days of Von Braun at Peenemunde.
That is what Musk is trying to do. And will Robert G. Oler
And you drive a Tucker.
Is “Beltway Bob” just Gary Church trolling under another name?
Beltway Bob wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 5:36 pm “Is Oler the editor of this blog?” <- No, he just likes to see his name in print. But 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 nice in the spring time; warned Yeager over beers at Pancho's not ride horses before flying and, of course, he personally designed the DC-3. Yeah- that's the ticket.
Major Tom wrote:
“But the authorization bill doesn’t provide NASA with the flexibility to pick the right team or the right technical elements — NASA has to use the same Shuttle elements and same Constellation contracts that produced the current budget and schedule disaster. Only now this same team, this same set of contracts, and this same set of technical elements has to produce new vehicles that do a lot more than Orion/Ares I and for less money and in less time.”
I would also say do not forget that NASA is infamous for design changes after design changes and always at cost plus. I can only imagine how many design changes will be instore for the new multipurpose vehicle. They will have to be cutting designs, for buget reasons, through the whole silly process and in the end it will be to expensive, or under performing blah blah blah and in 2016 when a new president comes in we can start the whole dance over again.
More brainless posts by windy.
“I was going on the best information that was available! (LOL!) And the rest of you were so delirious I felt someone needed to inject some objective commentary. Spaceflightnow called an early 2nd stage shutdown. I just put 2 and 2 together. Let’s face it. Musk launched an unrealistically light Dragon simulator and deceived everyone! ”
1. You weren’t using the best info available. Anybody with half brain would have could have found more info
2. Your commentary was the opposite of objective, in fact, it was spiteful, something that only small minds would say.
3. You do not have the knowledge, experience or ability to could such a conclusion as a velocity shortfall, much less add 2 + 2. Most informed persons know that upperstage shutdown is velocity driven and wouldn’t make such a claim.
4. Let’s face it, you don’t know what you are talking about. It was widely known that the Dragon simulator was just a shell and no where near flight weight. Only a clueless person wouldn’t know it or someone with bias.
Forums like this are better served without dullards like you
“I would argue that NASA developed vehicles are a nationalist agenda.” to only provide jobs, and therefore socialistic.
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.”
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. It also sucked up so much money that a successor could not be funded, and now after 30 years we have to take a step backwards and go back to landing by parachute. Ugh.
NASA had their chance to move the state of the art forward for getting crew to & from space. Now they should stand aside, help out tax-generating companies with tax-payer funded knowledge, and let the commercial sector see if they can do better.
DCSCA wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
the post of yours borders on incoherence.
If one is going to use the analogy correctly “The shuttle” is the Tucker…one built by government and then forced to stay in production.
I know that big government people like you Whittington and all the others…dont care that what government does has value for the cost, when it is the projects that you like; but the rest of us do.
Robert G. Oler
Nelson Direct would be paid for by siphoning off money from robotics and tech dev.
Amazing how supposedly pro-exploration folks want boots and flags someday, some decade, unsustainably, at immense cost (plus), but are against, vehemently against, exploration now, with robotic probes.
Meanwhile, a quiet revolution in price point to orbit is underway. While the National Aeronautics and Someday Administration strives, and strives, and strives, slowly or not, private launch capability and value will actually step ahead, continuously and sustainably.
My apologies, admiration and sympathies to the middle echelons at NASA, who do great work, regardless of the policy and program they’re handed.
Son of DIRECT looks good on paper, but commercial space has its own astronauts that mouth their support for cargo Dragon when the STS finally retires; http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2010/0716/NASA-should-use-private-spaceships-say-astronauts
FWIW in where the rubber meets the road, I have to throw in my hat in the MT/Oler ring. Cash is King and I don’t see any Congress, let alone a maybe future GOPer Congress that preaches fiscal discipline funding an HLV beyond a jobs program. Musk, ULA and Bigelow will have their moment in history.
Ben Joshua wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Well said. I also offer my praise and encouragement to those at NASA who do their best for HSF and Robotic Exploration. We all that they are there, but their hands have been tied by crappy decisions going back 30 years.
@robertGOler “you just don’t understand how the free market system works” <- Indeed, you don't. "… but the rest of us do." Speak for yourself, not the 'rest of us.'
@Oler: First you say it’s a ‘crappy vehicle” Then you say “the Shuttle, while unique and capable, is an evolutionary dead-end.” Keep throwing it up against the wall — something will stick eventually. But your personal, unfavorable opinions on manned spaceflight are understood, your disdain for the past 50 years of progress in it and preference for the first 50 years of aviation (lets say 1903 to 1953) is noted. But the days of the ‘Great Waldo Pepper’ are long over. But you go on believing they’re not. It’s quaint. And amusing.
DCSCA wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
@Oler: First you say it’s a ‘crappy vehicle†Then you say “the Shuttle, while unique and capable, is an evolutionary dead-end.â€
no I did not…try reading a little more closely then come back
Robert g. Oler
“@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 back”….
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.””
Oler forgotten.
> Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
>> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
> I dont agree with much of your post.
> 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.
Why? It cost far less to develop Ares-I/Orion. Vastly more capable then anything else ever flown in space – and is the minimum We’ld need to do anything significant in space.
>== Government in a country run by free enterprise by definition
> cannot design a commercial product. —
707 worked pretty well.
And if your so sure a gov commissioned craft can’t work commercially – Commercial crew must be doomed in your mind?
>== The shuttle was like every other project since Apollo…a “give
> NASA something to do†project. ==
It was also designed to be a workhorse that be a general purpose cargo hauler, return craft, and mobile work platform lab. This was to support any future NASA orbital or Beyond earth – and also support space industrialization. NASA’s brief interest in space industrialization
> Ares/Constellations only sin was that on the dollars people were
> willing to pay, it became the XC-99. The shuttle has simply run out
> of a make work mission…it built its make work project…the space station. ==
So if you think Shuttle building a space station and developing major construction ability in space — why don’t you think Ares/Orion acting as a taxi to a “make work project†spacestation costing even more, is even worse? Or commercial crew to the ISS for that mater.
>== You say that there is no market for commercial space.
> no market for commercial space will ever develop unless
> 1) government stops operating its own vehicles and
> 2) it stops funding make work projects that take work and
> effort away from comparable commercial products.
These are nonsensical. The gov has been the biggest customer for space industrial products. Cutting down NASA space activity cuts the major market out from under space industry?
>== Now there may not be a commercial market for human spaceflight ==
Obviously not today. You need some biz case for people up there.
==
> I think that there is a market for human spaceflight, and Obama’s
> policy was/is the functional equivelent of the airmail project/program in the 30′s. ==
No way. It could not in any sence do that. Its to small, to overloaded with pork. If anythinhg it’s a way to disprove commercials can cut it — or just bankrupting folks who try it.
And in the mean time the industrial base to even do manned space dies.
===
>> “If I’m to understand you you think Obama is “enabling†some
>> Musk/Boeing/ULA DC-3 development – which will somehow
>> spawn/facilitate space somehow changing our economy?â€
> in general yes. It is at least a different approach to the problem, the
> current approach having driven us to where we are today which is no where.
> We wont get the DC-3, we might just might get the Model 247
> or even an earlier step. ==
All they are doing is cutting the money, and changing the contract format. Getting this excited about that is like figuring you can make a unpopular TV character popular with a new hairstyle.
>== And I find it hard to imagine that the current aerospace “legacyâ€
> folks can compete in a real private enterprise environment ==
Why not? They’ve shown they can do more with less given the opportunity. Have vastly more experence and skill. Etc.
Certainly Biggelow said the old guard did a completely copetative bid.
>==
> We have nothing to lose. And that includes the “contractor/government
> workforceâ€â€¦in human spaceflight, they are just so much useless fat. ==
So all the resources, and market, for space industry – everything we used for everything we did in space is expendable? …And you want to develop space?
That’s like saying you want skyscrapers – but first want to destroy every construction company that built anything taller then 2 stories!
> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
>==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.
Your missing the point. Right now govs the only buyier – and they are cutting purchases buy 80% – no market big enough to even support competition.
> The Shuttle, while unique and capable, is an evolutionary dead-end. ==
Why?
>==It also sucked up so much money that a successor could not be funded,
> and now after 30 years we have to take a step backwards and go back to
> landing by parachute. Ugh.
That’s very obviously not true given Constellation was budgeted for over 2 and a half times the dev cost for shuttle, and 6-7 times the per launch costs. Just Nelsens Orion/HLV is at least a third more then shuttle. So if shuttle made them broke –they wouldn’t be talking about such hugely more expensive replacements. Sadly they are also pathetically less capable. But that was part of Griffens concept to scale down NASA’s HSF to fewer, less routine, flights.
> Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
> I know that big government people like you Whittington and all the
> others…dont care that what government does has value for the cost,
> when it is the projects that you like; but the rest of us do.
You’ld be more credible if you did resort to stupid ad hominem attacks like that when folks disagree with you. Especially when you don’t seem all that concerned about the big pork in Obamaspace?
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Kelly, there are a number of things that you responded back to Oler on that I don’t think you understood the context of why he was saying it, so you misconstrued the point and argued for the wrong reason. Please do a tiny bit of research to confirm your “memory” of facts…
“>== Government in a country run by free enterprise by definition
> cannot design a commercial product. —
707 worked pretty well.”
Boeing designed the 707 (and it’s predecessor), and the Air Force decided to buy it for use as a air tanker. The history of it is widely available on the web.
“Why? It [Shuttle] cost far less to develop Ares-I/Orion.”
Only if you’re comparing then-year dollars to today-year dollars.
“Vastly more capable then anything else ever flown in space – and is the minimum We’ld need to do anything significant in space.”
The Shuttle can only carry 50,000 lbs to LEO, which is the same as Delta IV Heavy. It can carry 6 passengers to space, which is the same or less as Orion-Lite, Dragon and CST-100. It does have a robotic arm, but the ISS has something like three or four robotic arms. I also seem to remember something else significant that we did without the Shuttle… oh that’s right, we went to the Moon!
The Shuttle is a multi-faceted vehicle that could do a lot of things, but it is by no means the only way to do anything.
“>== The shuttle was like every other project since Apollo…a “give NASA something to do†project. ==
It was also designed to be a workhorse that be a general purpose cargo hauler, return craft, and mobile work platform lab…”
You’re missing the point Kelly. You’re forgetting the context of the argument.
“So if you think Shuttle building a space station and developing major construction ability in space — why don’t you think Ares/Orion acting as a taxi to a “make work project†spacestation costing even more, is even worse? Or commercial crew to the ISS for that mater.”
Still missing the point, and now you’re getting confused by arguing that Orion/Ares I was a cost-effective transportation system. Margin cost, right?
“>== You say that there is no market for commercial space.
> no market for commercial space will ever develop unless
> 1) government stops operating its own vehicles and
> 2) it stops funding make work projects that take work and effort away from comparable commercial products.
These are nonsensical. The gov has been the biggest customer for space industrial products. Cutting down NASA space activity cuts the major market out from under space industry?”
Again, you started arguing a point before you understood it.
#1 – means that NASA, as a government agency, can charge or not charge whatever they want, and because of this no company can effectively compete against them. It’s a government monopoly.
#2 – you interpreted it to mean give NASA less money. He actually was saying that the government should stop competing with commercial companies, which has been shown to be a money pit for NASA. If NASA used commercial crew services, and did not directly build rockets, it would then have more money to put towards other programs. Congress has allocated the same amount of money to NASA for a long time, and they will continue doing that. NASA already uses contract services for many routine services (satellite launch, Shuttle processing, etc.), so Congress is not opposed to that. That is the issue – not taking funds away from NASA.
You have more weird arguments that were arguing the wrong points, but this post has dragged on too long…
Because the only seller will only sell to that buyer. Forgive me if I am NOT convinced by that.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
“Right now govs the only buyier – and they are cutting purchases buy 80% – no market big enough to even support competition.”
Where is the 80% number coming from? Are you saying they are cutting crew replenishments flights to the ISS by 80%? Are you saying they are cutting cargo resupply flights to the ISS by 80%? Are you making up this number? Please enlighten us.
Back to the subject. Yes, today the U.S. government would be the primary market, and that market starts at the end of 2015 when the Soyuz contract runs out. Now the Russians have a leadtime for building Soyuz, so they are going to want a commitment from the U.S. on whether we need crew services after 2015. That is the opportunity for commercial crew, and NASA doesn’t have that many years before it has to make the decision how it’s going to replenish crew after 2015.
If NASA commits to using commercial crew for 2016 and on, then non-government demand can start negotiating for rides. That could be Bigelow, who is gearing up for building space habitats, or it could be for other needs that will step forward when they know there is commercial transport available, and they know the cost. The cost is very important, because without that no one can start the budgeting process for company or country use.
Keep in mind the time scale for all of this too. We’re not talking about buying a ticket today for a ride tomorrow. In the beginning the time between buying and riding could be over a year (maybe two).
But as the demand grows, so does the supply pipeline, and if a manufacturer knows that they can fill any launcher on fairly short notice, their order window will start to decrease. Normally when it gets to this point prices also start to decrease, but the combination of available supply and short leadtime enables other companies to commit to either buying passage or creating their own destinations.
In the case of SpaceX, they use the same launcher for cargo as for crew, so they have a predictable base of demand that they can use to fall back on if the crew delivery demand doesn’t materialize fast enough. Their Dragon capsule fleet will pretty much already be built (12 from COTS program), so if they wanted to commit to keeping a spare Falcon 9 available, that could be used for short-notice crew transportation. For who, I don’t know, but their production system supports it.
With available supply, and with known pricing, companies can start making plans for future use, and that’s when the market will solidify. If SpaceX starts crew delivery in 2016, I think by 2020 we will see a solid and growing commercial crew transportation industry with more than two suppliers, and more wanting to enter (hopefully one will be an RLV like Dream Chaser).
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
“> The Shuttle, while unique and capable, is an evolutionary dead-end. ==
Why?”
Good question. Let’s looks at some examples.
In the beginning there were capsules. Mercury lead to Gemini, which lead to Apollo. Now there may have been some program and design overlap, but Gemini learned from Mercury, and Apollo learned from Gemini. Apollo ended up being the end of the capsule era for a very long time.
Then we jumped to the Shuttle. Now the Shuttle really traces it’s heritage to the many X vehicles that were tested for NASA and Air Force programs, and the Shuttle used some of that knowledge and created it’s own unique technologies like the thermal tiles.
But the fleet size has always been limited to four vehicles, with no plans to expand the fleet, so NASA never had an interest in making the Shuttle a robust transportation system, just one that it could afford. The Air Force decided after a while to limit it’s involvement, and the U.S. never sold Shuttles to our allies. Definitely a niche product.
There are no follow-on vehicles that we’re building using the lessons of the Shuttle. I’m not talking about the engine technology that gets it to space (SRB’s, ET, SSME), but the vehicle itself. NASA is not developing a manned vehicle that can launch, maneuver in space, and return crew on a runway. Because of all of that, the Shuttle is an evolutionary dead-end.
In the beginning there were capsules. Mercury lead to Gemini, which lead to Apollo. Now there may have been some program and design overlap, but Gemini learned from Mercury, and Apollo learned from Gemini. Apollo ended up being the end of the capsule era for a very long time.
Hmmmm. That would be news to the people who’ve been flying Soyuz for forty years.
Dreamchaser could reasonably be considered a Shuttle follow on. Apart from the fact it is very unlikely to happen.
@ DCSCA,
Actually, Soyuz is a contemporary of Apollo. IIRC, it is actualy slightly older. Whilst it is true that it has been upgraded and modified several times during its operational lifespan, it is still a Soyuz – Recognisably Korolev’s brainchild. Before Orion and Shenzhou, no new crewed capsule had been seriously in development since the 1970s.
~
@ Martijn,
I think that Dreamchaser, which is essentially an HL-20, could be considered a cousin of Shuttle. Both originate from the same aerospace research programs, but their development path diverged some time ago. The only way that Dreamchaser could be considered a ‘follow on’ of Shuttle is that it shares the same underlying philosophy of a piloted rather than unpiloted descent and recovery.
Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 6:13 am Which doesnt mean there’s anything wrong with them — and of course, ‘capsule’ technology w/ablative heat shielding has been part of uinmanned space probe technology for decades as well.
Here we go again, daming the Ares 1 flight, while forgetting that the flight of Falcon was not perfect either. Both flew, both were not perfect.
One reached orbit, the other didn’t. One was operational hardware, the other was a rigged demo.
Ares I-X was a single stage suborbital test flight while the Falcon 9 Flight I was a two stage orbital test flight. How much money did tax payers pay for the Falcon 9 test flight? How much did we pay for Ares I-X test flight? When is the next Falcon 9 flight? (this year, it’s OK with me if they slip from September for me). When would the next Ares I-? going to fly? orbital?
Boeing designed the 707 (and it’s predecessor), and the Air Force decided to buy it for use as a air tanker.
To clarify, the KC-135 is not a 707. Both aircraft were derived from the Dash 7.
DCSCA wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 3:50 am
“Hmmmm. That would be news to the people who’ve been flying Soyuz for forty years.”
Since we weren’t sharing testing and design data directly with the Soviet Union, I was clearly talking about our space program, and not the Soviets. Weird.
Oh, and maybe you didn’t know about this since you could have tried to be more clever in your retort (I know it’s hard to think them up), but you could have pointed out how the Soyuz was probably based on the General Electric Apollo D-2 proposal. Oh well, you’re behind the times as usual…
Rand Simberg wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 10:51 am
“To clarify, the KC-135 is not a 707. Both aircraft were derived from the Dash 7.”
I think you meant to say the Dash 80. And yes, I was compressing the history for sake of brevity. You can see how well that turned out…
All this idea of no money for spaceflight. 335 million to the Russians isnt chicken feed. They seem to have money to give them. At 52 mil a seat for a partnership that seems to be one sided to me. Do they pay us 52 mil a seat when they ride the shuttle? I think not! Also with concern for the shape of both Apollo and Orion for high speed returns from planetary trajectories. Shape is important to cut the buildup of G forces upon the passengers. I think that also plays a part in the design of the craft. Am I wrong or right here? I think it is called a skip glide re-entry. Hit the atmosphere, climb alittle back out to cool the heat shield then take the final plunge back in!
“At 52 mil a seat for a partnership that seems to be one sided to me. Do they pay us 52 mil a seat when they ride the shuttle? I think not! ”
And you’re right. But we don’t pay them for their Progress vehicles that bring supplies to our astronauts on ISS, nor for the Soyuz that are available to our astronauts as escape craft, nor for the various parts of ISS the Russians constructed that we use. So the equation is more complicated than you’re making it out to be.
For a nation that didn’t plan properly (we planned, but not properly!) to have a transportation system to take us to ISS, $52M/seat isn’t a bad deal. We’re lucky we can get it. At $500M/shuttle launch, Shuttle is more expensive on a per-seat basis. Yes, as good businesspeople, there will be some incentive for the Russians to raise their price, but commercial availability is what is likely to hold it down.
Dennis Berube wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
“All this idea of no money for spaceflight. 335 million to the Russians isnt chicken feed. They seem to have money to give them.”
So far NASA has contracted crew transportation to the ISS taken care of thru 2015. After that they need to sign new crew deliver contracts with someone, and that is the opportunity for commercial companies to step in and satisfy.
The timing is tricky because NASA will have to decide who will do the 2016 & on services probably by the end of 2012 or 2013, so no matter who they decide to use will likely not have a proven system by that point.
Buy American or buy more Russian. If buy American, the choice is keep doing more of the same (government run transportation) or transition over to the future with commercial crew (more than one hopefully).
Commercial is far less expensive, and frees up money to be used on other NASA programs. Government run transportation is perceived to be better for the lawmakers constituents, but in the end NASA money flows out to the private sector anyways, just like commercial crew would, so it’s just a matter of the distribution.
Commercial is far less expensive, and frees up money to be used on other NASA programs. <– Uh, the recent WP articles on the privatized elements of the intellegence indicate that private companies contracting actually cost the government more– and the loyalties of these private companies are to stock/shareholders first, not the country.
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.
Im sure if Werner von Braun were alive, he would be biting his nails, and Korolev would be drinking a toast, to America relying on Russian spacecraft for taxi service. Certainly another first for the Soviet space program!
DCSCA wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
“Commercial is far less expensive, and frees up money to be used on other NASA programs. <– Uh, the recent WP articles on the privatized elements of the intellegence indicate that private companies contracting actually cost the government more– and the loyalties of these private companies are to stock/shareholders first, not the country.”
OK, you’ve proved you can find information on the Internet, now try and apply it to the subject at hand.
Are you going to start implying that NASA would be better off doing the work that United Space Alliance does for processing the Shuttles? Are you going to say that NASA would save more money by building and launching their own satellites instead of relying on outside companies?
Keeping in mind that if you’re talking about commercial crew that we’re not talking about “contract employees”, which is what the Intel article was about. We’re talking about “contracted services”, which in this case would be getting crew and cargo to a destination. Big difference.
You make it sound like NASA should start building their own pencils because “you can’t trust those evil corporations to build a safe pencil”.
If ULA does not get a contracted payload to the proper orbit, they don’t get paid. The same would be true for crew, and if you think any company wants to kill their customers, then you don’t know enough about capitalism.
NASA on the other hand, while staffed by very well meaning people, gets “paid” whether they launch or not, and if the payload does or does not get to it’s destination. You tell me which entity has more incentive to do things right.
@coastalSocialistRon – “then you don’t know enough about capitalism” <- stop being so hard on yourself. But the learning curve will be steep with you.
DCSCA wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
“and losing the heavy lift capacity of the shuttle”
The Shuttle has the same payload capacity as the Delta IV Heavy (50,000 lbs), and less than the Atlas V Heavy (64,000 lbs). The Shuttle also has a max passenger ability of 6 to the ISS, but since it cannot stay on station for more than two weeks, this does not end up being a net increase in station crew complement.
Commercial crew on Dragon or CST-100 would offer net increases in crew capacity on the ISS, as they can stay docked at the ISS for at least 7 months. If we needed something bigger than what the COTS/CRS can provide, Delta IV Heavy can delivery it for around $300M, which is 1.5 months of Shuttle program monthly support costs.
The economics of the Shuttle program are far higher than what commercial equivalents can do.
DCSCA wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Did you apologize to Oler for calling him a liar yet? This was the blog that you thought something I wrote was something he wrote on another blog. I know you get confused…
No retort on the contractor issue? You must agree with me then?
“to America relying on Russian spacecraft for taxi service.”
As I have pointed out from Russian blogs and news articles, Russians do not like the idea that is all they are now as a space power, a taxi. They see it as a reduced role and minor role at that. To them, their space program being reduced to nothing more than a taxi is an affront to most russians and see it as a negative.
>Coastal Ron wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 11:49 pm
>> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
>> “Why? It [Shuttle] cost far less to develop Ares-I/Orion.â€
> Only if you’re comparing then-year dollars to today-year dollars.
No in same year dollars shuttle was less then the budgeted A-I/O.
Think that’s weird, the Apollo and Orion CM/SM’s were 10%-15% more to develop then the Orbiter.
>> “Vastly more capable then anything else ever flown in space
>> – and is the minimum We’ld need to do anything significant in space.â€
> The Shuttle can only carry 50,000 lbs to LEO, which is the same as Delta IV Heavy. ==
> It can carry 6 passengers to space, which is the same or less as Orion-Lite, Dragon and CST-100. =
So the shuttle (which can carry 8 actually, though generally carries 7) can do the work of al of the above, act as a construction shake, mobile space station, carry down as much as it can lift, provide power and other support to the 50,000 pound cargo. Has lifted half of all cargo tonnage to orbit and 2/3rds of all people. And is reusable.
> It does have a robotic arm, but the ISS has something like three or four robotic arms. ==
Shuttle built the ISS.
>==I also seem to remember something else significant that we did without the Shuttle…
> oh that’s right, we went to the Moon!
Only in a VERY limited way. The shuttle was designed for larger scale lunar programs.
>== The Shuttle is a multi-faceted vehicle that could do a lot of things, but it is by
> no means the only way to do anything.
NO, but it can do what nothing else flying can, and without something at least that capable (really more) space industrialization, or serious exploration really is a no go.
>>>== The shuttle was like every other project since Apollo…a
>>> “give NASA something to do†project. ==
>> It was also designed to be a workhorse that be a general purpose
>> cargo hauler, return craft, and mobile work platform lab…â€
> You’re missing the point Kelly. You’re forgetting the context of the argument.
So? Yes, NASA pretty much only supported as a pork agency – but sometimes you can get something useful out of it.
>> “So if you think Shuttle building a space station and developing
>> major construction ability in space — why don’t you think
>> Ares/Orion acting as a taxi to a “make work project†spacestation
>> costing even more, is even worse? Or commercial crew to the ISS for that mater.â€
> Still missing the point, and now you’re getting confused by arguing
> that Orion/Ares I was a cost-effective transportation system. Margin cost, right?
Now you missed the point, and the question.
>>>== You say that there is no market for commercial space.
>>> no market for commercial space will ever develop unless
>>> 1) government stops operating its own vehicles and
>>> 2) it stops funding make work projects that take work and
>>> effort away from comparable commercial products.
>> These are nonsensical. The gov has been the biggest customer for
>> space industrial products. Cutting down NASA space activity cuts
>> the major market out from under space industry?â€
> #1 – means that NASA, as a government agency, can charge or
> not charge whatever they want, and because of this no company can
> effectively compete against them. It’s a government monopoly.
That would be a argument relating to no market for commercial space launch (or would have been 20 years ago) it doesn’t relate to commercial space.
> #2 – you interpreted it to mean give NASA less money. He
> actually was saying that the government should stop competing
> with commercial companies, which has been shown to be a money pit for NASA.
Not how I interpreted it. I interpreted it as if gov stops funding NASA “make work projects†there will be more “effort†available for commercial projects. Which is a pretty laughable idea.
>==If NASA used commercial crew services, and did not directly build
> rockets, it would then have more money to put towards other programs. ==
Another laughable myth. Certainly its not what happened historically.
> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 12:31 am
>>> The Shuttle, while unique and capable, is an evolutionary dead-end. ==
>>Kelly Starks wrote @ July 19th, 2010 at 11:25 pm
>>Why?â€
> Good question. Let’s looks at some examples.
> In the beginning there were capsules. Mercury lead to
> Gemini, which lead to Apollo. ==
Actually no. Mercury and Apollo both started design work in the late 50’s, Gemini was started in the ‘60’s AFTER JFKs start of the space race, which is why it was a more mature design.
>==
> Then we jumped to the Shuttle. Now the Shuttle really traces
> it’s heritage to the many X vehicles that were tested for NASA
> and Air Force programs, and the Shuttle used some of that knowledge
> and created it’s own unique technologies like the thermal tiles.
> But the fleet size has always been limited to four vehicles, with no
> plans to expand the fleet, so NASA never had an interest in making
> the Shuttle a robust transportation system, just one that it could afford.==
Again, NASA worked to make the shuttle MORE expensive – same way Constellation was designed to be even more expensive per flight.
>== NASA is not developing a manned vehicle that can launch, maneuver
> in space, and return crew on a runway. Because of all of that, the Shuttle
> is an evolutionary dead-end.
It doesn’t follow that shuttles a dead end, though it strongly suggests NASA is dieing, and degrading down to do less with less, at greater cost. Which really was Griffens objective..
Oh as a nit, NASA is funding Dreamchaser dev – and its kind of a shuttle.
As a evolutionary step. Shuttles a partial reusable, that proved capable, but a crude implementation. A full RLV (or at least without something as expensive as the SRB’s) and designed for better serviceability, and reliability – would be a major step into large scale and potentially very low cost space access.
If you did a biamese design (stage and a half, both being identical orbiters) would likely allow NASA to build a shuttle capability RLV craft, for less dev cost then the Orion.
> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
> The economics of the Shuttle program are far higher than
> what commercial equivalents can do.
The numbers don’t seem to be working out that way.
> Dennis Berube wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
>= Also with concern for the shape of both Apollo and Orion for high
> speed returns from planetary trajectories. Shape is important to cut
> the buildup of G forces upon the passengers. ==
Yes, but from that standpoint it’s a bad shape. A winged craft like a shuttle has a higher lift drag ratio – so it doesn’t plow down into the air as much, so your reentry is much gentler.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
“Actually no. Mercury and Apollo both started design work in the late 50’s, Gemini was started in the ‘60’s AFTER JFKs start of the space race, which is why it was a more mature design.”
You’re thinking in terms of when the programs were started, as opposed to when the products were built & flown. Gemini was a follow-on to the Mercury program, and was done to support Apollo. See the excerpt from Wikipedia below:
“After the existing Apollo program was chartered by President John F. Kennedy on May 25, 1961 to land men on the Moon, it became evident to NASA officials that a follow-on to the Mercury program was required to develop certain spaceflight capabilities in support of Apollo.”
“It doesn’t follow that shuttles a dead end”
NASA is not building a follow-on vehicle to the Shuttle, and had already changed over to a capsule design for it’s next spacecraft. If there is nothing in the pipeline prior to heading to the museums, then it’s the end of the line.
“Oh as a nit, NASA is funding Dreamchaser dev – and its kind of a shuttle.”
Dream Chaser is based on vehicles that predate the Shuttle, and is being developed by the commercial space industry to address a market that is being opened up by the retirement of the Shuttle. Obama/Bolden want to promote products that could one day lower the costs to access space, and so they are using CCDev to encourage good ideas. So my statement stands:
“NASA is not developing a manned vehicle that can launch, maneuver in space, and return crew on a runway. Because of all of that, the Shuttle is an evolutionary dead-end.”
One other thing to point out is that every spacecraft being funded and built today is far simpler than the Shuttle, and except for the commercially developed Dream Chaser (and the Air Force X-37), they are all capsules. Why?
Remember what the launch business was like when the Shuttle was being developed – it was still a nascent industry. The Shuttle was intended to be the all-purpose delivery vehicle for commercial and military payloads, but it turned out to be overkill for all but the most important jobs.
Now commercial launch providers are well developed, and have predictable costs and leadtimes. The Shuttle, being reusable, suffers from availability issues (program shutdowns, rework delays, etc.) that don’t plague disposable launchers. The 2.5 million parts on the Shuttle are a liability for predictable operations, and commercial space (and NASA) don’t see the Shuttle as a vehicle to be copied or improved. Our actual needs do not match the capabilities of the Shuttle, and that is why it is an evolutionary dead-end.
@CoastalSocialistRon wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 5:41 pm- Took care of that on another thread. Suggest you contact the WP to debate their position on private contractors fleecing the gov’t vs. gov’t agencies and their loyalties. Not that you’d have anything to be concerned about.
NASA is not building a follow-on vehicle to the Shuttle, and had already changed over to a capsule design for it’s next spacecraft. If there is nothing in the pipeline prior to heading to the museums, then it’s the end of the line.
Which is logical if you’re planning to move beyond LOE. You don’t need to haul up wings and tails. Only a fool- or a socialist- would attempt to discount any technolgies learned and exploitable from shuttle for gain.
DCSCA wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
“Which is logical if you’re planning to move beyond LOE. You don’t need to haul up wings and tails.”
I think you meant LEO? I know you get easily confused. You and your buddy Kelly Starks can debate the merits of using the Shuttle for Moon missions. You both put equal thought into your statements…
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
“The shuttle was designed for larger scale lunar programs.”
DCSCA wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
“Only a fool- or a socialist- would attempt to discount any technolgies learned and exploitable from shuttle for gain.”
As usual, you miss the point. No one is building a follow-on to the Shuttle – that’s a fact, and I’m just pointing it out. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your congressional representative (or blame SpaceX like you usually do).
If the program was affordable, then the vehicles were certainly in good enough shape to keep going, but $200M/month is too expensive unless you’re building a whole lot of stuff in space. It is a do-everything vehicle in an age where targeted services can be done less expensively.
The Shuttle typifies the best and worst of government-run transportation systems (mostly worst), and luckily Congress agreed that it’s time to shut it down. And when it does shut down, there will be no evolutionary successor to the Shuttle. The King is dead…..
@CoastalSocialistRon- Yes, LEO. No, as usual, you miss the value of the knowledge and experience gained by 30 years of shuttle– putting the X-37 (and to some extent, elements of the X-33). And you’ll miss it more when it ends– as all good things eventually do. Glenn’s position is valid.
^ should read “putting aside.” Typo. sorry.
Vladislaw, while the Russians themselves may not like it, they sure are taking that money as fast as it can reach their hands. I agree too, that it appears the Russian drive for a great space program has wanned too.
Kelly, the problem with that view is then fuel must be available to slow the craft from the hight speeds of return to where the heat shielding doesnt have to be as robust.
If the Russian space program had drive, it would launch a kicker stage to orbit, link a Soyuz up to it and launch out to the Moon. Soyuz was originallly intended for lunar missions. This would once again make us dream of the possibilities of space and exploration.
With Dragon being a water landing recoverable spacecraft, is it our NAVY that is going to pick them up???? Whos job is that?
>Coastal Ron wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
>>Kelly Starks wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
>> “Actually no. Mercury and Apollo both started design work in
>> the late 50’s, Gemini was started in the ‘60’s AFTER JFKs start
>> of the space race, which is why it was a more mature design.â€
> You’re thinking in terms of when the programs were started, as
> opposed to when the products were built & flown. ==
More exactly, I concerned when they were designed
>> “It doesn’t follow that shuttles a dead endâ€
> NASA is not building a follow-on vehicle to the Shuttle, ==
They didn’t build follow ons to Apollo – so is space exploration a dead end?
>== Obama/Bolden want to promote products that could one
> day lower the costs to access space, ==
clearly not. None of the “products†they are promoting address any issues related to space access costs, nor has NASA attempted to lower its space access costs (quite the opposite, they worked on keeping the costs up and even higher.)
> == One other thing to point out is that every spacecraft
> being funded and built today is far simpler than the Shuttle, ==
Excluding Ares/Orion, Falcon/Dragon, EELV/CST-100, etc etc
They are less capable, not simpler.
>== they are all capsules. Why?
With dramatically downsizing interest in doing things in space now – why worry about building better, cheaper, more capable ships?
> Remember what the launch business was like when
> the Shuttle was being developed – it was still a nascent industry. ==
Actually the US launch industry was much bigger then now given we had so much less international competition – and things like ITAR – drove us out of the market.
>== The Shuttle was intended to be the all-purpose
> delivery vehicle for commercial and military payloads,
> but it turned out to be overkill for all but the most important jobs.
Overkill? Some customer would mind using a launcher that for the same price is more capable then they need?
>== The Shuttle, being reusable, suffers from availability issues
> program shutdowns, rework delays, etc.) that don’t plague
> disposable launchers. ==
Wrong on both parts. Shuttle reusability doesn’t impact availability – though obviously ignoring “ilities†hurts, reusability doesn’t, and expendables are also impacted by program shutdowns, rework delays, etc.
So really shuttles no more complex or expensive to develop – but its safer and more capable. So the big reason to not use it – is if you really don’t want to do anything much in space. NASA (especially under Griffin) was looking to make space flight less frequent or routine, so each flight generated more press. So they wouldn’t want something like shuttle. Though the Mil, looking to expand what it does in space (and long insisting EELV would be its last expendable) is looking to swap over to a fully RLV system, with things like the X-37 spaceplane.
> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 1:00 am
>>Kelly Starks wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
>>“The shuttle was designed for larger scale lunar programs.â€
=
> If the program was affordable, then the vehicles were certainly
> in good enough shape to keep going, but $200M/month is too
> expensive unless you’re building a whole lot of stuff in space.
> It is a do-everything vehicle in an age where targeted services
> can be done less expensively.
Again wrong no most all your points.
– Shuttle wasn’t retired to save money, the replacement (constellation) program voted in by congress was VASTLY more expensive ($7B-$8B per launch, twice that per lunar flight).
You are right that in that a do anything craft isn’t very useful when you intend to do far far less in space.
>==there will be no evolutionary successor to the Shuttle. ==
Excluding Orions systems, X-37, the EELV replacements, commercial projects …
Bottom line. You can’t do much in space with limited, high cost, single purpose, expendable, space craft. Shuttle was the first of the reusable space planes, and though cripled by politics dwarfed everything else in human history in the history of spaceflight.
> DCSCA wrote @ July 20th, 2010 at 11:52 pm
> Which is logical if you’re planning to move beyond LEO. You don’t
> need to haul up wings and tails. ==
Actually its a wash. The wings lower reentry heat temps a lot, so your TPS stays cooler and is easier to design. And of course being reusable and lower cost to fly helps if you want to go to the moon routinely.
If it bugs you, use a wet wing design with LOx/RP and call the wings planer tankage structures.
I was just wondering what the plan for Dragons pickup was? After its ocean splashdown, whos picking them up? Is our NAVY getting that job too?
Dennis Berube wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 11:05 am
““I was just wondering what the plan for Dragons pickup was? After its ocean splashdown, whos picking them up? Is our NAVY getting that job too?”
I haven’t heard any details, but their promo video shows a helicopter pickup at sea. There are plenty fast sea going commercial vessels that SpaceX could contract with to do the recovery (helicopter operations would be the prime requirement), and I doubt very much that they would contract with the Navy for the job – the Navy doesn’t have the right kind of small ships for the job.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 9:56 am
“>==there will be no evolutionary successor to the Shuttle. ==
Excluding Orions systems, X-37, the EELV replacements, commercial projects ”
None of them is a manned, winged orbiter, transporting crew and cargo to space. There is no follow-on to the Shuttle, just other spacecraft being developed that use related space materials and technologies.
“> If the program was affordable, then the vehicles were certainly
> in good enough shape to keep going, but $200M/month is too
> expensive unless you’re building a whole lot of stuff in space.
> It is a do-everything vehicle in an age where targeted services
> can be done less expensively.
Again wrong no most all your points.”
Kelly, you can stick your fingers in your ears and scream la-la-la-la all you want when the Shuttle Program Manager states how much it costs him to run the program ($200M/month), but that won’t change reality. $2.4B per year for minimum flight operations (or no flights – same price), and then you start adding on your “margin costs” (actually marginal costs) after flight number two or so.
That’s what is cost NASA, so if you have any argument about it, go talk to them.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 9:56 am
“They didn’t build follow ons to Apollo – so is space exploration a dead end?”
Only if you believe that only one design of spacecraft (Apollo) can do space exploration.
I thought that the Shuttle was an interesting experiment to see if large winged orbiters were the next generation of spacecraft. The Shuttle is a marvel of capability, but because of it’s cost and limited dispatch rate, it’s not really a desirable system for plain vanilla launch operations – the kind that ULA does every month.
I don’t see the Shuttle as a failure so much as an idea that didn’t work out the way that was hoped. The costs never aligned, nor did the demand for it’s services. It was certainly the right vehicle for building the ISS, but we’ve only built one of those, and we have enough assets in space now to do another one without the Shuttle.
The market has changed, and it did not go the way of the Shuttle. If it did, then other companies would be lobbying to take over it’s operations, or building next generation versions themselves. Neither is happening, which means the market is voting with it’s money, and the Shuttle is not where they want to go.
NASA can’t afford to keep it running anymore if it wants to pursue the ISS operations, SLS and HLV that Congress wants, so the money will shut off, and the Shuttle will retire without a direct successor – government or commercial.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 9:56 am
“>== The Shuttle, being reusable, suffers from availability issues
> program shutdowns, rework delays, etc.) that don’t plague
> disposable launchers. ==
Wrong on both parts. Shuttle reusability doesn’t impact availability – though obviously ignoring “ilities†hurts, reusability doesn’t, and expendables are also impacted by program shutdowns, rework delays, etc.
So really shuttles no more complex or expensive to develop
The Shuttle weighs 172,000 lbs empty, is made up of more than 2.5 million parts, and has systems that no capsule would ever need. I was just reading about the charging of the ammonia system for cooling down the vehicle systems after landing – no capsule needs that, and that takes maintenance and support.
Again, here you stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the obvious systems differences between the Shuttle and capsules. What about the landing gear, elevons, rudders, trim systems, airlock, robotic arm, cargo doors, in-space cooling panels, SSME, maneuvering engines – even the kitchen and all the power generating systems for such a large vehicle.
The Dragon capsule weighs less than 10,000 lbs empty, or 1/17th weight of the Shuttle, and you think the two are equal in complexity? You are nuts!
Have you lost all ability to compare two things and see the differences?
To me, at least, if I could change the past, I would have had the shuttle paired with something similar to JSC’s D-SDLV Side-mount. This owuld have effectively quadrupled the cargo delivery for one mission (25t on the shuttle, 70t on the side-mount). The shuttle and the orbiting upper stage and payload of the side-mount could then rendezvous and use the shuttle’s RMS arm to assemble a complete vehicle, transfer crew and launch a BEO mission.
I suspect that a semi-expendable cargo-only launcher would have also massively shortened the assembly timeline for the ISS. It would have also reduced the effects of the post-Columbia stand-down, as components could be launched by side-mount and collected using the station’s RMS arm. A shuttle-derived HLV would have also reduced the work-load for the orbiters and possibly reduced the ‘pressure to launch’ enough that NASA could avoid the events leading to the loss of Challenger (or, at worst, that the problem would have emerged on an uncrewed launch).
> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 3:06 pm
>>>==there will be no evolutionary successor to the Shuttle. ==
>>Kelly Starks wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 9:56 am
>>Excluding Orions systems, X-37, the EELV replacements, commercial projects, ..
and you said will be – which doesn’t just mean in work today. â€
> None of them is a manned, winged orbiter, transporting crew and
> cargo to space. ==
Some are – though your gettnig pretty narrow in your focus if you figure no craft under construction now – equals there will never be a successor? Currently space programs are downsizing or discontinuing.
>==
>>> If the program was affordable, then the vehicles were certainly
>>> in good enough shape to keep going, but $200M/month is too
>>> expensive unless you’re building a whole lot of stuff in space.
>>> It is a do-everything vehicle in an age where targeted services
>>> can be done less expensively.
>> Again wrong no most all your points.â€
> Kelly, you can stick your fingers in your ears and scream
> la-la-la-la all you want when the Shuttle Program Manager
> states how much it costs him to run the program ($200M/month), ==
That’s actually irrelevant to my point. The cost of the shuttle program isn’t the point because Shuttles not being retired as a cost savings measure, congress wasn’t pushing to lower NASA budget, nor are proposed alternates significantly cheaper.
> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 3:17 pm
>> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 9:56 am
>> “They didn’t build follow ons to Apollo – so is space exploration a dead end?â€
> Only if you believe that only one design of spacecraft (Apollo)
> can do space exploration.
[Not being Griffen I don’t.] But the point is your stating since no shuttle successors is in work today with all the shuttles mission capabilities, its a dead end. By that logic since no one ever sent folks beyonf LEO since Apollo is space exploration a dead end?â€
> == I thought that the Shuttle was an interesting experiment
> to see if large winged orbiters were the next generation of
> spacecraft. The Shuttle is a marvel of capability, but because
> of it’s cost and limited dispatch rate, it’s not really a desirable
> system for plain vanilla launch operations – the kind that ULA
> does every month.
1- it was – by program decision – left as a low flight rate craft, but even at that its flown more then about any other launcher in its class.
2- you keep confusing shuttle program cost, with shuttle costs – and assume the later drove the former. Certainly not what I ever read, or heard when I was working there, or stated by GAO etc. Given NASA was not expecting to even be anywhere near that cheap for Ares/Orion, etc – again this undercuts your assumption that the shuttle drives these costs.
3- you use faulty assumption #2 to justify your assumption that a Commercial crew based program would cost dramatically less then a shuttle based one.
4- You assume the shuttle configuration (rather then design or program choices) made it far more expensive to operate. I.E. The “RLV’s always cost far more then ELV’s so they don’t pay unless you have huge flight rates†myth.
You just not going to be able to do a major space program with out shuttles. That’s ok for NASA – they don’t want to do a major space program anymore. Big program’s make space seem to routine, and high flight rate RLV’s run the costs down to low.
>==
> The market has changed, and it did not go the way of
> the Shuttle. If it did, then other companies would be
> lobbying to take over it’s operations, or building next
> generation versions themselves. Neither is happening, ==
Right now the markets dyeing completely – however companies did lobby to take over shuttle and operate it commercially, or order a extra one from Rockwell and operate it – but NASA was not supportive.
> NASA can’t afford to keep it running anymore if it wants to
> pursue the ISS operations, SLS and HLV that Congress wants, ==
Congress has disagreed in the past – and no one knows wher they are going to jump today.
> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 3:31 pm
>>Kelly Starks wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 9:56 am
>>>== The Shuttle, being reusable, suffers from availability issues
>>> program shutdowns, rework delays, etc.) that don’t plague
>>> disposable launchers. ==
>>Wrong on both parts. Shuttle reusability doesn’t impact
>> availability – though obviously ignoring “ilities†hurts,
>>reusability doesn’t, and expendables are also impacted
>>by program shutdowns, rework delays, etc.
>>
>> So really shuttles no more complex or expensive to develop
> The Shuttle weighs 172,000 lbs empty, is made up of
> more than 2.5 million parts, and has systems that no capsule
> would ever need.==
Such as?
>== I was just reading about the charging of the ammonia
> system for cooling down the vehicle systems after landing –
> no capsule needs that, =
Really? Orion does (I wrote some specs on it) and I think its standard for all reentry vehicles.
>== Again, here you stick your fingers in your ears and
> ignore the obvious systems differences between the
> Shuttle and capsules. ==
Or I actually know more about the relative systems complexity given I’m a sr systems engineer whose done work on them.
> What about the landing gear, elevons, rudders,
> trim systems, > airlock,
Not complicated, simplifies the systems design given the interior systems don’t need to deal with vacuum, and is also in capsules like Soyuz actually.
> robotic arm,
Sometimes in capsule configs – like Dragon.
>== in-space cooling panels, SSME, maneuvering engines – even
> the kitchen and all the power generating systems for such a large vehicle.
All in the capsules as well.
Bigger doesn’t mean more complex
> The Dragon capsule weighs less than 10,000 lbs empty,==
The dragon capsule only represents PARTS of the shuttle, add in the weight of the upper stages of Falcon to make up the difference.
> Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 3:38 pm
> To me, at least, if I could change the past, I would have had
> the shuttle paired with something similar to JSC’s D-SDLV
> Side-mount. This owuld have effectively quadrupled the cargo
> delivery for one mission (25t on the shuttle, 70t on the side-mount). ==
Personally I wish the guys in that 3 day rush redesign from TSTO shuttle to its current form had thought of a Biamese config. Or dropped the SSMES and powered the orbiter with a F-1 or 2 from the Saturn V’s. Wet wings full of Kerosene, a hull extension with the LOx Tank, and Biamese it to orbit. Add ni orbit refueling and restart and it could go from LEO to Lunar orbit and back and still land, Or LEO to GEO and back to Earth. (Best keep that mission ni mind when doing TPS.)
For HLV, strap cargo between the two orbiters with another engine and more fuel and lift 100-120 tons to LEO. You could deliver a complete LEO to Lunar surface craft
Or for that mater if they just did the shuttle upgrades for serviceability and durability. The current shuttle configuration with a orbiter that could shrug off impacts like the ice that took out Columbia, and could be turned around in a week would be a big plus – though a negative for NASA and congress.
::sigh::
>==
>= possibly reduced the ‘pressure to launch’ enough that NASA
> could avoid the events leading to the loss of Challenger==
No, Chalenger was just NASA getnig sloppy. They do that regardless of the presure, as Columbia showed. They nearly lost Columbia the flight before Challenger, but still didn’t think they needed to be more carful.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Kelly, you may have been a Sr. Systems Engineer, but you are completely clueless wrt cost or complexity issues.
It must be nice living in your world where giants and midgets are the same weight and strength.
Finally, I couldn’t resist seeing the irony in what you wrote in response to Ben Russell-Gough:
“No, Chalenger was just NASA getnig sloppy.”
Is this a Freudian statement? Did you show the same attention to detail in your work that you do in trying to persuade people? It was just so obvious, I couldn’t let it pass…
> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 6:04 pm
> Kelly, you may have been a Sr. Systems Engineer, but you are
> completely clueless wrt cost or complexity issues.
And you couldn’t name a system that is in the shuttle that isn’t in the capsules (ignoring the trivial wings and a longer hull!).
Obviously in your world pick-ups much cost more and be more complex then Formula1 race cars since their so much bigger.
Bottomline, if the orbiters were so much more complex – theirdevelopment wouldn’t be so much cheaper then theOrions adn Apollo CM’s/SM’s.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 9:24 pm
“Bottomline, if the orbiters were so much more complex – theirdevelopment wouldn’t be so much cheaper then theOrions adn Apollo CM’s/SM’s.”
The Space Shuttle Endeavor was finished being built in 1987, and it’s cost was $1.7B in then-dollars. In todays dollars, taking into account the real inflation rates from 1987 to 2009, that would be $3,168,255,429. That’s $3.2B to build the FIFTH vehicle, using spare parts and all the knowledge learned from the first four orbiters. That is just for the production cost, and does not include the original R&D.
Now, let’s compare that to what SpaceX is spending to develop their Dragon capsule – so far somewhere south of $500M. That includes two launchers, and the R&D. Another way to look at it is that SpaceX gets $133M for each COTS delivery, and that has to cover the capsule, launcher, operations and recovery.
I know math is not you’re strong suite, but even you should be able to see the cost difference here.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 9:24 pm
“> Kelly, you may have been a Sr. Systems Engineer, but you are
> completely clueless wrt cost or complexity issues.
And you couldn’t name a system that is in the shuttle that isn’t in the capsules (ignoring the trivial wings and a longer hull!).”
Trivial wings and hull? Try telling the astronauts that. And of course, they add significantly to the cost of operating the Shuttle, so I can see why you would want to ignore them.
OK, with more than 2.5 million parts, and the Space Shuttle having been called the most complex machine yet created by humanity, you still seem bent on saying it’s as simple to build and maintain as a capsule. Here are just a few of the easy differences between them:
– The elevons and rudder are hydraulically actuated – a capsule does not need that.
– Landing gear – nuf said.
– The Orbital Maneuvering Engines are hypergolic, and need special handling when the Shuttle lands. No OME’s on a capsule. Both have reaction control thrusters, so don’t get them confused.
– Airlock – Dragon and CST-100 don’t have one, and Soyuz does not bring it’s airlock back to Earth.
– Galley, toilet, sleep stations and storage and experiment lockers – capsules are taxis, and everyone stay in their suits and seats.
– Thermal Protection System. The Shuttle uses seven different materials in varying locations based on the amount of required heat protection, or about 24,300 tiles total – Dragon will use a PICA heat shield that is replaced after each flight. How long does it take to inspect 24,300 tiles?
– The Shuttle has three levels to the crew cabin, while capsules have a single volume, with no decks.
– 50-foot (15-meter) robot arm in the cargo bay, and the controls in the upper deck – Dragon and CST-100 don’t have robot arms.
– The Shuttle has 11 full-color, flat-panel display screens – needless to say, since the Dragon is capable of automated operation, the number & size of crew displays will be far less than the Shuttle. And because there is no “flying” required to land, less controls.
– SSME. The Shuttle carries it’s main engines around with it, so you have to add those in – capsules do not bring their engines back with them.
I could go on, but you were really making a silly argument…
>Coastal Ron wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 1:44 am
>>Kelly Starks wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 9:24 pm
>>“Bottomline, if the orbiters were so much more complex – their
>> development wouldn’t be so much cheaper then the Orions and Apollo CM’s/SM’s.â€
> The Space Shuttle Endeavor was finished being built in 1987,
> and it’s cost was $1.7B in then-dollars.==
I said development cost, not construction cost. In now year dollars the orbiter dev program was $17B vrs $19B for Apollos CM/SM and $20B+ for Orions CM/SM.
>== Now, let’s compare that to what SpaceX is spending to
> develop their Dragon capsule –
1- Dragon was developed commercially, Shuttle under gov contract, so you would expect a factor of 4 cost difference. Also they different function sets
2- Shuttle replaces both the CM/SM and the most of the Falcon booster.
> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 2:22 am
>>> Kelly, you may have been a Sr. Systems Engineer, but you are
>>> completely clueless wrt cost or complexity issues.
>>Kelly Starks wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 9:24 pm
>> And you couldn’t name a system that is in the shuttle that
>> isn’t in the capsules (ignoring the trivial wings and a longer hull!).â€
> Trivial wings and hull? Try telling the astronauts that.==
Never heard a astronaut think wings were a expensive and hard to develop system?
>== And of course, they add significantly to the cost of
> operating the Shuttle, ==
Really? HOW?!! They require little maint cost between flights. Fully reusable, etc.
>== OK, with more than 2.5 million parts, and the Space
> Shuttle having been called the most complex machine
> yet created by humanity,===
Which is dumb PR since its pretty simple compared to other machines or systems – but a cool sound bite.
>== you still seem bent on saying it’s as simple to build and
> maintain as a capsule. ==
Actually not what I said:
>>Kelly Starks wrote @ July 21st, 2010 at 9:24 pm
>>“Bottomline, if the orbiters were so much more complex – their
>> development wouldn’t be so much cheaper then the Orions and Apollo CM’s/SM’s.â€
> Here are just a few of the easy differences between them:
> – The elevons and rudder are hydraulically actuated – a capsule does not need that.
> – Landing gear – nuf said.
What is it with you and wings?!! Of all the big expensive systems on LV’s your freaked out with wings and elvons?!!! Does the Orbiters extra hatch adn windows freak you out.
To trivial. I’ll trade you landing gear for the parachutes, and separating modules driving redundant systems and supplies in the capsule and SM.
> – The Orbital Maneuvering Engines are hypergolic, and
> need special handling when the Shuttle lands. No OME’s
> on a capsule. ==
Yes actually all capsules have OMS, since they need to still boost to their orbit after they separate from the upper stage of their booster.
> Both have reaction control thrusters, so don’t get them confused.
> – Airlock – Dragon and CST-100 don’t have one, and Soyuz does
> not bring it’s airlock back to Earth.
Shuttle could leave its airlock off, or carry it. Again a pretty trivial can with valves. The capsules without airlocks, need to pressurize and depressurize the full capsule – which obviously adds a lot of costs to everything IN the capsule.
> – Galley, toilet, sleep stations and storage and experiment lockers –
Shuttle doesn’t have a real galley – yes it has a toilet, storage lockers adn they carry sleeping bags they tie to the walls
>= capsules are taxis, and everyone stay in their suits and seats.
False.
– Thermal Protection System. The Shuttle uses
> == Dragon will use a PICA heat shield that is replaced
> after each flight. How long does it take to inspect 24,300 tiles?
Not applicable to the topic – but about $6M in labor hours per flight.
> – The Shuttle has three levels to the crew cabin,
> while capsules have a single volume, with no decks.
So? What’s your point!!!!
> – 50-foot (15-meter) robot arm in the cargo bay, and the
> controls in the upper deck – Dragon and CST-100 don’t have robot arms.
trivial
> – The Shuttle has 11 full-color, flat-panel display screens
> – needless to say, since the Dragon is capable of automated
> operation, the number & size of crew displays will be far less
> than the Shuttle. And because there is no “flying†required to land, less controls.
Faulty assumption
– SSME. The Shuttle carries it’s main engines around with
>it, so you have to add those in – capsules do not bring
>their engines back with them.
Big plus for the shuttle.
>I could go on, but you were really making a silly argument…
Actually you are.
Are you really going to say the number of floors in the shuttle cabin increases the engineering cost to develop the orbiters? Increases in any real way the complexity of the systems?
Look at the big ticket items Power, life support, RCS, OMS, TPS, cooling system (radiators and sublimators), avionics suits, communication suite, navigation, docking.
Wings are big, but they arn’t expensive to design, build or maintain compared to complex systems.
As to why the orbiter was cheaper to develop, even though it includes function of the booster? Its not as tiny, so you don’t need to miniaturize things as much, or be as obsessive amount weight. The TPS doesn’t get as hot because of the bigger underside, so you can use simpler materials. The craft doesn’t get beat up as violently in reentry and landing. etc.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 3:17 pm
“As to why the orbiter was cheaper to develop”
You really like to compare apples and oranges, don’t you.
In fact, you’re kind of like a blind man holding onto an elephants tail – you know for sure that an elephant smells like crap, but that it’s not very big.
Thinking you know how much it costs to develop and build the Shuttle, and then thinking that the Apollo or Orion programs can be easily compared, is pretty funny.
Just on the Orion program, you ignore that a substantial amount of Orion redesign has been caused by the Ares I weight and thrust issues, and are not the result of any complexity issues with the Orion CM/SM. You also seem to be oblivious to the costs they have incurred with weight reduction programs like the composite vs aluminum mockups that they built and tested. The Shuttle was not forced to incur such costs.
If they had been designing Orion for the Delta IV Heavy (like they should have), and had clean-sheet weight and function targets, I have no doubt that Orion would have cost far less than it has. And that would be a price that is far less to build and operate than Shuttle.
Apparently your brain is not wired to understand that, but that’s the way it is.
> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 6:30 pm
>> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 3:17 pm
>> “As to why the orbiter was cheaper to developâ€
> You really like to compare apples and oranges, don’t you.
>=
> Thinking you know how much it costs to develop and build
> the Shuttle, and then thinking that the Apollo or Orion
> programs can be easily compared, is pretty funny.==
Pretty obvious actually. Similar configuration, bracketing the Orbiter. So variables like changes in engineering costs, impacts of all liquid vrs solid/liquid, slight size dif, etc wash out and you see about a 10% price dif between them — yet the bigger orbiter, adding in booster stage, cargo fairing, etc functions (and being designed to higher standards then Orion) is still significantly cheaper – is telling.
…and it dramatically contradicts your assumption that big orbiters “MUST” be much more systemically complex and hence more expensive, reusable – hence more complex. That assumptions rather illogical, but your holding on with a death grip.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 8:59 pm
“…and it dramatically contradicts your assumption that big orbiters “MUST†be much more systemically complex and hence more expensive, reusable – hence more complex.”
If the Shuttle is so simple to maintain, why did NASA award a $97M/month contract to United Space Alliance to maintain them? That’s $7B over a six year period for Shuttle processing. That’s also half what the Shuttle Program Manager says it costs him to keep the Shuttle program going. Does Billions of dollars being poured into the Shuttle mean nothing to you?
And you keep pointing to Orion, which is really weird, because Orion (as you’ve even pointed out) has a different function than the Shuttle. But yet you want to compare apples to oranges and declare peanuts as cheaper. Doubly weird.
Open your eyes and realize you’re holding onto the tail of an elephant, and not a simple rope.
> Coastal Ron wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 2:12 am
>> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 22nd, 2010 at 8:59 pm
>> “…and it dramatically contradicts your assumption that
>> big orbiters “MUST†be much more systemically complex
>> and hence more expensive, reusable – hence more complex.â€
> If the Shuttle is so simple to maintain, why did NASA award
> a $97M/month contract to United Space Alliance to maintain
> them? That’s $7B over a six year period for Shuttle processing.
> That’s also half what the Shuttle Program Manager says it
> costs him to keep the Shuttle program going. ==
As to why the “shuttle program†cost more then twice as much then the contract to service shuttle – its because most of the shuttle program doesn’t involve servicnig adn operating the shuttles.
As to the $1.2B ish a year to service and launch the shuttles at the current 2 flights a year, that’s $600M a Flight. Ares/Orion was going to cost ten times that as a program cost – Just the cost of each Orion for each flight would rival that. Commercial crew was looking to be more then that.
> And you keep pointing to Orion, which is really weird,
> because Orion (as you’ve even pointed out) has a different
> function than the Shuttle.==
We were comparing Capsules vrs the orbiters. Yes, Shuttle does a lot more then Orion can do. Each orbiter flight replaces a Orion, a COTS, and say half their boosters.
While were at it why do you keep comparing it to Dragon in commercial operation? Dagon operated by NASA vrs shuttle would be fair, Commercial crew might be (given various commercial crew definition assumptions) would be fair; but not a commercially operated Dragon. Identical vehicles developed or operated by the gov, or in a gov program, cost a couple times what they do in commercial equivalents – OR MUCH WORSE.
Kelly Starks wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 9:46 am
“We were comparing Capsules vrs the orbiters. Yes, Shuttle does a lot more then Orion can do. Each orbiter flight replaces a Orion, a COTS, and say half their boosters.”
I’m not sure why you were comparing Orion to Shuttle – Orion was built to leave the Earth’s orbit, and Shuttle was not. Dragon and CST-100 are being built as taxis and small cargo carriers, and the Shuttle is a taxi and big cargo carrier.
You finally agreed that for just the Shuttle servicing, that it costs $600M/flight for the Shuttle (@ 2 flights/year), and since the Shuttle can not add to the ISS crew count (limited to 2 weeks in space), it is not really a true ISS transportation system.
SpaceX says they can fly crew to the ISS for $20M/seat, and I would imagine that Boeing could offer at least $30M/seat, so these are truly less expensive for crew than the Shuttle.
For cargo to the ISS, it only needs provisions and small spares, so the Shuttle is now overkill. That is why I support shutting down the program as planned, and using that money for other NASA needs like robotic precursor missions, CCDev, CRuSR and yes, even commercial crew after Soyuz.
The days of the Shuttle are over. Let’s throw a party and congratulate everyone for a great job, and move on to the next programs on NASA’s plate.
>> Kelly Starks wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 9:46 am
>> “We were comparing Capsules vrs the orbiters. Yes, Shuttle does
>> a lot more then Orion can do. Each orbiter flight replaces a
>> Orion, a COTS, and say half their boosters.â€
>Coastal Ron wrote @ July 23rd, 2010 at 12:49 pm
> I’m not sure why you were comparing Orion to Shuttle – Orion
> was built to leave the Earth’s orbit, and Shuttle was not. ==
Not a bit design or cost impact. However Apollo, Orion, and Shuttle were all developed under the same contracting set up. So you’re comparing apples to apples as far as dev organization and contracting rules. Given these generally triple to quadruple dev costs vrs a pure commercial projects
>==
> You finally agreed that for just the Shuttle servicing, that it
> costs $600M/flight for the Shuttle (@ 2 flights/year), ==
No never said that. Though if the shuttle PROGRAM costs $600M a flight for 2 flights per year – Its very likely a commercial crew or whatever will cost similar per flight. Though Ares-I/Orion was looking to be more like $7B $8B.
Now as to what the Shuttles actual costs per flights if operated commercially would cost –damn hard to tell.
>==
> For cargo to the ISS, it only needs provisions and small spares, so
> the Shuttle is now overkill.==
It needs more then just small spares – and the cargo isn’t any extra cost since the crew flights can carry the cargo at the same time.
>== That is why I support shutting down the program as planned, and
> using that money for other NASA needs like robotic precursor missions,
> CCDev, CRuSR and yes, even commercial crew after Soyuz.
But when you look at the costs of CC and CC Dev, COTS, and Soyuz for the next several years, your costs are higher, and your capability less then with shuttle – and NASA and industry get trashed leaving it in a VERY weak position to move forward with later. Your not going to Mars, or a Asteroid, or moon in any significant way, if all you got are capsules on Boosters like Orion or CST.