Congress, NASA

Garver: “a lessening of tensions” in the NASA budget debate

In a luncheon speech Tuesday at the AIAA Space 2010 conference in Anaheim, California, NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver sounded an optimistic and even a bit of a conciliatory note about the ongoing debate in Congress about the future direction of the space agency. “All four bills, I believe, do acknowledge that there are things in our budget proposal that are important to do,” she said, mentioning the extension of the ISS and increased funding for Earth sciences as two examples of items supported in House and Senate versions of NASA authorization and appropriations legislation. However, she added, “we clearly still have priorities like fully funding the commercial crew element of the budget, like fully funding our technology portion of the budget.” Those elements, she said, were essential to a sustainable, affordable program.

One additional area of concern she mentioned that has not gotten as much publicity is funding the transition and closeout of the Constellation program. The budget proposal includes $2.5 billion over two years for that, but Garver noted that no funding for that is included in any of the current Congressional legislation. “Just because you don’t have that in the budget doesn’t mean we’re not going to have to spend that money,” she warned. “Those dollars will have to be embedded in some of the other programs if it is not singled out in a line item.”

On heavy-lift, she said that NASA was “working with Congress to get a broader, deeper understanding” on how to go forward on this. She suggested that the agency didn’t feel it should be restricted on the design of an HLV by language such as that in the report accompanying the Senate’s authorization bill, which mandates a specific shuttle-derived approach. “We don’t feel that the best way to make those technical decisions is at the level of political leadership” but instead where the technical expertise resides at NASA and in industry. Political leadership, she said, can instead drive the “figures of merit” for such a system, such as affordability.

She also said that the debate does not appear to be as fierce now as it was earlier this year. “There is a lessening of tensions in Washington,” she said, noting that “we really don’t feel that we are now questioning each other’s intentions.” While unsure about when a compromise might be reached, she said she was confident “there will be a program coming together”. One positive aspect of the debate, she noted, was the debate was about not about how much to spend on NASA: “I don’t believe I heard a speech about cutting the $19 billion” overall NASA budget proposal for FY2011.

202 comments to Garver: “a lessening of tensions” in the NASA budget debate

  • pdxMike

    Congress did not arrive at the decision to move forward with a SDHLV in a vacuum. They utilized the testimony, analysis and data from a variety of experts in the field to reach their conclusions.

    Hopefully the days of closed door decision making of a limited group of NASA leaders are over. We need to allow for the intelligent input and analysis from engineers and experts both within and outside NASA that fit with reality. Like it or not a SDHLV fits with our current reality no matter how you slice it.

  • John G

    I’m really sorry McCain didn’t win the presidential election. Then we would still have had Constellation running. Now we have had 2 years with nothing. No plans. No nothing. Just hanging 400 kilometers up in the sky. Spending money blowing soap bubbles (to quote Mr Oler). I know that the definition of space is 80 kilometers, but I that altitude does not impress much. We need to go somewhere – to a real world – The Moon or Mars. Let´s dump the ISS into the Pacific.

  • Christopher Howard

    ISS is the most important asset we have. More partner nations should be brought on board, then the ISS partners should focus on building research stations all over the Inner Solar System, starting with a Lunar Base, using commercially available hardware.

  • The Senate made it pretty clear that they don’t want to throw away what NASA has learned from the shuttle era nor do they want to completely throw away the billions already invested in the Constellation program. So a heavy lift vehicle that utilizes shuttle and Constellation technologies makes perfect sense.

    Obama needs to show some serious interest in the space program in order to make a deal with a Democrat dominated House and Senate. But so far it appears that the President could care less! And that’s a huge political mistake on his part, IMO.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Just a few observations that Ms. Garver seems to be ignoring.

    Tensions have “lessoned” because it’s the August recess and most members are out of Washington. A lot of the Democrats are busily trying not to be swept away in the coming tsunami. Tensions? I’ll be Suzanne Kosmas is feeling that very keenly.

    It is the expectation of Congress that since a lot of Constellation hardware is being used, the closeout costs will not be necessary.

    Finally, neither is anyone talking about raising NASA spending.

  • Finally, neither is anyone talking about raising NASA spending.

    You write like you expected them to.

    That isn’t going to happen Mr. Whittington and most certainly not going to happen with your anticipated GOPer Congress hoping to get elected on the “fiscal responsibility” platform.

    Ain’t gonna happen.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Garver can be gracious she (and the Administration) have won.

    By the end of next year NASA will be forever changed, one of the few agencies (so far) that the Administration has been able to change for the better.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    John G wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 11:41 am

    “I’m really sorry McCain didn’t win the presidential election. Then we would still have had Constellation running.”

    As The Duke would say “not likely”.

    McCain’s space policy was never completely done. His campaign became chaotic trying to find a general strategery that would work with McCain’s pandering to the nutty right of the party and trying to get the non left wing nut vote.

    Sadly they never resolved that crisis and Sarah Palin managed to spin up the right wing but alienate the middle.

    It is unlikely however that NASA would not have changed as the folks who were working on McCain’s space policy, such as it was, were quite convinced that Cx was “underperforming”.

    My view of a McCain administration is that sadly it would have been as chaotic as the campaign was. McCain’s inability to come to grips and manage the various forces in his party (and his campaign) are indicative of how the actual administration would have floundered.

    I say this as a person who supported McCain heavily in both 00 and 08…in 08 I was a “gold” member of the campaign, meaning I had managed to raise a substantial amount of money for it. And someone who publically was supporting Palin for VP as far back as the FL primary.

    How she was “managed” and managed herself doomed the campaign..

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    pdxMike wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 11:40 am

    “Congress did not arrive at the decision to move forward with a SDHLV in a vacuum.”

    in fact they didnt make any decision to move forward with an SDHLV.

    Robert G. Oler

  • MrEarl

    Aaahhh….. the political spinning troll has joined in. (looking at you oler)

    BTW, where has Charlie been lately?

  • Robert G. Oler

    This is the salient feature of the SDHLV debate:

    “On heavy-lift, she said that NASA was “working with Congress to get a broader, deeper understanding” on how to go forward on this. She suggested that the agency didn’t feel it should be restricted on the design of an HLV by language such as that in the report accompanying the Senate’s authorization bill, which mandates a specific shuttle-derived approach.”

    end of shuttle derived vehicles.

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    Posting the running commentary of the trivial statements of Lori Garver is really not adding much to the space politics discussion. Not when successful Ares tests and other significant events to the political discourse go ignored. Of course she is trying to be conciliatory. What choice does she have? Her Muskspace power play fell flat. She is not likely to remain in the NASA leadership much longer. Who would trust her, or Bolden to implement a redirected program after the damage they have caused?

    I echo John G.’s comments about McCain. The Obama years will be 4 years lost to human spaceflight, and much else.

  • MrEarl

    It’s splitting hairs but it could also be interpreted that NASA will follow the report baring modification by congress.
    The mood of congress also has to be considered and I don’t see any indications that they are willing to budge on the matter of Shuttle Derived.

    So Charlie, who’s running the show here, you are Garver?

  • amightywind

    So Charlie, who’s running the show here, you are Garver?

    Garver has always had her arm up Bolden’s backside making his mouth work.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    “So Charlie, who’s running the show here, you are Garver?” aside from not understanding how Congress works…”you are Garver?”:

    Look I have trouble with your, you’re, to, too and some other things but zounds…are or or or maybe ore!

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    John G wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 11:41 am

    I would note one more thing on this topic.

    The 100 billion dollar question (or maybe 200 billion dollar question) is could new really new, completely outside of NASA new leadership fixed Constellation and made it affordable…and as a lever for that “fixed” NASA HSF.

    By “fixed” I mean made to perform on a budget, with tight time schedules so that it accomplishes something of some value in a Presidential term or two.

    What most of the Constellation huggers on this forum dont understand is that what dooms Constellation and lunar exploration in general is that in all scenarios NOTHING flies much less goes to the Moon in one or even two presidential terms. If you figure that Constellation might have gotten back to the Moon on its current “schedule” (and that is a kind word) we are talking landings over 15 years from now.

    Cx is essentially an open ended commitment to go back to the Moon at NASA’s schedule and timetable…spanning multiple Presidential terms and Congresses. Go back and Look at JFK’s planning for Apollo…the question was what can be done or nearly done in his theoretical two terms.

    If Cx was to be fixed (along with NASA HSF) it had to be fixed in such a manner that on the same (or maybe less) dollars it had significant accomplishments in under (for the 08 President) two terms.

    NASA management particularly at JSC has grown accustomed to decades long efforts which are entitlements…since money is tight and unlike say Medicare the money fits the need, the entitlement at NASA was always time. A slip this year or that year really didnt matter after all these projects are now “generational”.

    Where Goldin finally made the show work at NASA is that under Clinton (and particularly Gore) he got marching orders to get the space station in space in a fixed time frame…and he was pretty merciless in parring down the station design to what he thought could be done. NASA to this day floundered on a propulsion module (the last count I had was that they had spent over 1 billion dollars on it) and Goldin’s answer was to fly Russian.

    The stupids in the Cx office at JSC finally figured this out as the program evaporated…go read Hanley’s last couple of tries at memos and now he is all up for test flights…

    It is fairly clear that the answer now at least is that NASA HSF cant for any reasonable amount of money (they have spent 10 billion so far) get something in operation. Why commercial resupply is such a threat to the agency is that it is being done for dollars that simply would buy nothing at NASA in terms of flight hardware..

    An unknown is could a new person at JSC, a new really new program manager have changed that culture? My guess is no…its just going to have to die…but that is the question.

    Robert G. Oler

  • John G

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    One must ask why we have a HSF program at all at NASA. The purpose can’t be to hang in LEO just 400 kilometers and spend billions of dollars every year doing experiments that could be performed to a fragment of the cost on earth. The real purpose has to be to spread humanity beyond our planet. To explore other worlds. The problem know with Obamaspace is that we lack such a plan. It’s Sad. And if we agree that NASA is unable (regardless which administration that is running) to take us beyond LEO, then the best thing is to close down NASA asap.

  • amightywind

    What most of the Constellation huggers on this forum dont understand is that what dooms Constellation and lunar exploration in general is that in all scenarios NOTHING flies much less goes to the Moon in one or even two presidential terms.

    The lesson to learn from the last year and a half is that it is not enough to execute a viable program. You must ‘salt the fields’ of your adversaries when you have the chance. I thought that the main irritant for Constellation was the Direct folks. They just weren’t going away. Who would have thought that they’d end up being allies in the fight for traditional NASA! The main adversaries of the solid, long range HSF program are Newspace and their plants within NASA, climate science, and the ISS. Although a GOP congress will quell the insurrection, they will still be present to mar the program. They must be strangled aggressively through the budget process.

  • John G

    Christopher Howard wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 12:03 pm
    “ISS is the most important asset we have.”

    The fact that ISS is the most important asset is exactly the saddest thing about the last decades of HSF. We haven’t taking any expanding steps out in our solar system neighborhood after we abandoned The Moon. Hanging 400 kilometers up in the sky on a space station is not worth the risk our astronauts are taking. The casualties from the two shuttle accidents have been a totally waste. If at least our lost astronauts would have been giving their lives for breaking new ground and expanding the human frontier – it would have been more honorable for them. Now their death is just a big waste and disaster.

  • Ron Smith

    “She suggested that the agency didn’t feel it should be restricted on the design of an HLV by language such as that in the report accompanying the Senate’s authorization bill, which mandates a specific shuttle-derived approach.””

    So she is advocating violating the law… as such should be ousted.

  • Matt Wiser

    So Garver and Co. are admitting they lost. Their original FY 11 Budget proposal-and the amended version proposed by POTUS on 15 Apr has been rejected. While there is some commercial crew funding, it’s not what they originally wanted; Not to mention a full-up Orion instead of a CRV, heavy-lift development beginning ASAP, not waiting until 2015, and specifically including the moon as a destination in the Senate Bill. ObamaSpace is dead, Oler and co. Get over it. Remember that all politics involves compromise, and the “our way or the highway” isn’t going to cut it. The pro-Constellation people get to see some of their work make it to orbit (Orion and probably some of the HLV work), the more established firms get the Commercial Crew (sorry, Lord Musk), and everyone will be happy to some degree. Except the Luddite crowd…..

  • Robert G. Oler

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    “So Garver and Co. are admitting they lost. ”

    no

    Robert G. Oler

  • John G

    Mr Wiser – you really hit the bull’s eye!

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ron Smith wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    “She suggested that the agency didn’t feel it should be restricted on the design of an HLV by language such as that in the report accompanying the Senate’s authorization bill, which mandates a specific shuttle-derived approach.””

    “So she is advocating violating the law… as such should be ousted.”

    no the problem is that you dont understand what is “law” and what is not. The Bill can become a law, the report accompanying it is just so much potential land fill or recycleable product or anything but law.

    Try some basic civics courses.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    John G wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    “One must ask why we have a HSF program at all at NASA.”

    that is the essence of the dividing line between the folks who favor the new pathway and the folks (and I assume you) who like the old.

    What does a HSF program at NASA do. In the world of most of the Cx supporters (and I think it is fair to say you) the notion of NASA HSF is to simply go off and either explore places in space or to have programs which at some point claim that they are going to do that.

    What does a HSF program at NASA do. In my world and the world of most of the folks who want a new pathway (OK let me just speak for my world) human exploration of places in space is not all that important or urgent and instead of having a program which does that or worse a program which claims at some point it is going to do that…we have a technology effort that empowers the free enterprise system.

    That is a valid debate and it is the essence of the two paths. I would suggest that we have tried the “explore worlds’ theory for the last 50 years and even given it a good go (in terms of money ) since Bush the last VSE speech and gotten little to show for it, so it is time to try something else.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mark R. Whittington

    It is wonderful to see Oler crow about Lori Garver’s famous victory, albeit of the pyrric sort. A few more of those and they will be in real trouble.

    Sad, though, that he seems to have turned on his hero, John McCain, though.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 2:22 pm

    ObamaSpace is dead

    Since the proposed NASA budget (I guess that is ObamaSpace) was focused on technology and not destinations, whereas the previous NASA budget was being sucked up little by little by Constellation, you kind of have to view the House/Senate versions as something of neither, but some of both.

    One thing that is clear is that Constellation is dead, but that pieces and parts of the technology are still living in the House/Senate bills. The Moon though, as a destination, is off the table for now. Score one for ObamaSpace.

    Commercial crew is also not funded as NASA wanted, but it is still there, and COTS/CRS is still funded, which is the stalking horse for commercial-anything. I’d call this a 1/2 point for both sides, but whereas there was nothing, now there is something for commercial crew.

    What really dies is the exploration programs, which is a travesty for everyone. Where is the robotic precursor missions for the Moon that were in the original VSE? Eaten by Constellation, and ignored by the current congressional focus on building a launcher without a payload. ObamaSpace tried, but Congress looks like they are killing it. Score one for them, but we all lose.

  • Major Tom

    “So she is advocating violating the law… as such should be ousted.”

    No bill has been signed into law. There is no law to violate. (Duh…)

    And report language is not bill langauge. Only bill language becomes law. Report language can be ignored or implemented as an administration sees fit.

    If the Senate was serious about a Shuttle-derived HLV (instead of just looking like they’re preserving the Shuttle workforce), they would have put it in bill language. They didn’t.

    FWIW…

  • Ferris Valyn

    pdxMike – an EELV based HLV fits our current reality much better, than an SDLV.

    John G – Actually, Obama’s proposal includes a plan for spreading humanity to the stars. Constellation would never have provided it.

    Matt Wiser – the moon was never NOT part of the plan. Please stop claiming that as fact

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy

    A few thoughts here…

    Lori has evidently learned the limitations of her office in the NASA Hq building, and has learned that federal agencies had better stay closely aligned with what the Congress (especially the Senate) will support. Federal agencies (generally) are like large ships at sea – they change direction slowly. We will probably not see NASA attempt to make any sudden changes in the time that the Obama Administration has left.

    People should understand that we are doing essential development work on ISS that CANNOT be done on the ground. Closed loop environmental systems work differently in micro-gravity as we are finding out. We cannot establish even a Moon base right now since we would have to spend every flight just sending up water and air. When we can reliably recycle those – we can start to get away from our fragile logistics supply infrastructure. Our oxygen generation system and water recovery system are unreliable right now and we have to figure out how to make them reliable.

    As a supporter of John McCain – in the alternate universe where John was elected President, America is a happier place. John is an indifferent campaigner but is a great negotiator and bargain maker. He would not have alienated the American people with blunders like the stimulus and medical care takeover. He would have enthusiastically supported the Surge which is allowing us to withdraw from Iraq with some shreds of our dignity intact.

  • ChefCindy

    Garver’s, and by extension, Obama’s, willingness to scrap everything NASA has done in the last 5 years and start all over make me wonder who she is really in bed with. No scientist who has the best interest of America’s Space Program in mind would be so willing and wasteful to throw it all away.

  • David C

    Foist
    PLEASE PROOF READ YOUR POSTS!!
    Secund
    The Senate Bill has only passed the Senate, and the House Authorization Act has NOT been approved; for the PAST 4 WEEKS the HOUSE AND THE SENATE committees have been in conference to reach A COMPROMISE WORDING!! for the Congressional NASA Budget for 2011-2013 years;
    Turd
    WHEN and ONLY WHEN that wording of the compromise Bill is Passed by the WHOLE Congress, and on the Presidents desk SIGNED, does Ms Garver have to toe the line; until then she can say whatever she bl__dy well wants that supports her viewpoints, within POLITICAL reason (ie. it doesn’t cause the President any embarrassment)

    So in other words, most of you have just annoyed some electrons out of their paths for no good reason;

    Cheers

  • Aggelos

    “The Moon though, as a destination, is off the table for now. Score one for ObamaSpace.”

    moon landing by nasa yes.

    moon orbit surely not..
    there is no way to go manned to Neos without first orbit the moon..

    its crazy..

    for the moon landing some nation have to build the lander ,companies like bigelow the habitats etc..

  • Coastal Ron

    John G wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 2:01 pm

    The real purpose has to be to spread humanity beyond our planet. To explore other worlds. The problem know with Obamaspace is that we lack such a plan.

    And 30 years of Shuttle were what? Did Shuttle take us beyond LEO? Before Columbia forced the re-evaluation of our goals in space, was there any great cry about “lack of plan”?

    Constellation was a plan to the Moon, and when it was announced, it sounded interesting, but I was not enthused (Griffin’s “Apollo on steroids” comment did not help). But that’s OK, I don’t have to be enthused about anything my tax dollars go to. But as time went on Constellation became a financial nightmare, and then suddenly people start popping up and claiming we need to keep it because “it was a plan”. Stupid.

    All “ObamaSpace” does is reset things to before the Bush VSE, so it’s a reset of 6 years of Constellation. If Griffin would have done his job and picked a decent technology plan, the accomplishments would have made canceling impossible. So it’s Griffin’s fault that Congress so easily said “you betcha” to canceling it.

    Many of us agreed with the NASA plan to focus on the technology side because Constellation got so much technology wrong (over budget, over schedule, etc.). Why repeat a failed program?

    We can also put 2+2 together and see that once you have the technology worked out, that missions become cheaper and have quicker results. You and others can’t see that, and that’s OK, but you have to realize that this is the way the space program has been run for a long time (i.e. not exploring other worlds), and Obama is really no different that Bush 41 or even Reagan in that regard.

  • Ferris Valyn

    CharlesTheSpaceGuy – well, we are all entitled to our alternative histories, but that reads more like fantasy.

    ChefCindy – There are 14 Nobel winnings scientists who disagree with you, as well as countless other scientists who disagree with you. As for “scrapping everything NASA’s done for 5 years” – Griffin was going to scrap a $100 Billion space station, as well as not utilize existing launchers that we’ve spent a lot of money on. Finally, given how far Constellation has gone over budget, and destroyed various other improtant programs, I for one don’t see the real benefit in keeping a failed program

  • Coastal Ron

    ChefCindy wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    make me wonder who she is really in bed with.

    Not ATK. Which by inference means that Griffin was in bed with ATK. Ooo, that’s an image I don’t want… ;-)

    No scientist who has the best interest of America’s Space Program in mind would be so willing and wasteful to throw it all away.

    Ask those scientists how their programs were fairing next to Constellation. How many science programs did Constellation absorb in order for the non-science contractors to keep working on Ares I and Orion? Constellation was contractor heaven (lots of money for change orders), and scientist hell (programs de-funded and redirected).

  • Ferris Valyn

    Not ATK. Which by inference means that Griffin was in bed with ATK. Ooo, that’s an image I don’t want… ;-)

    You owe me a large bottle of brain bleach

  • John Malkin

    I don’t know of any international involvement in Constellation development unlike the Augustine Committee which had input from several of our International partners. They also heard from a few Congressional members that bothered to participate instead of bashing the report months later.

    Also the Augustine Committee supported an SD-HLV or as they said a more closely derived vehicle than Ares V but still the issues was cost which hasn’t been resolved, really. It would be stupid not to include HSF on HLV since we don’t have any other payloads.. Unless they want to dismantle COTS Cargo, I’m sure that will be cost effective (sarcastic).

    I’m sure all the technology demonstrators will be eaten by any SD-HLV development in the next two years and I bet there will be no HLV even in the next 10 years if we follow that course. COTS Cargo is necessary because that HLV won’t be ready anyway. Anyone want to bet?

  • John G

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 2:34 pm

    “so it is time to try something else”

    The problem with “something else” is that Elon Musk and Co will never take us to The Moon or Mars as there is no market for it (who will pay them?). The government (read NASA) has to take the first steps and build the first infrastructure – and then the commercial alternatives will come after. We should leave something behind us for the next generation, and the generations after that, for them to build on to the next genration and so on…
    I am a fan of market economy, but when it comes to certain infrastructure investments – such as the establishment and development of the US highways and space infrastructure – I believe that the government has to take the first steps.

  • Ron Smith

    “no the problem is that you dont understand what is “law” and what is not. The Bill can become a law, the report accompanying it is just so much potential land fill or recycleable product or anything but law.

    Try some basic civics courses.

    Robert G. Ole”

    MR Ole, the language if passed mandates that NASA create a HLV using Constellation and Shuttle infrastructure “to the maximum” Garver is advocating not using any of it. So she is talking about violating a law from the outset if passed.

    I am sick of your EELV Mafia bs.

  • Ferris Valyn

    MR Ole, the language if passed mandates that NASA create a HLV using Constellation and Shuttle infrastructure “to the maximum” Garver is advocating not using any of it. So she is talking about violating a law from the outset if passed.

    It says to the maximum extent practicable. In this case, not much is really practicable given the budget limitations.

    You can bitch all you want about the “EELV mafia”, but EELV/Commercial Rockets are much cheaper than SDLV, any day of the week

  • DCSCA

    ““we clearly still have priorities like fully funding the commercial crew element of the budget..,” It is NOT the responsibility- nor the PRIORITY of a Federal official to ‘fund’ private enterprised space ventures- especially those which have yet to prove themselves with successful manned flights. Nor do it with borrowed funds from foreign sources amidst massive deficits. For God’s sake, Lori, even NASA had to demonstrate it could get Shepard up and down safely before JFK committed to the moon and began funnelling billions into the space effort. Garver’s kind of parasitic mind set is more befitting a lobbiest than an associate administrator of NASA. And then this mind set: “Just because you don’t have that in the budget doesn’t mean we’re not going to have to spend that money,” she warned…”

    Fire her. Now.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ron Smith wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 3:23 pm

    “, the language if passed mandates that NASA create a HLV using Constellation and Shuttle infrastructure”

    whats the exact wording “as much as practical” or some weasel room like that.

    Garver is correct (and has doubtless run this by the various legal smithers) assuming the Senate Bill becomes law as written nothing in it binds the development of an HLV to use shuttle stuff….

    Delta IV super heavy is coming

    Robert G. Oler

  • Egad

    > Our oxygen generation system and water recovery system are unreliable right now and we have to figure out how to make them reliable.

    That would certainly be a good use of ISS. Are there programs/budgets in place either in the US or elsewhere (like Russia) to do that?

  • John Malkin

    POR + SD-HLV Now + ISS Extension means at lest 4 to 5 Billion over the current budget Presidential budget proposal, correct? Where’s the money?

  • DCSCA

    ChefCindy wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 2:58 pm <— She's a lobbyist by history and never met an aerospace contract she didnt like- and not really an advocate for space exploration. Nature abhors a vaccum and over the years, minimal leadership has allowed a lot of weak managers to seep into NASA and rise to Peter Principled levels of responsibility- Griffin and Garver are just two examples. Strong leadership, or at least a sustained and supported, definitive direction for NASA, has to come from the White House and unfortunately that's been lacking for years. In fact, the only 'occupant' of the WH that actually had some interest in space exploration was Former first Lady Hillary Clinton.

  • John Malkin

    DCSCA wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    “WH that actually had some interest in space exploration was Former first Lady Hillary Clinton.”

    Interest is nice but how about some action.

  • DCSCA

    @John G wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 3:18 pm <- Well said. "The problem with “something else” is that Elon Musk and Co will never take us to The Moon or Mars as there is no market for it (who will pay them?)." Golly, geewhiz, but Elon's press releases have promised us Mars someday— when do ya think he'll actually FLY somebody… Musk is trying to market space services like a movie. Run appealing 'trailers' and sucker folks to plop down cash before actually seeing the finished product. And after you do, and you're disappointed in the film, you can't get your money back.

  • libs0n

    Oler,

    The Senate bill does mandate a SDHLV, by fixing the requirements around the specific layout and capabilities of a particular SDHLV design, excluding competitive HLV candidates of different layouts and capabilities. Please see my analysis here:

    http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=28782#comment-156157

    The wording you have latched onto is actually about the most practical SDHLV design, more Ares V lite like or more Direct. That is the level of wiggle room that exists within the bill for the administration to determine. The weasel words apply to the most practical design of meeting the mandated SDHLV shaped requirements, and not the shaping of those requirements to a non-SDHLV design. The idea that there is space for the admin to determine a more practical heavy lift design that is not within the confines of a SDHLV is a ruse, and you have fallen for this ruse.

    The intent of the people behind the Senate bill was to mandate a SDHLV. They are not interested in making it convenient for a non-SDHLV to appear. They seek to tie the hands of the administration. They are not playing to lose. They want to force in an inline SDHLV vehicle.

    Again, the intent of the people behind the bill is to mandate a SDHLV. Not to live and act according to what you or I perceive as rational policy, or to give room for a more-rational non-SDHLV to maneuver.

  • DCSCA

    John Malkin wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 3:40 pm – She got President Clinton to the Cape for a launch. It’s more than Reagan, Bush1, Bush2 ever did. Obama has less interest in space exploration than his predecessor. It’s just wasn’t really a part of his life.

  • John Malkin

    DCSCA wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 3:43 pm

    “Musk is trying to market space services like a movie. Run appealing ‘trailers’ and sucker folks to plop down cash before actually seeing the finished product. And after you do, and you’re disappointed in the film, you can’t get your money back.”

    Sounds like NASA. They have some great movies over 30 minutes long on Constellation. They are so beautiful but not one piece of the hardware is complete, not one. Maybe Mr. Musk should hire NASA for his marketing.

  • Ferris Valyn

    John G

    The problem with “something else” is that Elon Musk and Co will never take us to The Moon or Mars as there is no market for it (who will pay them?). The government (read NASA) has to take the first steps and build the first infrastructure – and then the commercial alternatives will come after. We should leave something behind us for the next generation, and the generations after that, for them to build on to the next genration and so on…
    I am a fan of market economy, but when it comes to certain infrastructure investments – such as the establishment and development of the US highways and space infrastructure – I believe that the government has to take the first steps.

    Ok, I agree that Commercial space will not take us to the moon or mars at this point, but so what? Why can’t NASA use them to get to LEO, and then do the stuff beyond LEO? Why must it have its own Earth to LEO access independent of anyone else?

    In regards to earth to LEO transport, the government HAS built the infrastructure – its the launch pads & ranges, its the technology related to rocket building, its ISS – why do they need to provide that.

    Now, going beyond LEO, that doesn’t exist, but then, AFAIK, no one who is a commercial supporter is saying that Commercial is going to provide everything.

  • DCSCA

    John Malkin wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 3:48 pm “Sounds like NASA”– Get your ears cleaned. NASA has been lofting crews for half a century. Musk has flown nobody. Frankly, the smartest thing Musk can do is loft somebody (Bowersox) like NASA did w/Shepard to at least prove he can fly someone and get them back alive, even suborbitally, before any government subsidies or loan guarantees are put on the table. Even NASA had to demonstrate manned flight before it was funnelled funding and committed to the moon.

  • Coastal Ron

    John G wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    The problem with “something else” is that Elon Musk and Co will never take us to The Moon or Mars as there is no market for it (who will pay them?).

    I think you’re listening to rhetoric and not to what is actually proposed. Commercial cargo & crew is defined as taking over routine tasks from NASA – that is not exploration, and it’s not meant to be. The U.S. Government has always been the leader in pure research funding, and that’s what space & exploration falls under.

    What is the purpose of COTS/CRS? To save NASA money, which with a flat yearly budget, gives them more money for exploration. The same would be true for commercial crew, in that NASA would pay less overall than if they had to do the taxi service themselves.

    This is already easy to see by just looking at Ares I vs Delta IV Heavy:

    Ares I is estimated to cost $28-40B to develop, and cost NASA $1B/year to operate, PLUS at least $138-178M per flight (marginal cost – estimates vary). That means they have to average 6 or more flights per year (every year) to average $300M/flight.

    But Ares I duplicates the Delta IV Heavy, which is not man-rated. But ULA has stated they could man-rate it for $1.3B, and then would charge $300M/flight. Oh, and NASA does not have to pay ULA anything if they don’t fly.

    So you tell me, which one looks like the better deal for the U.S. Taxpayer, and which one would give NASA more money to do exploration?

  • John Malkin

    I don’t care if the President is interested in space. What does that matter for any political office? Look at the makeup of the congressional committees, does it follow personal interest or political interest?

    At the end of the day it’s the bills the President signs into law that matter and define his Presidency. Congress hasn’t presented him with anything to sign. Congress could have threw out his proposed budget but they didn’t because the knew it had a lot of merit.

  • Robert G. Oler

    libs0n wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 3:46 pm

    nope…Garver is correct and you are wrong.

    I dont give a darn what the “intent” was, they are like the “signing statments” that Bush once did, they are meaningless.

    meaningless in so many ways, not the least of which is that a year from now there wont be any shuttle infrastructure to derive a vehicle from.

    keep your eye on the ball.

    Robert G. oler

  • libs0n

    Oler,

    Let me put it this way. The people behind the Senate bill are intimately familiar with their preferred vehicle concept. They were thus able to tailor the bill to mandate that particular iteration, and still have it fly under your radar, because you are not as intimately familiar with that vehicle concept to discern the nuance.

    It’s in the arbitrary requirements.

  • Robert G. Oler

    John G wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    “The problem with “something else” is that Elon Musk and Co will never take us to The Moon or Mars as there is no market for it (who will pay them?).”

    to which I reply two things.

    First I really dont care that we (the US or humanity or whatever) goes to the Moon or Mars or an asteroid in the next 10-20 years. I dont think that there is any need to send people we have good robotics which can do the job at far lower cost.

    Second when it is time to go, it will be time because commercial vehicles used for other things can be modified to do deep space…and that should be done as an effort far different then going to the Moon was.

    But one more time, there is no real need for humans to go to the Moon or NE objects are do anything else outside of GEO.

    Robert G. Oler

  • John Malkin

    NASA has the Shuttle program running very smooth after two big disasters. How long did it take them to develop STS (NASA + Contractors)? How does STS compare to Constellation to date? BTW I think NASA is a great organization. I think bang for buck it’s the best value in the Government.

    I have very good hygiene and my eyes are clear and nose/ears are clean.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    “It is wonderful to see Oler crow about Lori Garver’s famous victory, albeit of the pyrric sort. A few more of those and they will be in real trouble.”

    keep saying that, my side is winning and your side is losing. The Death panels are meeting for Cx.

    “Sad, though, that he seems to have turned on his hero, John McCain, though.”

    McCain left me. I was dissapointed in his campaign for POTUS; the trick for him was to separate himself from the failed administration of Bush the last and McCain was unable to. I was pro picking Palin from the FL Primary on…and no one, least of all me, could have envision that she would turn out to not only go “rogue” and lose the middle of America (particularly white women) but would be so well “ill informed”.

    It might be OK to you that she couldnt name the magazines she reads or has no concept of the failed Bush doctrine or a lot of things, but a person who becomes the nominee of the party should work hard to learn those things…and from all accounts including from my good friend (who you have met) she was lazy in terms of learning things. Nothing she has done since has reversed that viewpoint.

    The hill for a GOP candidate to climb in 08 was so steep thanks to Bush the last that McCain losing didnt upset me all that much, what did was the last month of his campaign when he allowed Palin to go rogue and talk about things like “domestic terrorist” flame words which are the staple of the nutty Bush wing of the party, but have no place in American diaglouge.

    Her performance since then has been nothing short of childish. I know you like her and that speaks volumes toward where you are in life, but some of the missives she has written, particularly about Iran and American power (particularly sea power) in the next 10 years are frankly scarry. She has the money to hire some talent who could help her deal with issues she is above her head on…and it is scarry that she is still speaking from crib notes on her hand.

    As for McCain…since losing the Presidency and starting his run for the Senate he has been well a man who put his own future above that of the nation. His obvious shifts on the difficult issues of illegals in The Republic are near frightening…and he has yet to explain why he thinks we should stay in Afland losing and spending what we are doing.

    I actually think that his losing the Presidency was a good thing for him…and sadly we probably missed the best candidate of all, Mrs. Clinton…because BHO is not doing all that bang up a job.

    However, BHO space policy is no different from what you, I and Rich Kolker set forward in The Weekly Standard piece…and hence it deserves support. You may find goofiness in the Chinese and a lot of other notes…but in the end at one point you did endorse the program.

    It is not I who have left solid footing, it is you.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    libs0n wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    Oler,

    Let me put it this way. The people behind the Senate bill are intimately familiar with their preferred vehicle concept. ..

    I am sure they are. Garver is correct, and you are wrong.

    Watch how events unfold. You will find a SDV HLV doesnt happen…

    Robert G. oler

  • DCSCA

    John Malkin wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 4:03 pm “I don’t care if the President is interested in space.” <– Space advocates do and history shows interest from high places doesn't hurt.

  • DCSCA

    “Garver is correct…” Time for prescription goggles, Waldo. Garver hasn’t been ‘correct’ since she made the decision to leave the NSS.

  • amightywind

    McCain left me.

    Sarah Palin ‘had me at hello.’ One must give McCain credit for shaking up the campaign if only for a few weeks. Nothing could have saved him from the perfect financial storm of 2008. But, my goodness, has Sarah gone supercritical since then!

  • DCSCA

    amightywind wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 4:43 pm
    McCain left me.Sarah Palin ‘had me at hello.’ One must give McCain credit for shaking up the campaign if only for a few weeks. Nothing could have saved him from the perfect financial storm of 2008. But, my goodness, has Sarah gone supercritical since then! <- off topic. Windy, why don't you vacation w/the Great Waldo Oler.

  • John Malkin

    Of course it doesn’t hurt IF he is willing to put political capital behind his interest. I think history shows that government will follow the political river but my point is Congress makes the bills and passes them to the President. Republicans don’t care for the most part the President’s position but I don’t think this debate is really Democrat v. Republican. I don’t see the votes that support this view.

  • D. Messier

    McCain wins…Palin a hearbeat away….

    Chest muscle tightening…chills running…head exploding….

    AHHHHHH!!

  • Byeman

    “The real purpose has to be to spread humanity beyond our planet. ”

    That is not the task of NASA nor the US Gov’t.

  • Robert G. Oler

    D. Messier wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 5:58 pm

    McCain wins…Palin a hearbeat away….

    Chest muscle tightening…chills running…head exploding….
    AHHHHHH!!..

    I voted for McCain but as my better half will tell you I sort of started to fade in activity on the campaign about four weeks before the election.

    There are (or were) two Sarah Palin’s. The first was the one who was almost an unknown Gov in the pre 2008 era. That Palin is or was VP material. She needed some “grooming” and a lot of hard work…but she could have, at least in my view (and that comes from watching almost every interview she had given and reading a lot on her) made the leap to VP.

    Then there was the one that grew to reality from the announcement to about three weeks later. That one and that is the Palin that exist today is scary.

    I know for a FACT that the briefing book she got before the (sorry brain fart here…the ABC anchor before Diane? ) that interview contained a question “Describe the bush doctrine and how it fits in the post Iraq world and the McCain administration”.

    That question was gamed out by the campaign and in fact her. There was a two page (number 12 type) briefing page on the doctrine, how the McCain foreign policy folks thought it “faded into history” and Steve Schmidt and a good friend of mine lead the team which did “question prep”…and she got in front of the camera and bang she didnt have a fracken clue.

    Palin started hearing the roar of the crowds with the red meat toss lines…and never quite figured out that it was those people who were going to vote for McCain/Palin anyway…and as those crowds got louder she got more petulant (I am told) in terms of trying to learn things. I’ve seen nothing since the campaign that says she has worked hard at trying to take her “gut feelings” about things and marry them with some “real politik” instead there are those “we need to be strong” answers that just are indications of not wanting to do the hard things.

    Anyway…as it stands now the Dems could put up anyone and if Palin was the GOP nominee…I would vote Democratic. Times and people change and she has some time to figure it out…but right now she scares me more then bush the last and that is saying something.

    Robert G. Oler

  • “First I really dont care that we (the US or humanity or whatever) goes to the Moon or Mars or an asteroid in the next 10-20 years. I dont think that there is any need to send people we have good robotics which can do the job at far lower cost.

    Second when it is time to go, it will be time because commercial vehicles used for other things can be modified to do deep space…and that should be done as an effort far different then going to the Moon was.

    But one more time, there is no real need for humans to go to the Moon or NE objects are do anything else outside of GEO.

    Robert G. Oler”

    First off all, a lot of us do care about humans traveling a settling worlds beyond the sphere of our planet of evolutionary origin! If we are to avoid human extinction through thermonuclear war or an extraterrestrial impact or some biological weapon, we need to start expanding the human presence beyond the Earth to the Moon and Mars, and eventually manufacturing our own artificial worlds with asteroid materials.

    Secondly, there’s titanic money to be made by having humans live on the Moon and perhaps even Mars. Tourism on Earth is a 900 billion dollar a year industry. Space tourism also has the potential to be a multi-billion dollar a year industry. So the sooner we have self sustaining outpost on the Moon, the sooner private industry can start making money sending wealthy tourist and lunar lotto winners there.

    Third, its a lot cheaper to transport rocket fuel and satellites to geosynchronous and even to Earth orbit from the Moon than from the Earth’s surface. The delta v requirements from Earth to GEO are about 14 km/s. But from the Moon to GEO requires only 3.9 km/s of delta v. The satellite industry is already at the core of a hundred billion dollar a year telecommunications industry. Space solar power satellites could make satellites part of a multi-trillion dollar a year energy industry. If space based solar power satellites could eventually be partially or totally manufactured and launched from the lunar surface, then the Moon could end up being one of the most valuable pieces of real estate in the new human universe.

    So yes, we need to establish a permanent human presence on the Moon, as soon as possible, unless its the long term goal of this country to outsource even more American jobs to foreign countries in the future!

  • A-String

    “What most of the Constellation huggers on this forum dont understand is that what dooms Constellation and lunar exploration in general is that in all scenarios NOTHING flies much less goes to the Moon in one or even two presidential terms”

    What dooms us at the moment is that there is not and has not been a goal, an objective, or an incremental plan to reach it.

    Constellation forgot about the goals of the Vision in favor of trying to re-establish Apollo but no one ever explained why; the ‘huggers’ were all of the opinion that it was simply because going to the moon (someday) would be wondrous and exciting (as opposed to only going around the earth where life is dull). They forgot that Apollo went to the moon and most Americans found that dull beyond the first landing.

    If the goal is to establish a ‘permanent base’, or an outpost, then someone needs to define an implementable and affordable plan to do this. Even then, the question of ‘why’ has to be answered.

    Constellation’s costs and schedules were both non-starters and to continue to proceed in this way is just a waste. NASA needs to take a close look at why Constellation could not meet reasonable costs and schedules. I believe it has a lot to do with the flawed management process and people.

  • vuture4b

    Dan Golden intimidated staff, Sean O’Keefe eliminated the RLV program, Mike Griffin scrapped the Shuttle and tried to kill the ISS as soon as it was finished, and spent $10B on a program that went nowhere, Charley Bolden is genuinely a nice guy but he pantomined Russian roulette while talking about the Shuttle to KSC employees and claimed the Orion would carry seven. Lori Garver. hasn’t said or done anything stupid. She understands the business, has strategic vision, organizational skill and good judgement, and she treats people with respect. Her statement about the HLV was on target; forcing NASA to use SRBs, which are extremely expensive to process, when the Shuttle itself has been cancelled is absurd and just the product of the many campaign contributions of ATK. In my view she is better qualified to lead the agency than any of the previous four administrators. I do fault Obama for instead choosing Bolden and then not giving him full authority; that was unfair. If he was going to listen to Garver instead he should have put her in charge.

  • Lori’s trying to tell Congress it’s time for NASA to evolve, that can be tough on folks who don’t believe in evolution.

    $10B has been spent on Constellation already and it’s only proven it cannot meet it’s initial launch requirements. At what point does one stop?

    Wish I knew what the four bills are that she refers to. I’ve identified three spending proposal, the White House, the Senate, and the House.

  • DCSCA

    “Lori’s trying to tell Congress it’s time for NASA to evolve, that can be tough on folks who don’t believe in evolution.” <– Rubbish. She has zero credibility and competence in that arena. "Lori" never met an aerospace contract she didn't like or pursue. During her tenure at the NSS in the 80's she had a grand chance to push administrations and NASA to 'evolve' and press on to the moon but chose to champion the construction of the ISS and its cornucopia of aerospace contracts. She's nothing more than a lobbyist and bad for both NASA and for the future of space exploration. The quicker she is hired off by a contractor or lands a spot on K Street, the better.

  • DCSCA

    ^ … so is the rest of it.

  • DCSCA

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 7:33 pm <- Relax. The Great Waldo Oler is a creature of the air. Of antique biplanes, of Wrong Way Corrigan, DC-3's, B-17's and the NACA. His imagination ceilings out near the top of the sphere of gases which envelop our planet.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 8:55 pm

    …this from someone that uses “Destination Moon” as his justification why Musk will never succeed, and is still bitter from his failed Conestoga I investment.

    Those in glass spacecrafts shouldn’t throw orbital debris…

  • Lori’s term at the NSS was during the L5 fraction’s rule.. why would she be interested in NASA going back to the Moon? In fact, why are you? I don’t understand what people think is going to be achieved by NASA trying to repeat ISS on the lunar surface.

  • Ferris Valyn

    sftommy –

    Here are the 4 bills

    1. house authorization
    2. senate authorization
    3. house appropriation
    4. senate appropriation

  • Matt Wiser

    For John Malkin and those wondering why government should have its own access to LEO: There’s several good reasons: First, there’s the concern (expressed by a number of Congresscritters in both Houses) that Commercial providers may not live up to their promises. Second, there’s the possiblity of events on earth-a labor dispute (strike or lockout), for example, keeping the commercial service on the ground. Third-an accident forcing a stand-down while investigations are conducted and safety reviews are carried out. And finally, while some may discount this, but it’s been expressed by some Congresscritters, plain old national pride.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 9:47 pm

    all those are make up reasons they have zero validity

    I’ll just demolish one

    “Third-an accident forcing a stand-down while investigations are conducted and safety reviews are carried out”

    there will be multiple providers using completely different technology. NASA has already proved as it lost two shuttles that the station can survive a standdown.

    If these are the best reasons given, they are no reasons at all.

    Its like “we should build a SDV HL so that we can then build a solar powered satellite demonstrator that cost about 5 billion for 1.5 KW”

    goofy

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Socialist Ron wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 9:08 pm <- You are the only person who has actually posted the phrase "Musk will never succeed…" This writer has not. However, his credibility will be greatly enhanced when he actually gets a crew up and down safely. Even NASA had to demonstrate it could get Shepard up and down safely before JFK committed the nation to Apollo, the moon and the necessary funding. Until the Musketeers get someone up, around and down safely, loan guarantees and government subsidies must be kept off the table. As to Conestoga 1, perhaps you lost on that commercial venture nearly 30 years ago, this writer had nothing to do with it. But you'd do well to watch Destination Moon. It actually has a fairly good business plan.

  • Bennett

    Its like “we should build a SDV HL so that we can then build a solar powered satellite demonstrator that cost about 5 billion for 1.5 KW”

    I know that it has been pointed out before, but the money proposed for this project is to develop and demonstrate the technology, not for the amount of power generated by the demonstration unit.

    In this case, it’s seems you’ve become the flip side of what you purport to dislike, gross misrepresentation of fact.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bennett wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    I wrote:
    Its like “we should build a SDV HL so that we can then build a solar powered satellite demonstrator that cost about 5 billion for 1.5 KW”

    You replied.
    I know that it has been pointed out before, but the money proposed for this project is to develop and demonstrate the technology, not for the amount of power generated by the demonstration unit.

    and my reply is…it has been pointed out before that the money proposed for the project is to demonstrate the technology but the sad thing is (as I pointed out before) that it doesnt do anything (or demonstrate anything) of any value anywhere near the cost.

    It is just an attempt to find Make work for a booster that has none…there are others. Over at NASAspaceflight.com some of the JSC illuminatee are now discussing launches of multiple space probes on a SDV.

    goofy
    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 10:22 pm

    You are the only person who has actually posted the phrase “Musk will never succeed…”

    Nope. Confused as usual.

    his credibility will be greatly enhanced when he actually gets a crew up and down safely

    True, but far before that he will have already tipped the scales when they successfully conclude the COTS program. That’s when you’ll hear the phrase “crew-capable Dragon” used a lot, since all it will need is seats in order to act as an ISS lifeboat (down only).

    Even NASA had to demonstrate it could get Shepard up and down safely before JFK committed the nation to Apollo,…

    As usual, you draw the wrong conclusions from historical events. Any hesitation would have been because it was unknown if he U.S. could launch & recovery a human successfully. Now that we’ve been doing it for 50 years, the knowledge is available across the aerospace industry.

    Also well known is the fact that any government contract would have government oversight, so that would not be a revelation to anyone who is “in the know” (i.e. SpaceX, Boeing, Space Dev, etc.).

    Until the Musketeers get someone up, around and down safely, loan guarantees and government subsidies must be kept off the table.

    Luckily clueless people like you don’t get a say in things, but just so you know, SpaceX would not be looking for any loan guarantees or subsidies – they are looking for a COTS-like contract for crew, just like ULA and Boeing (and many others no doubt).

    As far as the up, around and down safely part, their current COTS contract takes care of the vast majority of that. Only crew launch facilities and an LAS would need to be added. Like it or not, NASA is already paying for SpaceX to certify a crew-capable capsule.

    But you’d do well to watch Destination Moon. It actually has a fairly good business plan.

    Maybe that was the problem with Conestoga I – they used that business plan… ;-)

  • Mike Snyder

    Oler, I see you are responsible for many of the posts here. I see you have a lot of words, again, without saying anything of merrit and absolutely zero validation to your statements. Yawn….

  • Ferris Valyn

    Sorry matt, but as Robert rightly pointed out, all of those are bullcrap reasons

    First, there’s the concern (expressed by a number of Congresscritters in both Houses) that Commercial providers may not live up to their promises.

    Are you honestly expecting me to believe that Boeing Aerospace, who effectively built all of the US human spacecrafts, and the US part of ISS, cannot deliver what is effectively a working Gemini within 3-5 years? Are you honestly telling me you don’t think ULA, which currently launches all national security satellites for the US, can’t manrate its launcher? I mean, I am sorry, but if you really don’t trust them, why do you trust Lockmart, who has NEVER delivered a working human spacecraft?

    Second, there’s the possiblity of events on earth-a labor dispute (strike or lockout), for example, keeping the commercial service on the ground.

    And thats why you have more than one provider. Commercial Crew was looking at least 3 providers, with a possibility of 4. Further, if you don’t think thats not an issue currently, then I suggest we look at how many Unions are involved in NASA & its contractors already.

    Third-an accident forcing a stand-down while investigations are conducted and safety reviews are carried out.

    See previous answer

    but it’s been expressed by some Congresscritters, plain old national pride.

    Well, if thats the case, then why not have a national airline? That would serve national pride. Or more money for the arts – that could serve national pride.

  • DCSCA

    Nope. Confused as usual.Uh, no CoastalSocialiatRon… ” You are the only person who has actually posted the phrase “Musk will never succeed…”” Go back and read it. But you go on believing otherwise or do a few mea culpas. Always amusing.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 1:09 am

    Ah, childish humor that does nothing to advance your side of the debate.

    Yes I wrote this about you:

    …this from someone that uses “Destination Moon” as his justification why Musk will never succeed, and is still bitter from his failed Conestoga I investment.

    Next you’ll point out that I use the letter “i” a lot. Weird.

  • Frediiiie

    I find these debates interesting. It’s like debating the results of a slow motion car wreck. “No I think the volkswagen will wind up over there to the left of the letterbox.”
    Interesting, but pointless.
    Sure, this is a slow motion thing. It started some time ago when the Augustine panel was appointed. It will end maybe next year some time when Constellation is gone. Shuttle is gone and something, anything, is put in their place.
    But several things are certain.
    1/ Shuttle will be gone
    2/ Commercial cargo to ISS will be in place.
    3/ All crew to ISS will be on Soyuz.
    4/ NASA HLV (whatever it is, if anything) will still be years away.
    5/ With Dragon flying cargo to ISS, with Cygnus flying cargo to ISS. With CST-100 from Boeing coming down the pike the pressure to go with commercial crew will be irresistable.
    It doesn’t matter which way the debate goes now. the magnitude of the insults and the heat of the flames are beside the point.
    Commercial cargo will be in place because there is nothing else.
    With commercial capsules flying

  • Frediiiie

    With commercial capsules flying both crew and cargo the game, has then, changed.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 9:47 pm

    First, there’s the concern (expressed by a number of Congresscritters in both Houses) that Commercial providers may not live up to their promises.

    Unlike Ares I? The model that most people would like is the COTS one, where the risk is shared, and NASA provides oversight. The NASA FY11 budget talked about low & high risk participants, and certainly more than two.

    Second, there’s the possiblity of events on earth-a labor dispute (strike or lockout), for example, keeping the commercial service on the ground.

    If this were a serious concern, then there are analogies used today that they could employ such as the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) or Military Sealift Command (MSC) for crew and cargo. Or some special act that the SecDef or President can invoke.

    Besides, NASA is not immune to labor disputes either. The USA Shuttle contractor had members go on strike in 2009. Last I heard, SpaceX was not unionized yet…

    Third-an accident forcing a stand-down while investigations are conducted and safety reviews are carried out.

    Ares I is susceptible to this, and SLS, just like Shuttle was. If commercial crew is implemented with three or more participants (and two being low risk), then that solves the problem better than what NASA could do. Between Boeing, ULA and SpaceX, they could provide two capsules and three launchers for about $4B and have them all ready within 4.5 years.

    And finally, while some may discount this, but it’s been expressed by some Congresscritters, plain old national pride.

    I guess the big “Made In America” stickers on the side of Delta IV, Atlas V and Falcon 9 aren’t good enough? How many of them refuse to fly on a Boeing airliner or Sikorsky helicopter? This too shall pass.

  • Rhyolite

    “The real purpose has to be to spread humanity beyond our planet. ”

    Constellation was going to have a $200 billion dollar up front cost spread out over twenty years before the first lunar mission, then $10 to $15 billion per year to launch two or three missions per year with four astronauts each. The recurring cost for constellation would have amounted to around $1 billion dollars per astronaut sent to the moon. Just how much spreading beyond the planet were we going to be able to do at $1 billion per astronaut? Why would you want to be locked into that cost basis for the next generation?

    If you really want to spread humanity beyond then scrap the HSF program altogether and put the money into lowering the cost of space access. There are a lot of innovative ideas that could be tried out for $200 billion. Don’t bother to talk about HSF again until cost come down by at least an order of magnitude if not two orders of magnitude.

    If you can’t stomach scraping HSF and putting the money into lower the cost of space access, then at least put in place competitive mechanisms that might drive down costs over time and allow gradual technology insertion. Of course, someone already proposed that.

  • Rhyolite

    Frediiiie wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 2:24 am has it about right, though I don’t put too much stock in the CST-100.

  • Matt Wiser

    I’m not saying those are valid reasons, but those are the ones most frequently spoken during Congressional Hearings. And the opinions of Congresscritters are the ones that matter, as they hold the purse strings.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    I’m afraid that Matt has a point. There are many reasons that a logical, reasonable and make engineering sense. Then there are politicians whose decision making seems to be based largely on whose lobbyists buy them the best lunches. The bizzarro-world contributions to this issue, especially from the House, suggest that reality is not a factor that has been allowed to greatly influence policy on this matter. If they get something right, it will be by accident.

  • DCSCA

    Frediiiie wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 2:27 am
    “With commercial capsules flying both crew and cargo the game, has then, changed.” <– Except, Freddiiie, they've not flown any crews and the Soviets began lofting Progress cargocraft in 1978. now if you want to applaud commercial space when they finally 'follow-along' as usual, and accomplish what the 'socialist' Soviets did 32-plus years ago, by all means clap.

  • DCSCA

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 9:47 pm <- Well said.

    Oler pretty much invalidated commentary on manned space by his own words as posted above on this thread: "First I really dont care that we (the US or humanity or whatever) goes to the Moon or Mars or an asteroid in the next 10-20 years. I dont think that there is any need to send people we have good robotics which can do the job at far lower cost." <-Fine. You're a robot guy. Poor judgment, but thank you for playing.

    "Second when it is time to go, it will be time because commercial vehicles used for other things can be modified to do deep space… and that should be done as an effort far different then going to the Moon was." Poor judgment again (–the aeroplane thing). Of course, history has demonstrated otherwise in that over the 80-plus year development of rocket technology and the half century of manned spaceflight, commercial has never led the way in space exploration, but always been a follow along, cashing in where it could. Chris Kraft's op-ed pretty much sums up how it will be done in this period of human history– whether it's American led remains uncertain:

    "[R]egular and extended moon missions, utilizing the spacecraft designed for Mars missions, will be necessary to confirm the readiness of spacecraft, astronauts and flight procedures for future Mars missions. In fact, several dress-rehearsal-type missions, simulating a multiyear Mars mission, within the relative safe-return distance between the Earth and the moon, would be vital before attempting to risk the unforgiving demands of sending a manned spacecraft more than 100 million miles to Mars."

    And then there's Oler's odd support for McCain, the 'Republican' who can hardly be seen as a valid champion for 'private enterprised' space ventures. Aside from a few months as a PR guy for his wife's firm between government gigs, he has never held a private sector job in his life. Not even a paper route as a kid. Government checks all his professional life. Poor judgment again, all 'round.

  • Frediiiie wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 2:24 am

    That is the most realistic assessment I have read on this thread yet.

    I kind of have to agree with Rhyolite’s opinion about the CST-100 and I have to throw the Dragon into that mix as well, even though it should have some flight heritage by then. (2010-2015). But I think Dragon and CST-100 will be flying crew by 2016-2017.

    The weight of history favors US commercial cargo and crew to LEO completely by 2017. I have my doubts about NASA SD-HLV by then though.

    Recent history doesn’t favor that trend.

  • Dennis Berube

    One more point as to why our government should have its own space program for getting astronauts into space. Lets not forget the military end of it. Should our military rely on commercial for access to space? I dont really think that would be wise.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Should our military rely on commercial for access to space? I dont really think that would be wise.

    The military does rely on commercial access to space. For a while the Shuttle was used for that, but it was such a horrible experience for the military that they decided they never, ever wanted to depend on NASA again. They’d rather use a Russian engine than depend on NASA. Your support for NASA launchers seems to be based on faith and emotion, not facts.

  • DCSCA

    @Frediiie “But several things are certain.” Nothing is certain.

  • Martijn Meijering

    “No I think the volkswagen will wind up over there to the left of the letterbox.”

    Lol, good one!

  • Martijn, Dennis says something stupid, you point out how stupid he is, tomorrow Dennis will say something else stupid – quite possibly the exact same thing. Why bother? Is this fun?

  • Todd The Usurper

    ” Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 12:49 pm
    Garver can be gracious she (and the Administration) have won.

    By the end of next year NASA will be forever changed, one of the few agencies (so far) that the Administration has been able to change for the better.

    Robert G. Oler”
    Waldo you really are an idiot!

  • amightywind

    DCSCA wrote:

    And then there’s Oler’s odd support for McCain, the ‘Republican’ who can hardly be seen as a valid champion for ‘private enterprised’ space ventures.

    No kidding. With supporters like that it is no wonder we went down in flames in 2008. Consider the way he froths at the mouth over GDub, WMD, and Sarah Palin. McCain is Mr. Iraq. He invented Sarah Palin. But like McCain, Oler is a schizophrenic on the issues. Yesterday we hear he doesn’t care about HSF exploration at all. After 6 months of defending a plan that is ostensibly about that? Just leaves you scratching your head.

  • Dennis Berube

    It was NASA launchers my friend that got us to the Moon in the first place. I do suspect, they can do it again! Wow Trent, everyone says something stupid but you…. You must be a man of total knowledge. as to Mr. Oler supporting robot probes as opposed to HSF, there is nothing wrong with that concept, as many other people do also. However let us hope, that our government doesnt have those views. Robot probes are very important prior to manned flights. Look at the up and coming Mars Science Lab, which by the way is also way over budget. Should we stop sending those off into s pace too, because of their constant over pricing? If so we will learn nothing.

  • Artemus

    The military does rely on commercial access to space. For a while the Shuttle was used for that, but it was such a horrible experience for the military that they decided they never, ever wanted to depend on NASA again. They’d rather use a Russian engine than depend on NASA. Your support for NASA launchers seems to be based on faith and emotion, not facts.

    DOD gets most of its stuff to orbit on Delta IV and Atlas V, which would not exist without government contracts and subsidies. They are less commercial than a KC-135.

    I don’t think you can draw any conclusions about NASA based on the fact that DOD doesn’t fly on Shuttle any more. DOD only ever used Shuttle in the first place because it was imposed on them. If it were solely up to DOD, they would have their own version of the Shuttle, plus five or six more expendables, all servicing their very own space station with AF officers looking down Kim Jong-Il’s chimney with a manually operated telescope that probably wouldn’t work.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dennis Berube wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 6:15 am

    One more point as to why our government should have its own space program for getting astronauts into space. Lets not forget the military end of it. Should our military rely on commercial for access to space? ..

    sorry that is all they have…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Artemus wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 10:33 am


    I don’t think you can draw any conclusions about NASA based on the fact that DOD doesn’t fly on Shuttle any more. DOD only ever used Shuttle in the first place because it was imposed on them. If it were solely up to DOD, they would have their own version of the Shuttle, plus five or six more expendables,”

    nope. You are correct in that the only reason the DoD went to Shuttle was that it was the national launcher system…but if Shuttle had done any of the major points it was suppose to do…then they would still be using it and indeed would have been one of the drivers behind the “mark 2″ version of the system.

    What soured DoD on shuttle was NASA. The military spends a lot of money on systems, they are very expensive to operate, but at the end of the money trail the systems are what the military calls “operational”. That means a lot of things in DoD parlance…and NASA RESISTED any and all of them. Yet the cost were enormous. And there was never any telling when the thing would actually launch.

    The DoD at some point wants a “resuable vehicle”…they dont want a shuttle orbiter or anythign to do with the orbiter system (or its derivatives)

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dennis Berube wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 10:23 am

    ” as to Mr. Oler supporting robot probes as opposed to HSF”

    that is not a fair summation of my statement.

    I have no problem with human spaceflight…as long as there is some semblence of value for the cost. Right now (and the Cx program would have continued this) there is lots of cost, little or no value.

    The Hubble revisit missions illustrate nicely my point. On paper these are the missions for human spaceflight…and even perhaps the shuttle. Problem is that to launch a shuttle mission to repair/revisit/fix whatever the words are…cost more then simply building a new Hubble and launching it on an expendable.

    Oddly enough this is the same with the space station modules. The “bright minds” in the station program are as we speak looking at modifying and flying a structural test article to become another node on the station… but the shuttle will be gone…no problem it can fly on an expendable…and be far cheaper to launch.

    By the time all the checks were cashed for Cx to get back to the Moon we would have spent about 200 or more billion dollars…now thats a jobs program for multi decades and if technowelfare is your game, Cx is the name.

    But instead of the billions each year to feed starving technicians and engineers say we spend that money or even half of it on uncrewed exploration of the Moon…if your game is to over the next few decades learn something about the Moon…which does better and cost less.

    At some point in history given the correct policy the cost of HSF and HSF exploration come down…until it does, the later is just not worth it.

    Robert G. Oler

  • brobof

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 11:26 pm
    *The payload is not the booster.* Decrying a useful experiment just because you perceive it needs HLV? I sense dogma rather than logic operating here.
    What if there was a fabled HLV that could get payload costs down to say: $600 per kg. Or even $60! Would you decry any proposed HLV that could prove cheaper to operate, just because it was an HLV?
    Now there was a BFR.

    However I would submit that the only reason that Congress has set NASA with the task of building the 75 tn -and upwards- Heavy Lifter is because the Russians are building one. Theirs is clustered and flexible whilst the current US plan is for a monolithic and intractable monster. Unless Lori Garver can lobby for a “broader, deeper understanding.” Trans: “Educated.”
    It will be an uphill battle!

  • Paul D.

    This blog has unfortunately become a sad example of what happens when comments aren’t moderated. Too bad, it was once worth reading.

  • Well, the posts still are. It’s the comments that have deteriorated.

  • John Malkin

    The problem with the “Government Option” is it is underfunded and will remain so well into the future. So Congress can fund it at the proper levels or dump it. In the last 20 years the Government hasn’t built a working LEO HSF vehicle not even suborbital like Scaled Composites (big payload difference but still) and they have tried many times. To me and maybe I’m wrong but 40KM isn’t really suborbital. I wanted Ares I to be it but it isn’t even close. It looks nice on paper but…

    I mean really, the attitude of Constellation supporters is “oh yea, lets abanndon Ares I for a bigger more expensive project to get humans to LEO”.

  • Robert G. Oler

    brobof wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    My opposition to a Shuttle Derived HLV is clear and stems from two parts.

    First and most important in a society based on free enterprise, government dollars (which are tax dollars and take those dollars from the pockets of people who earned them) should at least go where possible to promoting free enterprise. One can bandy about subsidies and customers and the like but in the end the reality is that a SDV HL or HLSDV has nothing at all associated with free enterprise…because the essence of it is that NASA will operate it.

    There are at times reasons that the government should operate vehicles. I guess that there might be some commercial application for an M-1 Battle Tank…but what the government uses it for requires (unless we go to a Mercenary armed force) that it operate them.

    There is no reason now that NASA should operate its own launch vehicles. It is that simple.

    But reason number 2 is that there is no way a SDHLV will 1) be affordable and 2) have any value next to the cost.

    If we could get down to the mythical vehicle you suggest a Heavy Lift that is 600 a pound…we wouldnt have the issues I raise because 1) commercial operators would want to fly it and operate it and 2) the cost per value would be less.

    What we are in right now is a group of people from Whittington to the folks at JSC trying to find some reason any reason that justifies their phoney baloney jobs. And that includes trying to find payloads for the booster that they want to develop whose uselessness is shown by the fact that there are no obvious missions for it.

    The only reason the Senate has come up with its statement on a HLV is that they are trying to fool the people who are desparate to save their jobs…this is an election year and some of them (like Olson) are running around saying things which are not true. POliticans saying things which are not true has been with us forever but in this case it levels into space policy.

    A SDHLV is much like Captain Tracy’s (from Omega Glory) fashion of a fountain of youth. There is no serum…there is no reason for it. From Whittingtons’ invasion of the Moon by Chinese to the solar power station demonstration they are all frack ups just masquerading as something to do.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Paul D. wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 2:37 pm

    learn the scroll key or get a better sense of humor.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    John Malkin wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    The problem with the “Government Option” is it is underfunded and will remain so well into the future.

    Which begs the question, why? Why would Congress intentionally underfund something that they feel so strongly about? And this after the fresh lesson of what happened when they underfunded Constellation.

    I wish we could ask the people in Congress this question, it would be telling to hear their answers…

  • Martijn Meijering

    Why would Congress intentionally underfund something that they feel so strongly about?

    Because policy is made by the committee members who cannot persuade the rest of Congress to provide more money and who have to reach agreement among themselves about how to divide the spoils?

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByFzAQla0wg&feature=player_embedded

    This and all the other folks who are trying to push free enterprise into space are why America is great. We need far more of this and less of projects like Cx. Squint real hard and you see the Wright Brothers and maybe our future. Robert G. Oler

  • learn the scroll key or get a better sense of humor.

    You occasionally write funny things, but it’s always inadvertent.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 5:15 pm

    learn the scroll key or get a better sense of humor.

    You occasionally write funny things, but it’s always inadvertent…..

    LOL Yeap I am one of those super serious person who never cracks a smile or a sense of humor…

    Robert G. Oler

  • LOL Yeap I am one of those super serious person who never cracks a smile or a sense of humor…

    That’s not what I wrote.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Coastal Ron,

    Why would Congress intentionally underfund something that they feel so strongly about?

    That raises an intresting question. About what specifically do they feel so strongly? The program itself? The quality of the spacecraft? Or the number of their constituents employed, even if only shuffling paper?

  • Dennis Berube

    Mr. Oler, there is even talk of utilizing one of the nodes from the space station as a ship to carry men to an asteroid along with Orion. I dont see why Boeing cannot build the CX 100 with the ability to modify it for deep space at some future date. Now that would be killing two birds with one stone. I would certainly be fore that, and in that manner both NASA and commercial could have their respective choices. I am also for robot probes, but look at what has happened with the Mars Science Lab. The same situation as the manned side of the fence. Oveer budget and behind schedual…

  • I haven’t gone back through all the comments, but you can read Lori’s speech at:

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/480012main_Garver_AIAA_FINAL.pdf

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    Nice job. I feel ok defending Bolden’s space policy reading Garver’s speeches is just to much!

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 5:48 pm

    That raises an intresting question. About what specifically do they feel so strongly? The program itself? The quality of the spacecraft? Or the number of their constituents employed, even if only shuffling paper?

    Indeed, all good questions.

    But once they assemble the final bill, I suspect that scrutiny of NASA’s bills doesn’t happen as much as they should because they are lumped in with larger spending bills. What’s $19B/year compared to the rest of the national budget…

  • Matt Wiser

    Ben, Sen. Bill Nelson said it best when he was talking to some Commercial Space advocates (no idea who they represented), who were trying to get him to support the original FY 11 budget request: “This isn’t rocket science, it’s political science.” Said it before and I’ll repeat: those advocating transferring wholesale U.S. access re: LEO to the commercial sector without a Plan B don’t have the votes in Congress. All politics is compromise, and the pro-Commercial side and the pro-Constellation side have to give. The Senate bill preserves some commercial funding-likely to go to a major firm (Boeing, LockMart, or ULS) rather than a start-up like Space X or Orbital. The pro-Constellation people get Orion and accelerated HLV development. And don’t be surprised if there’s language in either the final bill after House and Senate Reconcillation, or in other legislation, mandating a government alternative LEO vehicle-if necessary, putting Orion on an EELV derivative. If you remember the last Senate Hearing-which C-SPAN reran today-Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson said that those against commercial space weren’t opposed to the private sector, but they were opposed to it being the ONLY U.S. access to LEO. Watching the rerun, one got the impression that Bolden and Dr. Holdren (Presidential Science Advisor) couldn’t believe the amount of negative response to even the Amended plan POTUS announced on 15 Apr. Both gentlemen’s longwinded answers didn’t help: Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the chair of the committee, reminded both that long answers reduce Senators’ time for questions, make them angry,and less likely to vote for what they wanted.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    Ben, Sen. Bill Nelson said it best when he was talking to some Commercial Space advocates (no idea who they represented), who were trying to get him to support the original FY 11 budget request: “This isn’t rocket science, it’s political science.” Said it before and I’ll repeat: those advocating transferring wholesale U.S. access re: LEO to the commercial sector without a Plan B don’t have the votes in Congress……………..

    the problem of course is that there is no “government” plan B that is viable…

    there are a few commercial access plans that are independent of each other…

    Robert G. Oler

  • GuessWho

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 10:34 am

    “sorry that is all they have…”

    Wrong again Oler. Technically DoD does not purchase “commercial” launch vehicles/services. They contract for launch vehicle services from ULA. ULA is restricted to launching USG payloads only under the terms of the merger between Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Any launch of a non-USG payload on a Delta IV or an Atlas V is executed through the respective commercial launch services division of Boeing and Lockheed. These respective commercial divisions then acquire the LV from ULA via internal fund transfers. It is a subtle but important distinction that anyone in the aerospace business would know. Clearly you do not.

    Interestingly enough, one of the other restrictions on ULA is that they are not allowed to design, build, market, or provide either robotic or manned spacecraft. Thus the ULA propellant depot concept they have presented (in concert with various NASA centers) in recent conferences is a concept they are legally prohibited from pursuing from a developmental and implementation standpoint as a fuel depot is technically a robotic spacecraft (at a minimum). Thus their motivation is purely economical.

  • Robert G. Oler

    GuessWho wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 10:08 pm

    nope it is a distinction without a difference in the terms of the conversation.

    Sorry

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mr. Wiser – the problem is, while I will grant we don’t have a viable mechanism to go to Commercial for LEO access, there is another reality that Constellation & Compromise supporters haven’t dealt with – they haven’t provided the funding to make an HLV/Orion viable before 2016 (and much more likely 2018).

    And don’t be surprised if there’s language in either the final bill after House and Senate Reconcillation, or in other legislation, mandating a government alternative LEO vehicle-if necessary, putting Orion on an EELV derivative.

    Okay, see, here is the problem – you can’t put the current Orion on an existing EELV WITHOUT doing one of the
    1. Upgrading the Delta IV heavy
    2. Further reduce stuff in Orion
    3. Fly without an Escape System

    The last is unacceptable. As for the first 2, I submit that either of those options will cost at least as much money, if not more, to bring either CST-100 or Dragon (and maybe both) to an operational status.

    That being the case, why then shouldn’t we spend the majority of our money vis-a-vie Commercial crew? Because, if you get multiple providers, commercial crew provides its own backup.

  • vuture4

    We lost one crew on Apollo and nearly lost two more, and the escape system wouldn’t have helped any of them. The idea that putting a Minuteman missile on top of the capsule makes it safer is absurd if you’ve ever actually seen an SRB blow up; usually they just detonate. The ONLY failure mode it might work in would be another Challenger, which would not occur with a liquid fuel rocket. The purpose it serves is psychological.

    The Dragon could of course do an abort anytime after the first few seconds without a Minuteman just by shutting down the liquid-propellant booster. Musk is even experimenting with a liquid propellant pusher system for the Dragon; it would serve a useful purpose as a ground landing decelerator so as to avoid the expensive business of ocean recovery. But more important, the Dragon won’t carry people until it’s thoroughly tested in actual spaceflight, while the plan for the Orion is apparently to launch people on the second or third flight. Now that’s unsafe.

  • Ferris Valyn

    vuture4 – Also quite true

  • Bennett

    vuture4 wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 10:53 pm

    Now that’s unsafe.

    But, but, but, it’s a Government Owned Rocket!!!

    Don’t you know that just having a cost-plus contract with Boeing or Lockheed Martin makes the safety of the rocket absolutely GUARANTEED?

    The same engineers, the same metal, the same electronics, but because we spent 30 Billion on it instead of the 5 Billion (the price that either company would charge for the same rocket executing a fixed price deal) it HAS TO BE A BETTER ROCKET!

    This is what Matt, Earl, Dennis, Windy, and DCSHITHEAD are trying to get us to accept as rational policy.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    those advocating transferring wholesale U.S. access re: LEO to the commercial sector without a Plan B don’t have the votes in Congress.

    I think there are two groups of people that are resisting commercial crew:

    1. Those that honestly believe that HSF is hard, even to LEO.

    2. Those that have political or financial reasons why commercial crew does not benefit them, or benefits them less than the status quo (i.e. normal government contracting opportunities).

    And you’re right in pointing out “All politics is compromise”. But as of now, I don’t think there is much that can be done, outside of outright political obstruction, that can stop at least SpaceX from demonstrating a “crew-capable” system.

    That will happen as soon as SpaceX completes COTS and are certified for the CRS deliveries. At that point, they only need to add seats to have an ISS lifeboat (down only), all paid for thru the COTS program. With the CRS certification, the barriers to commercial will start coming down.

    At that point, the people in group #1 will become more open to commercial crew.

    Now, having worked for a couple of the “Big Ten” DOD contractors, I can tell you that Boeing and LM have little motivation to compete in a fixed-price market – they are built to compete in the world of government contracts, and and know all the different ways to increase contract value (change orders, add-ons, options, etc.). Both of these companies (and their ULA joint venture) are motivated to promote the idea that NASA should do as much as possible, since NASA would offer the largest revenue stream.

    The people in group #2 won’t have a reason to change their mind unless outside events influence them, or their influence is not enough to overcome events and group #1.

    Bottom line is that as long as the ISS needs crew deliveries, commercial crew will have the potential to get going. Without the ISS, I think only Musk would risk it in the next five years (as far as I can prognosticate), but SpaceX will already be most of the way there with commercial cargo.

    My $0.02

  • Matt Wiser

    If Congress tells NASA to procure a government LEO launch system, NASA has no choice but to comply. Period. I’m not saying that will happen, but it may very well happen; just don’t be surprised if it does. Until the commercial sector actually flies people into LEO and brings them back safely, Congress will be very skeptical. Does anyone here know if Musk or any of the other commercial “Space Cadets” (to use a phrase in USA Today) has been on the Hill before a committee? Hearing directly from those in the commercial sector hoping to get NASA crew service contracts would help their case a great deal. Every hearing that’s been on C-SPAN or NASA TV has had NASA brass only or the PSO (Presidential Science Advisor), other than Norm Augustine on two occasions as part of a second panel, along with Armstrong and Cernan at the last Senate hearing (rerun today on C-SPAN). One would think that if the Commercial advocates are as zealous as they are, they’d want to appear at a hearing to let Congress know what they have in mind, their plans for safety, mission control/operations, recovery, etc. that would satisfy congressional critics of Commercial Crew. None to my knowledge have been on the Hill.

  • Coastal Ron

    GuessWho wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 10:08 pm

    Technically DoD does not purchase “commercial” launch vehicles/services.

    Yes, there are many different flavors of “commercial” and “government” contracting.

    One of the main points to keep in mind though, is that if NASA doesn’t launch something on Atlas V, they don’t have to pay ULA personnel to sit around waiting for the next launch. ULA covers their own overhead, whereas with Shuttle/Ares I/SLS, NASA has to cover their own overhead. In that sense, ULA is more “commercial” than the normal contracting NASA does.

    Thus the ULA propellant depot concept they have presented…

    Yes, that is an interesting situation ULA’s owners have put them in, because I thought the ACES (Advance Common Evolved Stage) tankers were supposed to be built on ULA’s existing production lines. It will be interesting to see how they decide to handle that.

  • Bennett

    Gwyneth Shotwell (the President of SpaceX) addressed and was questioned by one of the Senate Committees.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 4th, 2010 at 12:19 am

    One would think that if the Commercial advocates are as zealous as they are, they’d want to appear at a hearing to let Congress know what they have in mind, their plans for safety, mission control/operations, recovery, etc. that would satisfy congressional critics of Commercial Crew. None to my knowledge have been on the Hill.

    I would have thought you knew – the committee’s control who they want to testify, and the committee chairs (like Rep. Giffords) can stack the invitee list any way they want.

    I have no doubt Musk and other commercial advocates would love to testify, but Shelby and Giffords don’t want them too. They don’t want anyone contradicting their “narrative” for Shuttle or ATK.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mike Gold (Bigelow Aerospace) also addressed a Congressional Hearing (last year), as did Brett Alexander (head of Commercial Spaceflight Federation). Further, I have no doubt that they, and others, would gladly attend another hearing.

    The fact is, they weren’t invited, and if they aren’t invited, they can’t participate. And the fact that they weren’t invited, tells me that the congressional critics aren’t interested in having a fair & honest debate.

    As for developing an independent launcher – only 1 bill requires that, out of the 4 facing congress.

    Finally – as far as commercial sector actually flying people to LEO – what about the situation with USA & the shuttle, or Boeing & ISS?

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 4th, 2010 at 12:35 am

    While you’re at it, why don’t you also pull up the contributions that Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ATK, Orbital Sciences and other NASA contractor employees have made. Why is their money any less influential than Musk’s?

    As usual, you have problems understanding the context of actions and events…

  • Matt Wiser

    If they can’t appear at a hearing, they can certainly invite members of the relevant committees to briefings, do Q&As, and answer concerns expressed during hearings. Sure, they have to be invited, but there are other ways to get one’s message to Congress if you’re not invited to a hearing.

    I actually have no problems with Boeing and ISS, or with USA and the shuttle. Because they’re experienced, and know the drill. Space X, OTOH….Lord Musk hasn’t even flown a mouse to space, let alone a person. When it comes to the actual crew contract, it’ll either be Boeing or ULA-probably both. I’d be more satisfied if Boeing or Lockheed-Martin was the face of Commerical Crew/Cargo than the current poster child-Musk. Because they’re experienced firms who’ve launched DOD, NASA, and intelligence payloads, and done it well. And they should have no problems with crewed flights-just get the vehicle developed, and go. But as long as the first impression of Commercial Space is Space X, the whole industry will have a hard sell to Congress.

  • DCSCA

    @MattWiser- Why testify when you can let your checkbook do your talking for you.

  • DCSCA

    Paul D. wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 2:37 pm <- If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. But regardless of your POV, it's a healthy sign to see voices from many sides expressing passionate interest in the future of our space program. A program that has always been viewed as a 'luxury' expense, even in good times. And in these tight times, a program very easily targeted for the budget ax.

  • Bennett

    @Matt Wiser

    I peg you at what? 24-30 years old?

    Ten years from now you’ll facepalm yourself when you think of the crap you used to write, influenced by haters like DCBUTTMUNCH.

    ROCKET CHECKLIST:

    1) Does It Work?

    2) Does It Work Repeatedly?

    3) Can It Hit A Target In Space Over And Over?

    4) Are There Any Anomalies That Scare Us?

    5) Do We Believe That Production Has Adequate Safeguards?

    6) Are We Providing Sufficient Oversight?

    If yes to all, a rocket is just a rocket. Ephemeral, reproduced, launched.

    A proven rocket doesn’t know who bent the metal. It follows the laws of chemistry, metallurgy, electronics, and physics. If someone offers you a specific price per pound to orbit, you compare.

    Everything else is just an excuse for business as usual.

  • DCSCA

    Bennett wrote @ September 4th, 2010 at 1:36 am

    “ROCKET CHECKLIST:

    1) Does It Work?

    2) Does It Work Repeatedly?

    3) Can It Hit A Target In Space Over And Over?

    4) Are There Any Anomalies That Scare Us?

    5) Do We Believe That Production Has Adequate Safeguards?

    6) Are We Providing Sufficient Oversight?

    If yes to all, a rocket is just a rocket. Ephemeral, reproduced, launched….. Everything else is just an excuse for business as usual.’

    Or in other words…
    Once da rockets are up;
    who cares where they come down;
    Dats not my department,
    sez Bennett Von Braun.’

  • brobof

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    Thank you for setting out your position: Tabula rasa.
    So as a thought experiment: What is your solution for the VAB, KSC, Crawlerway, Freedom & Liberty Star, Barges, Canals, Landing strip & etc. Latterly repurposed to the Shuttle but now without worth in this SDHLVless future. Correct me if I am wrong but all these are are currently state owned. So is it not true that *any* Government rocket system, Heavy or otherwise, automatically subsidises their upkeep? Short of a PPP, how is any of this tax dollar funded infrastructure leveraged for future use? I note that SpaceX launches from ‘the other side of the fence.’

    One is reminded of the *other* legend on Launch Complex 34: “ABANDON IN PLACE.” Perhaps “Kennedy delinda est” would be more appropriate.
    On the bright side (of this thought experiment) if KSC and CCAFS are not to be modernised there will be $2 billion going spare!

    http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/08/crawler-repairs-constellation-press-pad-39b-demolition/

  • Martijn Meijering

    Freedom & Liberty Star

    Falcon 9 first stage recovery. :-)

    Landing strip

    Dream Chaser, Starfighters. :-)

    The rest should probably be blown up, sold for scrap metal, reused as artifical reefs.

  • Robert G. Oler

    brobof wrote @ September 4th, 2010 at 5:28 am

    “Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 3rd, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    Thank you for setting out your position: Tabula rasa.
    So as a thought experiment: What is your solution for the VAB, KSC, Crawlerway, Freedom & Liberty Star, Barges, Canals, Landing strip & etc. Latterly repurposed to the Shuttle but now without worth in this SDHLVless future.”

    without getting to far into specifics for the specific hardware and places. The Cape itself is a national asset and should be run that way. The notion to modernize the launch facilities is a good one and should be encouraged.

    There is some shuttle specific hardware that might not have a future in the new world. But the VAB probably does, runways are always nice and the trick is going to be to find some mix where infrastructure and policy make private and government work together.

    What is hard for many to understand is that while projects have to shift what is more important to change is the entire notion of HOW things are done in the effort to farther government goals in human spaceflight.

    The mix that emerged with Apollo just no longer works. Not only in the goals but in the methods that they use, and I would argue that they were never very useful in a country built on free enterprise and whatever use they had ended with the Apollo program. The efforts since then to maintain them have been counterproductive and in many ways have presented us with ever increasingly bad choices.

    I like the line off repeated (indeed it is several times in this thread) “Insert private company here has never flown a person in space”…as if NASA alone really ever has either.

    There is a line by Buzz Aldrin which I will sort of paraphrase but its close, when asked about the lunar landings he says something like “Amazing what three people can do when they are backed by 10000 of their friends” or something like that.

    The Apollo effort and what has flown since is a product not of “NASA” flying people in space but of the particular organizational structure that was put in place between industry and government to accomplish a government goal in space. Kennedy even suggest it in his Rice speech something like “It (the Moon goal) will measure and organize our efforts” (again a paraphrase)

    The trick is that organizational structure no longer works.

    Robert G. Oler

  • GuessWho

    “One of the main points to keep in mind though, is that if NASA doesn’t launch something on Atlas V, they don’t have to pay ULA personnel to sit around waiting for the next launch. ULA covers their own overhead, whereas with Shuttle/Ares I/SLS, NASA has to cover their own overhead. In that sense, ULA is more “commercial” than the normal contracting NASA does.”

    Not exactly. ULA’s overhead is covered under their existing contract with the USG (DoD and NASA). Presently, DoD covers the lions share but NASA maintains an open contractual vehicle with ULA for robotic missions. If NASA were to turn to ULA for HSF missions, they would incur a larger portion of the standing army costs associated with ULA personnel sitting around waiting for the next launch.

  • Martijn Meijering

    They would still share those costs with the DoD (and potentially with commercial payloads if higher flight rates lead to lower prices), instead of paying for a dedicated system. The fixed costs of EELVs are also lower than those for an SDLV.

  • Robert G. Oler

    GuessWho wrote @ September 4th, 2010 at 9:12 am
    “, they would incur a larger portion of the standing army costs associated with ULA personnel sitting around waiting for the next launch.”

    OK so if the EELV’s require a ‘standing army” how would you describe the
    14000 or so folks the shuttle takes

    Robert Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ September 4th, 2010 at 1:13 am

    When it comes to the actual crew contract, it’ll either be Boeing or ULA-probably both.

    ULA is only a launcher company, and as “GuessWho” pointed out, they cannot manufacture payloads.

    I’d be happy with Boeing’s CST-100 paired with a man-rated ULA Atlas V, as I have always advocated we need competition from the get-go in commercial crew. In fact, Bigelow has stated openly that they don’t want to start space operations without two or more crew systems, so they also sees redundancy as critical for operations and cost.

    I’d be more satisfied if Boeing or Lockheed-Martin was the face of Commerical Crew/Cargo than the current poster child-Musk. Because they’re experienced firms who’ve launched DOD, NASA, and intelligence payloads, and done it well.

    Competition is good, and if you remove competition then you remove many of the incentives a marketplace needs to survive and thrive. For every Boeing or LM, you need a SpaceX or Scaled Composites to keep costs down and cutting-edge ideas flowing.

    Regarding experience, you also have to remember that experience lives in the people, not the buildings, and SpaceX has been hiring a lot of experienced people – a lot. They have industry momentum right now, where they get to pick from the cream of the crop candidates, and all of them are bright, hard workers (i.e. the parking lots don’t empty @ 5pm). I’ve worked for such a company going under the same type of expansion, and you can become the “thought leader” in your industry pretty quick.

    So for me, if SpaceX were to be chosen through an open competition, then I wouldn’t be any more worried than if it were LM or ???, because NASA will likely run it like the COTS program, with lots of reviews and milestones that have to be achieved before any humans are allowed to test a capsule. All things considered too, any commercial crew capsule is going to be a lot more survivable than any Shuttle flight, so you have to keep things in perspective.

  • Vladislaw

    “I think there are two groups of people that are resisting commercial crew:”

    Not to split hairs but I believe there are also other groups. An American astronaut is not being a hero riding a 747 from california to florida and they won’t be a hero taking a commercial flight to the ISS.

    NASA wants it’s astronaut corp to be an elite group of heros and once they are traveling commercial that hero aspect of “battling” their way into space is gone.

    It also smacks hard against the national prestige issue. ONLY the national government is big enough to put people into space it takes something the size of an American national effort to achieve space, 1000 people doing it commercially sure lessens the impact of when it is a national effort.

    Just my opinion.

  • Vladislaw

    Matt Wiser wrote:

    “Until the commercial sector actually flies people into LEO and brings them back safely, Congress will be very skeptical.”

    Congress is not skeptical, congress is well informed that the commercial sector is more than able and have known this since the 80’s when Reagan pressed for more commercial and had NASA’s mandate rewritten to relect it. NASA was set up to be ingrained into every state for jobs. Commercial companies are not going to need standing armies to launch or have 6 people assigned to a job one person can do. The writing is on the wall and everyone in congress knows this. The only question is what excuse can those with the most pork to lose still sell to keep the pork flowing in their district.

    The safety issue is the last dying gasp.

  • Martijn Meijering

    OK so if the EELV’s require a ‘standing army” how would you describe the 14000 or so folks the shuttle takes

    Army Group Southeast? ;-)

  • Robert G. Oler

    Vladislaw wrote @ September 4th, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    I concur. NASA HSF as it is currently put together cannot survive without the notion that the entire thing is “heroic” way out of proportion to the effort. That is why they dock at 17,500 mph.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ September 4th, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    that is good Robert

  • Robert G. Oler

    If you want to see how valueless human spaceflight beyond GEO is right now…go check out Lockmarts “Plymouth” proposal. First thought after reading it this afternoon is it is as bad as the Movie…then I thought, no Pete Conrad saved the movie (a bit)…nothing saves this.

    IN summation for cost unknown but likely to be upwards of 10 billion dollars (even if one takes the heavy lift vehicle proposal out of the cost)…TWO astronauts would spend about two weeks surveying/landing/whatever on a rock smaller then block in Clear Lake Texas…thats after very long travel times.

    Probably the best “science” of the mission, other then the rocks of course, would be the leaving of one of the Orions coorbiting with the rock…

    whoever thinks this stuff up is operating in a vacuum of common sense.

    For less then a billion uncrewed vehicles could not only pepper the rock, bring parts of it back and then stay with it for quite a long time observing…whatever there is to observe.

    this plan is completely goofy

    Robert G. oler

  • Byeman

    GuessWho wrote @ September 4th, 2010 at 9:12 am

    “Not exactly. ULA’s overhead is covered under their existing contract with the USG (DoD and NASA). Presently, DoD covers the lions share but NASA maintains an open contractual vehicle with ULA for robotic missions. If NASA were to turn to ULA for HSF missions, they would incur a larger portion of the standing army costs associated with ULA personnel sitting around waiting for the next launch.”

    Incorrect.
    a. The DOD contract does not cover all of ULA’s overhead, it only provides the capability for a certain flight rate.

    b. NASA’s NLS contract has no previsions for overhead. NASA does not pay a yearly or set fee. NASA only pays for launch services for each of its missions. ULA costs associated with those services, of course will include overhead, along with the hardware and touch labor. The NLS contract is the same for OSC and Spacex, as it is with ULA. If ULA had no missions with NASA, it would get no money, just as Spacex gets no money from the NLS since it has no NLS missions

    c. So, if NASA were to turn to ULA for HSF missions, they would NOT incur a larger portion of the standing army costs associated with ULA personnel sitting around waiting for the next launch. Any HSF launches would be just another launch service with a fixed price.

  • Martijn Meijering

    So, if NASA were to turn to ULA for HSF missions, they would NOT incur a larger portion of the standing army costs associated with ULA personnel sitting around waiting for the next launch.

    I believe I have read suggestions that if NASA were to use EELVs for manned spaceflight then it would probably have to pay a portion of the launch capabilities contract the next time that contract is extended.

  • Artemus

    It doesn’t matter how the contracts are structured – ULA is the only game in town. One way or another, the government will pay every penny of what it costs to run ULA, because if it doesn’t, some very expensive and important payloads will sit on the ground. Boeing and LM are not going to bankroll losses for ULA – probably not even for one quarter. A failed mission would come 100% out of Uncle Sam’s hide, not the Boeing/LM stockholders’.

    Now, if other players enter the market, that will all change. But for the last ten years, EELV has been as much a government program as Titan ever was. EELV is not a “commercial” option in any sense of the word. The fact that NASA uses EELVs for robotic missions proves nothing about the viability of a commercial approach.

    A truly commercial contract means the contractor doesn’t get diddly unless an intact payload is put into the correct orbit. Nobody is going to bid on a contract like that.

  • Coastal Ron

    Artemus wrote @ September 4th, 2010 at 8:26 pm

    A truly commercial contract means the contractor doesn’t get diddly unless an intact payload is put into the correct orbit. Nobody is going to bid on a contract like that.

    Certainly the only way we’re going to be able to get there though, is through competition. Already Boeing is wanting to get in on commercial capsule market, and they plan to use Atlas V as one of the possible launchers. This could be the first of many non-government users of ULA.

    But the biggest impediment to any outside groups wanting to use ULA, has been ULA themselves (and their parents). They were built to support the U.S. government market specifically, and they don’t cater to the true commercial market.

    In my opinion, this was done strictly from a business standpoint, since the U.S. won’t go outside it’s borders with DOD payloads. And if they did go after the commercial market (i.e. competitive pricing) the DOD and NASA would also ask for the lower prices. They have a captive market with steady (but high) pricing, and that works for them.

    Orbital Sciences and SpaceX could start putting pressure on ULA, and certainly the USAF has already stated it wants to pursue flyback boosters to lower costs, so ULA is going to be making changes sooner or later anyways. They have to decide which way they are going to go – government only, or change to competitive pricing.

  • Bennett

    A truly commercial contract means the contractor doesn’t get diddly unless an intact payload is put into the correct orbit. Nobody is going to bid on a contract like that.

    From what I understand, this is exactly what Orbital Sciences and SpaceX are bidding on. Further, from the proposals put forth by Boeing and LM, there are some very talented and enthusiastic engineers at both companies chafing to start work on more than just DOD or NASA designed approaches to using the technology that has been developed over the last 20 years.

    Freeing NASA from Griffin’s legacy of an ego-driven Apollo On Steroids could open the door to an era of unparalleled advances for the things that really matter. Becoming a space-faring species, and eliminating the cycle of evolution interrupted by asteroid impact.

  • dan c.

    NASA should complete the development of a scaled down Orion capsule capable of carrying 6 astronauts without deep space capability, that is not needed for at least 25 years. Then use either the Atlas V or Delta 4 boosters. There is no need to develop a new launch vehicle when ULA’s Atlas and Deltas are proven and reliable. Then NASA can fly 2 or 3 US astronauts and then invite all nations on Earth to participate in our space station program. They just have to pay for the seat on Orion and for time on the station. NASA comes out ahead and then they can put the profits to extending the ISS past 2020 or towards a HLV for deep space exploration if they really think they are going beyond the moon with in the next 40 years. Get real; no one is going to Mars or an asteroid anytime soon.
    Right now Canada is using their last ride to ISS in 2011 for Chris Hadfield to be the commander. So they are desperate to purchase a ride. The Obama administration is looking to extend a hand to the Muslim nation. Besides these customers we can also sell to the rest of the world. And if we need to sell more seats we can do as the Russians have done for years and sell rides to tourists.
    So there are plenty of opportunities to sell seats. This is a very do able plan. It could be done within 2 years. Let’s stop all the fighting and get on with a workable plan.

  • Coastal Ron

    dan c. wrote @ September 4th, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    They just have to pay for the seat on Orion and for time on the station. NASA comes out ahead and then they can put the profits to extending the ISS past 2020 or towards a HLV for deep space exploration…

    Keep in mind though, that Lockheed Martin was estimating that it would take $4.5-5.5B to finish Orion, so I doubt there is any reasonable price non-U.S. customers would be willing to pay that would come anywhere close to paying back that amount.

    A less expensive route would be to pay Boeing to build their clean-sheet CST-100 commercial capsule (less than $1B?), which they could launch on Atlas V for $130M/flight (+$400M to man-rate). Or they could use Falcon 9 at $56M/flight.

    Even more less expensive would be to use the SpaceX Dragon/Falcon 9, which would cost NASA $300M to “man-rate”, and $20M/seat after that.

    NASA can never charge enough to “profit” from their type of R&D + operating costs.

  • Coastal Ron wrote @ September 5th, 2010 at 1:19 am

    NASA can never charge enough to “profit” from their type of R&D + operating costs.

    If true, that demonstrates that NASA needs a competitor rather than hoping that Congress can impose sufficient “reform” on NASA to cause NASA to become lean and efficient.

  • GuessWho

    Byeman commented:

    “a. The DOD contract does not cover all of ULA’s overhead, it only provides the capability for a certain flight rate.”

    Reread my post, I didn’t say DoD covered all of ULA’s overhead. But DoD does represent, by a wide margin, ULA’s primary USG customer and as such their launch contract covers a significant portion of ULA’s yearly operating costs, which includes both direct labor and overhead expenses. And over the next three years, DoD launches will dominate ULA’s launch manifest.

    “The stagnation of 2008 added to a backlog of government satellites that has left almost no room on ULA’s manifest for commercial launches for the next three years, Gass said.” (ref: http://www.spacenews.com/launch/100108-2010-busiest-year-eelv.html)

    “c. So, if NASA were to turn to ULA for HSF missions, they would NOT incur a larger portion of the standing army costs associated with ULA personnel sitting around waiting for the next launch. Any HSF launches would be just another launch service with a fixed price.”

    And that fixed price would be established based on: 1) the actual production costs of the LV NASA procured (hardware and labor), 2) the overhead associated with those production costs (G&A, benefits, indirect labor support from finance, legal, contracts, etc.), and a percentage profit based on the direct and indirect costs in 1 & 2 plus additional profit to cover unknown cost uppers (a rise in raw material costs, costs to cover hardware retest, etc.) since they would be bidding a fixed price contract.

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “But the biggest impediment to any outside groups wanting to use ULA, has been ULA themselves (and their parents). They were built to support the U.S. government market specifically, and they don’t cater to the true commercial market.”

    This isn’t entirely quite accurate. Both LM and Boeing originally structured their EELV programs as both a USG and commercial launch provider. When both vehicles came to market, they were pricing their LV’s below market in an effort to capture early launch contracts. And both companies suffered when the dot.com bubble burst because the launch volume wasn’t there to support the cut-rate pricing. Also keep in mind that DoD maintains the right of first refusal for any ULA launch vehicle and/or launch slot. Thus the rare commercial launch is usually bumped a number of times due to shifting DoD launch dates.

    “In my opinion, this was done strictly from a business standpoint, since the U.S. won’t go outside it’s borders with DOD payloads. And if they did go after the commercial market (i.e. competitive pricing) the DOD and NASA would also ask for the lower prices. They have a captive market with steady (but high) pricing, and that works for them.”

    ULA doesn’t go after commercial launches – by law they cannot. The respective Boeing and LM commercial launch serviced division do go after commercial launches but those opportunities have to pay their way. It doesn’t make much business sense for either Boeing or LM to subsidize LV services costs to potential customers unless they can make it up in volume. But that approach was tried before and failed. That is why I have a healthy dose of skepticism that Musk can succeed with his current business plan as he started with cut-rate pricing in order to gain market share and has yet to demonstrate a high flight rate to make up the margins. I note that his Falcon 1 line has yet to launch again since his first successful payload was delivered on flight 5. By his own admission (at the 2009 World Satellite Conference in Paris), he has had to significantly expand his payroll beyond what he thought was needed to cover production and re-usability wasn’t possible as it erased his already thin mass payload fractions. The bottom line then is that his original price structure wasn’t sufficient to cover expenses.

  • Coastal Ron

    GuessWho wrote @ September 5th, 2010 at 9:40 am

    I note that his Falcon 1 line has yet to launch again since his first successful payload was delivered on flight 5.

    A number of factors could be part of this, including the size of the market for this payload class (up to 1010 kg to LEO). They do have a small backlog of orders that start flying next year, but I think Falcon 1 was always their way to start in the business, but not their main revenue source.

    That is why I have a healthy dose of skepticism that Musk can succeed with his current business plan as he started with cut-rate pricing in order to gain market share and has yet to demonstrate a high flight rate to make up the margins.

    Certainly time will tell. I don’t know if we could assume his pricing is cut-rate though, since new businesses have major pricing advantages over older existing ones, especially ones that are government contract oriented without competitive pressures to lower costs.

    The $/lb to LEO for each of the SpaceX launchers is:

    Falcon 1 – $4,894/lb (up to 2,227 lbs)
    Falcon 9 – $2,430/lb (up to 23,050 lbs)
    Falcon 9H – $1,347/lb (up to 70,548 lbs)

    The Falcon 9 Heavy is the biggest surprise, since it’s $95M price is less than double that of the Falcon 9 ($56M), and it has three common body cores. That could be a market challenge, where they are pricing it as their “loss leader” in order to spur the market.

    Regarding flight rate, they have a backlog of five Falcon 9 flights per year starting next year (and 5/yr thru 2013), so that will certainly be their opportunity to prove that they can sustain a launch schedule with successful (hopefully) launches.

    Next year is also crunch time for the ISS CRS program, so it will be a huge year overall. If they are successful though, I think the market will start placing more orders with them (and maybe they will announce an IPO). Lots to watch and talk about… ;-)

  • amightywind

    I think Falcon 1 was always their way to start in the business, but not their main revenue source.

    The small satellite and special projects market is dominated by Orbital. It is difficult to see the F1 value proposition against Pegasus or Taurus.

    Falcon 9 – $2,430/lb (up to 23,050 lbs)
    Falcon 9H – $1,347/lb (up to 70,548 lbs)
    The Falcon 9 Heavy is the biggest surprise, since it’s $95M price is less than double that of the Falcon 9 ($56M), and it has three common body cores.

    By what magic do you build 3 cores for the cost of <1.5? Have you been snorting Elon Musk's pixie dust? The pricing is not realistic. The vehicle would be sold for a loss.

  • By what magic do you build 3 cores for the cost of <1.5?

    By what magic do you know any of SpaceX’ costs?

  • Martijn Meijering

    The pricing is not realistic. The vehicle would be sold for a loss.

    Which part of the term loss leader didn’t you understand?

  • Ferris Valyn

    By what magic do you know any of SpaceX’ costs?

    The same magic that allows him to claim that Ares I is going off without problems

  • Byeman

    “And that fixed price would be established based on:”

    Those fixed prices have already been determined. They are in the basic NLS contract. NASA already knows what an Atlas launch in 2019 will cost.

  • Byeman

    “From what I understand, this is exactly what Orbital Sciences and SpaceX are bidding on”

    Not true, the CRS contract is structure like the NLS contract, the contractor recieves progress payments and only the last payment (10-30%) is contingent on a successful launch

  • Martijn Meijering

    NASA already knows what an Atlas launch in 2019 will cost.

    NLS = NASA Launch Services? Is this in any way contingent on what the DoD does? I didn’t know the contracts ran for that long. When will the launch capability contract next come up for renewal/recompetition?

  • Coastal Ron

    Byeman wrote @ September 5th, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    Not true, the CRS contract is structure like the NLS contract, the contractor recieves progress payments and only the last payment (10-30%) is contingent on a successful launch

    Yeah, I wasn’t sure about the details, so I didn’t comment. I been trying to find the contract online, but no luck. Do you have a public link to it?

  • Bennett

    Byeman wrote @ September 5th, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    I was thinking more about deals like the Iridium contract that SpaceX signed. As far as I know, that one is for successful launches, not attempted launches, with no money up front for development. Is this not correct?

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ September 5th, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    The small satellite and special projects market is dominated by Orbital. It is difficult to see the F1 value proposition against Pegasus or Taurus.

    What about overall cost as a value proposition?

    The Falcon 1 costs $10.9M for up to 2,227lbs to LEO. From what I could find on Taurus XL, which lifts about 50% more, it costs $54M. So the payload classes are not the same (although Taurus could be sized better for the market), but if it fits on a Falcon 1, then SpaceX is the much better value.

    For government payloads (including for Falcon 9), SpaceX needs to get into the government contracting system. Here is a summary from a NASA FY09 budget document that explains how it works:

    Under the NASA Launch Services (NLS) contracts with Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Orbital Sciences, the program acquires services associated with launches of Delta, Atlas, Pegasus, and Taurus launch vehicles. Services are provided on a Firm-Fixed-Price/IDIQ basis, and missions can be ordered under these contracts through June 2010. Missions not presently under contract are competed among existing NLS contractors through use of a Launch Service Task Order mechanism. In addition to the NLS contracts, four active missions remain under the Small Expendable Launch Vehicle Services contract with Orbital Sciences.

    Since SpaceX is really just coming online with their launchers, they have not been able to bid for these contracts, but I’m sure that’s their ultimate goal, especially if they can bid higher prices than their normal commercial ones, and still underbid their competition.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ September 5th, 2010 at 1:23 pm

    By what magic do you build 3 cores for the cost of <1.5? Have you been snorting Elon Musk's pixie dust? The pricing is not realistic. The vehicle would be sold for a loss.

    You’re assuming that the Falcon 9 price barely covers their costs, when in fact it could be their highest profit product – and it’s still priced below the competition.

    I think Falcon 9 Heavy is priced as a “loss leader”, and though I don’t think they’re loosing money on them, I think this is a temporary “introductory price” in order to kick off the product.

    Considering that they are competing with Delta IV Heavy domestically ($250M+), I think they are looking for customers who want to try them out, and then lock them in with their higher payload capability (40% more than Delta IV Heavy). This type of market moves slowly however, so it will take a while to adjust it to the lower prices SpaceX offers.

  • Byeman

    NLS II is coming online soon and it should be for ten years or so.

    Spacex had the opportunity to bid on TDRS J & K, MMS, RBSP, NUSTAR, OCO II,

    Commercial customer usually pay 100% before launch. Insurance take care of what happens after launch.

  • Bennett

    Spacex had the opportunity to bid on TDRS J & K, MMS, RBSP, NUSTAR, OCO II,

    Restraint is good as they prove out F9 and then ramp up production for what’s already on their manifest. They have a lot on their plate.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Bennett wrote @ September 5th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
    Byeman wrote @ September 5th, 2010 at 3:27 pm

    I was thinking more about deals like the Iridium contract that SpaceX signed. As far as I know, that one is for successful launches, not attempted launches, with no money up front for development. Is this not correct?

    No there’s money in there for a multi-payload launcher. Not a lot but some.

  • libs0n

    “By what magic do you build 3 cores for the cost of <1.5?"

    It is my understanding that in a launch vehicle, the second stage is the more expensive portion. It contains the avionics, and more focus is placed upon it due to its impact upon performance. The first stage by contrast is essentially tanks and engines. So a multiplier by 3 in the cheaper portion is not necessarily going to translate in a triplefold cost in whole.

    Consider also that there is more going on with a launch that just hardware. There is launch crews, and company overhead, etc, that would be the same for any launch, and for a marginal increase in hardware cost this other portion of the launch cost can be leveraged.

    So, first stage hardware costs only make up a fraction of the cost of the launch vehicle, and tripling that fraction does not triple the total cost, only increases it by some amount.

  • Wodun

    Off topic from the blog but slightly on topic for the discussion.

    Elon Musk likes to cite a price per passenger for the F9 and compare it to the total launch cost of a different vehicle. Doing that will always make the Dragon/F9 look good.

    Using Coastal Ron’s numbers from earlier and assuming 7 seats for each vehicle, the price per CST-100 and Dragon are fairly comparable ($10m difference).

    A problem arises when you throw in Orion, which was never designed just to go to the ISS and back. Using Orion just to get to the ISS would be a waste of its potential and as many people have pointed out, more expensive than incoming alternatives.

    So my questions are: is the Orion the best space exploration vehicle? Would we be better off with a space exploration vehicle that was designed to only operate in space and not return to Earth? Is slowing down the greatest obstacle on the return leg to Earth? Would NASA be a good choice to create a pure space ship in house or would it be better to out source?

    It seems to me that if NASA is going to use private corporations to access LEO, then they should be focused on the next leg. Aside from the technology demonstrations like fuel depots, there doesn’t seem to be any thought as to what would go to a fuel depot besides an Orion with a mod or two.

  • common sense

    @ Wodun wrote @ September 8th, 2010 at 4:51 pm

    “is the Orion the best space exploration vehicle?”

    Well I don’t want to play games but you have to define “best”. Orion was deemed best years ago according to certain budget and schedule requirements. Real life has shown that it was not “best”. This can be attributed to difficulties with Ares and/or NASA as a whole. So once again, what is “best”? Usually a capsule is “best” to try and contain cost for a reentry vehicle. In that sense Orion is best, even though other shapes may be better for different reasons, e.g. Soyus is best at land landing.

    “Would we be better off with a space exploration vehicle that was designed to only operate in space and not return to Earth?”

    It would most certainly be smarter. You could do away with the stress of reentry. You would not have to worry about its shape for example which imposes construction requirements for a capsule. But you’d still have to build a reentry vehicle at some point. It is a question about the exploration architecture you want to build.

    “Is slowing down the greatest obstacle on the return leg to Earth?”

    If not it’s near the top. Aerothermal environment on a return leg from the Moon is demanding. Think of it this way the heating is proportional to velocity cube. You may to look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_reentry. A Moon return is about 11 km/s. So you have to dump a lot of heat to survive reentry.

    “Would NASA be a good choice to create a pure space ship in house or would it be better to out source?”

    What is “create”? Do you mean “design” or “build” or both? NASA would be very good at defining the requirements for the spaceship. Defining its environments, limitations, etc based on science. Then NASA would let its contractors design and build the ship. But of course NASA would have a voice in it, so long they don’t change the requirements too often… Then again requirement changes are often prompted by budget changes… So I am afraid there is no “good” answer. But first and foremost, NASA ought to define a mission and its requirements then we can see who it is who’s best to design and/or build the ship…

  • Wodun

    Thanks for the input.

    I’m curious if the CST-100 or the Dragon would have the required heat shielding for a return from the Moon or Mars? If not, we are stuck with Orion or an undeveloped vehicle.

    And for slowing down, how feasible is it for a true space ship to rendezvous with the ISS or something else like a fuel depot after a trip to the Moon? Re-usability seems to be a major bottleneck.

  • Coastal Ron

    Wodun wrote @ September 8th, 2010 at 9:27 pm

    I’m curious if the CST-100 or the Dragon would have the required heat shielding for a return from the Moon or Mars?

    According to SpaceX, Dragon could return from lunar or Mars trips using their current heat shield.

    http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/002/100716firststage/

    Personally, I’d like to find a solution where we can leave the CRV in orbit, and not have to drag it’s mass around. Since it’s also a lifeboat, maybe that’s not going to happen for a while (needed for backup), but at least we could try to carry a lightweight design like Dragon/CST-100 versus Orion.

  • Wodun

    Good recall, I didn’t remember that from the article.

  • byeman

    ““Would we be better off with a space exploration vehicle that was designed to only operate in space and not return to Earth?””

    “Is slowing down the greatest obstacle on the return leg to Earth?”

    No and no, because the weight of propellant to brake into earth orbit is more than 10 times the weigh of a heat shield and the constraints on the design of the vehicle.

  • Coastal Ron

    byeman wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 7:43 am

    No and no, because the weight of propellant to brake into earth orbit is more than 10 times the weigh of a heat shield and the constraints on the design of the vehicle.

    So we should just make all CRV’s designed to return from L1? Could you make L1 (or maybe any of the Lagrange points) the place where you climb into a capsule for the ride back home? Your first no is a little fuzzy.

    I’ve been doing a cost study for a Lagrange mission that utilizes mostly off the shelf technology (Node 3, Delta IV Heavy, etc.), but my biggest unknown was fuel requirements getting to/from L1. I was thinking of bringing the whole exploration vehicle back to LEO and do crew rotations there, but what you’re suggesting is that to reduce fuel requirements dramatically, I should do crew rotations at L1 instead.

    Btw, my goal was to see how much could be done with $10B, and if I use Delta IV Heavy with ULA’s ACES tankers, then I was coming in around $7B for just the hardware & logistics part. However, if I use Falcon 9 Heavy ($95M/flight), the costs fall to $5B. Plenty of assumptions that have to get validated or refined, but I think I’m in the ballpark, and the space hardware is reusable (follow-on missions get dramatically less expensive). A fun little exercise, especially since I like to focus on cost and using existing technology (vs building custom every time).

  • common sense

    Looks like some people are not aware of aerobraking/aerocapture/direct-entry differences (?). Orion uses some evolved version of direct entry. It means that it comes from space at whatever velocity and uses the atmosphere to slow down quickly. Actually they were supposed to use a skip entry. This maneuver makes you go back up in the atmosphere and allows for more cross range, lower Gs, lower heat rates, higher heat loads. This being said. The cost of propellant to slow down the vehicle would be enormous so the most credible way to slow down will always (?) be by use of the atmosphere. A quick entry puts lots of stress on the vehicle: high Gs, high heat rates. It means that the structure of the vehicle is put to lots of aerodynamic loads and the material of the heat shield is difficult to make since it has to sustain immense heating. BTW I forgot to mention shock radiation heating which is more important than convective heating at planetary return velocity at least for the initial entry: The shock in front of the vehicle literaly radiates heat from the chemical reactions onto the heat shield. A slower entry, braking or capture, allows for less stress on the vehicle but increases the heat loads (integrated heat rates over time) which in turns call for extra thickness of the heat shield hence mass. And it takes more time to come back from wherever.

    All in all and again, it depends how much cash you have and what kind of infrastructure you want to develop. One might imagine vehicle docking with space station from say the Moon. And a taxi vehicle to and from the station. However with the current technology you’d still have to slow down with the atmosphere. An aerobraking would also require some thinking for abort/emergency landing. This probably means a much larger than a capsule vehicle that would include emergency pods/capsules.

    So Byeman’s answer is a little short on substance, sorry. Until you make the relevant trade strudy with cost/schedule/technology there is no one right answer.

    Sidenote: In the early stages of CEV there was a plan to leave a vehicle at L1 but the cost and risks if I remember correctly killed the option.

    Hope this helps…

  • Coastal Ron

    common sense wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    Good stuff. Thanks.

  • Wodun

    Excellent insight.

    Looks like we are stuck with throwing everything away for the time being.

  • Wodun

    Oh, on the off chance anyone might come back to this thread, one more question.

    If the crew is jettisoned in a capsule, is it possible for the rest of the CEV (over a long period of time) to slow down enough to be reused perhaps years later? Would an extensive period of time in the harsh environment of space render the cev useless by the time it could be used again?

  • common sense

    @ Wodun wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Actually I think that if we could get the technogy plan that the WH wants and some smart out-of-the-box thinking we might do something really spectacular. But we’d have to fight the private interests (industry, Congress, you-name-it) and accept that most will not happen during our life time. Unfortunately. Take the past 40 years of spending for nothing and I guarantee you with my hindsight crystal ball we could have been much closer than we are to a real deep space infrastructure. Commercials should have been brought it after Shuttle one way or another in a fixed cost kind of way. Look at the new HEFT study at NASAWatch. Very cool very ambitious and very likely to fail plan. Why? Where the heck is the sustainability over multiple WH/Congress being addressed? In order for NASA to replace something they cannot actually complete (Constellation) they plan something even more costly/difficult with similar systems!!! Way to go. The secret lies in “pay as you go” and “small steps forward” and in the same vein “modular/expandable” architecture.

    I have advocated here and elsewhere a revival of NIAC and NASC to address strategic planning at NASA and coordination with stake holders. It looks like NIAC may come back. We’ll see if it is to address some tactical research issues or the big picture or both. If no one is actually trying to tackle the big picture then we’re bound to see over and over again plans to the Moon, Mars, NEOs without financial merit.

    We shall see.

  • common sense

    @ Wodun wrote @ September 9th, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    “If the crew is jettisoned in a capsule, is it possible for the rest of the CEV (over a long period of time) to slow down enough to be reused perhaps years later? Would an extensive period of time in the harsh environment of space render the cev useless by the time it could be used again?”

    I don’t know the answer to that but it seems we can operate an ISS over a pretty long period of time…

  • Wodun

    Awesome thanks for the input. I will read up on that HEFT study.

    The ideas killer seems to be orbital dynamics or whatever the more correct term for it is.

Leave a Reply to Todd The Usurper 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>