If the House Science and Technology Committee thought that its revised version of the NASA authorization bill, with additional funding for commercial crew development, would win support from commercialization advocates, well, not exactly. “Although they’ve done their best to appear to be compromising, the fine text makes it clear that
they want to continue Constellation,” Space Frontier Foundation executive director Will Watson said in a statement by the organization. The Foundation complains about “24 separate restrictions” on commercial crew in the revised bill (although not enumerating them) as well as the bill’s combination of commercial cargo and crew funding into one account. The Foundation also criticizes language elsewhere in the bill that appears to leave the door open for continued development of the Ares 1. They ask that the House instead vote on the Senate bill.
Similar complaints come from the Space Access Society in a separate statement, which expresses concerns about “a whole tangle of reviews, reports, certifications, and other requirements” for commercial crew development as well as “continued development of something a lot like Ares/Orion”. The organization is also calling on the House to accept the version approved by the Senate. “We think it’s time to settle on the Senate compromise, resolve this matter, and move forward.”
Although both organizations sent out alerts warning the House would vote on this compromise version as soon as Friday, it appears that no vote is imminent. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, in a statement late Thursday, said there would be no votes on Friday, and that the House would next meet this coming Wednesday, September 29. The statement indicated that the priority for the House then would be to pass a continuing resolution before the fiscal year ends Thursday; Hoyer said he hoped the House could vote on it today but negotiations with the Senate on the CR are not complete.
…continued development of something a lot like Ares/Orion
Yeah, heaven forbid NASA develop a spacecraft. Squabbling over government handouts is so much more fun.
Ares is not a spacecraft. Orion is, but it would compete with commercial crew, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. A lander wouldn’t compete with commercial crew, but I think SDLV proponents know in their heart of hearts that there isn’t going be exploration in the foreseeable future, which would doom a lander. They will pretend Orion is meant strictly for beyond LEO, while it is acting merely as a “backup” to commercial crew. In the mean time they will invent as many obstacles as they can to stop commercial crew from succeeding so they can step in as a “backup”. Orion is meant for ISS service first and foremost, with beyond LEO just a distant dream. That is why it, like Ares or any other SDLV, has to go before we can make substantial progress.
Ares is not a spacecraft.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
That is why it, like Ares or any other SDLV, has to go before we can make substantial progress.
It is fairly obvious that a NASA led effort to develop a spacecraft and carrier rocket has wide appeal in congress and across the electorate. That hasn’t changed since President Bush created the Constellation program. What has changed was that the Bolsheviks came to power and gave the idiot fringe a prominent voice. You are an excellent example of this. This temporary phase has played out.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
Your original implied argument was that developing spacecraft is a natural task for NASA, and there is something to be said for that. The same isn’t true, at least today, for launch vehicles. For that you would have to fall back on the much weaker argument that “Congress” wants it. In other words you were trying to pull a fast one. Nice try, but no cigar.
What I want is not relevant (even though it is well aligned with congress’ wishes). Congress wants a rocket and a traditional NASA. They want launch control, launch day, a spacecraft filled with overachieving astronauts launching on a large rocket with an American flag painted on the side.
Right now nobody knows what “Congress” wants. We’re hearing mostly from the SDLV special interests, who can’t even agree among themselves. Congress as a whole doesn’t care about space, as long as there is a vaguely plausible manned spaceflight program and astronauts aren’t being killed. Come next January, Congress may want drastic budget cuts.
The statement indicated that the priority for the House then would be to pass a continuing resolution before the fiscal year ends Thursday; Hoyer said he hoped the House could vote on it today but negotiations with the Senate on the CR are not complete.
It seems that a CR is going to be in NASA’s future instead of the Senate bill or this House Authorization bill. The CxP zombie staggers on, although for how much longer no one knows because the money will eventually dry up.
Unless specific language is written into the CR saying what gets funding and where, this is the way it might be.
Then it wouldn’t be a CR – it be an approps bill
“It is fairly obvious that a NASA led effort to develop a spacecraft and carrier rocket has wide appeal in congress and across the electorate.”
I’ll agree that congress wants an in-house rocket, but that is not true of the electorate. When polled, most in the general public would rather either not have NASA at all or severely reduce its mission and funding. Such a reccommendation in congress is taboo. In respect to NASA in specific and spaceflight in general, congress is wildly out of step with the electorate. If congress reflected public opinion on space, we wouldn’t even have options to discuss.
amightywind wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 9:33 am
“Congress wants a rocket and a traditional NASA. They want launch control, launch day, a spacecraft filled with overachieving astronauts launching on a large rocket with an American flag painted on the side.”
Delta IV Heavy already has a U.S. flag painted on it’s side, and you can stick whatever payload of “overachieving astronauts” you want on top of it, Orion included.
And you already know this next part, but conveniently forget it, the military & intelligence agencies trust it more than a NASA launcher for the nations most valuable space assets. Delta IV Heavy is here, it’s proven, and it’s far less expensive than Ares I.
You at least had one thing right when you said “What I want is not relevant”, because Congress certainly is not in love with Ares I, only the pork politicians.
Then it wouldn’t be a CR – it be an approps bill
Thanks.
Incorrect.
aremisasling wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 11:14 am
I’ll agree that congress wants an in-house rocket, but that is not true of the electorate. ..
that is the reality of it. The electorate barely cares that we are flying humans in space, much less how they get there.
Go tell the electorate “The Ares 1X test flight cost 1/2 billion for about a minute forty seconds of data” and they will roll their eyes.
Robert G. Oler
Coastal Ron wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Delta IV Heavy already has a U.S. flag painted on it’s side, and you can stick whatever payload of “overachieving astronauts†you want on top of it, Orion included.
You don’t have to convince me of this endlessly stupid idea. You should write your congressman. My guess is he’ll be as unimpressed with the numbers you PFYA as I.
P.S Ares I is projected to cost $138M per flight.
Ares I is projected to cost $138M per flight.
That’s the marginal cost. The real cost will be well over a billion.
amightywind wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
“P.S Ares I is projected to cost $138M per flight.”
And to expand on what Rand already pointed out to you (and which you already knew), if all Ares I needs is $138M/flight, then I’m sure you’d be happy to lobby Congress to only budget them $138M/flight – such a deal!
But you already know that you’re ignoring the dedicated $1B/year that it takes to fly just the first flight, and that the $138M marginal cost is for flights #2 & on. Math is certainly not a skill you have mastered or display.
amightywind wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
yet another reason you have entered “troll” status.
It is possible that at one point (although I doubt it) you did not know that the margin cost are not the same as full up cost, but the explanation has been given so many times to you and others that I have lost track of the number of times…all by people who have sincerely tried to engage in informed debate.
Now to repeat that shows 1) you are either mindless and incapable of learning (which I doubt) or 2) you are just trolling for a response.
the really “sad” thing (at least on my part) is that while we disagree I have seen (or read) you debate things in a coherent logical manner based on facts.
It is regretful at least on my part that you do not chose this as your mode of operation.
you are, when you do it, good at it.
Robert G. Oler
amightywind wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 9:19 am <- Build a GP spaceraft -Orion-, crater Ares (<- it's a lousy rocket), adapt existing LVs to fly Orion while developing a HLV for out years, then a lunar lander and surface support facilities, then return to the moon– then adapt what you've learned and press on to Mars. That's your manned space program for the next 35 years through austere times.
To go further into debt to fund the elitist enterprise of commercial rocketry with its limited market and private capital markets balking at investing in it, will be viewed as just more unacceptable waste to most Americans sitting down to their suppers of franks ‘n’ beans.
elitist enterprise of commercial rocketry
Elitist compared to what? Spending billions of dollars borrowed from the Chinese to fly a tiny handful of diapered and useless “heroes” in tin cans while we are fighting wars and trying to compete with same Chinese in the real economy?
The frank ‘n beans crowd says a pox on both your houses.
If the V-22 can survive then Ares has a chance.
I will believe anything after 911.
Could be sidemount on the way though.
“It is fairly obvious that a NASA led effort to develop a spacecraft and carrier rocket has wide appeal in congress and across the electorate.”
Which electorate is this obvious to and are PUBLICALLY pushing it? The tea party? Libertarians? Liberal Democrats? Moderate or conservative Democrats? The log cabin republicans? The american socialist party? The moderate and conservative republicans? I would really like to know who this “mystery” electorate that is marching down the halls of congress demanding NASA build a launch vehicle.
I believe the electorate has a wider appeal for pizza and IPods than they do the space program.
Perhaps of historical interest:
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-40.pdf
U.S. SPACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY
January 6, 2005
FACT SHEET
The President authorized a new national policy on December 21, 2004, that establishes national policy, guidelines, and implementation actions for United States space transportation programs and activities to ensure the Nation’s ability to maintain access to and use space for U.S. national and homeland security, and civil, scientific, and commercial purposes. This policy supercedes Presidential Decision Directive/National Science and Technology Council-4, National Space Transportation Policy, dated August 5, 1994, in whole, and the following portions of Presidential Decision Directive/National Science and Technology Council-8/National Security Council-49, National Space Policy, dated September 14, 1996, that pertain to space transportation programs and activities: Civil Space Guideline 3b, Defense Space Sector Guideline c, Commercial Space Guideline 5, and Intersector Guideline 2.
[snip]
4) For the foreseeable future, the capabilities developed under the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program shall be the foundation for access to space for intermediate and larger payloads for national security, homeland security, and civil purposes to the maximum extent possible consistent with mission, performance, cost, and schedule requirements. New U.S. commercial space transportation capabilities that demonstrate the ability to reliably launch intermediate or larger payloads will be allowed to compete on a level playing field for United States Government missions.
Oh, and (same source, http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-40.pdf)
II. Space Exploration
1) The space transportation capabilities necessary to carry out space exploration will be developed consistent with U.S. Space Exploration Policy, dated January 14, 2004.
2) Consistent with that direction, the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall develop, in cooperation with the Secretary of Defense as appropriate, options to meet potential exploration-unique requirements for heavy lift beyond the capabilities of the existing Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles.
a) These options will emphasize the potential for using derivatives of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles to meet space exploration requirements. In addition, the Administrator shall evaluate the comparative costs and benefits of a new dedicated heavy-lift launch vehicle or options based on the use of Shuttle-derived systems.
b) The Administrator and the Secretary shall jointly submit to the President a recommendation regarding the preferred option to meet future heavy-lift requirements. This recommendation will include an assessment of the impact on national security, civil, and commercial launch activities and the space transportation industrial base.
…or, we can toss all that into the garbage and design a HFR that we’ll call, oh… i don’t know… The USS Griffin? After all, it’s just a hundred billion and I’ll be famous!
speaking of trolls, another clueless post.
“Could be sidemount on the way though”
Sidemount is no where in the discussions.
I certainly hope they keep Ares I, on something like CR for as long as possible. Maybe on slightly reduced budget and smaller workforce.
Even though i’m sorry for the money down the drain, but it locks the NASA launcher building business further and further into the corner of ridiculous, while Virgin Galactic, SpaceX, Armadillo, Masten, XCOR, Blue Origin and the like keep making more and increasingly more impressive news.
Someone ought to tip off reality TV producers on this spectacle, americans would watch. Season 1, Episode 2. Which NASA center gets voted off today ?
You forgot the most important competitor, ULA, which has more experience with launch vehicle design than NASA.
Martijn,
Reality TV shows aren’t about who is the most capable, as the most capable is usually the most threat, and therefore voted off the show early in the season;
in my defence, I am not a reality show watcher (no TV) but the ex-wife is an addict ;( these shows are pure confrontational politics and political alliances with Machiavellian intrigues; that’s there appeal to the audience; just as Shakespeare’s plays were to the Elizabethans, showing current politics in a “safe” setting (no one’s head would roll for watching) So, perhaps Reader’s suggestion isn’t so far fetched as it would seem ;0
I don’t see Martijn questioning the validity of the concept (it’s pretty decent pop culture irony), he’s simply updating the list to include ULA (a talented, professional, dedicated, commercial launch provider).
Pork advocates have made a living leaving ULA off of the list of available Commercial Crew launch providers. It’s just that it’s so much easier to
slanderdoubt the qualifications of the starkups as a rationalization for spending big bucks on Ares or a SDHLV.DCSCA wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
And that is the crux of the situation. All of the LV’s are cheaper than Ares I but none of them are cheap and there is only so far one can reduce launch costs with current LV’s.
The sad fact is, space exploration is expensive and that will not change even as costs come down. We can accept that it is expensive and spend the money anyway or deny reality and not give NASA the funding it needs.
In the meantime NASA is treading water. A CR would just delay the inevitable in regards to Ares I.
While people have complained about some of the requirements in the house compromise, isn’t it good to have some of that stuff spelled out so that private industry knows what to expect? Not too long ago people were complaining that no one knew what NASA would require for something to be man rated.
Even if people view this as over regulation, at least companies will know a little more about what to plan for.
Heh, I believe I’ve just outed myself as a pop culture philistine. I have an old 37cm black and white tv which only receives UHF because the VHF knob is broken. I don’t watch much TV.
Pork advocates have made a living leaving ULA off of the list of available Commercial Crew launch providers.
Not everyone who opposes commercial crew is a “pork advocate”.
There’s no particular problem with ULA as a launch vehicle contractor, but ULA has never functioned as a commercial entity. They don’t sell Atlas V directly to the commercial market – they go through LM Commercial Launch Services.
This isn’t just terminological hairsplitting. ULA is a classic, cost-plus government contractor with everything that implies. Their launch services contract may be fixed-price, but that really doesn’t mean anything. They will get paid no matter what, because they’re the only game in town right now. Their track record of success as a classic government contractor cannot be used as evidence they could succeed in a commercial role. Maybe they could, but there’s no evidence of it yet.
Another way of saying it is that if commercial crew contracts are supposed to be like EELV, well, that isn’t commercial at all. Might as well be upfront about it and just go cost-plus from the start.
Still no reason not to award the contract competitively.
And once again as Congress keeps arguing , Spacex is about to launch it’s first Dragon cargo capsule in about a month. If it is successful, this coming June 2011 it could be delivering it’s first sample cargo to the ISS. At that moment opinion will change and it will be game over. Once people start to see commercial cargo as a viable option, this madness will stop. Yes NASA, will eventually have it’s HLV and Ares 1 will eventually be defunded once it is determined that Boeing and Spacex can do the job for a lot less.
Artemus wrote @ September 25th, 2010 at 11:47 am
If ULA continues to contract with the DoD for launch services, and offers to launch crew to the ISS under a separate fixed price contract (once upgrades and ratings have been completed), would you consider that “commercial”?
Artemus wrote @ September 25th, 2010 at 11:47 am
“This isn’t just terminological hairsplitting. ULA is a classic, cost-plus government contractor with everything that implies. Their launch services contract may be fixed-price, but that really doesn’t mean anything.”
As a commercial crew & cargo advocate, I’m under no illusions that the market will magically convert former government contractors into some sort of robust commercial entities that can compete with the NewSpace upstarts. And the NewSpace upstarts are not growing in a purely commercial market either.
But if you’re going to get from here to there, you have to start somewhere – a purely commercial market is not going to evolve anytime soon, and certainly not without transitioning from other market types:
– ULA is quasi-commercial, but their pricing is not positioned for a true commercial market. Their current products (Atlas & Delta) were designed for government work, not commercial, and they will have to decide how they want to compete in the future.
– SpaceX is commercial, but they have certainly relied on government programs to accelerate their product launches (i.e. Falcon 9 & Dragon).
– NASA funding Commercial Crew could save them a lot of money for ISS transport over a decade of use, and it could also let a non-ISS demand start to emerge.
There are lots of examples in the business world where a major customer validates a market, and provides enough business to allow additional smaller customers to be accommodated.
That’s where we’re at with crew transportation to LEO, and crew transportation is the key to opening up commercial markets in LEO that require cargo or other services that rely on a commercial launcher industry (very cost sensitive).
But until that happens, no purely commercial products, services or markets will likely emerge – or at least not for a long time.
Just to follow up on the two NSPD-40 (NSPD means National Security Presidential Directive) posts above, does anybody know if the ESAS people took into account its instruction to make use of EELV when possible? Or, for that matter, did they even know about NSPD-40?
Wodun wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 11:07 pm “Not too long ago people were complaining that no one knew what NASA would require for something to be man rated.” <- All the more reason for companies like SpaceX to get a crewed Dragon safely up and down in a suborbital test flight a la Shepard or up around and down a la Glenn and 'man-rate' their own spacecraft on their terms, not NASA's. One suspects the cost of failure for commerical space outweighs the value of success today just as it has for decades. When NASA flew Shepard, the success rate for rocket propelled systems was 60%. Half a century later, that percentage should be higher for commerical space but . NASA may be treading water but when it comes to manned flights, commerical space is going no place fast, and that's by their own doing. It's perplexing. Because repeated successes of manned flights by private corporations would essentially bookend the era of government funded manned space projects. Commerical space still fears failure more than it values success. Until that's over come, governments will continue to fly humans into space.
Mr. Mark wrote @ September 25th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
” Spacex is about to launch it’s first Dragon cargo capsule in about a month…” Which means nothing. The Russians have been flying Progress cargo spacecraft for three decades. Manned flight is the key. SpaceX- or any other commerical space venture, has to be capable of launching, orbiting and returning crewed vehicles to be of any consequence.
While I think the government should not make rules that will not allow the private sector to proceed with its endeavors, except for safety measures, I still think the government needs it own launch system until the commercial sector proves their ability. I have heard talk of a one way ticket to settle Mars. Volunteers would be sent to Mars to colonize, at first with supplies until they could establish their own self organized systems. No return trip. I guess you would call it forced colonization. It could work if properly done.
the government needs it own launch system until the commercial sector proves their ability
It will take at least 5-7 years to design and build a “new” NASA LV, or longer if Congress mandates continuing with Ares.
It will take ~3 years to prepare Atlas V, Delta IV, or Falcon 9 – regardless of whether the contract is cost plus or fixed price. I don’t care if you call it subsidized or socialist or commercial, it will cost billions less, be ready several years sooner, and have a launch history that a “new” LV couldn’t match for years and years.
Your statement makes no sense, yet you keep repeating it. You have a right to be wrong over and over again, but it got boring several months ago.
Dennis Berube wrote @ September 25th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
“I guess you would call it forced colonization. It could work if properly done.”
Hmmm. Are you offering up a grandchild to test it out, or are we not talking enough about penal colonies on this post?
Bennett wrote @ September 25th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
“It will take ~3 years to prepare Atlas V, Delta IV, or Falcon 9 – regardless of whether the contract is cost plus or fixed price. I don’t care if you call it subsidized or socialist or commercial, it will cost billions less, be ready several years sooner, and have a launch history that a “new†LV couldn’t match for years and years.”
Agreed, on all points of your post.
These “must prove themselves” posters keep forgetting that ULA’s Atlas V and Delta IV (and the -Heavy) have already proved themselves. They are here, have reliable flight history, and are purchased as needed – no massive government overhead needed.
By next year, SpaceX should be certified by NASA for ISS rendezvous, docking, human access, and payload return from Earth. Except for demonstrating safe abort during launch, their Dragon will have “proved” all facets of flight and operation that are needed for crew. And that will be 3-5 years before Orion could possibly be ready to fly – but it still has nothing to fly on.
It’s the new/proposed NASA capsules and launchers that are not “proven”, and will never fly enough to have the same reliability as their private sector equivalents.
“Unless specific language is written into the CR saying what gets funding and where, this is the way it might be.
Then it wouldn’t be a CR – it be an approps bill”
Ferris-
Not really. If Congress runs out of time for the bill, it could write anything into a CR that it wants, including language to get to work on HLV. Or, it could say nothing and just be a “clean CR.”
If ULA continues to contract with the DoD for launch services, and offers to launch crew to the ISS under a separate fixed price contract (once upgrades and ratings have been completed), would you consider that “commercial�
Yes, but the $64 question is whether ULA, or anyone else, would bid on a truly fixed-price contract. In other words, you get paid a fixed price when you deliver a crew to ISS. I just can’t see ULA going for something like that. They’d demand some sort of milestone payments to shift risk back onto the government. And I can’t say I’d blame them. But getting paid for anything other than delivering the goods isn’t commercial. Using the airline analogy so many on this site are fond of, you don’t pay United Airlines for checking you in, putting your bags in the cargo hold, serving you a bag of peanuts, etc. If they don’t get you to your destination in one piece, you get all your money back.
Artemus wrote @ September 25th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
“Yes, but the $64 question is whether ULA, or anyone else, would bid on a truly fixed-price contract. In other words, you get paid a fixed price when you deliver a crew to ISS. I just can’t see ULA going for something like that.”
ULA bids commercial launches as fixed price contracts. That’s the norm for commercial satellite launches. Every launch company the world, including SpaceX, does the same. Why is this different?
“Using the airline analogy so many on this site are fond of, you don’t pay United Airlines for checking you in, putting your bags in the cargo hold, serving you a bag of peanuts, etc.”
You haven’t flown recently have you.
No, they don’t charge you at check in, or demand progress payments, or charge you when you get to your destination. They charge you the full price in advance when you book the flight. And charge you through the nose if you change your flight. Do you think NASA would be willing to pay full fee in advance with penalties if they’re not ready on the scheduled date?
“you don’t pay United Airlines for … putting your bags in the cargo hold”
Yes, they do charge you for putting you bags in the cargo hold. $25 for the first bag, $35 for the second.
http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6722,52481,00.html
“you don’t pay United Airlines for … serving you a bag of peanuts, etc.”
They also charge for snacks. $7 for a snack pack.
http://www.united.com/page/article/1,,53261,00.html
“If they don’t get you to your destination in one piece, you get all your money back.”
Launch insurance is available today. It is the norm for commercial satellite launches. I am sure ULA would be willing to add that into price if NASA specifies it.
They’d demand some sort of milestone payments to shift risk back onto the government.
Do you mean that this would be for man rating, test launches, and pad infrastructure, or for the subsequent mission launches?
I can understand and accept that:
If NASA wants to launch people into space,
But ULA doesn’t have plans to do that for their own reasons,
Yet are capable and willing to set up and maintain the production so that rockets are ready for astronauts to climb in and ride to LEO for a set price per launch – thus saving our government the billions of dollars it would take to develop an unnecessary “NASA rocket”…
I believe that paying ULA a billion dollars for that is a great deal for everyone concerned. NASA has billions more of its budget to spend on other things, and ULA gets to hire a bunch of the people who used to work on the shuttle or constellation.
Plus, we’d be able to start flying new missions by 2015.
NASA has billions more of its budget to spend on other things
In a sane world yes. The obvious glitch though is that a large chunk of the budget is payroll for a huge army that is INCAPABLE of doing anything but operating a certain NASA owned launch infrastructure.
reader wrote @ September 25th, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Sane or not, that’s all over and done with mid-2011.
Their track record of success as a classic government contractor cannot be used as evidence they could succeed in a commercial role.
In fact we have evidence here about ULA but it goes the other way. ULA has for a decade been trying to enter the real commercial market for launching comsats, without success. They whine endlessly about a “market that failed to materialize” meanwhile ILS and Arianespace are launching 30 comsats this year alone between them and making quite good money off it.
In this crucial area SpaceX has already lept ahead of ULA with its Iridium and Loral contracts.
The market risk that ULA misleadingly moans about in comsats is of course quite real with the private tourist market. In fact there is a nearly 100% risk of failure here since this “market” consists of about 1 billionaire per year paying the marginal costs of the marginal costs of a Russian rocket and capsule.
ULA is now where SpacceX will be in 10 years if it gets sucked further into the lobbying culture and NASA bureaucracy with “Commercial” Crew. To achieve the lower launch costs we are all hoping for, SpaceX should turn its back on this political monster and focus on real commerce as it has started to do with Loral and Iridium.
Artemus wrote @ September 25th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
“Yes, but the $64 question is whether ULA, or anyone else, would bid on a truly fixed-price contract. In other words, you get paid a fixed price when you deliver a crew to ISS. I just can’t see ULA going for something like that.”
Why not? There is nothing magical about fixed-priced contracts, especially if the product or service is fairly well defined. And with ULA launching an average of one rocket per month, they know what their costs are. NASA already knows how much it will cost to use them on the NASA Launch Services (NLS) I & II contracts, so ULA is not going to hesitate to bid for additional work.
SpaceX advertises their prices on their website, so it’s easy to see what their basic services cost – $10.9M for Falcon 1, $59M for Falcon 9, and $95M for Falcon 9 Heavy. They are also listed on the new NLS II contract, as is Orbital Sciences.
I think it’s funny when people think that companies like ULA will not bid on a contract just because “it might be fixed-price”. They will bid a price that either makes them the profit they desire, or they’ll bid a price they think they need to in order to win the contract (and keep their competitors from gaining a foothold). If you understand the scope of work, then the risks can be managed.
There is not a lot of mystery here, and the “commercial” world is not all black & white either. If you need something that is “non-standard”, then you’ll be paying extra – sometimes a lot. Same in the government world.
Manned flight is the key.
(1) To going bankrupt,
or, alternatively,
(2) To getting fat NASA contracts that bulk up your company with many new layers of bureaucracy that will accomplish nothing of consequence except winning more government contracts and losing more private contracts as your corporate culture moves far, far away from economic reality
Real commerce — private customers who pay you money because you are actually doing something useful for them — is quite another kettle of fish. The last thing real commerce wants to get involved with are some diaper-clad and useless heroes and their mobs of safety-obsessed fans.
Ron, you know as well as I do that there’s a big difference between launching a satellite on a Atlas or Delta variant and launching a crewed vehicle. That’s what the House bill seems to recognize. The Commercial sector has not launched a capsule with a crew and returned both safely. The House bill would require demonstration flights before NASA would be allowed to use commercial providers. Just as NASA had to demonstrate Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and even Shuttle (STS-1 to -4). Nothing wrong with that. When (not if) Orion is ready to mount on either an EELV or the new Heavy-Lifter, it, too, will be required to be tested with both launchers before a crew rides it to orbit or BEO. (Oler and the anti-HSF bunch notwithstanding) Still, both sides are moving closer to an agreement, which means that a vote after the election is likely. Gordon can say whatever he wants because he’s leaving, and Griffin can say whatever he wants because he’s no longer in government service (good!), but neither one got what they wanted.
googaw wrote @ September 25th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
“ULA has for a decade been trying to enter the real commercial market for launching comsats, without success.”
By my count Boeing and Lockheed, and now ULA, have launched 10 commercial satellites with EELVs since 2002.
“They whine endlessly about a “market that failed to materialize†meanwhile ILS and Arianespace are launching 30 comsats this year alone between them and making quite good money off it.”
For the record, ILS and Arianespace are launching 18 comsats this year.
ILS is majority owned by the Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center, which is a Russian Government entity. It receives direct subsidies from the Russian Government.
Arianespace is also a partially government owned through the French Space Agency CNES. In addition, it’s launch vehicle development costs are paid for by ESA.
ULA has choked on its capital costs, something ILS and Arianespace have never had to pay for.
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 25th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
“you know as well as I do that there’s a big difference between launching a satellite on a Atlas or Delta variant and launching a crewed vehicle.”
No, there really isn’t. For crew and cargo, the goal of the launcher is the same – make it to the planned orbit.
The big difference is what happens when a launcher is going to fail to achieve it’s planned orbit. For cargo, the payload falls in the drink or burns up. For a crew launch, the crew system takes over and aborts the crew to safety.
You Matt, could stowaway in the first Dragon capsule launch, and as long as the mission went as planned, you would survive just fine. The equipment doesn’t care.
“That’s what the House bill seems to recognize.”
You’re trying to read good intentions into the actions of politicians that are on record for being against commercial crew efforts. Don’t be naive. Congress only needs to add one line that says “NASA shall develop standards for safe crew transit from and to the Earth’s surface”. Everything else is big government stuff – are you for big government Matt?
“The Commercial sector has not launched a capsule with a crew and returned both safely.”
And NASA hasn’t either since 1972. The knowledge that NASA created is not retained in the buildings at NASA, and NASA sure isn’t keeping 60’s era aerospace engineers laying around, so everyone at NASA and the aerospace industry is reconstituting 50 year old technologies and techniques. And considering that it’s technology and techniques that are 50 years old, there are few unknowns.
But what you conveniently leave out is that the commercial sector has been doing MOST of what is needed for getting crew to space (i.e. the launcher) for a long time, and is very proficient. They are not starting from ground zero – they have highly evolved and well run launch systems that have lots of flight history.
If NASA builds a new launcher, they will be the new kid on the block, having to prove to everyone that they know what they’re doing. I think they should do at least 3-5 practice launches to make sure that the launcher is well characterized – what do you think?
“The House bill would require demonstration flights…”
I have to say, that I’m losing faith in you Matt. This is a pretty flimsy line of reasoning. EVERY launch company tests their products. NO ONE wants to lose a human life.
But lets cut to the chase – you’re talking about SpaceX, right? If so, don’t you do know why they need $300M from NASA? Part of it is to develop a Launch Abort System (LAS), and part of it is to TEST THE SYSTEM TO VERIFY THAT IT WORKS. Geez.
But during that time SpaceX is also making COTS/CRS flights, which VALIDATES THE LAUNCHER AND CREW CAPSULE. Before any astronaut steps foot in a Dragon for a trip to the ISS, the Falcon 9/Dragon combo will most likely have flown over 10 times. Is that enough to “prove” it works?
NASA was only going to launch Ares I ONCE, and it’s a completely new launcher/capsule design. Now you tell me which entity is gambling with the lives of our astronauts.
“Still, both sides are moving closer to an agreement, which means that a vote after the election is likely.”
You’re going to have to step up your reading before posting Matt, because you seem to be ignorant of the current events.
The U.S. Senate passed a NASA authorization bill in August. The House committee had their bill ready for a vote, but it caught a lot of flack, and so the House committee went back and made changes, but it’s still catching flack, so still no vote. And during this time the House-Senate negotiators have not agreed to anything, so if anything is happening, it’s that the House is moving closer and closer to the Senate bill. Oh, and the Senate said that they won’t make changes, and the House has been making changes.
Now you tell me, how is it that “both sides are moving closer to an agreement”. Wearing our rose colored glasses again, are we?
Now I’m sorry I’m a little curt with you, but you have asked questions of me on other blog posts, and I have answered them. But I have asked you questions, and you have ignored me.
We don’t have to agree, but I’m here to discuss, debate and learn – what are you here for?
The last thing real commerce wants to get involved with are some diaper-clad and useless heroes and their mobs of safety-obsessed fans.
It seems to me that the objective of commercial space advocates is not to make money from manned spaceflight, but to make manned spaceflight profitable so more of it will happen.
“In this crucial area SpaceX has already lept ahead of ULA with its Iridium and Loral contracts.”
Not true. Those are minor contracts and ULA still gets a few commercial launch contracts.
“To achieve the lower launch costs we are all hoping for, SpaceX should turn its back”
wrong, it has nothing to do with the contracts. Spacex is finding out that launch costs are actually near what ULA’s are. Maintaining a successful launch vehicle fleet is harder than designing the vehicle
“Yes, but the $64 question is whether ULA, or anyone else, would bid on a truly fixed-price contract. ”
They do already. NASA’s unmanned launches since 1988 are firm fixed price. ULA, LM, Boeing, OSC, MDAC contracts all have been FFP.
“ULA is a classic, cost-plus government contractor with everything that implies.”
wrong, wrong, wrong
“ILS and Arianespace are launching 30 comsats”
And both are highly subsidized, much more than ULA.
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 25th, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Ron, you know as well as I do that there’s a big difference between launching a satellite on a Atlas or Delta variant and launching a crewed vehicle…
not really no. The launch vehicle doesnt have a clue what it is carrying. It either works or doesnt.
It is the same goofy notion that thinks single engine flying over the water is unsafe…
Robert G. Oler
“All the more reason for companies like SpaceX to get a crewed Dragon safely up and down in a suborbital test flight a la Shepard”
The more times you post this does not make sound better, it fact is makes it more asinine like most of you posts
Martijn Meijering wrote @ September 26th, 2010 at 7:59 am
“It seems to me that the objective of commercial space advocates is not to make money from manned spaceflight, but to make manned spaceflight profitable so more of it will happen.”
I don’t have any problems with this. I just wanted to see it in print again
Byeman wrote @ September 26th, 2010 at 10:40 am ..
as you point out the suborbital thing is goofy..
BUT someone is going figure out that there is some PR value in demonstrating human spaceflight by commercial groups at cost far under what NASA can do…we are headed for “Astronaut Farmer”…only on a commercial scale.
Robert G. Oler
Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 26th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
“BUT someone is going figure out that there is some PR value in demonstrating human spaceflight by commercial groups”
Yes, and that is the factor in all of this that can’t be predicted, but if history is any guide, someone or some group will take advantage of the opportunity as soon as they can. And once they do, that will entice others to follow, creating the start of the second wave of speculative commercial market demand (Soyuz tourist flights being the first).
But that can’t happen with government-run space transportation. NASA can’t sell room on their rockets, and even if they could, no one could probably afford it – not without the U.S. Taxpayer subsidizing the trips.
History tells us that HSF boosters have been hyping its supposed “commercial” angle for many decades, at least since the early 1970s when the Shuttle was sold as supposedly radically reducing launch costs for commercial customers. Instead it substantially increased them. The ISS was supposed to be infrastructure that would give rise to billions of dollars worth of microgravity industry. Meanwhile taxpayers have been putting up over 99.5% of the money for HSF the whole time. The less than 0.5% being about one billionaire per year paying the marginal costs of the marginal costs for Soyuz. “For sale” indeed. The only thing being “sold” are the duped acolytes of the HSF cult — being sold a quite whopping bill of goods. Each generation we get a new set of young innocent space fans duped into believing that “commercial” HSF will arrive Real Soon Now. All we need is just one more piece of pork, a few more letters to your Congressman in support of a NASA contractor’s wonderful “commercial” project, and utopia will arrive.
This pathological scam has been running with small variations for decades. The new twist being that the NASA contractor shills put the increasingly idiotic claims of future private HSF markets into the background and just call the government conracts they are shilling for “commercial.”
DCSCA wrote @ September 25th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Showing their vehicle is safe would be nice but they would still have to jump through NASA’s regulatory hurdles and if a manned demo didn’t meet some NASA requirement, then they would be unlikely to do it just for PR.
There really isn’t much of a regulatory framework for commercial space. Regardless of what party is in power or if their are budget cuts, increases, or a CR there will be increased regulations on the industry. They might not be perfect but spelling out some of the requirements will at least do away with some of the risks associated with uncertainty.
Just think how great it will be to have something else to argue about.
Maybe the Space Show will do an episode about regulations again sometime soon.
DCSCA wrote @ September 25th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
Bah poor tagging ^^
Have a question if anyone can provide insight. People have been kicking around the costs for development of the Falcon 9 at around $400 million, maybe that isn’t the most up to date number.
Anyone know if salaries and facilities are included in that cost estimate?
Wodun wrote @ September 26th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
“People have been kicking around the costs for development of the Falcon 9 at around $400 million, maybe that isn’t the most up to date number.
Anyone know if salaries and facilities are included in that cost estimate?”
I did a quick search for the quote Musk made regarding this, but couldn’t find it. I thought it was somewhere in the $400M range. That would be for everything – facilities, salaries, development of their engines, two launchers (Falcon 1 and 9), Dragon capsule, three launch sites, etc.
I’ve never heard them break out their launchers, but since Falcon 9 is an evolution of Falcon 1, I don’t know how meaningful it would be anyways.
In any case, for about the same $445M NASA spent on the dummy Ares I-X flight (no Ares I flight hardware), SpaceX has fielded one launcher, has another ready for it’s 2nd test flight, and is getting ready for the first test flight of a cargo/crew capsule – all of it designed and built in-house. That is impressive capital efficiency.
Not exactly what folks are looking for, but I did find this on the SpaceX web site:
http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php#pricing_and_performance
SpaceX tells you up front what they’ll charge for the mission.
There’s also the Falcon 9 Launch Vehicle Payload User’s Guide:
http://www.spacex.com/Falcon9UsersGuide_2009.pdf
That’s kinda cute.
Wodun wrote @ September 26th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
“Showing their vehicle is safe would be nice but they would still have to jump through NASA’s regulatory hurdles and if a manned demo didn’t meet some NASA requirement, then they would be unlikely to do it just for PR.” <- Not necessarily. Repeated successful manned flights by commerical space could very well force NASA to accept how commercial space 'man rates' a spacecraft and LV. It would hardly be measured as a 'PR' stunt, as it would validate systems and procedures not only for the launching company but the space community and potential investors in the private sector. They've no doubt made these calculations, pro and con, already and have concluded the cost of failure outweighs the value of success. Which is why governments have always led the way into space, not the private sector, in various political guises over the past 80-plus year history of rocketry. And will for some time to come.
googaw wrote @ September 26th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
“History tells us that HSF boosters have been hyping its supposed “commercial†angle for many decades, at least since the early 1970s when the Shuttle was sold as supposedly radically reducing launch costs for commercial customers. Instead it substantially increased them.’ As with many government projects, shuttle was over-sold in the initial development days just to get funding and make it a reality. But other pressures were put upon NASA to make shuttle a ‘profit center’– chiefly the Reagan administration. Recall the system was declared ‘operational’ after just four manned test flights. In retrospect, particularly in the wake of data revealed during the post-Challenger investigations, it was a foolhardy, stylish proposal which was figuratively and literally a disaster for the space agency. As Mike Collins commented on July 20, 1989 at the NASM gathering for the 20th anniversary of Apollo 11, “People have always gone where they have been able to go. It’s that simple.” A species that can master space travel and turns its back on venturing outward in favor of sending machines in its place is inevitably doomed.
“There’s also the Falcon 9 Launch Vehicle Payload User’s Guide:
http://www.spacex.com/Falcon9UsersGuide_2009.pdf
That’s kinda cute. “
Actually, it is pretty standard for launch vehicle providers issue user’s guides. The best named users guide was the Sea Launch Users Guide, which was universally referred to as “the SLUG”. Who says aerospace engineers don’t have a sense of humor.
Oler, Oler, Oler…typical luddite as usual. Tsk, tsk.
Ron. I am not against the private sector, far from it. But I want to see the proof in the pudding, so to speak. Before any taxpayer money goes to any private sector rocket, whether COTS or Crew, I want to see them send demonstration flights to ISS for cargo, and have one or two crewed flights of their capsule before that particular company gets any taxpayer funds-the more so in this budget environment. I don’t care who it is: Boeing, L-M, ULA, Orbital, or Lord Musk. If the GOP takes control of the House (less likely the Senate), Musk’s recent comments about the GOP put him in the GOP’s doghouse.
Now, once the respective companies actually put people up and bring them home, good. They can compete and get their contracts. That frees NASA to go places besides LEO, which is something all of us (except the luddite Oler) can agree on. Where we go first is a whole new can of beans, though. In a better budget environment, I’d say Moon first. In the current environment, I’ll reluctantly agree with the FlexPath, as long as there is committment to do lunar missions in the future as funding permits and to get ready for Mars (which Ed Crawley-see his presentation at the Cape on 15 Apr on NASA’s youtube channel-says we’ll have to do anyway). If anyone here hasn’t yet, see that presentation. I was a Moon first person, but he “made the sale” in my case. A successor administration in 2013 or 2017, though, may feel going to the Moon first is more politically feasable than destinations “in the middle of nowhere” (L-points, for example).
Political reality is different than what some here seem to recognize. The original FY 11 budget is dead, despite what some here claim. All of the space news sites have stories saying that (Popular Science, Space.Com, Aviation Week-or Aviation Leak, depending on one’s POV, Houston Chronicle, etc.), and the Senate Bill is the best possible compromise. The House bill, once it passes, will be reconciled, and something blending both will be passed and signed into law-or at worst, incorporated into a CR.
Yes, they do charge you for putting you bags in the cargo hold. $25 for the first bag, $35 for the second.…etc. etc.
You don’t pay for any of that stuff if your bags go down in a fireball over Topeka. On the contrary, your estate settles out of court with the airline for undisclosed millions.
Lots of beside-the-point nitpicking, no real answers as to how you are going to get private investors to bid a fly-or-die contract. There isn’t enough launch insurance available for the big milsats, why would anyone expect there to be enough for a manned flight? The only answer is risk-sharing with the government. And the government doesn’t share risk without oversight, oops, I meant “insight”. And “insight” means higher costs. And pretty soon you’re right back where you started – the government bankrolling every flight, whether it succeeds or not, and therefore calling all the shots. There’s no free lunch here, folks.
By the way, does anyone have info on whether the government has ever withheld payment for a failed launch? Not talking about award fees, I mean the actual fixed fee for the launch. For example, when OCO went down, did Orbital get paid?
Let’s see if I’ve got this right. If you oppose doing space activities with a diaper-clad and useless astronaut living in a $100 billion shanty town of tin cans, when a $100 million unmanned satellite will do, that makes you a Luddite.
To make sense of an HSF cultist’s historical analogy, just turn it upside down.
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 26th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
“In modern usage, “Luddite” is a term describing those opposed to industrialization, automation, computerization or new technologies in general”
for a moment I thought “luddite” was someone who had forgotten Lorelei’s burpy cloth…
so I looked…hmmm first time I have been labeled as being opposed to industrialization, automation, computerization or new technologies in General…
I am opposed to Cx which of course has none of these…back to the burpy cloth…
Robert G. Oler
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 26th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
“The original FY 11 budget is dead, despite what some here claim. All of the space news sites have stories saying that (Popular Science…”
Matt, you used to ask intelligent questions, but now you just spout made up stuff. You better clean up your act or you’ll be labeled a troll.
For instance, no one has been stating that the orginal FY11 budget is alive, in fact most of us that liked that budget proposal shifted our support to the Senate bill when it was passed back in August. It was in the news, but maybe not the “space news site” Popular Science, so maybe that’s why you’re so behind on the subject? It’s also been mentioned on Space Politics like a thousand times…
Now let’s get back to the subject of getting crew to the ISS, and who NASA is going to rely on after the Soyuz contract runs out in 2015. I’ve asked you this before, but you have refused to answer it, so now is your chance.
If the Senate bill wins approval, it states that NASA is only to be a backup to commercial crew providers:
1. What would YOU do?
2. How would you induce commercial companies to offer the crew service?
3. What financial risks and rewards would there be for the commercial companies to offer the crew service?
What say you?
Before any taxpayer money goes to any private sector rocket, whether COTS or Crew, I want to see them send demonstration flights to ISS for cargo, and have one or two crewed flights of their capsule before that particular company gets any taxpayer funds…
…once the respective companies actually put people up and bring them home, good. They can compete and get their contracts.
Fine. I feel the same way for Ares or any SDHLV. How does that work for you?
Given that NASA is setting benchmarks and reviewing launch data, basically doing the same things they would do for Ares or a SDHLV, please explain why spending a few billion to get man rated Atlas V, Delta IV, AND Falcon 9 launch vehicles (all three vehicles ready to go) – is somehow “less safe and less prudent” than spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars for a “NASA Rocket” – that won’t be subject to the same requirements that you propose for ULA, Orbital, and SpaceX?
Don’t you see how hypocritical your position is?
Do you get paid by the comment, or by the hour?
That’s the problem, they don’t have any rational answer so they keep making things up to avoid answering. Typical avoidance behaviour, exactly what’s been happening in the House. If you keep ignoring the facts, then you can keep spouting the BS.
Artemus wrote @ September 26th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
“no real answers as to how you are going to get private investors to bid a fly-or-die contract.”
That should be obvious, you issue an RFP. Can you point to any statements by SpaceX or ULA that they would no-bid?
“There isn’t enough launch insurance available for the big milsats”
The US government self insures. It would be foolish of them to do otherwise. Insurance is a hedge against catastrophic loss. Since the US government can easily absorb a billion dollar loss, the loss of a big milsat is not catastrophic. The cost of launch insurance premiums over the long run would be higher than the cost of the occasional loss so they don’t do it. Some large commercial satellite operators do the same for the same reason.
“why would anyone expect there to be enough for a manned flight?”
Implicit in your statement is the assumption that an astronaut is more valuable than big milsat. That is a baseless assumption. Why are astronauts lives peculiarly valueable?
In fact, we have a recent data point on the value of seven astronauts lost due to gross negligence. The US government settled the liability claim by the families the Columbia astronauts out-of-court for $26.6 M. SpaceX and ULA would face a similar liability.
That’s 1/20th of the value of a big GEO comsat, which are routinely insured and fly on vehicles without launch escape systems, therefore face a much higher probability of loss. Assuming a launch vehicle reliability well in excess of 90%, an insurer could profitably insure the launch of seven astronauts against liability claims by their families with a premium of under $3 M per flight. Peanuts, in other words.
Your assumption is that astronauts are different and peculiarly valuable – something we can show is not true – and then your argument goes off the rails from there.
1. What would YOU do?
Cut both Constellation and “Commercial” Crew. Next question?
2. How would you induce commercial companies to offer the crew service?
That’s like asking what one would do to induce “commercial” companies to dig a mile-deep hole in ja geologically useless area ust to set up a small office for government workers down there. If any company did this it would obviously be acting as a government contractor on an economically frivolous project, not as a “commercial” company. Next question?
3. What financial risks and rewards would there be for the commercial companies to offer the crew service?
Governments should not be in the business of tilting at windmills. The economic reality of HSF is that the risks are 100% and the rewards are 0. Unless one gets a nice fat NASA contract to cover 99.5% of the costs, of course, which is what we are really talking about here.
Implicit in your statement is the assumption that an astronaut is more valuable than big milsat. That is a baseless assumption. Why are astronauts lives peculiarly valueable?
Because the vast majority of HSF fans, and the politicians from whom they beg 99.5% of their funds, say so. And pass laws saying so. Next question?
P.S. why don’t you try telling Senators Nelson or Mikulski or this lady that their heroes are worth 1/20 of a comsat.
P.P.S. The redesigns, reorganizations, delays (because we had to discover the cause and fix it, and fix anything else that might be unsafe for astronauts, before we could fly again), payloads that had to switch or not fly at all (ditto), and so on that followed both the Challenger and Columbia disasters easily cost, all told, more than $10 billion each. That’s at least $20 billion/14 astronauts = $1.4 billion per astronaut life.
Because the main support for HSF comes from people who worship astronauts as heroes, and the legislators most ardently supporting HSf also fall in that category, the legislative branch puts a radically higher value on the life of an astronaut than the judicial branch in a wrongful death lawsuit. Guess to which branch you have to go begging for 99.5% of the funding you need?
Ron: I want the private sector to succeed, so that NASA will be free of “routine” LEO business and get going to BEO. The problem here as I see it is that Congress has a big say in this, and politics the way they are, they will insist on the commercial sector proving themselves. Whether it’s skeptics of the commercial providers, downright opposition to commercial companies doing what has previously been a government-only enterprise, or a little bit of both, Congress controls the purse strings and if Congress attaches conditions, they have to go along with it. IF (and I do mean a big if), for example, Congress reduces commercial crew funding to enable EELV/Orion, and allocates the funds for it, NASA has to do it. No way around that. Like Sen. Bill Nelson told some lobbyists for the Commercial sector “This isn’t rocket science, it’s political science.” Will I be cheering for Boeing and L-M, or Orbital as they test fly in orbit? Certainly, because the sooner they get operational, the sooner NASA can go explore. Which is what we (Oler excepted) all want. Boeing did the new program a big favor when their people briefed congressional staff, explaning how commercial to LEO enables NASA to go BEO, hence the new House bill. But there’s one big problem: Musk and Space X, not Boeing or L-M, are seen as the poster child/whipping boy for commercial space. There might be less opposition for commercial crew if Boeing or L-M, not Space X, were seen as the leads in this, not some startup comapny that Space X is.
I’ll admit, I was a supporter of Constellation, and wanted the program to be successful. Unlike its supporters still in Congress, who cling to it like “grim death to a dead cat” (kind of like Bill Nye and those Nobel lauerates who still want the original FY 11 budget revived), I’m more than willing to let go and embrace a new program. Because it has potential for new things (Plymouth Rock, as L-M calls the asteroid mission; L-points, Mars flyby/orbit, Martian moons, with boots on the ground on the Moon and Mars as things develop). But as long as the perception persists in Congress that it’s either Commercial to LEO v. NASA to BEO, the commercial sector will not get the government funding at the levels they originally wanted. And mandates from Congress re: testing, development, etc. should be for all vehicles-whether or not it has a NASA logo, or one from Boeing, L-M, Orbital, or (ugh, puke) Space X on it. No one should fly a vehicle until it’s proven safe. Bill Nelson, before Constellation got the death blow, was hoping for additional Ares I test flights to satisfy the critics, and I applauded him for that.
As for boots on the ground, there will be political pressure for that, especially on the Moon. Sooner or later, this will be asked: “You’ll be doing all this deep-space stuff, Administrator. When will we see boots on the ground?” is something that will come up in future House and Senate hearings. Especially if intel finds out the ChiComs have a lunar program in work.
Artemus wrote @ September 26th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
“By the way, does anyone have info on whether the government has ever withheld payment for a failed launch?”
No I don’t, but it’s really immaterial.
Just like launchers, contracts don’t care what the task is. If they say “no payment without delivery”, then the government doesn’t pay without delivery.
In government contracting, there are precedents for different types of products & services, and those precedents tend to be followed. However, if the government wants to put out an RFP with different payment rules, then the market will respond – they might change their prices, some companies may no-bid, or new companies may step up and try to win new work. The companies reassess their risk for each contract or contract modification.
Bottom line, the government can ask for anything they want in an RFP (level of quality, payment terms, etc.), but if they want a good field of qualified responses, then they need to understand what the market is willing to bid on. For instance, they could put out an RFQ for ISS crew transportation that specifies no possibility of failure, but they’ll either get hugely expensive bid responses, or no one will want to bid at all (too great a risk).
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 1:29 am
OK, you avoided the question I posed. You’ve already posted all that stuff before, so please, let’s move on.
What you wrote had lots and lots of hypotheticals, but I asked you a real-life question that NASA and this nation have to figure out. So once again, how are we going to get crew to the ISS after the current Soyuz contract runs out?
You have a blank slate Matt, but you have an end-of-2015 deadline you have to meet, and the Senate bill states that NASA is only a backup to commercial crew, not the primary method.
Real issues need real answers – what yours?
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 1:29 am
Ok Matt, what precisely is the problem that you have with SpaceX? Elon’s out there, granted, but that doesn’t account for your seeming vindictiveness toward the company? They are delivering on what they’ve been contracted to do so why the angst? Did they fire you at some point?
On the subject of politics in the U.S., could someone tell me why the Senate carries more power than the House, or is that just my interpretation of events on the NASA bills?
I posted this question somewhere else but I’ve lost it so apologies to anyone who answered the first one.
No, I just would be more comfortable dealing with a company that’s been around for a while (Boeing, L-M) than a startup. Plain and simple. And I think Congress would be as well. Hence Boeing’s briefing House staff before the new House bill came out. Because that effort convinced the House to increase commercial crew funding. As long as Space X is the poster child for commercial crew, there will be opposition to that. And Musk shooting his mouth off about the GOP didn’t help his case any. Especially if the GOP gains control of one or both houses on the Hill.
@ Coastal Ron,
FWIW, I suspect that, if funding were provided, Orion/Atlas-VH could be operational by 2015 as could CST-100/Atlas-V. I’m not so sure about Dragon/Falcon-9; SpaceX’s ability to meet deadlines is still pretty suspect but they might scrape in.
However, Matt makes a good point about Congress insisting on a ‘government alternative’. That could be tricky because Orion/SLS promises to be a fiendishly expensive beast (~$1.5B to $2B per launch has been floating around the Web) and enough Reps and Senators are beholden to shuttle contractors that they may insist on some breed of SDLV. Worse, it seems that some in the House want Commercial to be the backup rather than vice-versa. That could starve the commercial providers of funding needed for the expensive bits (like LAS and life support development) and add years to their schedules.
The trick is not to insist on the Orion/SLS being the prime LEO launcher, rather only use it where no commercial alternative exists. If the balance is struck, it could lead to strong capabiliites across the board. If too much reliance is put on one side or it will lead to delays because of under-funding. It is finding that balance that is going to be tricky.
SpaceX hasn’t missed a single deadline. BoeLockMart has missed so many deadlines on Constellation and now they want to be paid to stop.
The trick is not to insist on the Orion/SLS being the prime LEO launcher, rather only use it where no commercial alternative exists.
There are no cases where there is no commercial alternative, not for LEO and not for beyond. You are absolutely right that there are strong forces in Congress who definitely want an SDLV, but there is absolutely no need for it and it is pure favouritism. No principled case can be made for SDLV and its proponents know it. That doesn’t mean an acceptable deal can’t be struck, but it would still be a fundamentally corrupt one. That however is the world we live in.
I think those who are in favour of commercial space should think about what is likely to maximise the benefit to commercial space, not to compromise for its own sake. Maximalism is probably not the optimal strategy, nor is rolling over. Beyond that most commercial space activists tend to support the Senate bill. I have to wonder with googaw whether that is in fact best for commercial development of space, or merely best for the current crop of startups and for the traditional contractors who are thinking about entering the emerging commercial spaceflight market. I am a lot more worried about zombification of New Space than I was a few months ago.
googaw, SpaceX is a company formed to explore space with humans, suggesting they give it up to go after the comsat market is missing the point.
Now, you might think that’s bad business, but Musk has the company, not you.
Beancounter from Downunder wrote:
On the subject of politics in the U.S., could someone tell me why the Senate carries more power than the House, or is that just my interpretation of events on the NASA bills?
I posted this question somewhere else but I’ve lost it so apologies to anyone who answered the first one.
As the resident political consultant …
One House has no more power than the other, on paper anyway.
With the NASA bill, I think the perception is that the Senate version has more mainstream support. The Obama administration has backed it, plenty of scientists and astronauts have backed it, private industry has backed it. The House version just slices up pork for local districts.
But the House can certainly be stubborn and pass its own version.
If that happens, then both bodies appoint members to a reconciliation committee that tries to meld both bills together into compromise legislation. That bill would go back to each body for a vote; if approved, it goes to the President for signature (he can veto).
So all this has a long way to go.
A reconciliation committee could theoretically throw out everything both bodies adopted and come up with its own version, e.g. “Let’s spend $19 billion to start building the starship Enterprise.” And that would go back to both bodies for a vote. Unlikely to happen, but in the back of my mind I know that if it goes to reconciliation something new could get slipped in, or it might wind up even closer to the administration’s original proposal.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the U.S. government has annual trillion-dollar deficits projected for the foreseeable future. NASA is one of the few agencies getting a budget increase thanks to Obama. But Congress is entirely capable of cutting that, and I think there’s a sense it’s important to commit to that increase now because the next Congress might not be so generous.
Coastal Ron wrote @ September 26th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
This is the article from MSNB, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37509776/ns/technology_and_science-space/
I’m just curious because we don’t really know what SpaceX’s costs are or how they assign them. $400 million over 8 years to maintain a large staff, geographically diverse offices, and testing is within the realm of possibility but seems almost too good to be true. Payroll expenses alone would eat up most of that $400 million.
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 6:33 am
NASA is .05% of the budget or some other minuscule number. A lot of bigger targets for cuts out there. The Democrats just passed another $30 billion stimulus bill, it seems as if we are throwing away more money than we give to NASA.
I hope NASA doesn’t get a budget cut and if they do, that the cut will be small. I also hope NASA takes a serious look at their institutional structure and spending priorities and that our political leaders craft a real long term space exploration strategy. Of all the things I hope happen, NASA not getting a budget cut seems the most likely.
Wodun wrote:
NASA is .05% of the budget or some other minuscule number. A lot of bigger targets for cuts out there.
You’re looking at it the wrong way.
They will begin cutting with programs that don’t have a lot of political support or constituents. Outside the true believers, poll after poll show the mainstream public wants less government spending on space. They like space. They just don’t want to pay for it.
The big driver will be entitlements, e.g. Social Security, Medicare, and veterans’ benefits. Much of that is being driven by the baby boomer generation reaching retirement. Since Congress won’t cut those programs, the cuts will come elsewhere.
Bean counter, i believe it was Polybius, a greek historian, who came up with the polybian cycle. A country moved from a dictator or monarchy, to an aristocracy to democracy, then fell into anarchy and a strong dictator would arise to start the cycle over again.
The founders of the United States tried to break the cycle by incorporating a monarchy ( the president and speed of decision making), democracy ( the house of representatives) and an aristocracy ( the senate). Since the aristocracy believed they were the best they gave the senate the longest term, six years to remove them from the day to day politics and be a more deliberate body. The house only have a 2 year term so they have to be more responsive the people or be voted out.
The Senate can veto the president and have a few other rights that give them unique powers.
The House bill, once it passes, will be reconciled
This is a fantasy. Even assuming that the House bill gets to the floor this week, if it passes, there will be no time to reconcile before the election recess, and the Senate has already said that no bill other than the Senate bill will get through the Senate, even in a lame duck session, so unless the House passes the Senate bill, there will be no authorization this year. And the process wills start all over in January with the new Congress, and a clean sheet of paper.
And the process wills start all over in January with the new Congress, and a clean sheet of paper.
And with the recommendations of the deficit commission which is due to report no later than December 1st. And that commission will have little regard for the considerations of the NASA special interests.
And when the pocess starts all over again, NASA will get no increase (and perhaps a substantial decrease), commercial will get a little help, and no HLV will be funded. And in some ways it could be argued that this is the best possible outcome for HSF. Congress, without the need to get re-elected for another two yers, will be able to say no to NASA waste, realize that commercial is the only workable way to do HSF to LEO for the foreseable future, and recognize that NASA has more important things to do than design, build, and fly rockets (and fund tens of thousands of government and contractor jobs). NASA may then be reborn as the lean, mean, space exploration machine that it was supposed to be when it was created.
Bottom line, the government can ask for anything they want in an RFP (level of quality, payment terms, etc.), but if they want a good field of qualified responses, then they need to understand what the market is willing to bid on. For instance, they could put out an RFQ for ISS crew transportation that specifies no possibility of failure, but they’ll either get hugely expensive bid responses, or no one will want to bid at all (too great a risk).
This is exactly what I’m saying. No matter how you structure the contract, somebody has to pay the “risk premium”. And that somebody is going to dictate how the vehicle is developed and operated. Barring the discovery of priceless unobtainium on Mars, there is no business case for a private company to send a manned mission beyond LEO. The only party willing to pay that kind risk premium is Uncle Sam – his upside is prestige, something that apparently has insufficient value to a private company or else they’d have been flying privately funded manned missions for 40 years. So you’re right back to a government-operated program.
Of course, if spaceflight were banking, the government would be only too happy to take on open-ended risks while allowing the contractors to reap the rewards. But we don’t enjoy that kind of influence in today’s political climate.
We need to back up and contemplate that with manned spaceflight, we are still talking about doing something that has around a 1% chance of killing someone. Spaceflight is a higher safety risk than a tour as a foot soldier in Afghanistan. Private capital won’t take those odds unless there is a big, big upside.
So you’re right back to a government-operated program.
Not necessarily. You’re back to a government-funded (or unfunded) program.
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 3:59 am
“. As long as Space X is the poster child for commercial crew, there will be opposition to that”
it is not opposition generated by SpaceX or anything Musk has said, it is simply opposition that has politically latched on to SpaceX because they can come up with “yard engine” slogans that sound great but have no real validity in terms of the debate…and that is how our politics is done now.
All the opposition to SpaceX or really any commercial lift always falls back on the same old slogans…I’ll take one “we need a government alternative”.
wow that sounds good, but it is meaningless because the only reason we are headed for commercial lift to space is that the government alternative has failed.
10 billion dollars is not all that much in the scheme of things, but if there had been real leadership in government and real expertise at NASA there is a way that they could have made it accomplish some sort of vehicle (the American Soyuz/Progress/) that would be flying now. That we have spent 10 billion and really have nothing flying or near flying to show for it; shows that the government alternative doesnt work. Now of course the argument by a lot of people is “well we need more money”…but if SpaceX, Boeing etc claim that THEY can do it on substantially less…and Boeing and SpaceX have each developed actual rockets for less…well.?
One more line “we need NASA expertise because only they can fly people safely”…sure go visit the memorial sites to Columbia or Challenger or go read a list of waivers to flight rules that they are “pounding flat” for this upcoming launch or go look at Node 3 software…
We are in a depressing era of politics (we get in these some) where sound bites mean more then reality…just so long as they sound good and connect with some real goal then well to mimic the movie The Man Who shot Liberty Valence “when the sound bite is better then the facts repeat the sound bite”.
Opposition to commercial lift is opposition solely on the part of people who are in some fashion trying to protect the “status quo”.
thats all
Robert G. Oler
Musk has the company
After his divorce and venture capital investments, he has about one-third of SpaceX. The other owners, at least, definitely value a good financial return over the Cold War economic fantasies of yesteryear.
And Musk himself is learning that government contracting is not the path to lowering HSF costs that he thought it was:
So you’re right back to a government-operated program.
reply: Not necessarily. You’re back to a government-funded (or unfunded) program.
A distinction that doesn’t make much of a difference. “The customer is always right.”
Oler, too bad for you that Congress won’t consider your “suggestions.” Shutting down NASA is not politically possible, so get that in your head right now.
Ron: I would reluctantly go along with killing Constellation. I supported it, and wanted it to succeed. However, times have changed, and I’m willing to let go and embrace the new program. As for inducements, tax breaks (both federal and state), government funds (grants, loans-but pay those back), and guaranteed purchase of a certain number of flights from each provider. I’d go with Boeing and L-M at first, because they launch DOD, intelligence, and NASA planetary/interplanetary probes, and know the drill. I agree with Ben’s comments above re: L-M with Orion and Boeing and CST; fund them appropriately and get them operational ASAP. If Orbital and Space X want in later, fine. But all must agree on a lease arrangement (Aviation Week, Space.Com, and the Houston Chronicle have all reported that’s the preference of the Astronaut Corps-and is Bolden’s preference as well), instead of NASA buying seats. NASA has full oversight for safety, mission control from tower clearance to landing, and quality control. Another inducement: rent space at NASA facilities so that the commercial providers can test and train, instead of building their own.
While that’s going on, develop Orion full-up for BEO, and develop, test, and fly HLV. Once that’s done, as Ed Crawley said in his KSC talk, “we can start going places.” Which is what we all want (other than Oler, who has repeatedly stated his opposition to HSF). But remember: there will be political pressure for boots on the ground on places besides an asteroid. It will come up sooner or later.
The Republicans just last week proposed cutting discretionary spending back to 2008 levels and capping it there going forward. This means $17.3 billion for NASA, about a $4 billion cut from the expected baseline increase to 2015 under the Obama plan (and Constellation or SDLV would have required even more).
That’s a start, but the ballooning yet untouchable Social Security and Medicare/Obamacare will swallow the rest of NASA like a whale swallowing a bug. And in times where politicians need to show fiscal restraint, cutting out-of-this-world programs is a great way to convince the public that they are being fiscally responsible, even if they otherwise aren’t.
Time for triage. What core functions of NASA do you really value? The rest are history.
Matt,
Sorry, but if you give LM a contract for Commercial Crew, you’ll scare away Boeing.
Also, Matt
1. You forget about the other likely competitor for Commercial Crew – Sierra Nevada Corp’s Dreamchaser
2. If you go via the car rental model, rather than the taxi cab version, you actually make it harder for commercial to succeed, and more expensive for NASA. Every vehicle being discussed is a 7 person capacity vehicle.
Now, if you use the taxi cab version, where NASA buys on a per seat basis, that means NASA will pay less, because someone like Space Adventures can sell the remaining seats to private astronauts, either on the American side, or perhaps on the Sovereign client side. This means NASA isn’t buying capacity it doesn’t need, and it allows us to find out the market side for private astronauts. In short, by combining the market for astronauts into a single pool (ie private astronauts & NASA astronauts), you lower the costs for everyone involved, and make it likely that more flights will happen
However, if you go with the car rental model, NASA will always be paying for 7 seats per flight, whether it needs all 7 seats or not. This means NASA will potentially be paying for capacity it doesn’t need, which is likely to raise costs. Further, on the commercial side, you increases costs for the commercial people because they also have to assume a 7 seat minimum capacity.
Going the car rental market means you are splitting the market, and making it more expensive for NASA and Commercial.
Wodun wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 9:12 am
“I’m just curious because we don’t really know what SpaceX’s costs are or how they assign them. $400 million over 8 years to maintain a large staff…”
SpaceX did not appear magically with an employee count of 1,000+ people, they grew from a small group of people in 2002, and added people and facilities as they needed them. That’s the standard way startups grow and mature, and Musk has already done that a number of times, so he knows the formula.
What he also did was reuse known technologies. Their engines are based on Apollo lander engines, and their launcher tanks are built the same way Atlas & Delta are built (Al-Li friction-stir welded). Where possible, they didn’t invent anything new, they just did it for less cost – a brilliant business strategy, especially if your goal is to offer a price that is far less than everyone else. That also means their reliability is high to start with, which is crucial for a new company.
In reality, they didn’t start growing quickly until they were awarded the COTS/CRS contract, and they are still growing to accommodate their contract backlog (check out their L.A. job listing).
Coming from a manufacturing management background, I don’t see anything mysterious in their staffing or growth.
Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 4:33 am
“FWIW, I suspect that, if funding were provided, Orion/Atlas-VH could be operational by 2015 as could CST-100/Atlas-V.”
ULA’s President, Michael Gass, testified at the Augustine Commission last year, and said as much. They just need $1.3B from NASA to man-rate Delta IV Heavy, and $400M from NASA to man-rate Atlas V. Now all you need to do is get Congress to cough up $1.7B that they weren’t planning to spend – let me know how that goes…
“I’m not so sure about Dragon/Falcon-9; SpaceX’s ability to meet deadlines is still pretty suspect but they might scrape in.”
Could you explain why you don’t think SpaceX can be ready 5 years from now to take over from Soyuz? They are the only company that will have flown a crew-capable capsule to the ISS and back more than 15 times by the end of 2015, so what’s the issue?
Googaw wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
“And Musk himself is learning that government contracting is not the path to lowering HSF costs that he thought it was:
“For a while I was thinking government doesn’t deserve the negative reputation the public has,†he said. “But now I think maybe it does.—
Don’t confuse his thoughts on government with his ability to win government contracts. He has at least three so far (an Air Force IDIQ, COTS/CRS and NLS II), and he’s poised to go after commercial crew when they put out the RFQ.
It’s capital hill, not the contracting process, that he’s lamenting.
Artemus wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 11:34 am
“This is exactly what I’m saying. No matter how you structure the contract, somebody has to pay the “risk premiumâ€. And that somebody is going to dictate how the vehicle is developed and operated.”
There is risk in driving your car to the local store, but you have determined that those risks are “acceptable”. The same for the Shuttle astronauts, who know that they have practically no way to escape from a failed launch. As Rhyolite pointed out, death even has a value that can be assigned.
Every company assesses the risks of doing business, and if they are smart, they reserve part of their revenue for a risk pool. For launching crew to space, many of you seem to forget that every company that is building crew systems also have test programs planned. No legitimate company is going to put people on an untested rocket/capsule. As I’ve already mentioned, SpaceX will be in effect “proving” their F9/Dragon crew combo on the COTS/CRS flights, and they will have 10+ such flights that they can use to validate their systems. NASA skimps on testing in comparison.
But no amount of testing will make a perfect system. Cars crash, airplanes fall out of the sky, and people die gruesome deaths from the most innocuous reasons. Just like you sign away certain rights when you buy an airline ticket, so will astronauts that agree to fly on future crew systems. No different than what has been happening with Shuttle & Soyuz for all these decades.
Next fake problem…
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
“I’d go with Boeing and L-M at first, because they launch DOD, intelligence, and NASA planetary/interplanetary probes, and know the drill. I agree with Ben’s comments above re: L-M with Orion and Boeing and CST”
There is a big difference between the politics of Congress, and the realities of open competitions.
NASA and other government agencies don’t get a free hand in doling out contracts to whomever is politically favored, especially if those contracts are rather large. Luckily the government agencies are less political, and the professionals that run the legal and contracting departments are as apolitical as possible in a partisan government.
The reason why Giffords et al are trying to insert so much specific language into their NASA bill, is that they know that is the only way to limit an open competition for non-NASA crew services. Why limit it? Because they have pork reasons.
SpaceX has already demonstrated to NASA that they can do what they said they can do, so they already have a legacy with NASA that they can point to. You may not like them, but technically they have been achieving what NASA wants.
And that’s really the bottom line – commercial crew foes know that between ULA, Boeing and SpaceX, they can offer LEO crew services for a far lower cost than a government-run launcher + Orion. They also know that commercial crew will lead to a great upheaval in how NASA operates, and everyone is trying to protect their part of the NASA funding pie.
Commercial crew won’t replace NASA as the leading edge of exploration, but it threatens the “business as usual” funding for many NASA centers and many longtime NASA contractors.
This is all about money and power, and not anything else.
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 1:35 pm
Which is what we all want (other than Oler, who has repeatedly stated his opposition to HSF). ..
repeating falsehoods does not make them true, it only points the person who says them out as “goofy”
Robert G. Oler
repeating falsehoods does not make them true, it only points the person who says them out as “goofyâ€
You being a prime example, with the falsehoods that you repeat about me.
Coastal Ron wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
Yes, I am aware that they did not magically spring up over night. Over the past 2 years, they nearly doubled their workforce. I think I am allowed to doubt their numbers considering we don’t have access to them.
I don’t really see anything mysterious either. Payroll expenses are still a significant cost and eat up a lot of the $400 million.
“But all must agree on a lease arrangement (Aviation Week, Space.Com, and the Houston Chronicle have all reported that’s the preference of the Astronaut Corps-and is Bolden’s preference as well), instead of NASA buying seats.”
Why do the astronauts get to decide this? This is insane. If you had a business and told an employee to grab a taxi cab and go someplace and the employee told you “No, I want a rental car instead” what would you tell that employee? If astronauts want to get into space to the space station, they can either grab a taxi or grab a new job. Just because they want to drive the taxi doesn’t mean they get to.
Curtis Quick wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 11:10 am
I hope so but exploration will not be cheap by anyone’s standards. Any plan to use fuel depots will result in costs similar or in excess to the ISS. Even one shot events like Plymouth Rock would cost billions. But we can dream
Any plan to use fuel depots will result in costs similar or in excess to the ISS.
Sorry, but this is nonsense.
I cannot escape the conclusion that many SDLV proponents have no qualms about telling lies to promote their favourite launch vehicle. The most obvious explanation is money: $20B worth of NASA budget will buy you $20B worth of liars. This does not bode well for commercial space should it get what it wants. The more I think about it, the more I think googaw is right about zombification.
Wodun wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
“I think I am allowed to doubt their numbers considering we don’t have access to them.”
Inigo Montoya: I must know…
Man in Black: Get used to disappointment.
You don’t have access to ULA or Boeing’s numbers either, so get used to disappointment. Private companies don’t have to share their financial information publicly, and even public companies don’t have to share detailed information.
Sorry for me being semi-flippant, but I don’t understand what there is to doubt? Do you doubt that they spent that much, or do you doubt that they had the investment capital and revenue to support it?
Maybe a better question is “what do you suspect”?
Wodun wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
“ Any plan to use fuel depots will result in costs similar or in excess to the ISS.”
Many of us are familiar with the designs of possible fuel depots, and I know my favorite is the ULA ACES family.
Considering that the ISS is a 1st generation space station, why do you think that a fairly simple assembly like a fuel depot would cost anything close to what we have spent on the ISS? Certainly no humans = much lower costs. Do you want to explain?
“NASA has more important things to do than design, build, and fly rockets (and fund tens of thousands of government and contractor jobs). NASA may then be reborn as the lean, mean, space exploration machine that it was supposed to be when it was created.”
You mean a lean NASA like a few years after it’s creation and had 400,000 people doing Apollo?
Well, historically speaking, the original NASA was a lean mean exploration machine, in that it was just the NACA with space added to its portfolio. It was only Apollo, three years after its founding, that created the current monstrosity.
Imagine how long it will take to get rid of Obamacare. Because unlike space, healthcare is important to most people. But I digress.
There is risk in driving your car to the local store, but you have determined that those risks are “acceptableâ€. The same for the Shuttle astronauts, who know that they have practically no way to escape from a failed launch. As Rhyolite pointed out, death even has a value that can be assigned…
You are utterly missing the point. No private investors have yet determined that the potential rewards of human spaceflight exceed the risk. Their plans all depend on a government backstop. If this were not the case, there would already be privately funded human spaceflight.
It is possible the equation will change due to some new discovery, but it hasn’t yet. The risks and rewards are about the same as they were in 1970. Commercial crew is that same age-old story, investors with dollar signs in their eyes looking to the venture capitalist of last resort, Uncle Sucker.
googaw wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 1:22 am “Because the main support for HSF comes from people who worship astronauts as heroes…”
Nonsense. But the calling does appeal to the better angels of Man’s soul. To poo-poo human spaceflight is to deny the inevitable movement of humans off this little rock. The meek shall inherit the Earth– and it is doomed.
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 6:33 am
Vladislaw wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Thanks guys, very informative. I now understand a bit more about why this is taking a long time to sort through. Used to be a bit simpler here in Oz but we now have a ‘hung’ Federal parliament with neither of the 2 major parties holding a clear majority and 5 or 6 (can’t remember exact numbers) independents holding the balance of power.
Artemus wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
You are utterly missing the point. No private investors have yet determined that the potential rewards of human spaceflight exceed the risk. Their plans all depend on a government backstop. If this were not the case, there would already be privately funded human spaceflight.
It is possible the equation will change due to some new discovery, but it hasn’t yet. The risks and rewards are about the same as they were in 1970. Commercial crew is that same age-old story, investors with dollar signs in their eyes looking to the venture capitalist of last resort, Uncle Sucker.’
Wrong! Bigelow already has decided that the risk is worth it. He just needs an STS to get to and from his stations. And no government funding discounting the original work down on Transhab and I’m pretty sure that Bigalow paid for that in licencing.
Ferris, that’s well and good, but both Bolden has been on record (Aviation Week/Leak among other sources-Space.com is another) as preferring the lease option. Peggy Whitson’s also been quoted as saying that’s the Astronaut Corps’ preference.
Ron, now you know how Congress works. A lot of this could’ve been avoided if Bolden and Garver had taken Congresscritters aside a few days before the original rollout and explained the problems with Constellation, why killing it was necessary, and explaining their plans for future HSF. And take plenty of time to explain that commercial to LEO is not the same as NASA BEO missions. Because the former enables the latter. Both Bolden and Garver have admitted that they blew the rollout, and didn’t “make the sale.” Some kind of assurance to CxP contractors that opportunities for their companies to bid for future exploration work would arise, and that efforts would be made to mitigate job losses in affected communities where Constellation work (both contractor and NASA) was ongoing would also have been a plus. And encouraging commercial contractors to hire people being laid off from shuttle and CxP would also have been beneficial. Instead, they rolled out the FY 11 budget on 1 Feb, and didn’t expect the blowback that came their way. Did they expect members of Congress, affected communities, contractors, and other interested parties to just roll over and rubber-stamp the proposal? And here we are now.
Artemus wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
“You are utterly missing the point. No private investors have yet determined that the potential rewards of human spaceflight exceed the risk. Their plans all depend on a government backstop. If this were not the case, there would already be privately funded human spaceflight.”
Why must “investors” feel the need to foot the bill for NASA’s LEO crew services? NASA has the only customer demand – there are no private companies that operate in LEO.
The situation we face today is that NASA needs crew transportation services to the ISS starting in 2016. Here are the choices:
A. NASA could continue to use Soyuz.
B. NASA could pay for the crew-specific investments needed for commercial companies to offer crew services.
C. NASA could build and operate their own crew transportation service.
So let’s go through the pro’s & con’s for these choices:
Soyuz – It’s a known good option, but it’s Russian, and it is very limited.
NASA – If the Senate bill passes, then Congress is only funding a big cargo launcher. Maybe they could use it for ISS crew rotation, but it would be really expensive for that.
Commercial Crew – if you don’t want to send your money outside of the country, and you don’t want to waste precious HLV launches, then commercial crew is your only option. Not only that, it’s far less expensive than using NASA, and it creates a new industry that could end up being the key to opening up space (not to mention more jobs and tax money generated).
Let’s review how much we’re talking about for commercial crew:
Man-rate Delta IV Heavy = $1.3B
Man-rate Atlas V = $400M
Man-rate Falcon 9/Dragon = $300M
That adds up to $2B, and the costs are quoted from the actual companies. This would give you three man-rated launchers and one man-rated capsule. Add another $2B for Boeing to get CST-100 operational (I think that number is plenty high), and you now have a fully redundant crew transportation system, plus a man-rated launcher for Orion or any other heavy crew carrier.
As a comparison, that $4B is what the Senate bill allocates through 2013 just to build the MPCV (Orion successor).
So, being a good steward of the American Taxpayer’s money, which would you choose – A, B or C?
The Peggy Whitson quote I am aware of. However, I certainly don’t remember Bolden saying that (I do remember him talking about both models, but nothing beyond that). Can you provide a link to a specific quote that has him endorsing the rental car model?
Also, if I may – so what if the astronaut corp prefers one method over another? They had better provide real justification, and IMHO, they haven’t provided it.
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
“A lot of this could’ve been avoided if Bolden and Garver had taken Congresscritters aside a few days before the original rollout and explained the problems with Constellation, why killing it was necessary, and explaining their plans for future HSF.”
A month after the budget was released you could have convinced me of that. But after watching the Senate and House hearings, I no longer believe that.
Congress was not invested in Constellation as a program – they dumped the Moon part of it without a whimper of opposition – a big Obama win.
Congress was invested in the money that Constellation brought to their districts, their corporate supporters, and their favorite NASA organizations. Coupled with the end of the Shuttle program, that was a whole lot of money that was being freed up, and if Congress loves anything, it’s the opportunity to do what they want with “free” money (i.e. unallocated within a fixed budget).
But not to worry. Administrations rarely get exactly what they propose in their budgets, but Obama is getting some of everything he wanted in the Senate bill. Constellation cancelled, Shuttle ends, ISS continues, Commercial Crew gets funded – the dollars may not match what they asked for, but the direction is clear.
If the House approves the Senate bill, you’ll hear lots of cheering from me and many others on this blog. For some reason, I don’t think you’ll be one of the people cheering…
Artemus wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 7:58 pm
“You are utterly missing the point. No private investors have yet determined that the potential rewards of human spaceflight exceed the risk. Their plans all depend on a government backstop. If this were not the case, there would already be privately funded human spaceflight.â€
Part of the problem is that you didn’t actually make that point. What you said was:
“Yes, but the $64 question is whether ULA, or anyone else, would bid on a truly fixed-price contract. In other words, you get paid a fixed price when you deliver a crew to ISS. I just can’t see ULA going for something like that.”
You later insisted that they wouldn’t bid a fixed price contract because the risk was too great.
The question of whether ULA or SpaceX would bid a firm fixed price contract is very different from the question of whether the market would support an commercial HSF capability independent of government support. As Coastal Ron demonstrated, commercially procured HSF makes finical sense for the US government. This true regardless of whether an independent commercial HSF market is viable.
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 10:36 pm
“…but both Bolden has been on record (Aviation Week/Leak among other sources-Space.com is another) as preferring the lease option. Peggy Whitson’s also been quoted as saying that’s the Astronaut Corps’ preference.”
I guess my answer would be – so what!
If NASA tells Boeing and SpaceX that they want to buy or lease their crew systems, do you know what they will say? How many would you like, and how quickly can we get them to you?
If anything, getting the manufacturers out of the crew services business is a sign of a maturing business sector.
Thanks Matt – yet another reason that NASA should fund commercial crew development!
Coastal Ron wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 11:33 pm “…yet another reason that NASA should fund commercial crew development! Nyet, Comrade Ron. Private capital markets are the place for capitalist commerical space to get funding, not socialist handouts from the United States Treasury.
Ferris, Bolden has said it in a House hearing I believe, and I’m pretty sure, but not 100% certain, he was also quoted by Aviation Week/Leak.
Ron, contrary to what you think, I will be cheering. Reluctantly, but cheering. Those of us who were Constellation supporters will get something out of it. It’s called Orion with Heavy-Lift. Develop and test both, and then start going places. Unlike Griffin and Rep. Gordon, I do recognize that it’s time to move on and get with the new program. Gordon’s retiring, and Griffin (who had the “my way or the highway” in regards to HSF) stays in academia. Where he should’ve been in the first place. If a different administrator had been appointed, or Sean O’Keefe had stayed on, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Ed Crawley “made the sale” on FlexPath, as I’ve said before. Now let’s see where it leads us.
Mr. Wiser,
Again, I believe you are remembering him talking about it, but in those instances he did not endorse either model, at least to my knowledge. I did a quick look at various places, and found no examples of him endorsing one model over another. I did not look through the entirety of the testimony (because I couldn’t find a full transcript, and I haven’t the time to watch it), but I what I did find did not include an endorsement of car rental over taxi cab.
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 3:48 am
“contrary to what you think, I will be cheering. Reluctantly, but cheering. ”
Glad to hear.
Now if you could, please stop with the constant “Aviation Week/Leak” references – once or twice it’s a joke, but now it distracts from what you’re saying. It is the job of the media to dig up information, so singling out Aviation Week is kind of weird. Thanks.
Calling AW “Aviation Leak & Space Mythology” is apparently a widespread joke in the industry.
Calling AW “Aviation Leak & Space Mythology†is apparently a widespread joke in the industry.
Funny because so true. The sad thing is that there’s quite a bit more reality and a bit less of the mythology about space in AW&ST then you’ll find in the space activist community. For a dose of reality I refer folks to their excellent articles on the comsat and international launch industries.
Those of us who were Constellation supporters will get something out of it. It’s called Orion with Heavy-Lift.
Probably not, actually, but the contractors will get to waste more money on them for another year or two until it’s finally recognized that both are unnecessary for human exploration.
Ferris: here’s a link to Bolden and his lease comments.
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2010/037
And a video from MIT:
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/782/
Matt,
That link led to a “can’t find the file you are looking for” – for AIP.
I am currently watching the MIT video