Congress, NASA, States, White House

Commercial crew impatience, policy deliberations, and a commercial “Thunder Bolt”

What does the NASA Advisory Council (NAC) have in common with Congress? They’re both growing impatient with NASA for details on the agency’s commercial crew plans. The NAC’s commercial space subcommittee “expressed dissatisfaction with some of the information they have received from NASA managers on the agency’s approach” for commercial crew, Aviation Week reported. The subcommittee wants a better strategy from the agency on how it would spent the $6 billion over five years proposed for commercial crew—assuming, of course, that Congress is willing to go along with that.

In an article in this week’s issue of The Space Review, I provide some more insights on the new national space policy from a couple of forums on the subject held in Washington late last month. That includes discussion of the meaning of some of the language in the policy (what does “responsible behavior” mean, for example?) and implications for international cooperation and arms control. The PolitiFact project, meanwhile, uses the policy to assess a couple of Obama campaign promises. The lack of reference to a new National Space Council in the policy is considered a “promise broken” by PolitiFact, since the Obama campaign’s space policy white paper explicitly called for it. It also rates the language on arms control a “compromise” over a proposal in the policy for a “code of conduct” in the white paper.

In an op-ed in the Las Cruces (N.M.) Sun-News, Rick Homans, executive director of the New Mexico Spaceport Authority, thanks members of the state’s Congressional delegation for their support of the Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research (CRuSR) program in authorization legislation. He particularly thanks Sen. Tom Udall and Rep. Ben Ray Lujan for proposing amendments to remove funding and other restrictions on CRuSR in the legislation. “As of this week, with the amended NASA plan moving through Congress, we’ve taken a ‘giant leap’ to setting a new direction for NASA and laying the foundation for the commercial spaceflight industry,” Homans writes.

And finally, from a column in the same newspaper from Pat Hynes, head of the New Mexico Space Grant Consortium, this observation: “I have fallen under the spell of the 2010 Space Policy Act. It’s the sector guidelines on page 10. That’s when the Thunder Bolt hit me.” She is referring to the new national space policy’s definition of commercial space activities, and the role the state and its new spaceport could play. “When Spaceport America is fully operational, we will be able to compete for government business and save the taxpayers money while creating a new commercial space industry. Let’s hope this means future jobs in the commercial space industry evolving in New Mexico. What’s not to love?”

77 comments to Commercial crew impatience, policy deliberations, and a commercial “Thunder Bolt”

  • Waste

    “We strongly feel that you need to go do this, because what we’re hearing from you is all over the map,” said Bret Alexander, who as chairman of the commercial space panel

    Strong comment coming from Bret Alexander, who is chairman of NAC and president of CSF.

    NASA seems extremely disorganized at the top level leadership right now. Still so many unknowns with the private-public relationship and how its going to work. I think this is why even the Senate says no to contracts in FY2011, not until you know details of how this is going to work.

    Is the full text available? Only judging off a small clip.

  • amightywind

    It is slowly being revealed that Obamaspace proponents are flying by the seat of their pants with regard to planning. Their credibility is shot. The following approximates the leadership reasoning: “Give us $6 billion, 5 years, no goals, and no oversight.” Isn’t it scary how close these lunatics came to muscling the tax payer to write the check?

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy

    Certainly with Orion, it appears that the budget was decided in a vacuum at the top (so to speak) and then NASA was told to go off and develop something. I refer to the infamous KSC speech where Orion was brought back as a “rescue” vehicle – NASA was told to build a rescue vehicle with a certain budget. But no one defined what a rescue vehicle was – we only knew how much it was supposed to cost!! Especially with the current (ever changing) budget proposal, the budgeting process was turned upside down. This guaranteed even more confusion and inefficiencies than normal. Probably commercial space has the same problems – vague direction, shifting priorities, uncertainty. Commercial operations depend on predictability to survive, and we don’t have that.

  • John Malkin

    Leadership stops dead with Congress. I would like to make two (actually more) amendments to the constitution requiring congress to deliver a balanced budged to the President before the end of the fiscal year and No continuing resolutions allowed. The budgeting process has been upside down for NASA before this Obama’s budget proposal. Congress knew Constellation had a budget problem, now they can try to blame it on Obama and claim they are “compromising”. What a joke. It’s the new style use the President as a scapegoat (Bush & Obama). What’s the saying about “honor among thieves”?

    The nice thing is government really can’t stop commercial or free enterprise in America, just slow it down. The new space entrepreneurs will go to space with or without NASA, it might take a little longer. Still I bet without a true new direction at NASA, NASA will not put a human in space with an American rocket before 2020. Any bets?

    I think in the end it will all work out and we will have several new spacecrafts by the end of the decade. I’m an eternal optimist. Can you tell?

  • Dennis Berube

    To bad that the now defunct Pan Am never developed that space plane that was shown in the movie 2001. Now that would have been a ticket to ride!

  • Dennis Berube

    Its now been stated, that with more funding Orion could be ready to fly in 3 years, matching what is promised by SpaceX. The new space race is on!

  • Major Tom

    “Its now been stated, that with more funding Orion could be ready to fly in 3 years”

    But there is no more funding. In fact, the House and Senate FY11 bills reduce the Orion/MPCV budget from the FY10 level.

    FWIW…

  • Ferris Valyn

    Its now been stated, that with more funding Orion could be ready to fly in 3 years, matching what is promised by SpaceX. The new space race is on!

    Great – let me know when it gets more funding.

    Also, its not Dragon vs Orion. Orion should be used for Deep spaceflight, and not for Earth to LEO taxis. The real race will be between the DreamChaser, the Dragon, and the CST-100.

    And really, if you are going to increase funding for Orion, why not increase funding for Commercial Crew?

  • A National Commercial Space Strategy as a document is needed.

    The various pieces are understood and appreciated generally. The CSIS report from last month spells out some of the longer term national security needs driving these investments. From that we can imply what specific parts of the commercial space industry need funding and when in the next decade.

    Lori Garver, or her staff, needs to set aside a weekend and write out the Commercial Policy/Strategy paper for the next decade at least. That strategy is already laid out in piecemeal just not collated for Congress.

  • Tom D

    A 10 year plan looks nice on paper, but it is not realistic (unless you compare it to Constellations 20 year timeline). NO government plan stays the same for 10 years unless it really is the lowest-energy, default thing to do (like keep flying the shuttle with your fingers crossed and hope for the best).

    Frankly, I thought the plan announced on February 1st by the Obama administration was fairly reasonable, though more radical than I expected. I didn’t expect Orion to get the axe, but I thought that might be a just ploy to start negotiations. Unfortunately, this administration and congress don’t seem to know how to negotiate compromises or even plan realistically.

    I expect things to improve with the next congress, but that is long time to wait for businesses reliant on NASA.

  • Mr. Mark

    Argue, argue, argue… I love to see disagreement. As congress continues to disagree on direction, It allows more time for commercial space to get in the game. In fact, if the next flight goes well, Spacex could be ready to deliver cargo to the ISS before this mess is resolved next year which, is just fine with me. I want NASA and congress to waste as much time as possible another year and Spacex and Orbital will have both Dragon and Cygnus flying. So please keep arguing as much as possible, it gives me hope for the future.

  • GaryChurch

    If the space station get’s zapped in the oncoming solar maximum and is abandoned, we won’t need SpaceX or Soyuz anymore, and there will be no tourist destination; Goodbye to the whole commercial space mess. I just hope there is some Heavy Lift Infrastructure left if and when it happens.

  • common sense

    @ GaryChurch wrote @ August 3rd, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    “If the space station get’s zapped in the oncoming solar maximum and is abandoned, we won’t need SpaceX or Soyuz anymore, and there will be no tourist destination; Goodbye to the whole commercial space mess. I just hope there is some Heavy Lift Infrastructure left if and when it happens.”

    You should be ashamed of yourself.

  • Bennett

    common sense wrote @ August 3rd, 2010 at 4:29 pm

    Don’t forget, this is the same troll that was wishing that Falcon 9 would have “blown up on the pad”. You expect shame?

  • common sense

    @ Bennett wrote @ August 3rd, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    Yes I expect shame. And even if I put aside his desire to see commercial endeavors fail, the loss of the ISS is not something to cheer about. Thousands of people, here and abroad, invested in this project and successfuly so: It is orbiting Earth with international crew, i.e. the main purpose of ISS has been achieved.

    Heavy lift nonsense and Constellation have achieved nothing to speak about, except maybe the LAS test.

    So there is shame in his words. Yes. Pathetic.

  • If the space station get’s zapped in the oncoming solar maximum and is abandoned, we won’t need SpaceX or Soyuz anymore, and there will be no tourist destination; Goodbye to the whole commercial space mess.

    This is stupid on two levels — first, there’s no reason to think that solar max will “zap” the ISS. Second, once SpaceX and others are flying passengers, Bigelow will launch his facilities, so there will be tourist destinations, with or without ISS. All he’s waiting for is the ability to get people to and from them.

    And the heavy-lift infrastructure can be created, at relatively low cost, whenever we decide we need it. Production capacity in Decatur can be upped considerably, and Super Delta or Atlas Phase 2 can use the existing crawler and roadway, because they won’t have the heavy SRBs to move. The Merlin 2 engine can be developed for only a billion or so and the BFR could also use pads 39.

    It’s only the expensive, Shuttle-based heavy lift that’s problematic.

  • Martijn Meijering

    It’s only the expensive, Shuttle-based heavy lift that’s problematic.

    An EELV Phase 2 based architecture that doesn’t use propellant transfer would be almost as bad because it would still not help development of cheap lift. And the possibility of EELV Phase 1 (and that includes Delta, not just Atlas) is much underemphasised. The choice isn’t between Phases 2 and 3 or Phase 3 and SDLV, but between current EELVs and Phase 1.

  • An EELV Phase 2 based architecture that doesn’t use propellant transfer would be almost as bad because it would still not help development of cheap lift.

    I’m not favoring EELV heavy, just pointing out that worries about losing “heavy-lift infrastructure” with regard to it are non worries. The only heavy-lift infrastructure that we might lose is Shuttle based, and losing that is a feature, not a bug, from a cost standpoint.

  • Martijn Meijering

    I know and I think you are performing a valuable service in the process, but I wouldn’t want anyone to come away with the impression that “even Rand Simberg thinks we’ll need EELV Phase 2+ and LC-39″, just as some have seized on Jeff Greason’s comments about the need for 7.5m fairings and 70mT launchers.

  • Bennett

    common sense wrote @ August 3rd, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    You and I see eye to eye on these things. I always enjoy your comments.

  • common sense

    @ Bennett wrote @ August 3rd, 2010 at 6:57 pm

    Thank you.

    It is becoming really annoying to read those knee-jerk comments. Too many people trying to oppose commercial to NASA HSF be it based on fantasy or other arguments. But mostly fantasy. Unbelievable that some people cannot see that it is commercial AND NASA, not OR NASA. I think that most commercial advocates will tell you that NASA does a great, sometime spectacular, job at most everything. However they will also tell you that NASA is no longer equiped to design/field new LVs/RVs. It is easy to see that Congress meddling in NASA HSF affairs certainly is one major reason. There is no easy fix but we will have to go through terrible changes if we want to see exploration going. And if the commercials are successful there will no longer be any Blue Ribbon anything. But we are a long way away. Yet so close…

  • Space Cadet

    “GaryChurch wrote @ August 3rd, 2010 at 4:11 pm
    If the space station get’s zapped in the oncoming solar maximum and is abandoned … .”

    Fortunately the ISS is in *low* Earth orbit.

  • GaryC

    “The Merlin 2 engine can be developed for only a billion or so and the BFR could also use pads 39.

    It’s only the expensive, Shuttle-based heavy lift that’s problematic.”

    Hypocrite.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    From AstonomyNowOnline:

    “Occasionally, geomagnetic storms can wipe out Earth-orbiting communication satellites and ground based power grids, but fortunately this storm is not likely to pose such a threat. The flare rated C3 on the solar flare classification scale, which is the weakest breed of flare; for comparison, M-class flares cause brief, localised radio blackouts while deadly X-class flares can trigger global disruption. “

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    And continuing on: what’s more likely to wipe out the ISS than a solar flare is a major failure such as the cooling loop pump currently being dealt with or something else like, oh, say malfunction with the Progress cargo vehicle that pushes the ISS into lower rather than higher orbit …

  • GaryChurch

    “There is no easy fix but we will have to go through terrible changes if we want to see exploration going.”

    Translation: butcher NASA and give the money to Musk.

  • wingman

    Who do not understand the commercial business at NASA? How understand it? Can Bret Alexander explain the business?
    Are there any information about the CCT RFI ? Who are the full service provider for crew transport? I don´t see any systems, only paper vehikels.
    What´s the goal – develop of systems or establish a new service. Of cource – both. In short term – you have no chance to reach it. There are many business risks in commercial crew transport – and NASA have to pay for it.

  • DCSCA

    Dennis Berube wrote @ August 3rd, 2010 at 1:23 pm
    Its now been stated, that with more funding Orion could be ready to fly in 3 years, matching what is promised by SpaceX. The new space race is on!

    That’s a bogus comparison, Dennis. And one commercial space would embrace since set-ups like SpaceX have never flown nobody in space. NASA has for nearly half a century.

  • DCSCA

    This is stupid on two levels — first, there’s no reason to think that solar max will “zap” the ISS. Second, once SpaceX and others are flying passengers, Bigelow will launch his facilities, so there will be tourist destinations, with or without ISS. All he’s waiting for is the ability to get people to and from them. <= Stop talking. Start flying.

  • DCSCA

    Lori Garver, or her staff, needs to set aside a weekend and write out the Commercial Policy/Strategy paper for the next decade at least. <- More likely, their resignations, effective immediately.

  • DCSCA

    @MrMark- “It allows more time for commercial space to get in the game. In fact, if the next flight goes well, Spacex could be ready to deliver cargo to the ISS before this mess is resolved next year which, is just fine with me. I want NASA and congress to waste as much time as possible another year and Spacex and Orbital will have both Dragon and Cygnus flying..”

    =yawn= Yadda, yadda, yadda. They’ve had three decades. See Conestoga 1 for details. Meanwhile, as Bud and Lou said:

    Costello: What makes a balloon go up?
    Abbott: Hot air.
    Costello: What’s holding you down?

    Another day is dawning bright, and still no Dragons in orbital flight.
    Stop talking. Start flying.

  • Dennis Berube

    I guess the concern over heavy lift, is what is cheaper, to lift every componant at one time or use several smaller rockets to achieve the same thing. How does that compare? I am certain that if the money is there, commercial could achieve everything NASA can. However, they still havent proven their moxie yet.

  • Ferris Valyn

    I guess the concern over heavy lift, is what is cheaper, to lift every componant at one time or use several smaller rockets to achieve the same thing. How does that compare? I am certain that if the money is there, commercial could achieve everything NASA can. However, they still havent proven their moxie yet.

    It depends on the rocket you use – if you are using Shuttle based systems, its cheaper to go heavy lift route, because the upfronts are so high, and the margin costs aren’t too great either.

    OTOH, if you have a more cost effective rocket, like the Atlas V, the Delta IV, the Falcon 9, or the Taurus 2, its cheaper to use multiple launches.

    And this isn’t a commercial vs NASA situation. This is NASA developing infrastructure that will have multiple users, including itself. rather than single vehicles only it will use.

  • Coastal Ron

    GaryChurch wrote @ August 4th, 2010 at 1:18 am

    Translation: butcher NASA and give the money to Musk.

    Let’s say that SpaceX got everything they wanted from NASA – what would that be dollar-wise?

    – $300M to give Falcon 9/Dragon a crew capability.
    – $20M/astronaut to deliver them to the ISS

    That’s it. NASA spent more on the Ares I-X dummy test. How is this going to “butcher” the $19B/year NASA budget.

    This would give the U.S. one complete crew transportation system. One is not enough for redundancy, and especially from one company, but you can see how inexpensive it would be to replace the Russian Soyuz.

    What is we gave ULA everything they wanted?

    – $1.3B to man-rate Delta IV Heavy
    – $300M/flight to launch Orion or any manned payload up to 50,000 lbs

    – $400M to man-rate Atlas V
    – $130M/flight to launch a commercial capsule like CST-100 (or Dragon)

    If NASA then gave Boeing a contract to build their CST-100, I would imagine they could do that for $2B (SpaceX did Dragon for less than $500M).

    Add all of these up, and spread them over a 3-5 year period, and it comes to $5B for building stuff. That is about the cost of what it would take to FINISH Orion. And you end up with THREE crew launch vehicles, and two crew capsules that can be used on any of the three launchers. Triple redundancy, and all for a relatively small NASA & National investment.

    The prices to get to the ISS would be $20M/seat for SpaceX, and for Boeing/ULA, I’m guessing that it could be about $25M/seat, and certainly less than the $56M/seat for Soyuz in 2015. Even if it matched Soyuz, it would still be good for the U.S. to keep the money here (tax revenue, jobs, etc.).

    Lastly, what commercial space supporters want is NASA to help with setting up the infrastructure for commercial crew, and then buy seats from them. This is no different than any government investment in new technology or new industries, and the U.S. benefits from the tax dollars of the new market.

    After the initial investment, the government does not need to keep spending money, like on the Shuttle, but only needs to buy passage (like on a commercial airline company).

    It’s an industry they are helping to create, not a program they are funding temporarily.

  • Don’t try to confuse abreakingwind with facts and logic.

  • GaryChurch

    “You should be ashamed of yourself.”

    Why? I said if. You have to make things up now?

  • Hugh Mann

    I don´t see any systems, only paper vehikels.

    The Falcon 9 and Dragon look pretty real to me. It’s already flown.

    Here’s how it works, buddy, you type some keywords into the search bar, and then you open your eyes, look at the screen, look at the pretty pictures and read the words. I can’t for the life of me believe that they would let someone as mentally challenged as you fly a plane for the US Air Force.

  • Jim

    ““Translation: butcher NASA and give the money to Musk.”’

    Where does it say that Musk gets all the money or that Spacex is the only game in town.

    You try to give people the benefit of a doubt but they keep posting asinine after asinine comment over and over.

  • DCSCA

    “…what commercial space supporters want is NASA to help with setting up the infrastructure for commercial crew, and then buy seats from them.” <–Which is not free market capitalism.

  • DCSCA

    Hugh Mann wrote @ August 4th, 2010 at 1:18 pm<– Since you bring up mentally challenged, hold up a mirror. Get this through your head: SpaceX has flown nobody in space. Nobody. They have flown no operational manned spacecraft. They have not launched, orbited, landed and recovered any operational Dragon spacecraft– or any living soul. Stop talking. Start flying.

  • DCSCA

    “After the initial investment, the government does not need to keep spending money, like on the Shuttle, but only needs to buy passage (like on a commercial airline company).” <– This is just absurd thinking for today's world and typical of 'government contractors' who crave the government via taxpayers (the many) to create a market for them (the few) when the private sector won't do it. The source for commercial space to seek financial backing is the private capital markets which fund private sector, free enterprise ventures. What CoastalSocialistRon is actually saying is wary investors in private capital markets have rejected commercial space in this era as too risky an investment with a limited market with minimal ROI for investors so they've balked at pouring billions into it. So he wants the United States taxpayer to accept the burden, socializing a risk the private sector calculates as unacceptable– with funding the U.S. gov't has to borrow from other nations.

    No. The private sector, not the government, is the place for commercial space to seek initial investment. If you can't sell it, tough. The government already operates a space agency.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ August 4th, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    Which is not free market capitalism

    Actually it is, and it’s how lots of industries in the U.S. are created. You are just ignorant of them (or just plain ignorant).

    Go ask your Representative or Senator how much money they have brought back to your district, and you might be surprised how much money goes into supporting new and existing businesses.

    You may not like it, but that’s how it works, and if a new industry can be created that ultimately saves NASA and us taxpayers money, then that is a good use of taxpayer money. It’s not personal, it’s business…

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ August 4th, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    The same could be said for any company before they actually do something. You were probably saying the same thing back in 2002 when SpaceX was created, and probably dissing them because they had never created a launcher before.

    Well now they have one operational launcher (Falcon 1), another one getting ready for it’s second test flight (Falcon 9), and their first capsule getting ready for it’s first test flight (Dragon).

    So while you incrementally keep moving the goal posts forward, they keep steadily making progress. When NASA looked at them for the COTS/CRS programs, they didn’t look at what they had already done as the prime criteria for selection, but what they were capable of. And so far they have been meeting their COTS milestones, with NASA oversight, and are are on a path to start the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) part of their contract by next year.

    Now you might want to be a serial-progression type person, but there are parallel efforts that can be taken to speed up development, and SpaceX (as well as Orbital, Boeing and others in the same category) have shown they have the technical ability to build working flight hardware. With NASA assistance, which being a government entity is supposed to help American companies, they can gain the additional knowledge and expertise it takes to safely transport crew.

    Regardless the path that NASA chooses, corporations will make money off of NASA’s programs and efforts. They question is what is the path that spends the least money on the routine stuff, and allows NASA to focus on the hard stuff, like going beyond LEO. Commercial crew is the least expensive path.

  • DCSCA

    Another day goes from dawn to dusk;
    And still no manned flights flown by Musk;
    The tick-tock moves; the months fly by;
    And still no Dragons cross our skies.

    Stop talking. Start flying.

  • DCSCA

    “Commercial crew is the least expensive path.” <- It's a follow-along, a historied path to no place, (see Conestoga 1) and has never led the way into space. And to assert otherwise is foolish at best. And a bogus position to assert as commercial space has not flown anybody in space. In the 80 year history of rocket development, governments, in various political guises, not commerical space ventures, have moved the technology forward and the human experience out into space. Private corporations have not (except in the movies, see the 1950 film, 'Destination Moon' for the business plan. You seem reticent to view it.) They've always been follow alongs, cashing in ('capitalizing,' as it were)where they could. Yes, the learning curve will be steep with this one.

  • Michael Kent

    DCSCA wrote:

    since set-ups like SpaceX have never flown nobody in space.

    Why the obsession with SpaceX? Why not ask the same question of Boeing?

    NASA has for nearly half a century

    Every astronaut NASA has launched into space flew there in a vehicle designed and built by Boeing.*

    The Mercury and Gemini capsules, the Apollo command and service modules, the Space Shuttle orbiters, the American pressurized modules of the ISS, and ISS’s truss segments were all designed and built** by Boeing. Boeing was also the prime contractor for both the Skylab and ISS space stations and the SpaceHab pressurized module for the Space Shuttle. They also designed and built the X-15 suborbital spaceplane.

    As for space operations, they perform all of the payload integration activities for the Space Shuttle, and they (through a 50-50 joint venture with Lockheed Martin) perform all of the maintenance and processing activities on the Space Shuttle stack.

    Not to mention designing, building, and launching the Delta family of launch vehicles.

    So why is it your complaints about commercial crew are directed at SpaceX? Do you not know that Boeing is also designing a commercial crew capsule?

    Mike

    * NASA astronauts have launched aboard Russian Soyuz vehicles, of course, but those launches were not performed by NASA.

    ** Almost. Alenia built Nodes 2 and 3 under a barter agreement between ESA and NASA, but they were based on the Node 1 design by Boeing.

  • Michael Kent

    DCSCA wrote:

    a follow-along, a historied path to no place, (see Conestoga 1) and has never led the way into space.

    And while I’m at it, why the obsession with Conestoga 1?

    It was the first commercially developed and launched launch vehicle, of course, but many more have followed.

    Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Orbital Sciences, and SpaceX have all performed orbital launches commercially aboard Delta, Sea Launch, Athena, Atlas, Pegasus, Taurus, and Falcon launch vehicles.

    Also, the Pegasus, Athena I, Athena II, Atlas III, Delta III, Delta IV Medium, Sea Launch, and Falcon 1 launch vehicles were all developed commercially. There were no government dollars involved in their development (beyond a few million for trade studies early in the EELV program for Delta IV*). In addition, the Taurus, Atlas V, and Falcon 9 vehicles were developed via a government / industry cost-sharing agreement.

    The whole comsat market — both LEO and GEO — is commercial, as-is the remote-sensing market.

    And let’s not forget the suborbital tourist market where Scaled Composites has already launched a man into space three times or the orbital manned space station market being targeted by Bigelow, who already has two prototypes on orbit.

    Your obsession with Conestoga 1, while fascinating, is nearly 30 years out of date.

    Mike

    *Boeing spent its $500 million USAF subsidy building Delta IV Heavy, while Lockheed spent theirs covering about 50% of the cost of Atlas V Medium. That’s one of the reasons why the Atlas V price is lower than the Delta IV price.

  • red

    “- $300M to give Falcon 9/Dragon a crew capability.

    – $1.3B to man-rate Delta IV Heavy
    – $300M/flight to launch Orion or any manned payload up to 50,000 lbs

    – $400M to man-rate Atlas V

    If NASA then gave Boeing a contract to build their CST-100, I would imagine they could do that for $2B (SpaceX did Dragon for less than $500M).”

    The Senate Appropriations report

    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_reports&docid=f:sr229.111.pdf

    seeks to fund an HLV with “an initial human capability by 2016″, and Orion which “shall be capable of being launched on the heavy lift launch vehicle and may also provide alternative access to low Earth orbit, including the International Space Station by fiscal year 2014″.

    The word “may” is pretty weak, but let’s suppose we should take the 2014 date seriously. Since the HLV isn’t expected until 2016, does the 2014 date give NASA an opening to fund human rating of, say, the Delta IV to meet the launcher part of the 2014 date? Is that the intent of the 2014 date? Could Delta IV human rating for carrying crewed Orion be funded within the Orion line? The Orion line starts with $1.1B in this report for FY2011, and there is a “strict cost cap of $5,500,000,000 through fiscal year 2017″. I doubt that cost cap or the schedule is reasonable for Orion, but let’s set that issue aside. After the Shuttle retires, budgets for other items would tend to go up, and Orion is no exception to that. If we took the $5.5B cost cap seriously, then, there could be room to fit the Delta IV human rating inside the Orion budget to try to meet the 2014 date.

  • Coastal Ron

    red wrote @ August 4th, 2010 at 11:21 pm

    If we took the $5.5B cost cap seriously, then, there could be room to fit the Delta IV human rating inside the Orion budget to try to meet the 2014 date.

    I guess it depends on how much it would cost to finish Orion. LM has said this:

    “If I were utterly unconstrained by funding requirements and asked to provide my best estimate of what would be a rational test program, it’s in the range of $4.5 billion to $5.5 billion,” Joanne Maguire, executive vice president of Denver-based Lockheed Martin Space Systems, said in a June 17 interview.

    One has to wonder what is taking so much money to finish off this thing. With all the mockups and alternate material versions they have already done (carbon fiber to test weight reduction possibilities), you would think that they could leave the structure as is. I mean, if it can handle anything close to Ares I, then it should have no problem with Delta IV Heavy. What costs $4.5B?

    They need to appoint some retired Navy or Air Force general that has run a successful development program (i.e. came in close to on-schedule), and give them the charter to restructure the requirements as needed to get a generation 1 product out the door quicker/cheaper, and create an upgrade path for later need/funds. LM has no incentives to reduce the cost past the budget amount, so someone needs to have a strong hand in NASA to do it.

    I personally don’t think Orion is needed yet. In fact, I think it will be superseded by a combination of LEO taxis (Dragon, CST-100, etc.) and purpose-built space only vehicles – think ISS modules like Node 1 or 2 with solar panels and maneuvering engines. However, if Congress in their infinite wisdom thinks we need it, and that gets us closer to commercial crew, then I’m OK with it. My $0.02

  • DCSCA

    I personally don’t think Orion is needed yet. <- It is.

  • DCSCA

    @Kent- You’ve made my point. Commericial space– Conestoga 1 and descendants there of– have never led the way into space. It has always been a follow along, cashing in where it could. The 80-plus year history of rocket development has shown that governments, in various political guises around the world with varying motivations, pushed the technology and led the way out into space. Commercial space has always been a follower, not a leader in this field. That’s the era we live in. Commercial space ventures are to be encouraged and financed in the private sector, but they will never lead the way out into space in this period of human history just as they haven’t since the technology was born. Perhaps 100-150 years from now, but not today. Given the largess of capital needed, the risks vs. return involved and limited market they want to service, commercial space is limited by the parameters of the very free market it wants to serve. That’s why governments do it.

  • red

    Coastal Ron, it’s worse than you think. That $4.5-5.5B LM quote is for the Orion-based crew return vehicle, which should be easier.

  • red

    DCSCA: “The 80-plus year history of rocket development has shown that governments, in various political guises around the world with varying motivations, pushed the technology and led the way out into space. Commercial space has always been a follower, not a leader in this field.”

    I think the commercial, FY2011, science, and other supporters are saying this is exactly what should happen. They want NASA to push the technology through the FY2011 Exploration Technology Demonstration and Development line, the Space Technology line, the Heavy Lift and Propulsion R&D line, the increased Human Research line, and so on. They want NASA to lead the way out into space by taking the results of the technology demonstrations to make an affordable NASA exploration program. And they want to follow the lead of NASA by solving NASA’s crew and cargo needs for LEO access and ISS transport, and also long term space station redundancy/specialization as well as suborbital access through NASA fixed priced-price purchases of development and transportation services rather than cost-plus purchases of development and transportation service hour-clocking. Either way it’s NASA buying services from private corporations, but the fixed-price, milestone-based approach is more appropriate for jobs that are well-understood because NASA has already blazed the trail, especially if there’s potential for non-NASA markets in those areas. This should solve NASA’s problem and allow it to have the funds to actually do technology development and exploration rather than being stuck only doing LEO access and ISS operations. If NASA is stuck servicing ISS with the SLS and Orion, it will not be able to do anything else substantial in HSF because those systems will be too expensive.

  • Dennis Berube

    DCSCA I love your poem!!!!!

  • Dennis Berube

    If Dragon can be built for 500 mil. how come NASA hasnt supported its design more? NASA is attempting to get a spacecraft built that can be used for deep space. Dragon does not fill that bill..

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ August 5th, 2010 at 8:38 am

    If Dragon can be built for 500 mil. how come NASA hasnt supported its design more?

    They did – they awarded them a $278M COTS contract, and a $1.6B CRS contract. Both of these rely on using their Dragon capsule.

    NASA is attempting to get a spacecraft built that can be used for deep space. Dragon does not fill that bill..

    No one, including SpaceX, has ever suggested this. Dragon was built as an LEO taxi.

    You really need to educate yourself before you write stuff like this…

  • Coastal Ron

    red wrote @ August 5th, 2010 at 6:45 am

    And they want to follow the lead of NASA by solving NASA’s crew and cargo needs for LEO access and ISS transport…”

    DCSCA should know this by now, but he tends to ignore it.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ August 5th, 2010 at 4:36 am

    I personally don’t think Orion is needed yet. <- It is.

    I look at from the same standpoint as HLV. Until we know what we need it for, we don’t know what the requirement are that it should be built to. Yes, some sort of vehicle is needed to take our astronauts beyond LEO, but is that the same vehicle that they ride to & from Earth? I doubt it.

    If the ISS has shown us anything, it’s that astronauts needs lots of room for work, sleep, exercise and just pure sanity (personal space). Orion does not provide that as an exploration vehicle.

    I could certainly see one solution that depends on fuel depots. With fuel not being a constraint, a space-only exploration vehicle could be constructed out of ISS technology like the Node 1/2/3 designs, airlocks, trusses, and solar panels. This design would not be weight optimized (hence the need for lots of fuel). Add onto that a LH2/LOX engine module/fuel tank, and you could maneuver around the Earth-Moon system pretty good. All you would need is to send tankers along with fuel and provisions, and you could stay out for a long time – without getting cabin fever. This would also be relatively cheap, since it uses known technology, and probably some existing designs.

    My $0.02

    I explained my reasoning. Did you want to explain why Orion is absolutely needed?

  • common sense

    Re: Orion as an Exploration vehicle

    First NASA is no longer looking at it as an exploration vehicle but rather an ISS taxi at best and possibly a CRV. This means that all cost and design will have to be yet again revisited to make it an exploration vehicle. Now. Going to the Moon? Maybe. Going to Mars in this thing? You gotta be kiding right? It’s a 1 year trip! Notwithstanding radiation, by the time thay make it near Mars the astronauts will be vegetable or worse. 1 frigging YEAR 1 way… So they will have a transfer stage and it will have to be big. If I remember correctly some NASA study showed a minimum crew of 6 is required for human factors on Mars.

  • I explained my reasoning. Did you want to explain why Orion is absolutely needed?

    Please don’t feed the troll.

  • Coastal Ron

    common sense wrote @ August 5th, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    First NASA is no longer looking at it as an exploration vehicle but rather an ISS taxi at best and possibly a CRV.

    That may be true, but I wouldn’t put it past some in Congress to morph it into some sort of exploration vehicle again. Lockheed Martin certainly wouldn’t turn down the work… ;-)

    If it were possible to ignore all the money we dumped into the Orion program so far, I think a far cheaper way for the U.S. Government to have guaranteed access to LEO could be accomplished the old fashioned way – mandate that every licensed crew carrier must provide on-demand crew services to the U.S. Government. Obvious stipulations would apply (only in time of need, adequate compensation required, etc.), but since the U.S. controls the launch licenses, it already controls access to space for cargo and crew.

    The nice way of doing this would be through a program similar to the Civil Reserve Air Fleet or Military Sealift Command.

    Of course Orion lives, so this is really wishful thinking, but as a taxpayer, I wouldn’t mind declaring the Orion program dead, writing off what we did as lessons learned, and creating an open competition for two or more LEO commercial crew systems.

    I would assume that capsules would dominate the winners, but I really like what Dream Chaser (and it’s ilk) can do, so I hope they can get some follow-on funding to get them to operational capability. In fact, vehicles like Dream Chaser are disruptive innovations that could cut short the reign of simple capsules like Dragon and CST-100. If I were Boeing, I would be looking at buying SpaceDev from it’s parent, and pursuing Dream Chaser – even if it took internal funds.

    Slow news days for this blog, so I thought I would offer up some thoughts…

  • That may be true, but I wouldn’t put it past some in Congress to morph it into some sort of exploration vehicle again.

    I thought that the Senate bill pretty much explicitly did that.

    If I were Boeing, I would be looking at buying SpaceDev from it’s parent, and pursuing Dream Chaser – even if it took internal funds.

    There’s nothing to keep Boeing from developing it themselves if they think it’s a good idea. They (legacy Rockwell) did the original work on it as the Personnel Launch System in the early nineties. SpaceDev actually hired (retired) Rockwell program manager Carl Ehrlich as a consultant to help them with it.

  • common sense

    @ Coastal Ron wrote @ August 5th, 2010 at 2:29 pm

    Oh I am sure we can change Orion’s requirements yet again. I was just saying that it is not currently being designed for BEO. Therefore the cost will be high to redesign. See the requirements for LEO are a lot less stringent than BEO. A BEO vehicle into a LEO one? Sure. Expensive but no particular problem. A LEO into a BEO? Well not really. The reenrty veloity from the Moon is a lot higher than from LEO for example. Implications on TPS, mass, avionics, to cite a few. There there is the whole vehicle life systems etc… Sure LMT might want the work. Who wouldn’t? But the cost to us the taxpayers? And you need an LV that fits the bill? And, and, and… Constellation’s issues are today in part at least due to those changing requirements, be it because of Ares, or ISS service or what-have-you.

    About Dreamchaser. I too would like to see something like it fly. But this concept has been around since the whatever russian vehicle it was inspired from. Neither the US nor Russia ever finished the work? Could it be it is very expensive? Then on an LV you most likely will have to put it inside a shroud of some sort (exposed TPS). Considering the size of Dreamchaser that may end up in a really bad LV configuration. All in all, it is difficult to do costwise if for no other reason. Impossible? Nope.

  • Coastal Ron

    common sense wrote @ August 5th, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    Then on an LV you most likely will have to put it inside a shroud of some sort (exposed TPS).

    I thought the major consideration was having wings at the front end of an accelerating rocket (i.e. a powered arrow with the feathers in front)? The artwork for Dream Chaser + Atlas V shows the vehicle sitting on top without a shroud, so that seems to be the concept they want to try first.

    I know Dream Chaser traces it’s legacy back to the HL-20 and that whole lifting body series. What I like about it is that it’s small enough to be simple, big enough to carry 7 people, and lands horizontally (reduces recovery and refit). For what we’re doing in space today, this size could have lots of uses.

    I don’t know how far they have progressed the design, but there sure were lots of testing done in the 60’s, and I would think the risk level for the program should be no more than moderate. In any case, I think it’s worth pursuing, and I hope NASA keeps funding it.

  • common sense

    @ Coastal Ron wrote @ August 5th, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    “The artwork for Dream Chaser + Atlas V shows the vehicle sitting on top without a shroud, so that seems to be the concept they want to try first.”

    I know and it is not going to “fly” with NASA if they cannot protect the TPS. Bird impact for example can ruin the day on ascent.

    “In any case, I think it’s worth pursuing, and I hope NASA keeps funding it.”

    I think the risk is higher than moderate but I also think NASA should be engaged in researching this kind of vehicles. During early CEV, at least after Griffin came on board, NASA opposed such vehicles. See capsules are “so much easier”… Anyway. NASA ought to field such real “advanced” prototypes. If we’re ever going to have a space infrastrucure to let us explore then such vehicles may be needed. Note however that a DC-X type vehicle may be more appropriate, especially for landing on Mars…

  • Coastal Ron

    common sense wrote @ August 5th, 2010 at 4:56 pm

    I think the risk is higher than moderate but I also think NASA should be engaged in researching this kind of vehicles.

    I think one of the lessons of the Shuttle was that it was really nice to land horizontally – it simplified your logistics. I think a smaller version like Dream Chaser has merit, so we’re in agreement.

    Note however that a DC-X type vehicle may be more appropriate, especially for landing on Mars…

    I think SSTO will work eventually, but just not on Earth. Mars could be the right combination of gravity and atmospheric density that let’s SSTO finally work. Who knows, maybe vertical landing (DC-X type) will finally work there too, but that thin air, which could make takeoffs easier, is going to make winged atmospheric entries & landings a real bitch. It’s always something… ;-)

  • Kelly Starks

    > Coastal Ron wrote @ August 5th, 2010 at 2:06 am

    >== it depends on how much it would cost to finish Orion. LM has said this:

    >> “If I were utterly unconstrained by funding requirements and
    >> asked to provide my best estimate of what would be a rational
    >> test program, it’s in the range of $4.5 billion to $5.5 billion,”
    >> Joanne Maguire, executive vice president of Denver-based
    >> Lockheed Martin Space Systems, said in a June 17 interview.”

    1 – they was for Orion life boat.

    http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100618-orion-lifeboat-cost.html

    And the next paragraph said:

    > Maguire said hitting that price range would require a “departure”
    > from the agency’s standard supervisory role. “We’re looking at,
    >and really making some suggestions to NASA about how they might
    > streamline this program,” she said. “Part of that is looking at the
    > real value-add of some of the oversight that they were anticipating
    > providing.”

    I.E. eliminating a lot of that bureaucratic bloat you dismiss.

  • common sense

    @ Coastal Ron wrote @ August 5th, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    If I am not mistaken BO and the Russians are looking at concepts to land powered like DC-X. So we’ll see about Earth maybe soonr rather than later.

    Wings on Mars, well, nah. I mention DC-X because f you can make this work it is applicable to a lot of different planetary entries. Rather than wings… Or wings alone.

  • Coastal Ron

    common sense wrote @ August 5th, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    If I am not mistaken BO and the Russians are looking at concepts to land powered like DC-X. So we’ll see about Earth maybe soonr rather than later.

    From a design standpoint, I have never had a lot of faith in the ability of DC-X type vehicles to overcome the physics of getting to space as an SSTO, much less carry enough fuel to land vertically. Maybe it works for a small payload, but the energy requirements seem to exceed the ability of the vehicles to carry them.

    For landing, what I’ve always liked about landing horizontally with wings is that it takes little fuel. With good energy management, all you need is power to operate the vehicle controls (ala the Shuttle). This seems so much more energy efficient than powered landings (on Earth anyways), and the fuel weight can be traded for payload. There is the trade-off in carrying your wings with you, but with vehicles like Dream Chaser (lifting bodies), that is kind of minimized.

    Extending this thought out a little bit more, I’ve always thought that one solution to sticking the Dream Chaser type vehicle on top of a launcher (wings in front stability issues), was to make the wings fold. We have lots of experience with aircraft that have folding wings (and take lots of abuse with carrier landings). Maybe the weight trade-off for SSTO would work if they could glide back? Of course computer correction of the flight surfaces may make this a moot point, and keep the whole thing simpler with non-folding wings.

  • common sense

    @ Coastal Ron wrote @ August 5th, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    “I’ve always thought that one solution to sticking the Dream Chaser type vehicle on top of a launcher (wings in front stability issues), was to make the wings fold. ”

    I believe the Russian RV that Dreamchaser (HL-20) was based upon had folding “wings/verticals”. You don’t need “wings” to glide back hence the name “lifting-body”. You do need stability though but it can be achieved to some extent without wings. Especially if you have thrusters…

    Heck I am gonna file a patent at this pace ;)

  • Coastal Ron

    common sense wrote @ August 5th, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    You don’t need “wings” to glide back hence the name “lifting-body”

    Yes, I guess that was my inaccurate way of describing the control surfaces…

    Heck I am gonna file a patent at this pace

    In that case, I’m glad we had this discussion.

  • common sense

    @ Coastal Ron wrote @ August 5th, 2010 at 6:56 pm

    NASA and contractors overlooked concepts that were “better” than the capsule design for CEV, especially in light of the land landing requirements. Abort might have been an issue: Think of the LMT concept for Phase 1, this thing would most likely never have aborted, successfully. But it did not have wings… The reason was they offered was that they did not know how to do them, or too difficult, or something like that. Too bad. The new/young engineers I am sure would have loved to work on something more exotic than a capsule. At the very least they could have said so during the Augustine Committee review that they were pushing the technology and they would have gained support from more people. They did not.

    C’est la vie, right?

  • DCSCA

    Coastal Socialist Ron wrote @ August 5th, 2010 at 1:03 pm A GP spacecraft is the next logical step out toward the moon and Orion is key element of that program. Perhaps you don’t see it; that’s where the manned space program is heading again, and having a spacecraft in the pipeline to replace shuttle is a sound idea. Orion, a HLV, eventually a lander and long stay lunar facility. That’s the nammed space program for the next 50 years. And that certainly won’t led by commercial space.

  • DCSCA

    First NASA is no longer looking at it as an exploration vehicle but rather an ISS taxi at best and possibly a CRV <- Dont be so myopic. That 'mission' can change with the stroke of a pen, the change of an administration or an event beyond national boundaries.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ August 8th, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    A GP spacecraft is the next logical step out toward the moon and Orion is key element of that program. Perhaps you don’t see it

    I don’t, because you still haven’t answered the question.

    Why is a 4-6 person capsule crucial to exploration?

    A capsule is certainly not going to the be the optimum place for astronauts to spend their time when in space, because it’s too cramped.

    A capsule is one of the forms of transportation to get astronauts to & from the Earth, but why do you need to drag it around in space with you? Why can’t you just rendezvous with your crew return vehicle (CRV) when you get back from your mission in space? We haven’t hauled capsules around in space with us since the 70’s, so why should we be going back to that?

  • common sense

    @ DCSCA wrote @ August 8th, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    “Dont be so myopic. That ‘mission’ can change with the stroke of a pen, the change of an administration or an event beyond national boundaries.”

    Did I say it cannot change? I am arguing the cost of changing.

  • common sense

    Coastal Ron wrote @ August 9th, 2010 at 1:10 am

    “Why is a 4-6 person capsule crucial to exploration?”

    4-6 person is due to human factors. There are some papers by NASA, I believe AIAA that show why.

    “A capsule is certainly not going to the be the optimum place for astronauts to spend their time when in space, because it’s too cramped.”

    I agree. And they ended up with a gigantic Orion that goes opposite the purpose of a capsule: Small, cheap, easy.

    “A capsule is one of the forms of transportation to get astronauts to & from the Earth, but why do you need to drag it around in space with you? ”

    Lack of imagination and/or budget.

    “Why can’t you just rendezvous with your crew return vehicle (CRV) when you get back from your mission in space?”

    See above.

    “We haven’t hauled capsules around in space with us since the 70′s, so why should we be going back to that?”

    See above and cost/know-how.

Leave a Reply to Dennis Berube Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>