The passage of S.3729, the NASA authorization bill, by the House, has elicited a broad range of reactions, even among members of the same party from the same state. “While I am by no means satisfied with the Senate version, I voted in support of it when it was presented today before the House because it was better than nothing,” Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) said, explaining why he grudgingly voted for the bill even though he preferred the “more favorable bipartisan alternative” proposed by House Science and Technology Committee chairman Bart Gordon last week. Bishop blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for delaying a vote on the original House bill, saying that if she had “taken up the House version weeks ago, instead of placing it on the back burner indefinitely, we would likely not be in the situation where it’s the Senate bill or nothing.” He added that he would continue to seek “support for the House proposals during the appropriations process.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), though, was pleased with the bill’s passage, saying it would “ensure the book is not closed on northern Utah’s storied solid rocket motor industry” since it bill calls for the development of an HLV “that, Utah industry experts agree, can only be realistically met through the use of solid rocket motors like the ones manufactured by ATK in northern Utah.” And Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) also praised the House passage of the bill, claiming that with the vote “Congress is one step closer to reversing the Obama administration’s misguided proposal to phase out the Constellation and Ares programs.”
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), while pleased the bill contains provision for developing an HLV, said he was concerned that it unduly constrained the design of the vehicle. “NASA must not deliver a rocket that is simply a shuttle without wings. This would not represent a step forward for innovation or for the future of our space program.” Shelby, hardly a fan of commercial initiatives in the White House fan, included a comment about them in his statement: “With the passage of the NASA Authorization bill, it is clear Congress understands that bravado does not necessarily make a rocket company viable.”
Members of the House who did vote for the bill offered a range of rationales for their vote. Like Bishop, Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) reluctantly supported the bill, criticizing the “dysfunctional process” that led to the vote. “I will work hard to improve this bill in the coming months and when the Congress convenes in January so that we can keep America first in space.” Rep. Parker Griffith (R-AL), whose district includes Marshall, said that he voted for the bill even though it “doesn’t fully rehabilitate [the] manned space flight program” because it does salvage elements of Constellation. “This will not save the space flight program, however something must be passed to fund the program and I voted in favor of the compromise to support continued funding to NASA,” he said. Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) expressed his “strong support” for the bill, showing no sign in the statement that he might have preferred the original House version. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), whose district includes Ames, called the bill a “win” for both the center and the state. “California is the natural place for NASA’s new, innovative direction to begin,” she said, citing the work at Ames as well as commercial space companies in the state. And Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL), who had been pushing for the Senate bill for some time, applauded the bill’s passage. “Quickly signing this legislation into law will provide much-needed direction and stability for NASA and the Space Coast while maintaining America’s global leadership in space exploration.”
“With the passage of the NASA Authorization bill, it is clear Congress understands that bravado does not necessarily make a rocket company viable.â€
No, Dick, I’m pretty sure that designing, developing a rocket almost entirely in house with one’s own money and money faithfully competed for and awarded and then sending a paying customer’s payload into orbit is what makes most commercial rocket companies viable.
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), though, was pleased with the bill’s passage, saying it… calls for the development of an HLV “that, Utah industry experts agree, can only be realistically met through the use of solid rocket motors…â€
Hatch needs to widen his circle of aerospace experts and legislative assistants. Among others, Atlas V Phase 2 meets the 70-ton requirement and Falcon XX meets the 130-ton requirement without SRBs. And the entire language is subject to qualifiers that leave the design decisions to NASA, anyway.
“Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL), while pleased the bill contains provision for developing an HLV, said he was concerned that it unduly constrained the design of the vehicle. “NASA must not deliver a rocket that is simply a shuttle without wings…”
Has Shelby discovered ULA and Decatur? Better late than never.
FWIW…
Atlas V Phase 2 meets the 70-ton requirement and Falcon XX meets the 130-ton requirement without SRBs
It is easy to meet PowerPoint requirements. It is moronic not to leverage Shuttle components in construction of the next generation of heavy lift.
…it is clear Congress understands that bravado does not necessarily make a rocket company viable.
Give’em heck Senator Shelby! Musk has made a dangerous enemy.
And its even more moronic not to leverage EELV components in the construction of any Super HLV, since it will be cheaper to develop & operate as compared to Shuttle Derived (which is far more powerpoint than EELVs based vehicles).
“It is easy to meet PowerPoint requirements.”
Those requirements appear in the authorization bill, not any PowerPoint.
“It is moronic not to leverage Shuttle components in construction of the next generation of heavy lift.”
It’s moronic for NASA to pay for an expensive infrastructure and workforce that no one else uses and that has never produced a sustainable HLV, when there are alternatives that meet the same requirements while spreading infrastructure and workforce costs across additional military and commercial customers.
“Musk has made a dangerous enemy.”
Yes, Shelby has ben so effective at saving Constellation and MSFC jobs:
“Another 150 to 250 Huntsville space workers could lose their jobs in Huntsville as early as Friday after Congress voted Wednesday night…”
… Gone is the behind-schedule Constellation program that employed 2,200 federal and contractor employees at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville. Most of them worked on Ares I, the first rocket in the three-part program.
… 500 contract workers were laid off in June in anticipation of Constellation ending, but some were kept at work. Now, Constellation will end Friday when the new fiscal year starts.”
blog.al.com/breaking/2010/09/more_huntsville_layoffs_loom_a.html
In the meantime, the Commercial Space Flight Federation and its firms are hailing the bill:
“The bill specifies $1.612 billion for commercial crew and cargo programs, including $612 million in Fiscal Year 2011, and sets the stage for full funding of the commercial crew program over a 6-year period as stated by one of the bill’s primary authors, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. The Commercial Crew Program will enable multiple companies, including established firms with decades of experience as well as newer entrepreneurial firms, to develop systems for crew transportation to and from the International Space Station in Low Earth Orbit. The bill also establishes the Office of the Chief Technologist, boosts total funding for technology R&D to $2.5 billion over three years, and strengthens the Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research Program with $45 million over three years.”
commercialspaceflight.org/?p=1343
With enemies as “powerful” as Shelby, who needs friends?
The unfortunate thing about NASA and the way it is funded; even with the eye on purchase of goods and services from Commercial Space, There Will Always Be Pork Bellies and Back Bacon to serve to Congressional Constituents; America will never get away from it unless NASA and like Government Agencies cease to exist, and for that to happen, America itself will have to cease to exist; So Eat Your Pork and stop complaining
as for the technical aspects of engineering of optimum capabilities, That will always come after Pork; Direct found that out early in the process, and it has bent that process into the shape it is today; The AJAX variant of Direct would be a more capable HLV, with it’s Atlas Liquid Rocket Boosters, but the reality is that ATK swings a lot of political weight in Congress;
Robert, Martijn, would you guys like to weigh in on this,
I don’t see much difference between AJAX and DIRECT when it comes to stimulating manned spaceflight. I used to be in favour of a compromise under which a J-120 + Delta upper staged would be used to transport astronauts to L1/L2, where they would rendez-vous with a reusable lander. The lander would be refueled using commercial propellant launches. To make this RLV friendly you would use depots both in LEO and at L1/L2, and to reduce initial costs the lander itself could serve as a makeshift depot. If you want to do this soon, you could use storable propellant for the lander. An even better variant would work with EOR with a cryogenic upper stage instead of an SDLV, but if we have to have an SDLV then the J-120 + Delta upper stage may be the least bad option.
Of course, reusing Atlas infrastructure could help a bit. But the most sensible option would be to start with existing EELVs and upgrade to Phase 1 later, preferably when ULA decides to do that with its own money. An effort should be made not to lock in EELVs.
This is just bs political posturing of course, but the fact of the matter is that Ares1 dies finally and Shuttle gets to retire gracefully.
And that makes me happy.
Unfortunately the DIRECTish HLV has to have SRMs, but maybe we can get around that and squeeze the AJAX variant in by the 2016 deadline.
And its even more moronic not to leverage EELV components in the construction of any Super HLV
Its moronic to build a HLV in the first place without having a slimmest chance of ever having enough money to build payloads for it. But oh, well.
Energia, anyone ? Because that worked out so well.. launched both of its payloads.
reader – very true – sometimes, when arguing with abreakingwind, I forget the important points.
Thank you.
The unfortunate thing about NASA and the way it is funded; even with the eye on purchase of goods and services from Commercial Space, There Will Always Be Pork Bellies and Back Bacon to serve to Congressional Constituents;
And as pointed out before, NASA has been too dumb to play that game well. Design the critical parts of your big $$$ projects to be spread into as many field centers as possible, and you become a C-17 that congress will keep shovelling money at, even if you dont need it anymore.
The NASA fiefdoms have dug their own hole by not doing that.
Major Tom wrote:
Gone is the behind-schedule Constellation program that employed 2,200 federal and contractor employees at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville.
Jonathan Graffeo, spokesman for Senator Shelby:
Unfortunately for the President and his vision, Space X has yet to deliver on the simple contract it has already signed with NASA,” Graffeo said. “They are two years behind schedule and now are looking for more government funding to be successful.”
When do the layoffs begin at SpaceX?
Graffeo is lying. What a surprise.
““Congress is one step closer to reversing the Obama administration’s misguided proposal to phase out the Constellation and Ares programs.†”
Reverse – v. – to change to an opposite or contrary in position, direction, order, or character.
I’m not sure Bennett knows what reverse means. Yes, they’ve decreased the commercial budget and injected more funds into the HLV/BEO option. But this is much more of a rebalancing than a reversal. It’s like switching from third gear to second, not reverse. The original House bill wasn’t even a reversal and the compromise was practically the Senate bill anyway.
Dear politicians (on both sides of the aisle), hyperbole and exaggeration is nice for speeches and vote counts, but to those of us who actually understand the issue at hand, it just makes you look foolish.
“When do the layoffs begin at SpaceX?”
Never, for all practical purposes. Falcon has a huge commercial backlog, including the largest commercial launch contract in history. Even Dragon has other customers. I don’t wish this, but NASA could disappear tomorrow, and all of SpaceX’s current projects and workforce would continue as before.
And the reality, contrary to Shelby’s spokeperson, is that SpaceX has been meeting its COTS milestones and getting paid by NASA accordingly.
“Unfortunately for the President and his vision, Space X has yet to deliver on the simple contract it has already signed with NASA,†Graffeo said. “They are two years behind schedule and now are looking for more government funding to be successful.—
Ares I is 2 years behind schedule by even the rosiest of pictures (2015 first flight vs 2013 first flight in 2005). The more likely first flight, that of 2017, has it pegged at 4 years past due.
But here’s the kicker. We’ve spent $9 billion on Cx so far. How much taxpayer money will go into the development phase of Falcon 9/Dragon? $250 million in COTS money. Even if you include the $1.6 billion launch contract (which is payment for services rendered, not for development), that’s 1.8-1.9 billion. Heck, let’s throw in the rest of the COTS money and OSC’s contract. We’re looking at, what 2.3 billion, almost 3/4 of which is pure pay-for-services contracts with actual ROI.
And unlike Cx, which is a ever-expanding cost-plus money hole, SpaceX is a company operating in the black, even without COTS. So SpaceX has no financial reason to lay people off. As they have met and exceeded revenue projections, they actually have reason to hire them.
Also ulike Ares I, which would not be able to provide LEO services until it’s destination had been cancelled due to overruns, Falcon 9/Dragon and Cygnus will actually deliver services to taxpayers several years before Ares takes its first all-up test flight.
How much taxpayer money will go into the development phase of Falcon 9/Dragon? $250 million in COTS money.
Of course there is a great gulf in requirements for Constellation and ISS resupply mission. One would think ISS resupply could be accomplished quickly and easily using off the shelf Atlas and Delta. Why do we need yet another booster in this class, and an inferior one at that? My hope is a new congress will see SpaceX as the boondoggle it really is.
As for money hole, are you all really satisfied spending $5G on ISS in perpetuity? The future cannot start until ISS comes down.
Hatch thinks 2016 means no other option than solid rockets because a new large hydrocarbon engine effort, which is the rival of the SRB/SSME combo, needs longer than that be created.
The strategies around that are the following.
1. Using the RD-180 anyway, which is already used by NASA in its science missions. This is an option not properly considered in the administration’s thinking.
2. Using the RD-180 in the preliminary versions of a booster, with an ongoing hydrocarbon engine development effort that will supersede the RD-180 when it comes online. That new engine can either be a domestically produced RD-180, or a new design.
SpaceX has a propsed large hydrocarbon engine, which I beleive they proffer has a shorter development time, but I am not considering it in this post, although it may be another route.
***
ULA, if you’re listening, a variant of the above:
Pitch an Atlas Phase 2 variant with NK-33/Aj-26 engines. It mimics the SSME position as there is a private american owned stockpile that can suffice for the test flights until a domestically produced version can come online, although the RD-180 has this feature as well. But it’s not the RD-180, and I think will be free of some of the stigma of that option. That new domestic engine can then have common application across more booster systems, the Taurus 2, the Phase 2, which was a goal of the new hydrocarbon engine effort the administration wanted.
Fight the idea that there are no suitable engines, and thus no such hydrocarbon alternative option. There are many such options.
Well,
1. You aren’t doing anything more than that with Ares I/Orion, and arguably you aren’t doing anything more than that when all you have is an HLV & Orion
2. Many of us were asking those questions about Atlas & Delta back when Ares I was still on the table. As for why Atlas & Delta weren’t considered for COTS – ask your man-crush, Mike Griffin about that.
Many of us were asking those questions about Atlas & Delta back when Ares I was still on the table. As for why Atlas & Delta weren’t considered for COTS
You forget that the EELVs are not man rated. It makes little sense to invest in man rating an already marginal design when shuttle derived components are sitting there ready to use.
You forget that the EELVs are not man rated.
First of all: man-rated is a mostly meaningless term which really means pork-rated. Secondly, EELVs are being man-rated as we speak under CCDev, and NASA is planning for an Orion test flight on Delta IV Heavy.
It makes little sense to invest in man rating an already marginal design when shuttle derived components are sitting there ready to use.
It makes no sense to build an SDLV when there are excellent launch vehicles (EELVs) on the market, ready to use and more underway (Falcon).
Amightywind, you aren’t confusing any of the regular posters here, you are just another SDLV shill who doesn’t listen to reason but advocates a predetermined conclusion. We’ll keep reminding new posters of that.
Amightywind, you aren’t confusing any of the regular posters here, you are just another SDLV shill who doesn’t listen to reason but advocates a predetermined conclusion. We’ll keep reminding new posters of that.
And I’ll keep reminding new posters that’s what ideologues do.
amightywind wrote @ October 1st, 2010 at 2:01 pm
“One would think ISS resupply could be accomplished quickly and easily using off the shelf Atlas and Delta. Why do we need yet another booster in this class, and an inferior one at that?”
You’re forgetting one big thing – Atlas & Delta are only launchers, and to deliver pressurized & unpressurized cargo to the ISS you need a self-guided vessel of some sort.
SpaceX and OSC did not win their COTS/CRS contracts solely because of their launchers, but that they proposed to build cargo systems to go on top of those launchers.
ULA is prohibited by it’s owners (Boeing & LM) from manufacturing payloads, because that would compete with it’s parents other businesses. Someone could have bid the COTS/CRS program using Atlas or Delta, but they would have had a price disadvantage compared to the in-house launchers of SpaceX and OSC (Rocketplane Kistler too).
Regarding “inferior”, Falcon 9 is of the same payload class as Atlas V, and Falcon 9 actually carries more payload (10,450 vs 9,800 kg) and costs far less. Once Falcon 9 becomes operational, it will actually be a better customer value than Atlas V – which is why it is collecting a large amount of customer contracts.
The market will determine how to quantify “inferior”, not ATK fanbois.
And I’ll keep reminding new posters that’s what ideologues do.
Ideologues?
“Of course there is a great gulf in requirements for Constellation and ISS resupply mission. One would think ISS resupply could be accomplished quickly and easily using off the shelf Atlas and Delta. Why do we need yet another booster in this class, and an inferior one at that?”
SpaceX’s multiple customers on the Falcon 9 certainly seem to think it’s perfectly capable of the task at hand, and a better option for their money than existing alternatives. Is there something you’re privilege to that they aren’t?
Is there something you’re privilege to that they aren’t?
It would be surprising, but perhaps the drugs he uses aren’t available in southern California.
And Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT) also praised the House passage of the bill, claiming that with the vote “Congress is one step closer to reversing the Obama administration’s misguided proposal to phase out the Constellation and Ares programs.â€
88888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
lots of laugh. Bennett is pushing Whittington wishful thinking here…
When historians look back on this era, those who are interetsted in human space flight will I think see this as the true end of the Apollo era….and the start of the era of “Space barnstorming”.
Apollo and the lunar goal was a singularity that NASA and supporters of human spaceflight have been trying to repeat ever since Gene Cernan left the Moon. It has been an era of “next logical steps” and “pork” replacing any real goals that Human spaceflight was suppose to accomplish.
The true casualties of this era have been any attempt (which NASA stubbornly fought) for human spaceflight to branch out into the rest of American society. As a result the era since 1980 has seen no real value of hsf that meets its cost. We are going to stop flying the shuttle here shortly and when we do other then the federally financed jobs (which I refer to as Americorps of space) that is all that will be lost….HSF has not since 1980 found one reason to continue it…that justifies its cost.
The last stand of this era was the attempt to save Cx. And other then a lot of rhetoric and loud noises by those who are either caught up in the space pork systems or todaies for “American exceptionalism”…killing Cx wasnt all that hard. As the various votes have shown, there is just not a lot of support for the program.
This new policy is going to empower the winds of change enabling American industry to move into not a subservient role, but a lead role in the use of space…and return government to the proper role of R&D and regulation.
The irony of it is that the folks who most argue for that in every other venture in The Republic are the oens who for the most part opposed this in human spaceflight…and that had Mr. Obama done for the economy what he has done for human space flight, things would in my view be far better in The Republic.
This is the end of NASA as it has existed since the Apollo drive took over…and the start of perhaps American domincance in space…just like it has in aviation.
Long Live The Republic
Robert G. Oler
“One would think ISS …….. could be accomplished quickly and easily using off the shelf Atlas and Delta. Why do we need yet another booster in this class, and an inferior one at that? ”
Words applicable to Ares I
I hoped, once a clear direction for NASA was established, that passionate adversaries would put past differences aside and get on board with useful discussions, about how best to exploit the possibilities of the new direction.
That is, after all, NASA’s approach with its professional community, once a major decision has been taken.
I would like to remind those who were sure Ares-1 was a real project, and not a budget sleight of hand to phase in Ares-5 without turning off appropriators from the start, that tax money from all over the country pays for NASA HSF.
Some states and regions send more money to DC than they receive in government services. These contributions are not meant to improve the bottom lines of contractors. They are meant to support some national purpose, like the interstate highway system, FAA, NIH, et al, that improves everyone’s life and our national standing.
Allow Ares-1 to rest in peace, whether as a fond memory or a wrong turn.
Allow that commercial has achieved a foot in the door, an opportunity that was unjustifiably denied some previous commercial efforts.
NASA HSF is presented with a partial reset, and a new direction. If it respects the taxpayers who fund it, NASA will be honest about development time-lines and costs, and in the process regain the respect it has lost over the years.
Can NASA improve our national life and standing with a well conceived plan, or be just another tax-eater, undeserving of taxpayers’ high regard?
“Falcon 9 actually carries more payload (10,450 vs 9,800 kg) and costs far less. Once Falcon 9 becomes operational, it will actually be a better customer value than Atlas V – which is why it is collecting a large amount of customer contracts.”
Wrong on both accounts.
1. Payload to LEO is meaningless. GTO capability is the performance measure and F9 is not EELV class in this area
2. The costs are not that far apart and F9 are increasing
“marginal design when shuttle derived components are sitting there ready to use”
1. Components are not manrated, whole launch vehicles are. Ares I had yet to be manrated. It was no further into the process than the EELV’s
2. Technically, sharing the SRM casings and upperstage foam does not make Ares I an SDLV. There are too many changes in the 5 segment SRB that it no longer shared the shuttle flight legacy.
3, Marginal was only applicable to Ares I . It was the reason for Orion to go from 6 to 4 crew.
Windy, know something before posting, which in your case when it comes to spaceflight means you can’t post.
Again, try to discredit this post and it will only reinforce the fact that you are a fool.
“Of course there is a great gulf in requirements for Constellation and ISS resupply mission.”
From the LV perspective, there’s no difference. ISS and Constellation operations both stage out of (or would have staged out of) LEO. And kilograms to LEO is kilograms to LEO.
“One would think ISS resupply could be accomplished quickly and easily using off the shelf Atlas and Delta.”
Yes, and it makes one wonder why Griffin didn’t select an existing LV for COTS. Could he have had an ulterior motive?
Naw…
“Why do we need yet another booster in this class”
Ask Griffin. He’s the one who threw taxpayer funding at Falcon 9 and Taurus II development even though Atlas V and Delta IV were operational.
“and an inferior one at that?”
Falcon 9 beat out every other launcher in the world, undercutting even Russian vehicles, for the Iridium replenishment contract — the largest commercial launch contract in history. That’s “superior”, not “inferior”.
“My hope is a new congress will see SpaceX as the boondoggle it really is.”
It doesn’t matter what Congress sees. What matters is whether SpaceX wins NASA launch development and service competitions. And they won another one just this week:
spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=35027
“As for money hole, are you all really satisfied spending $5G on ISS in perpetuity?”
The FY 2010 ISS budget is $2.3 billion. It’s not projected to exceed $2.7 billion through the runout.
Don’t waste this forum’s time with ignorant statements.
“You forget that the EELVs are not man rated. It makes little sense to invest in man rating an already marginal design when shuttle derived components are sitting there ready to use.”
Components aren’t “man rated [sic]”. Vehicles are.
Using this erroneous logic, I could strap my lawn chair to a four-segment Shuttle SRB and have a man-rated launch vehicle.
Don’t waste this forum’s time with stupid statements.
Byeman wrote @ October 1st, 2010 at 5:43 pm
“Payload to LEO is meaningless. GTO capability is the performance measure and F9 is not EELV class in this area”
That particular conversation was regarding LEO cargo & crew operations for the ISS, so GTO performance is what’s meaningless.
Since ULA is offering their Atlas V 401 configuration (no SRB’s) for commercial crew, that is the same class of vehicle as the Falcon 9, i.e. launchers capable of carrying commercial capsules that carry 7 people (CST-100 & Dragon).
To me, the term EELV was created for Air Force requirements, so I tend not to use it for NASA/ISS related comparisons, especially since the Air Force has no need for “man-rated” launchers. We’re going to need to come up with a new set of acronyms for crew-capable launchers…
@ Major Tom wrote @ October 1st, 2010 at 5:53 pm
“Yes, and it makes one wonder why Griffin didn’t select an existing LV for COTS. Could he have had an ulterior motive?
Naw…”
Naw you’re right. He’s a professor for NASA’s sake. What do you mean where? What do you mean how much he makes as a “professor”? What does that have to do with anything? With Ares? Ah come on! Ulterior motive!?! I think you’re reading too much conspiracy theories… Then again…
Oh well…
Then again…
Then again, he continued to lobby for an ATK based LV even though he should have been quietly returning to academia. I’ll be watching where our venerable ex-Administrator next hangs his hat. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a company owned by the controlling shareholders of ATK.
Because that’s how this capitalist world turns. (I was going to reference theyrule.org which used to be a site showing how the major corporations’ board of directors were made up of CEOs of other major corporations, but that domain name is now “available” for purchase)
Oh well…
Ah, here it is, at theyrule.net
Fascinating, wot wot?
Okay, okay. Not that I want to put oil on the fire or Al in the propellant but what is Griffin’s address at UAH?
http://www.mae.uah.edu/faculty/Griffin.shtml
Professor at $350K? There used to be a rule of thumb that a professor ought to return his/her salary to the university in grant proposals. Now, one might say that some one already provided before even being a professor. Is this possible? Is this capitalism? Are you guys sure? There are other words for revolving doors from government to industry or anywhere for that matter.
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/04/griffin-to-be-at-university-of-alabama-in-huntsville.html
Ah those commercial folks out to make a buck or two: They are indeed the real enemy of capitalism, not like those outstandingly honest former government employees…
Oh well…
“1. Payload to LEO is meaningless. GTO capability is the performance measure and F9 is not EELV class in this area”
I’ll echo the earlier ‘we were talking about LEO’ sentiment and also repeat the fact that SpaceX’s contracts flatly contradict your assertion that it’s not up to the task.
“2. The costs are not that far apart and F9 are increasing”
So are the ULA rockets. And it F9’s increasing launch costs (which are only minimally so, for that matter), are only relevant when it starts affecting their ability to win contracts. It’s what capitalism is all about, supply and demand. And currently there is plenty of demand for the Falcon line.
Additionally, that cost line is expected to stabilize based on two factors:
1. The Merlin 2, which is set to not only reduce the cost, but also increase overall performance (rendering the GTO argument even more pointless).
2. The recovery and reuse of the first and possibly second stages.
I understand that stage recovery is tough business and there’s a measurable margin for failure there. Though I will point out that SpaceX is confident enough that they’ve hired one of the SRB recovery ships for the next launch. The Merlin 2, on the other hand, is an engine. They’ve already done that once this decade, and they’ve completely retooled that engine for better performance as a part of their planned development cycle. And while every new engine, or piece of hardware for that matter, is a new set of challenges, it’s a set of challenges they’ve demonstrated they are up to. Merlin 2 is more just a matter of time than anything.
1. Aside from COTS/CRS which ULA was excluded and Iridium, where the lost of a individual mission is not a major impact, Spacex has yet to win a real launch (comsat)
2. ULA costs are not increasing and certainly not at the rate of Spacex’s. Spacex has yet to win a relevant NASA spacecraft launch
Also Merlin 2 is powerpoint, Spacex is not developing it at this time, nor in the foreseeable future.
ULA costs are not increasing and certainly not at the rate of Spacex’s. Spacex has yet to win a relevant NASA spacecraft launch
No one here knows whether or not SpaceX’s costs are increasing, or by how much. Don’t confuse cost with price.
Byeman wrote @ October 2nd, 2010 at 7:46 am
“2. ULA costs are not increasing and certainly not at the rate of Spacex’s. Spacex has yet to win a relevant NASA spacecraft launch”
On September 23rd, SpaceX was one of four launch companies that won inclusion on the $15B NASA Launch Services (NLS) II contract, which provides a broad range of launch services for NASA planetary, earth-observing, exploration and scientific satellites. It was in the news – did you miss it?
Regarding “costs”, I second Rand’s statement that cost’s should not be confused with prices. SpaceX’s prices have gone up some, but since they are so far under anyone else’s, they have quite a few years, if not decades, to go before they get even close to what ULA charges.
“Spacex has yet to win a real launch (comsat)”
Are you kidding?
ORBCOMM – Multiple flights
2011-2014
Falcon 1e
Kwajalein
MDA Corp. (Canada)
2011
Falcon 9
Cape Canaveral
CONAE (Argentina)
2012
Falcon 9
Vandenberg**
Spacecom (Israel)
2012
Falcon 9
Cape Canaveral**
CONAE (Argentina)
2013
Falcon 9
Vandenberg**
NSPO (Taiwan)
2013
Falcon 1e
Kwajalein
Space Systems/Loral
2014
Falcon 9
Cape Canaveral**
Astrium (Europe)
2014
Falcon 1e
Kwajalein
Iridium – Multiple flights
2015-2017
Falcon 9
Vandenberg
C’mon, people…
Inclusion in the NLS II contract is meaningless, winning a launch service task order is what matters. Spacex was on the NLS I and failed to win any task orders that were competed.
also, F-1 contracts don’t matter, there is little competition in that area.
The rest of the non Iridium F-9 contracts are place holders. Watch how they will always be 2-3 years in the future or just plain disappear.
“they have quite a few years, if not decades, to go before they get even close to what ULA charges.”
Not true. They are already within 2/3 to 3/4 of ULA
Byeman wrote @ October 3rd, 2010 at 7:45 pm
The rest of the non Iridium F-9 contracts are place holders. Watch how they will always be 2-3 years in the future or just plain disappear.
I’m curious about this Byeman.
What makes SpaceX’s systems so incredibly bad that you think they won’t get any new contracts? Is Falcon 9 really that bad of a launcher?
Is it just because Falcon 9 can’t deliver as much to GTO as Atlas/Delta, or is it more than that?
Byeman wrote @ October 3rd, 2010 at 7:45 pm
“Inclusion in the NLS II contract is meaningless, winning a launch service task order is what matters. Spacex was on the NLS I and failed to win any task orders that were competed.”
Since NLS I was originally awarded in 1999, you obviously know that SpaceX was only recently added (per the onramp provision), and since they are still in test for the Falcon 9, they would not have had an opportunity to launch anything for NASA yet. However, once they become operational, NASA now has them listed under NLS II, which IS an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) task order contract.
Now maybe what you really meant is that NASA has not assigned them a payload yet, and that’s obviously because 1). they don’t have any Falcon 1 class payloads at this time, and 2) Falcon 9 is not yet operational. Since the leadtimes on the Falcon 9 alternatives are much longer (Atlas & Delta), it would not be prudent to assign Falcon 9 any payloads yet. No big deal.
“Not true. They are already within 2/3 to 3/4 of ULA”
What is the advertised price for Atlas V 401, and how current is it (what year is it as of)?
According to your math, with a current Falcon 9 price of $59M, you’re estimating that Atlas V 401 is priced between $79-89M/flight.
Again I’ll point back to what the ULA President, Michael Gass, stated last year, which was if NASA paid $400M to “man-rate” Atlas V, then ULA would charge $130M/flight. Since ULA is only charging for the launcher, and not the payload, then it’s hard to see how much less an Atlas V would be WITHOUT being “man-rated”.
The ball is back in your court to prove your cost assumptions.
someguy wrote @ October 3rd, 2010 at 9:54 pm
“I’m curious about this Byeman.
Is it just because Falcon 9 can’t deliver as much to GTO as Atlas/Delta, or is it more than that?”
It is true that the design of Atlas V and Delta IV provide for a number of launch payload capacity variations depending on the number of SRB’s that are used. The base Atlas V 401 has a capacity to GTO of 4,750kg, whereas Falcon 9 does 4,540kg (96% of the 401). But if you need 5,000kg to GTO, then Falcon 9 cannot help you.
However, there are a number of sub-markets that one can target in the launch business, and SpaceX has obviously decided not to chase ULA in all of them, but to focus on the ones where they can be disruptive. If you look at the theory behind disruptive innovation, you’ll see the following, which looks like what SpaceX is doing:
“[Wikipedia] Clayton M. Christensen defines a disruptive innovation as a product or service designed for a new a set of customers.
“Generally, disruptive innovations were technologically straightforward, consisting of off-the-shelf components put together in a product architecture that was often simpler than prior approaches. They offered less of what customers in established markets wanted and so could rarely be initially employed there. They offered a different package of attributes valued only in emerging markets remote from, and unimportant to, the mainstream.”
For SpaceX, their $59M Falcon 9 is sized very well for the emerging cargo & crew LEO services field (plus other other stuff too).
Where the next market disruption will come from is Falcon 9 Heavy, which is currently priced at $95M – I think this is an introductory price, but will stay well below Delta IV Heavy and Ariane 5. Another factor is that Falcon 9 Heavy can put 19,500kg into GTO, versus 12,980kg for Delta IV Heavy and 10,500kg for Ariane 5. While no current payloads need Falcon 9 Heavy, it’s price means that customers can choose it for payloads that would have normally gone for much smaller launchers like Atlas V 551, and still save money.
The next few years will be very interesting in the launcher market…
NASA does not assign payloads to launch vehicles, they are competed. Spacex was eligible to compete for NuSTAR, OCO, TDRS J&K, MMS, and RBSP. The NLS does not prevent a provider from receiving a contract before a successful flight, just the contract can not be turned on, which is no longer applicable to F9 & F1.
I know the costs but can not reveal them.
byeman wrote @ October 4th, 2010 at 8:18 am
“I know the costs but can not reveal them.”
Understandable, and in fact laudable, especially since we’re debating space politics, not doing investigative reporting.
However that means that unless you can point to public sources of information to strengthen your points & positions, then you’re at a disadvantage. Not that you can’t state your opinions, but that any doubt cast is hard to lift.
However, on Space Politics, even facts don’t stand in the way of a good Ares I defense…
They are already within 2/3 to 3/4 of ULA
I know the costs but can not reveal them.
Do you know the costs or the prices? Because if the prices are with 2/3 to 3/4 of those of ULA that may merely reflect a discount SpaceX has to offer to compensate for its much more limited track record. As SpaceX builds up a record, prices may increase to reflect that. That says very little about costs.