Let’s say you’re a major aerospace company. You have a significant presence in a state, employing hundreds of people. Your work plays a critical role in both national security and civil space activities. You might assume that political leaders in that state would be familiar with your company’s work, or have, at least, heard of the company. For United Launch Alliance in Alabama, think again.
In an article in Sunday’s Decatur (Ala.) Daily, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) tells the paper that he “did not know enough about the company to comment” about provisions in the NASA authorization bill approved by the Senate that would seem to shut out ULA from developing a heavy-lift rocket in favor of using shuttle-derived architectures. [The article may require a subscription for some, but you might be able to read it by going through Google News.] To some degree, that’s understandable: Sessions does not serve on the Senate Commerce Committee, which drafted the authorization bill, so one can see how he would not be familiar with elements of the bill and its accompanying report (which lays out the specifics about the committee’s desired architecture.) But the kicker comes at the very end of the article: “During the interview in Decatur two weeks ago, Sessions repeatedly referred to ULA as ‘UAL.'”
The country’s in the very best of hands.
Meanwhile, one Senate staffer who should know is predicting no NASA authorization bill and a CR for NASA FY 2011 appropriations:
nasawatch.com/archives/2010/09/congressional-i.html
forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg635999#msg635999
If the Republicans take control of the House, the “Speaker-in-Waiting” (Rep. Boehner, who would replace Rep. Pelosi) would start budget negotiations with a 22-percent cut to non-defense discretionary funding.
bpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3286
This would effectively return the non-defense discretionary budget to 2008 levels. NASA is part of the non-defense discretionary budget and NASA’s FY 2008 enacted budget was $17.3 billion, which would be a cut of $1.7 billion from NASA’s FY 2011 budget request.
FWIW…
Of course Sessions at least admits being in ignorance. Most pols would try to BS their way out of it.
“Major Tom†I doubt that the cut would be across the board. Some programs would be eliminated, some decreased, some remain the same, and some perhaps even increased. In any case, even if NASA takes that kind of hit, it will not matter in the long run. Obama has turned the space agency into chaos with his foolish policy proposal and it will not be entirely sorted out until the next President.
“I doubt that the cut would be across the board.”
As much as we space cadets don’t want to admit it, NASA is one of the nation’s lower budget priorities. It will probably be hit harder than most non-defense discretionary programs.
“Obama has turned the space agency into chaos with his foolish policy proposal”
The White House’s FY 2011 budget request for NASA is much more consistent with the direction Boehner is taking the budget than some fantasy about boosting NASA’s budget by $3-5 billion per year to resurrect Constellation or building SDHLVs that can’t be afforded.
This is not about political parties. It’s about budget realities.
Major Tom wrote @ September 12th, 2010 at 3:42 pm [This is not about political parties. It’s about budget realities.]
It’s both.
Anne Spudis wrote @ September 12th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Could you explain why you think it’s both?
Thanks.
Senator Shelby is the Alabama senator who’s the tool of the aerospace industry. Sessions most likely relies on Shelby to tell him how to vote on Alabama space pork.
Hopefully without violating “fair use” copyright guidelines, here are excerpts from the article.
The interesting thing is that the headline reads:
Decatur loses out in NASA bill
Shelby-guided Senate budget authorization bad news for Decatur’s rocket plant
The casual reader would think Shelby is to blame.
Anyway, the first couple paragraphs:
As U.S. senators carved up the leftovers of NASA’s Constellation program for their states, most of the meat went to Utah and Huntsville.
United Launch Alliance, with its assembly plant in Decatur, got the bone.
The ranking Republican member of the committee that wrote the budget authorization that would effectively exclude ULA from participating in the development of a heavy-lift rocket was Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa.
The article later observes that “The Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science and Space report is unusually specific in dictating to NASA how it should use its budget” and that “Each ingredient in this rocket recipe protects some contractor, most significantly Utah-based Alliant Techsystems Inc., known as ATK.”
Oink. Oink. Oink.
Bennett wrote @ September 12th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
I was just stating the obvious.
“Major Tom” was so quick in pronouncing them unrelated, when in fact they are joined at the hip.
If you can’t see that, I’m not about to spend time trying to convince you differently.
Well, it’s not like he can outright say “I’ve never received a check from them so I don’t care who they are” now can he?
“‘Major Tom’ was so quick in pronouncing them unrelated, when in fact they are joined at the hip.”
I said no such thing. I stated that this particular issue is not about politics. It’s about budget realities.
When the Democratic White House’s FY 2011 budget proposal is more in line with the likely next Speaker of House’s Republican direction on the non-defense discretionary budget — certainly more so than Constellation resurrection or SDHLV proposals — then common direction is being driven by budget reality, not politics.
“If you can’t see that, I’m not about to spend time trying to convince you differently.”
If you insist on misreading other posters’ statements and putting words in other posters’ mouths, then you shouldn’t waste time posting here.
The country’s in the very best of hands.
ULA may need to work on its lobbying skills too. How is possible one of your two senators has never even heard of your company? Note that Shelby is at least aware of their existence and wants them to continue to build rockets for the military or something like that.
The article can be read here: http://drop.io/ftdpqhm
Anne Spudis wrote @ September 12th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Hey, I was just wanting to hear your opinion. I guess I’m sorry I asked.
ULA may need to work on its lobbying skills too. How is possible one of your two senators has never even heard of your company? Note that Shelby is at least aware of their existence and wants them to continue to build rockets for the military or something like that.
The educated guess would be that Marshall gets more pork for the state than ULA, thus the snub.
But Sessions should at least get the corporate name right. How embarrassing.
Supreme example of willful ignorance.
As Major Tom would say, “Ugh.”
“You might assume that political leaders in that state would be familiar with your company’s work, or have, at least, heard of the company. For United Launch Alliance in Alabama, think again.”
I mused about this a couple of months ago in the comments I made on a ULA article in AL.com, so I’m glad that someone is finally noticing that one of the major aerospace manufacturer in Alabama is not being supported by their Senators.
I wonder though if part of this is because of restrictions that ULA is under from it’s parents? Maybe one (or both) have competing interests in Alabama, and they don’t see a revenue advantage in lobbying the two Republican Senators.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 12th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
you might not like the way things are going, although you once supported exactly such measures…but the victory of Obama and his policy has killed for the next 10-20 years any more stupid forays into “exploration”.
It is really a triumphal moment.
Kind of can hear “theme of the fast carriers” sort of warming up in the background…
Robert G. Oler
@Anne Spudis wrote @ September 12th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
“Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) tells the paper that he “did not know enough about the company to commentâ€
No surprise. A Republican by party affiliation but worse, a conservative in ideology. Never a philosophy ‘friendly’ toward the civilian space agency.
@ Anne Spudis wrote @ September 12th, 2010 at 6:10 pm <- The worst thing that could happen to the civilian space agency is to stick its head up and get caught in the middle of the crossfire between ideologies engaged in political warfare. It'll get cut to ribbons. Sessions' party is in the midst of a purge, drifting further down market and to the right, where the ideological bent is decidely more comfortable with the intellectual pursuits of NASCAR not NASA.
DCSCA wrote @ September 13th, 2010 at 4:47 am
DCSCA wrote @ September 13th, 2010 at 5:02 am
Nice try.
Oh give me a break. ULA ain’t exactly a household name, and I’m willing to bet that your typical space blogger won’t exactly come clean as to when he first heard about the company (or any other, for that matter). None of this does anything to shed light on the underlying problem competitors run into facing off against SDLV. That is you’re competing American architectures that have never flown man into space against something Congress is under the mistaken impression is just a scaled down Shuttle and has, for whatever reason, accepted must cost an insane amount per launch. I don’t necessarily blame them; ATK has engineers and reports just the same as ULA, apparently a far better ground game on the Hill, and benefits from a recession that just loves to skewer politicos in districts with rising unemployment.
Sessions’ party is in the midst of a purge, drifting further down market and to the right, where the ideological bent is decidely more comfortable with the intellectual pursuits of NASCAR not NASA.
I think you will find a strong overlap between interest in NASCAR and interest in NASA, especially considering the locations of JSC, Stennis, Langley, and MSFC. And I’m not sure what’s wrong with that. We could use more NASA employees interested in brake rotors and fewer NASA employees interested in politics.
I genuinely think that the politicians believe that the EELVs are operated by the USAF and that they have no clue that ULA exists! It would explain a lot of the hostility directed towards them and it would also explain why ULA never seems to really factor into the debate on the Hill.
Think about it: If ULA were not to exist, then the commercial space industry is OSC (notable disasters – Pegasus and OCO-1) and SpaceX (newcomer and alleged Obama crony). This might explain the House’s inability to believe that there is a quick alternative to a NASA-designed and -operated launch system.
The ULA complaint is nonsense. The Delta IV EELV is not heavy lift and was never part of Constellation. To complain about a loss when you never had anything in the first place is nothing less than a sham.
And with ULA’s brisk DOD launch business, one has to wonder about the agenda of the person making the complaints…
Nelson Bridwell,
The EELV vehicles are evolvable to various levels of heavy lift. Let me put it this way. You have the Space Shuttle. To turn the Space Shuttle into a SDHLV, requires a vast sum that could also turn the other vehicles into heavy lift.
The Senate bill mandates that NASA develop a heavy lift vehicle. If a HLV is to be built, then EELV derivatives are candidates for such a role, along with other candidates like SDHLV. ULA is complaining that the language of the bill excludes their HLV candidates from being considered.
This is not about Constellation, this is about a new heavy lift program being mandated.
The agenda is simple. ULA is an experienced launch vehicle company, who has developed and operates 2 launch vehicle lines in the EELVs(+Delta2), and wishes to be considered for the development of a new launch vehicle, which would represent new business for that company.
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ September 13th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
the Delta IV can evolve into as much as a heavy lift as the shuttle system can evolve into and it has one other quality.
It is affordable.
Robert G. Oler
Republicans love NASA and as many have pointed out, it is the only big government spending they approve of. I doubt NASA’s funding is in danger. It is quite possible that a new Republican congress would increase funding in an effort to make up for lost time and preserve national prestige. The wisdom of what they would make NASA do with their budget is something different.
It would be nice to see many proposals for heavy lift.
SpaceX didn’t pop up over night. They didn’t magically develop the Falcon 9 after Obama took office. Commercial space isn’t in any danger of disappearing. Who was that guy who was President when COTS was started?
IMO, Republicans or conservatives in general are in favor of a big government program for NASA and in favor of developing the capabilities of private industry. What they don’t like is that NASA wont be launching people into space on NASA rockets.
Then why didn’t they increase the NASA budget to fit with the assumed budget Constellation thought it needed?
Republicans, as a rule, are no more great lovers of NASA than Democrats.
@ Ferris Valyn
They like it and will defend the status quo. However, there is a big difference between ‘liking’ and ‘paying more for extras’. That’s a key qualifier that is often overlooked.
I’ve said this over on other sites but I suspect that, whilst Orion/SLS will be seen as a political priority, the only way more money will get to it is from stripping other elements of NASA’s budget (as we’ve seen in the House bill). That’s one of the reason why I fear delays and a CR – Sufficient roadblocks to whatever new program is selected will simply inspire the politicians to kill things they don’t like such as commercial crew development and technology development so the money can be spent fixing the damage caused to the shuttle infrastructure by the delay.
Wodun wrote @ September 13th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Republicans love NASA and as many have pointed out, it is the only big government spending they approve of…
If the GOP takes over the House or Congress in total we are going to get to see how accurate that is.
I doubt it is so.
The GOP loves NASA spending, but then they love spending period…
what we are going to see, no matter the outcome of 10 is a wonderful battle to try and reign in spending…and great political theater. There is a reasons “Sun Tan John” has already curbed his sails on keeping the bush tax cuts “for the rich”.
it wasnt popular.
Robert G. Oler
Yes, Constellation’s breaking the bank. Here’s the other question, why should anyone believe that EELV evolution wouldn’t do the same? I can assure you as someone who would like to agree with you that assorted posts by insiders on blogs ain’t going to do the trick. Architecture studies are barely that much more convincing; where were all the complaints within two years of ESAS?
National spacelift in general needs to get into the habit of competing firing and flying platforms, and ULA isn’t even in that game yet. The newcomers are basically inventing that space on their own, without even the benefit of a viable government buyer.
Wodun wrote @ September 13th, 2010 at 3:34 pm “Republicans love NASA and as many have pointed out, it is the only big government spending they approve of. I doubt NASA’s funding is in danger.” Perhaps. Perhaps not. Bush 1 & Bush 2 (<- moderates by GOP standards) both delivered high profile proposals aimed at reinvigorating NASA with new direction and purpose but both failed on the follow through to fight for funding in Congress. Of course, the damage done by Nixon is well known and by today's standards he was a more than moderate. And the 'for profit' damage done in the Reagan years was figuratively and literally a disaster for the agency. It's chiefly been Congressional conservatives infecting both parties who've opposed NASA funding over the years and the GOP of current times is increasingly the home (but not exclusively) of the down-market-and-to-the-right ideology. In the long run- and these project are always long-run proposals- a 'Republican (conservative)' House will be of little help (aside from DoD) to any government agency, including NASA.
“Most importantly, though, the Senate needs to keep itself out of the details. It should be setting space policy, not trumping NASA’s excellence at figuring out how best to accomplish its mission”
Above quote came form Decatur article;
Same principle applies to the House of Reps, where they’re building their own rocket without a policy to utilize it.
Presley Cannady wrote
“Yes, Constellation’s breaking the bank. Here’s the other question, why should anyone believe that EELV evolution wouldn’t do the same?”
Estimates for the cost of Ares V were upwards of 50 billion.. can you HONESTLY say an EELV HLLV would run anywhere even close to that?
Here’s the other question, why should anyone believe that EELV evolution wouldn’t do the same?
As long as you don’t go beyond Atlas Phase 2 costs should remain under control. And the good thing about EELVs is that you don’t need anything bigger, even though you could reasonably go to EELV Phase 1 or perhaps Atlas Phase 2. Super Delta is the Delta that is most like the Shuttle and the EELV that makes the least sense. Bigger isn’t better, cheaper is.
As the Space Access Society reported, the House authorization bill for NASA appears to be dead:
space-access.org/
majorityleader.gov/links_and_resources/whip_resources/weeklyleader.cfm?pressreleaseID=4476
FWIW…
Reading over the link of items that the United States Congress deems worthy of their consideration, I suggest all critical thinking American be very afraid.
“Yes, Constellation’s breaking the bank. Here’s the other question, why should anyone believe that EELV evolution wouldn’t do the same?”
Development of the current EELV fleet cost the taxpayer $1 billion and Boeing and LockMart $4 billion. That’s $5 billion for two families of modern, highly reliable launch vehicles that span medium, intermediate, and low-end heavy lift needs.
Ares I/Orion development, by contrast, has already cost the taxpayer $10 billion and will require another ~$30 billion to complete, according to the managers on the program before its cancellation. That’s $40 billion from the taxpayer for one intermediate lift launch vehicle and capsule (Ares I/Orion) vice $5 billion total (and only $1 billion from the taxpayer) for two families of launch vehicles (EELV). It’s not hard to project that, all things being equal, an EELV-derived HLV will probably be less costly, maybe by tens of billions of dollars, than an SDHLV such as Ares V.
On top of that history, common sense tells us that NASA would be sharing costs with the military and commercial users of the EELV fleet if it used the EELV infrastructure to support its human space flight needs, vice having to foot the entire operational bill of the aging Apollo infrastructure and the large Shuttle workforce. So even if an EELV-derived HLV for NASA cost as much to develop as an SDHLV, being able to leverage an infrastructure and workforce that spreads its costs across several customers (EELV), vice only one (Shuttle-derived), is going to cost NASA less going foward, anyway.
“National spacelift in general needs to get into the habit of competing firing and flying platforms, and ULA isn’t even in that game yet.”
If by “competing”, you mean commercial payloads, EELVs have competed and do compete for such through ULA’s parent companies. For example, IIRC, eight of Atlas V’s 22 payloads have been commercial comsats, and I think a ninth one is schedule for November.
That’s doesn’t mean that EELVs have been as successful in the commercial launch market as anticipated — not by a long shot. But it’s false to claim that they havn’t competed, sometimes successfully.
FWIW…
Back and forth posts by clueless trolls like Mark Whittington, Major Tom, and Robert Oler. What has become of this (once excellent) website? C’mon Jeff. Bounce the trolls.
What has become of this (once excellent) website?
Five years of Constellation.
I’m curious, how exactly do you intend to rehabilitate politics by censorship?
Mark R. Whittington: “Obama has turned the space agency into chaos with his foolish policy proposal and it will not be entirely sorted out until the next President”
When George W. Bush announced four years ago that BOTH shuttle and station would be terminated in 2010, leaving the US with no way at all into space for years, and so underfunded Constellation that even minor problems coudn’t be fixed, my friends at the local space center, most of whom are hard-and-fast Republicans, raised no objection at all. Losing their jobs was OK if GWB said it was necessary.
But when Obama was elected, and increased the NASA budget, and saved the ISS, and took the uncharacteristic position of eliminating a huge and wasteful government program and replacing it with private industry, something Republicans have always claimed they wanted, they attacked Obama with unprecedented vitriol. The facts don’t seem to matter, only attacking the President. When did Democratic space enthusiasts mount such an assault on George Bush?
This nation has other priorities and limited funds. If we, the space enthusiast community, cannot get beyond this bitter politicization and work together, it is doubtful there is much of a future role for NASA in human spaceflight.
As for the case of ULA, obviously
Former Regular Reader wrote @ September 13th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
we love you man/woman…group hug Robert G. Oler
Fearful Monger wrote @ September 13th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
Reading over the link of items that the United States Congress deems worthy of their consideration, I suggest all critical thinking American be very afraid…..
for sometime now Robert
“When George W. Bush announced four years ago that BOTH shuttle and station would be terminated in 2010″
Technical correction — Bush never announced that ISS would be terminated in 2010.
FWIW…
“Back and forth posts by clueless trolls like… Major Tom…”
Where have I trolled? Specifically.
And where are your meaningful contributions to this forum? Specifically.
FWIW…
Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 13th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
“The GOP loves NASA spending, but then they love spending period…”
You are dangerously close to agreeing with me =p
“what we are going to see, no matter the outcome of 10 is a wonderful battle to try and reign in spending…and great political theater. There is a reasons “Sun Tan John†has already curbed his sails on keeping the bush tax cuts “for the richâ€.”
The Bush Tax Cuts overwhelmingly favored those at the bottom of the tax bracket. Some people at the bottom got a 13% cut in their tax rate. The “rich” got a 4.6% cut.
But lets see what happens. I am not confident that either political party can come up with a good HSF strategy no matter what level of funding NASA gets.
DCSCA wrote @ September 13th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
“Perhaps. Perhaps not. Bush 1 & Bush 2 (<- moderates by GOP standards) both delivered high profile proposals aimed at reinvigorating NASA with new direction and purpose but both failed on the follow through to fight for funding in Congress."
I would agree the follow through wasn't there but you have to admit COTS is working out fairly well.
"In the long run- and these project are always long-run proposals- a 'Republican (conservative)' House will be of little help (aside from DoD) to any government agency, including NASA."
I think Republicans look at NASA like the DoD, which is why they are accepting of high costs. Much of the criticism of what is going on now has to do with a loss of national prestige and compromised national security. You might not agree with the criticism but it is out there.
Depending on how the debate is framed and how effectively New Space can lobby (we have already seen some clever sites), the Republicans could be a good ally to New Space.
We can argue about politics, which is always fun, but the great thing about NASA is that it is one of the least controversial government agencies. Because of that there is a greater chance for Republicans and Democrats to work together.
vulture4 wrote @ September 13th, 2010 at 8:31 pm
“But when Obama was elected, and increased the NASA budget, and saved the ISS, and took the uncharacteristic position of eliminating a huge and wasteful government program and replacing it with private industry, something Republicans have always claimed they wanted, they attacked Obama with unprecedented vitriol. The facts don’t seem to matter, only attacking the President. When did Democratic space enthusiasts mount such an assault on George Bush?”
I think a person could argue that Bush did more for commercial space than Obama. Much like other areas, Obama has continued with Bush’s policies.
The biggest problem with Obama’s space plan is the disastrous way it was rolled out. That had a great effect on the way people viewed the policy shift. Aside from cutting the Ares I and the Moon as a destination, it is not terribly different than Bush’s plan.
I don’t know how the space community attacked Bush but if you are comparing political attacks in general, Bush received much more vicious attacks than Obama. Bush to his credit, never told his supporters to report fishy rumors to flag@whitehouse.gov or threaten congressmen they would lose their military bases if they didn’t support the stimulus. Plenty of things you can say Bush did wrong but intimidation tactics like that toward his critics were not one of them.
“This nation has other priorities and limited funds. If we, the space enthusiast community, cannot get beyond this bitter politicization and work together, it is doubtful there is much of a future role for NASA in human spaceflight. ”
Not more than a few days ago, I had similar thoughts about this site before coming to the understanding that you might see a little more vitriol on a blog like this due to its close ties to the subject of politics. I’d wager if you took these same people and put them on a different board where the subject was just space and not space politics, people would be friendlier.
Wodun wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 2:51 am <– Bear in mind, Speaker Gingrich floated a trial balloon briefly proposing to close down the agency in the mid '90's, proclaiming its mission accomplished but his balloon never got far. Conservatives are seldom in NASA's camp. 'Newspace' lobbying is a fizzle. Just a desperate attempt to establish some kind of parody for arguments sake with government funded and manged manned spaceflight operations. To date they've not launched, orbited and returned anybody safely to Earth.
@Wodun “Bush to his credit, never told his supporters to report fishy rumors…” LOL they just decided to monitor all web traffic instead.
You know, for all the harping we dish out on Griffin for refusing to release comparative data on man-rating EELV over Ares, our basis for ULA’s development numbers comes from a single line in oral testimony…in a discussion of how the >$5 billion spent has still left ULA in the red through 3 buys. That said…
…that’s $5 billion for two families of rockets that aren’t man-rated with sustainment costs north of $1 billion a year each.
The point isn’t that there isn’t reason to believe EELV’s will not experience the cost explosion Ares has, but to point out that the anti-Ares crowd has yet to build up confidence on the Hill that there are viable alternatives. Part of that is simply the nature of the business; we don’t compete flying architectures when drawing up budgets, and a lot of the cost data even in retrospect is proprietary.
Except government keeps filling up ULA’s launch manifest. This whole exercise in subsidizing commercial spaceflight period is a recognition of the weak demand for such services outside of the public sector. We’re not spreading costs worth a damn, and probably won’t for years to come. Not playing small ball in LEO we won’t.
By competing, I mean pitting new, flying architectures against one another prior to down-select, as they do in just about every other sector of aerospace.
Christ, that’s an insane triple negative. Allow me to rephrase:
My point isn’t that EELV’s will necessarily experience the cost explosion Ares has…and continue.
@vulture4 “This nation has other priorities and limited funds. If we, the space enthusiast community, cannot get beyond this bitter politicization and work together, it is doubtful there is much of a future role for NASA in human spaceflight.”
Priorities are a relative thing. Consider the costs of two unfunded wars. Afghanistan is costing… what… $2 billion a week. A month’s worth of war funding directed toward NASA would relieve a lot of headaches for a year or two. But space activities have always been a luxury expense, even as Apollo’s Cold War rationale faded, and back in those days the top tax rates were near 70%. Reagan slashed them to 35% or so as deficits soared. We cannot operate a superpower of 315,000,000 people (it was only 180,000,000 when Kennedy committed to the moon) on 35% tax rates. It’s never worked and every government agency has suffered, including NASA. We either let the tax rates expire on the top tier as President Obama preferes, saving $780 billion over a decade, or go over a cliff. And everything has to be on the table, including DoD… and, unfortunately, NASA. But government funded and managed human spaceflight will continue… whether it’s American is less certain. China will press on.
1. $50(58, or whatever number you like) billion on what exactly? This is like the $40 billion claim with Ares 1–it’s attributing the entire cost of Project Constellation to one component of the architecture.
2. That said, no. I wouldn’t expect as much error in any follow on crew or heavy lifter after our Constellation experience, but then I’m not above being thoroughly surprised.
3. That also said, do you seriously expect your typical member of the Subcommittee on Science to appeal to his personal incredulity regarding the potential for savings for a hypothetical, man-rated EELV over a solid propellant rocket that can’t even fly. This is a battle of dueling reports, not actual vehicles, which brings me back to my main point. The way we examine and acquire launch vehicles is insane.
Why do you individuals keep insisting that the SRBs cant fly? They certainly have continually helped the shuttle reach orbit, and the X 1 flight proved they can fly on their own too. Also in an article on this sight no less, it sounds like Delta has also been thrown to the side. What will come next?
No one said SRBs can’t fly.
Presley Cannady wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 6:29 am
“You know, for all the harping we dish out on Griffin for refusing to release comparative data on man-rating EELV over Ares, our basis for ULA’s development numbers comes from a single line in oral testimony…that’s $5 billion for two families of rockets that aren’t man-rated with sustainment costs north of $1 billion a year each.”
I don’t know where you get the $1B/year “sustainment” figure for ULA, or what that is, but I think it’s more valid to look at how much it would cost from this point forward if we wanted a crew launcher.
For Ares I, the total cost was estimated to be $40B, so there is still at least $20B left to spent. After it’s made operational, it would continue to cost $1B/year for operations (covers one flight), plus $138M/ea for flights #2 and on. All that so NASA has a launcher man-rated launcher for Orion.
Or
Per testimony in front of the Augustine Commission (the slide deck is online), ULA stated that it would cost $1.3B to man-rate Delta IV Heavy, which has 20% margins for Orion, and no blackout zones during flight. ULA would charge $300M/flight.
I think if you showed this to the average U.S. Taxpayer, and asked them which one NASA should pick, there would be no question that man-rating Delta IV Heavy, and killing Ares I, was the right choice.
If NASA doesn’t need to send Orion, but only a commercial crew capsule, they could man-fate Atlas V for $400M, and it would cost $130M/flight.
The cost differences between Ares I and Delta IV Heavy are so great, that even if ULA upped their prices for man-rating, the savings would still be dramatic.
If Congress really wanted to save money and increase NASA’s ability to explore, then you would think someone would have brought ULA in front of a congressional committee and asked them about their offer. But unfortunately, Congress is more focused on what’s right politically, and not fiscally, for NASA.
Presley Cannady wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 6:44 a
“1. $50(58, or whatever number you like) billion on what exactly? This is like the $40 billion claim with Ares 1–it’s attributing the entire cost of Project Constellation to one component of the architecture.”
Maybe you’d like to suggest a different way of looking at the costs?
The way the program was structured, Ares I had to be built before Ares V, so of course all the costs up until now have been Ares I related. But once you get done with Ares I ($20-30B), you still need to spend $20-50B for Ares V. Removing the Ares I costs (i.e. canceling the program) would mean that Ares V has to carry the entire cost. No matter what, the Ares I/V program is very expensive.
This is like the $40 billion claim with Ares 1–it’s attributing the entire cost of Project Constellation to one component of the architecture.
The total cost for Constellation, including Ares I and V, Orion, EDS and lander, is hundred of billions.
Definitely north of $100 billion.
Actually, no. I’d just like the costs to be properly associated with the component under discussion.
“Related”…which, of course, includes Orion, but not EDS and Ares V. How much has been spent solely on Ares I development so far. Not the revolving costs of associated infrastructure, sustainment and all that crap.
That’s the plants and launch facilities, regardless of whether ULA flies or not in a given year.
Ares I, or Constellation until first mission?
If the US taxpayer, or more precisely his representative, believed that ULA could man-rate Delta IV heavy for a flat $1.3 billion. We can’t even get a Congressman to believe NASA and TAC’s numbers on Constellation’s costs.
If we’re to believe Boeing and LockMart can’t get before a Congressional Committee to make a purportedly solid case for an EELV alternative, then we might as well pack it in and pray for a miracle upshot in commercial satellite demand.
Presley Cannady wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
“That’s the plants and launch facilities, regardless of whether ULA flies or not in a given year.”
Where do you get this number? I’m curious, especially since ULA is flying on average of 12 flights per year, so it’s not like they are sitting around. I also think their overhead costs are amortized within their prices (some debate on this though).
“Ares I, or Constellation until first mission?”
You are aware that only Ares I and Orion were being worked on? Orion had it’s own cost problems, mainly because of Ares I, but just Ares I, to get to operational status, was going to cost $20B+.
In order to get to Constellation’s first Moon mission, you still need to add the costs to finish Orion (more than $5.5B), plus Ares V, the EDS and Altair. That’s minimum of $100B, and 15+ years.
“If the US taxpayer, or more precisely his representative, believed that ULA could man-rate Delta IV heavy for a flat $1.3 billion.”
One way to find out is to do an RFP, and then if the costs are reasonable, award a firm-fixed contract. ULA would only get paid for the work agreed to, and as long as the specs don’t change, that’s the amount that ULA will get. ULA has done studies on this already, so this is pretty low-risk contract-wise. It’s when you’re building something completely new, and the specs are undefined, that contracts can spiral out of control.
“If we’re to believe Boeing and LockMart can’t get before a Congressional Committee to make a purportedly solid case for an EELV alternative, then we might as well pack it in and pray for a miracle upshot in commercial satellite demand.”
We’re not talking Boeing and Lockheed Martin here – they both have self-interests in Constellation and potential SDLV’s. ULA, their 50-50 partnership, is probably forbidden from direct competition with it’s parents, so it could not lobby Congress if it wanted. That means it would have to be invited to testify, and Giffords and Shelby sure didn’t want anyone contradicting their desire to keep Constellation going.
Wodun wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 2:38 am
“The Bush Tax Cuts overwhelmingly favored those at the bottom of the tax bracket. Some people at the bottom got a 13% cut in their tax rate. The “rich†got a 4.6% cut.”
we are probably close to agreeing (grin)…
(or maybe not) Percentage points will prove anything while being misleading.
If the kids get a 10 percent raise in their allowance that means that they now get 1 dollar more…but if Rush and his XX million a year get a 5 percent raise…that is a lot of allowances for the kids.
I believe by design but no matter what the Bush years saw was the “rich” got control of a larger percentage of the income in The Republic while seeing their taxes go down a lot…
now the argument was Reagan’s old one “a rising tide lifts all boats” and if that were true we would not be on the verge of financial insolvency as a country…or as a middle class.
I dont have a problem with tax cuts, but the folks who argue the loudest for them also argue for wars in the mid east that we dont pay for (after all we have always gone into deficit for wars) or space programs that spend lots of money for chest thumping American exceptionalism (and thats just small spending so who cares)…etc etc.
Empires cost money. The Romans found that they loved one, what they didnt like was paying for it…and soon they had none.
Robert G. Oler
“That’s the plants and launch facilities, regardless of whether ULA flies or not in a given year.”
Wrong. It supports a minimal flight rate and certain services, but it is not enough to keep the doors open.
This just keeps getting better.
http://blog.al.com/huntsville-times-business/2010/09/sen_shelby_announces_defense_f.html
“The Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle serves as the Air Force’s space lift modernization program,” said Shelby. “EELV improves our nation’s access to space by making space launch vehicles more affordable and reliable.
“The funding approved by the subcommittee will support critical defense-related programs that strengthen our national security. These programs are vital to the stability of our nation’s military infrastructure and readiness, and the Subcommittee’s approval demonstrates our commitment to ensuring the safety of our citizens and the strength of our military.”
I’ll let those words speak for themselves.