According to one member of Congress, the House vote to approve the Senate version of the NASA authorization bill on September 29 went down to the wire. “They were thinking of pulling the bill” the day of the vote, claimed Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), in comments to the Bay Area (Texas) Citizen. “So we went to the leader and said¸ ‘no way, we’ll get the votes. We won’t give up and we won’t give in.'” They did, of course, get the votes, something the article credited to “an intense 72-hour Texas bipartisan drive”.
Another key supporter of the authorization bill, Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL), won the endorsement this weekend from the Orlando Sentinel in her reelection bid. Kosmas, the editorial notes, wasn’t able to win a lengthy extension of the shuttle program, but she and other members of the Florida congressional delegation “helped speed up the timetable for NASA’s next manned program.” Her Republican opponent, Sandy Adams, “has been pandering to the anti-government crowd in her party” yet, the paper argues, “she’s all for big government when it comes to NASA” by wanting to continue flying the shuttles. Kosmas, though, is in an uphill battle against Adams: according to the New York Times’ FiveThirtyEight, Adams currently has nearly an 85-percent chance of winning.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) doesn’t have nearly the same worries about reelection: FiveThirtyEight gives him a 100-percent chance of winning. That isn’t stopping him from raising money, though, and on Monday night Elon Musk is hosting a fundraiser for Rohrabacher at SpaceX’s factory in Hawthorne, California. It’s a $1,000 a person, but that does include catering by Wolfgang Puck…
Well, it seems like it is ‘mission accomplished’ for Rep. Korsmas. I don’t know how influential the Sentinel is politically, but every little bit helps.
Interestingly, the “there aren’t enough votes, drop the bill” was picked up by the contacts of the DIRECT group. It was their opinion that this was misinformation from the office of Rep. Giffords, who was trying to scupper the bill by any means necessary.
While The old guard continue to fight a loosing battle in the political trenches it’s clear that 2010 has turned into a watershed year.
So far we’ve had
1/ cancellation of Constellation.
2/ 1st flight of Falcon 9.
3/ Boeing signs deal to sell seats on CST-100.
4/ First fligth of SS2.
and coming up next month First flight of Dragon.
And then the Shuttle goes away early next year.
“…the times they are a changin'”
VSS Enterprise has done its first drop test.
it has an N number…
that should really screw up the Whittington folks
Robert G. Oler
Apparently it was a great test flight. The landing was especially dramatic with SS2 flaring out from the steep approach angle to gently kiss the runway. Beautiful!!
1/ cancellation of Constellation.
2/ 1st flight of Falcon 9.
3/ Boeing signs deal to sell seats on CST-100.
4/ First fligth of SS2
Has there ever been a less auspicious year for US space? The first F9 flight revealed profound flight control problems in the second stage. The second flight continues to slip while Musk’s sausage makers desperately to cobble together a viable test vehicle. Boeing attempts to sell seats on a vapor capsule, while Orion remains half built. The new congress must demand leadership changes at NASA. Bolsheviks appointed by the Whitehouse cannot be given a free pass to confirmation.
As for Musk, it seems he is running out of friends.
… and coming up next month First flight of Dragon.
And don’t forget the Air Force’s X-37, which is still up there.
Which project is further along — X-37 launched on an Atlas, or Orion capsule launched on big, big, heavy or merely heavy lifter?
Yes, I agree that the USAF is not asking to launch peepul into orbit. But the X-37 wouldn’t have to be upsized too much to fit some crewpersons inside, and the launch missile(s) are already available.
… Already available — what a concept.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ October 11th, 2010 at 1:36 am
What does an N number have to do with anything? So VG spacecraft are registered with the FAA…..
Why do so many on this site want it to be an “either/or” situation? It certainly does not need to be that way and the reality is the two “sides” can benefit from each other.
@Mike Snyder
Because Neoliberals are to Space Politics what Baptists are to Christianity. They are the loudest people in the room and they are always right.
Because Neoliberals are to Space Politics what Baptists are to Christianity.
Actually it’s more like how new atheists are to religion and science – rational and fearless. But by all means, continue to cling to your guns and your bible.
@Reality Bites
As you have no clue to what are my political views or religious affinities, you underscore the my point. As far as I am concerned atheists and Christioans can be locked in the same room together. Preferably a sound-proofed one.
Christioans = Christians. Please forgive my typo.
Why do so many on this site want it to be an “either/or†situation? It certainly does not need to be that way …
Not enough $ to do everything. $ = finite.
David,
That is very true. However, that hardly seems to be the driver behind many of the comments from my observation. Furthermore, since money is finite that should imply and drive more of a partnership as opposed to the “either/or” situation.
“Partnership” as in, “Let’s compromise and be reasonable and do things my way”?
Mike and Gary,
First, what in the heck is a “Neoliberal”?
Second, Mike wrote “Why do so many on this site want it to be an “either/or†situation?”
Either/or what?
I know my thoughts and inclinations don’t fit into any of your pigeonholes, but still I am curious as to what you two are trying to say.
As you have no clue to what are my political views or religious affinities, you underscore the my point.
As your mere mention of organized religion underscores my point as well.
But by all means possible, continue to associate politics with religion, and certainly I will continue to associate science, technology, engineering and mathematics with space and education, and indeed, atheism and rationality.
David,
Wow. Yes, lets be reasonable and lets have a true partnership to get the job done in a technically competent and fiscally responsible manner. One that builds on what we have done and the experience in place. That does not have to mean “business as usual”. I’ll just ignore the rest of your rudeness.
Bennet,
I think it is self-explanitory. I don’t know you and have no idea what your thoughts/inclinations are. Sorry and I’m sorry you believe for some reason that me and others would “pigeonhole” someone we don’t have any clue about into some obscure category.
Snyder,
The people here do wish a partnership, wherein NASA pursues and completes its exploration missions in partnership with the commercial launch industry. An example of this would be the way science missions are conducted: NASA buys rides for its rovers and spacecraft on commercial launch vehicles. NASA explores, commercial helps with the conduct of its business, launch. A further example is what is proposed for ISS: NASA mans and resupplies its ISS mission using commercial launch vehicles and spacecraft. This is the established model of partnership, which you seek to circumvent in the exploration realm.
What you support, a SDHLV, is a rejection of that model. It builds an inhouse launch program to service NASA’s exploration missions. It specifically intrudes on where the commercial domain is, and denies them their role. Any enactment of your goal is one where more than ten billion dollars is spent on your launch vehicle while missions go underfunded and the commercial/NASA partnership is confined to other realms. There is no commercial partnership in exploration with the SDHLV; what you wish is diametrically opposed to working together. Your idea of partnership is one where you get the steak, and everyone else gets the crumbs.
Everyone here supports the role NASA is meant to play, which is conducting exploration missions. It is you who reject the role commercial is to play, which is supporting those exploration missions, because you wish to continue to build rockets. It is you who reject a partnership, by establishing yourself in the domain that which is the business of the commercial industry, launch.
The purpose of NASA is to explore, not build rockets. Rockets are already the domain of an existing commercial industry. So don’t pretend you wish us to all get along when all you are concerned with is your parochial ends.
The purpose of NASA is to explore, not build rockets.
That’s what many people think NASA’s mission is and maybe what it should be, but it’s not what NASA’s charter says.
libby,
You are very absolute and rigid in your characterization of me. You are also very absolute and rigid in what you believe the role of this or that is to be. It borderlines on “extremism”.
Unfortunately, you are wrong across the board and therefore your rather long, unnecessary and incorrect rant deserves no further attention.
Unfortunately, you are wrong across the board and therefore your rather long, unnecessary and incorrect rant deserves no further attention.
Typical Republican, Conservative Tea Party answer to all that ails you. Thank you Dr. Mike Snyder. I’m sure that will cure our problems. They don’t exist, therefore there is no need to address them. Sorry to have wasted your time.
Reality Bites = Thomas Lee Elifritz
@Reality Bites – yes you are so fearless and rational that you do not have the courage to post your real name and you confuse metaphor with association.
@libs0n – Constellation program was a NASA/commercial collaboration with ATK, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing. ATK, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing were designing the major elelments of the Ares I. NASA was providing management and oversight. 85% of the people working on Constellation program worked for private commercial contractors.
@Bennett – Wikipedia has an excellent article on neoliberalism which is pretty much the dominant view expressed on this blog.
Gary Miles – no, it wasn’t a commercial partnership – it was a contractor partnership. And those are fundamentally different relationships.
Ferris, ATK, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing are private, commercial companies. Simply because they have government contracts does not alter their status. SpaceX is a government contractor for COTS. Elon Musk has already that he spent over $500 million on Falcon 9 development, half of which came from government funding. He acknowledged that he could not have come this far without government funds. The only difference is the relative level of government oversight and the existences of limited commercial opportunity that exist in LEO because of the ISS. No such commercial opportunity exist beyond LEO at this time.
Gary – they are private companies, yes – I grant that. But just because you are a private companies, doesn’t mean you are a commercial companies. You can also be a private contractor. These are 2 fundamentally different things.
And BTW, I think Boeing is seeing that it needs to move in a commercial direction, rather than a contracting direction. I am really impressed by what they are doing with the CST-100.
A) The appropriations bill will further shape the discussion, NASA and commercial.
B) When NASA began its HSF activities, it didn’t put out RFPs for new LVs that would loft Mercury and Gemini. It adapted Redstone, Atlas and Titan to the task. (But they didn’t have a choice between the most expensive launch system and more affordable options, as we do now.)
C) The Redstone design team anticipated that throwing away the entire LV every launch was not cost sustainable, and studied Redstone re-usability requirements.
D) Senator Nelson got his way (maybe) with HLV, but he really wants to keep LC-39 happening. That would be a natural for Jupiter-like LVs. But if Atlas or Delta advanced variants emerge, cost and time being important factors, the good Senator will want to see them launched from LC-39, replete with tractor time, or political sparks will fly, in Nelson’s low-key but powerful behind the scenes way.
E) In the future, advanced launch and in-space propulsion will put human flights to destinations beyond the moon on the menu as safer and more affordable.
In the meantime, I look forward to the exciting prospects for commercial, sub-orbital, orbital and eventually cis-lunar.
I just wish regolith wasn’t so itchy and scratchy. Imagine getting lunar “sand” in your burger, next picnic.
Gary Miles wrote @ October 11th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Yes, I can see some aspects of that definition of Neoliberalism playing out in the arguments to avoid creating another Constellation program, but far from desiring an overarching economic policy, I simply want to see real progress in our country’s space program.
It’s not about restructuring NASA as a lesser partner with commercial launch companies, it’s about avoiding the kind of waste and pork typified by cost plus contracts with ATK. It’s about using the money that NASA gets, to do as much as possible as soon as possible. It’s about rejecting the argument for a new SDHLV that revolves around “to heck with using existing LVs, there are JOBS we will be cutting and we just can’t do that”.
It’s not about embracing Neoliberal politics, it’s about rejecting a socialist approach to maintaining a vibrant space program.
Boeing, ATK, and Lockheed Martin, are not Private Companies, they are Public Corporations, as is Orbital. SpaceX is a Private Corporation.
Bennet,
I appreciate the thought behind your comment but, with all due respect, to some degree that may be overly simplistic in some cases as well.
An SDLV will hardly save every job that is currently employed under the Shuttle Program. An SDLV would be a project level office, not a program, and that is a huge difference in itself. Also, there is no longer an orbiter, which as inconvient as this may be, is a very large part of the Shuttle Program costs, in terms of money and jobs.
I understand the reasons behind being suspicious of cost-plus contracts. Yet, keep in mind they are useful in development situations. Also, keep in mind that the customer, in this case NASA, is also responsible for managing costs. With changes in requirements, come changes in cost and the customer, NASA again in this case, can keep that minimalized by having a good and proper requirements definition and management process in place.
As for the “socialist” aspect of it all, well those are just polarizing words. NASA will still develop spacecraft right? Well, very likely that will be based on the traditional cost-plus/NASA-contractor model. The key to making it work, partially lies in what I said above.
With respect to an HLV rocket, there are a host of other factors to consider. Many are complex and involve considerations beyond the ability to upgrade and modularize an existing vehicle. In the end, if it cannot be readily procurred because industry cannot provide it to other customers outside NASA, then industry will have NASA pay directly for it. That translates to ultimate authority in design and operations.
If a “modular” rocket is chosen, then NASA will be forced to pay some amount for design and then operations afterward in order to keep the project healthy and viable. This translates to a direct subsidization of whatever workforce and facilities are necessary. That subsidization could possibly have a negative impact on other providers doing exactly the opposite of fostering competition that is hoped to be achieved. Again, it is not impossible but something that really should be considered from all angles.
Mike, I appreciate your insight. I disagree with the notion that companies which maintain production of LVs for commercial launches need more than minimal subsidization in order to sell launch services to NASA.
Regardless of the eventual market for commercial HSF, a level playing field of funding to several providers for offering launches (which provide sufficient profit for their business case) will be far cheaper than NASA maintaining its own workforce dedicated to a purely NASA launch vehicle.
Just my opinion, based on much study of the issue.
@Jason
You are right that ATK, LM, and Boeing are ‘publicly traded’ commercial, corporations for which they generate capital through shareholding. However, the use of ‘private’ in the above post refers to legal rights of a corporation as defined by the Supreme Court in 1819, essentially that ATK, LM, and Boeing are not government entities or extensions of the government.
Bennet,
For existing launch vehicles, that these providers can sell to other customers beyond NASA, there should be no subsidization at all. Just direct per flight costs that take into account the company fixed costs/overhead divided by the number of launches they can sell. Note the exception to this is that the DOD does pay ULA to maintain a minimum capability. A necissary thing to maintain national security, however I have no direct knowledge of what percentage of their current workforce this covers and how much this “influences” their prices to other customers.
However, all of that changes with an HLV derived from existing launchers that are not “NASA owned” because there are no other customers at this point. Because of that, NASA will have to pay likely for all of development and then some percentage of operations. In addition, there will not be funding for multiple HLV’s to multiple providers. Given that subsidization, if I were the other competitors in the non-HLV class, I would be very concerned and wanting to make sure that it does not hand an unfair advantage to my competitors.
Given the development and operations costs of the above scenerio is not known, at least publically, and the operating cost of a SDLV is still in work you have to admit that you cannot state it will be “far cheaper” with such certainty as you did above.
Regards,
Mike,
I agree that a HLV is a totally different business case, but until I see plans and funding for payloads that require a HLV, I suggest that it is not needed at this time. Even the HEFT proposal didn’t need a HLV in order to go forward.
This is probably the irreconcilable difference between our positions. You think we need a HLV, I think we can do much more without one.
Bennett,
Do you advocate extending human civilization beyond LEO? If so, the majority of space experts agree that HLV is necessary to accomplish missions beyond LEO including the Augustine II commission.
A majority of NASA-appointed space experts thinks you need an HLV. As Warren Buffett says, never ask a hairdresser if you need a haircut. An HLV is not necessary. This is not only a true statement, it is an obviously true statement to anyone who has considered the possibility of refueling in orbit. It really is that simple.
“If so, the majority of space experts…”
Where can we find this expert polling data at?
“agree that HLV is necessary to accomplish missions beyond LEO including the Augustine II commission.”
The final report of the Augustine Committee stated that human space exploration could “benefit from the availability of a heavy-lift vehicle.” To the best of my knowledge, the report does not state that an “HLV is necessary”.
FWIW…
Major Tom,
The most recent Augustine Committee could not make any official recommendations, as you are likely aware.
You will find no such authoratatvie statements dealing with future systems anywhere.
Gary Miles wrote @ October 11th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
“You are right that ATK, LM, and Boeing are ‘publicly traded’ commercial, corporations for which they generate capital through shareholding. However, the use of ‘private’ in the above post refers to…”
I guess I’m not so much hung up on the legal form of a company, as much as how it operates.
I’ve worked for a pure government contractor before. By pure, I mean that they did not have any products that they sold on their own. All of their work was done on a contract basis for various government agencies (our group focused on DOD work).
Then there are the companies that have their own products that they market, which is what is typically thought of as “commercial”. They may customize versions of what they offer, but mainly they sell off a catalog. SpaceX offers a standard catalog of products and services, and even advertises the prices of their launchers on their website. Boeing offers a wide range of products and services also, most notably their airliners, and they are open to selling to just about anyone who can afford them.
Boeing also does contract work, as do many other companies, so there are few “bright lines” to define a company as purely commercial or contractor. I think Boeing is more commercial than contractor, and I think Lockheed Martin is more contractor than commercial.
But Boeing has said that it wants to extend it’s commercial empire into spacecraft, whereas LM seems content to be the builder of government spacecraft.
That to me is really how we should be judging companies, which is whether they want to take the lead in creating a marketplace, or if they are content to be part of the supporting cast. Boeing, Bigelow and SpaceX are taking the lead, and if they are successful, then many other companies will join in. NASA, thru Congress, has a chance to help that industry get established and grow, and that to me is the real debate.
Gary,
Yes, I do advocate extending human civilization beyond LEO. For me it comes down to how much weight we can boost to LEO and beyond for the money available.
If we use the money slated for a HLV and use it to boost spacecraft (whole or in parts), fuel depots, fuel, habitats, and personel, we will have started (at long last) doing exactly what we both advocate.
In doing so, we will create thousands of jobs with the launch companies, and a vibrant launch industry supporting ever more inspiring missions. We can do this within the current NASA budget.
If we decide instead to wait, to spend billions on a new HLV that, based on past history, will gut the NASA programs we need to develop and deploy the infrastructure required for extending human civilization beyond LEO… Well, that seems self-defeating to me.
In other words, it will herald a dismal repeat of the last 5 years.
Mike Snyder wrote @ October 11th, 2010 at 6:32 pm
“You will find no such authoratatvie statements dealing with future systems anywhere.”
Maybe not in the Augustine Report, since they were only making recommendations (as you point out), but the NASA HEFT Phase 1 Closeout report sure makes it clear that HLV’s are the way to go. It stated (on page 5):
– “Inâ€space 
propulsion 
technology 
advances 
and 
high
 system 
reusability 
did 
not
 obviate 
need 
for 
higher 
capacity 
launcher 
(excessive 
number 
of
 commercial
 launches, 
DRM 
Set 
1)”
– “Commercial 
onâ€orbit 
refueling
 did 
not 
obviate
 need
 for 
higher 
capacity
launcher
 (excessive 
number
 of 
commercial 
launches, 
DRM 
Set
 2). Commercial launch 
rate
 available 
for 
exploration 
missions 
significantly 
limited 
by 
costs 
of infrastructure
 expansion.”
I’m always open for expert opinions, but I find a hard time agreeing with their conclusions without looking at the assumptions and backup data. What is “excessive number of commercial launches”, and how is that defined? What is the “infrastructure expansion” that they are saying that limited exploration missions. ULA is only running one shift of workers building launchers, and they have said they can ramp up their current factory significantly, and facilities expansion would not be that hard.
Also, if you notice, even though the report says things like “did not obviate the need for higher capacity launcher”, they didn’t include a mission using only existing launchers. Why? Could it have been that it would show the mission could have been done without the need for an HLV, and thus bring into focus the cost trade-off of even building an HLV?
In politics, you never concede that your opponent is correct, you just state your narrative that points out why you’re right. Such is the HEFT report concerning HLV’s.
If Republicans take the House again, their failure to fund NASA under Bush doesn’t bode well for any new heavy vehicle. Rep Boehner is talking 2008 funding levels, the same funding levels that strangled Constellation. 2008 NASA funding was $17.3B
Boehner voted twice for COTS but missed the 2008 vote on NASA, so he’s not totally opposed to Commercial space but who knows how far his support would go today?
Myself, I wouldn’t mind Delta or Atlas getting a fast-tracked human rating if this new Heavy Lift is dropped (until 2016 maybe, as President Obama originally proposed?). It might even be the fiscally responsible choice?
Ron,
It really is not a vast conspiracy. The HEFT report you cite is not a finished product either and is currently scheduled to last until December, possibly beyond. What ever that final product is, will also need to be integrated with other reports now required by law, gain the approval of the NASA administration, congress and whitehouse.
All that said, I really would like to see potential commercial offerings and their respective companies integrated into the process of defining the architecture with the initial conditions now outlined as law within the NASA Authroization Act. This provides to make them a stakeholder and a contributor and not just something shoe-horned in after the fact.
@Martin Meijering
The Augustine panel was appointed by President Obama, not NASA, which included several non-NASA affiliated members like Jeff Greason and Dr. Christopher Chyba. Their opinion of the necessity for HLV is shared by Elon Musk of SpaceX apparently.
@Major Tom
The final report made clear that the minimum payload capacity needed to accomplish human spaceflight missions beyond Earth orbit was 70 mT with assistance of a fuel depot system. The report did not list any options using of current EELVs for these kinds of missions. At most the report suggested that current EELVs could be redeveloped to launch crews to ISS in LEO.
As far as a poll of experts, I know of no such poll. But having read, listened, and watched different news reports, articles, congressional hearings, and space conferences, the consistent, dominant view expressed by industry and space experts who actually have names and experience is that heavy lift is a necessary component of long distance spaceflight mission beyond LEO. The Augustine II panel final report supports this view. Elon Musk shares this view too as he has unveiled plans to build a super heavy launch vehicle, the Falcon X.
Even if true, that doesn’t disprove that the majority of the experts who are in favour of HLV come from NASA. But Greason and Chyba didn’t say HLV was necessary. And Elon Musk would be more than happy to sell NASA an HLV. In any event, at best this is no more than an argument from authority. And the counterargument is crystal clear: with orbital refueling you don’t need heavy lift.
“And the counterargument is crystal clear: with orbital refueling you don’t need heavy lift.”
You have absolutely no way of saying such definitive statements with such definitive certainty.
Don’t you just wish that were true. But you are a rocket scientist, you know it is true. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Martijn,
Just because I could assemble my house bringing one brick at a time from wherever they are fired does not mean it is either efficient or cost effective.
Your statement is meaningless beyond that and I will not get into a childish back-and-forth with you.
There are perfectly good ways to do things without an HLV. Several have been published in professional journals and in publications by professional organisations. That doesn’t mean it is the only way, or even the best way, or that HLV is a bad way, just that medium lift and orbital refueling is a good way.
Again you have nothing but empty rhetoric. Let the reader note that Mike hardly ever backs up his assertions. Somehow he prefers to spend his time pointing out how it’s not worth his time to debate with those he is debating with.
Martijn,
I am hardly empty rhetoric. My reputation can go up against yours anytime and anywhere and everyone else can decide on their own. Thank you, and again, I will not get into a childish squabble with you.
Reputations are unnecessary when facts and logic are available. But note it’s not just me saying HLV is unnecessary, there are lots of proposals by distinguished rocket scientists that say this. The Decadal Planning Team, OASIS, the recent ULA proposal, Huntress’s report etc etc. Let the reader google and judge for himself. Anyone who claims HLV is necessary will have to show that orbital refueling + medium lift is impractical and thus will have to go up against the distinguished scientists who have judged it eminently possible.
And note that launching things in 20-30mT chunks is hardly doing it brick by brick. Most terrestrial payloads fit into that category. Skyscrapers and bridges are built from such pieces.
Regarding HLV’s, I am on record as saying that we don’t need them. That statement is based on current needs, and as far into the future as I can see (~10 years).
IF humanity starts expanding into space, then yes, a larger capacity launcher would really be needed. But at this point, we don’t know what we need it for, or what it needs to do (i.e. capacity, cargo vs crew, or both, etc.), so why build it?
Also, if the history of the Shuttle program teaches us anything, is that the government does not know how to estimate demand for space payloads. And this is not surprising, since the government has no experience or depth of knowledge in marketing, and part of their “demand” is based on the whims of Congress (which no one can forecast).
My wish and hope is that future NASA studies mandate that existing launchers be considered first, and that only when their shortfalls impact cost, schedule or capability, that new launchers are considered (whatever size they may be).
My $0.02
Gary Miles wrote @ October 11th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
“But having read, listened, and watched different news reports, articles, congressional hearings, and space conferences, the consistent, dominant view expressed by industry and space experts who actually have names and experience is that heavy lift is a necessary component of long distance spaceflight mission beyond LEO.”
No doubt. But that doesn’t mean we need it now. We may not need it for another 10 years, and by that point any HLV we build today will be the wrong size and old technology.
Oh, and group think has a tendency of creating it’s own echo chamber. Like all things, you must go to the source of the data to know for sure what the original conclusions were, and for HLV’s there isn’t any hard data, only theoretical exercises.
MS: “The most recent Augustine Committee could not make any official recommendations, as you are likely aware.”
But we’re not talking about a recommendation. Just a statement of necessity.
GM: “The final report made clear that the minimum payload capacity needed to accomplish human spaceflight missions beyond Earth orbit was 70 mT”
To my knowledge, the report makes no such statement. In fact, the report states “No one knows for certain the mass or dimensions of the largest piece of hardware that will be required for future exploration
missions.”
GM: “The report did not list any options using of current EELVs for these kinds of missions.”
Yes, it did. There are explicit references to an “EELV Heritage Super Heavy” throughout the report, and Option 5B specifically “employs an EELV-heritage commercial superheavy-lift launcher”.
GM: “Elon Musk shares this view too as he has unveiled plans to build a super heavy launch vehicle, the Falcon X.”
Those plans were released by Tom Markusic, SpaceX’s rocket facility director, not Musk. A week later, Musk stated that Markusic’s comments “are not official SpaceX policy”.
FWIW…
Relevant to the HLV or not to HLV discussion… ESA is studying lunar circumnavigation missions assembled at ISS :
bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11304559
FWIW…
Martijn Meijering wrote @ October 11th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
“And note that launching things in 20-30mT chunks is hardly doing it brick by brick. Most terrestrial payloads fit into that category. Skyscrapers and bridges are built from such pieces.”
This is an important point.
Almost all terrestrial logistics are handled with certain standardized sizes – mostly semi-trailers or SeaLand containers. The limit on a standard tractor trailer is 80,000 lb gross, which translates to a payload mass of only 30 mt or so. Likewise, a standard 40 foot container has a payload of 26.5 mt. In both cases, payloads are restricted to much less than 5 m in diameter. Yet, we manage to build almost everything in the modern world with these transportation modes including things that are hundreds of times the size and mass of any BEO mission that is conceivable.
The economics of terrestrial transportation strongly favors shipping more standardized units rather than a few outsize ones. There is no reason to expect space to be different.
A couple of points that need to be made:
1) HLVs do not eliminate the need for on-orbit assembly. HEFT required three 100 mt launches or five 70 mt launches, plus a crew launch – four to six launches in total. A manned Mars mission would obviously require a lot more launches.
2) A number of studies have shown that it is possible to do BEO missions with on orbit assembly and EELV heavy sized payloads, therefore an HLV is not strictly necessary.
Based on these points, any claim that an HLV is need for BEO missions has to rest on it being more cost effective than the alternative not on the need to eliminate on-orbit assembly or on inability to do BEO missions without one. If data to support this claim exists, it certainly isn’t widely known.
Obviously there is a steep cost function for developing a new HLV with increasing payload mass. There is probably a cost function for on orbit assembly that increases with the number of assembly steps, though I doubt it is nearly as steep. It should be possible, then, to show that there is an optimum size for a HLV that accounts for these two cost functions. Unless you can show that an HLV of XX mt minimizes total life cycle cost, you have no business asking for $10B or $20B to develop it – your just shooting in the dark until then.
Gary,
I understand your point about the legal rights of said companies.. But my point is the legal obligations. Specifically, the obligation to produce profit for shareholders. You reference Constellation as a ‘collaboration’ between NASA and it’s contractors, but that isn’t at all what it is. It is a business relationship. What exactly are the contractors for Constellation contributing to this “collaboration” that NASA does not pay for?
You also point out SpaceX, “government contractor”, recieving half of it’s funds from NASA. In this situation both are contributors, but you label SpaceX as a government contractor. If SpaceX has to delay it’s launch, SpaceX pays it’s employees salaries, not NASA. SpaceX has other customers to contribute to it’s profits. COTS/CCDev are the real collaborations.
In this regard, public vs private, makes a difference. A rocket designed by NASA, or Congress, for the sole purpose of launching government payloads requires those public companies to charge NASA more. ATK won’t be selling large segmented solids to ANYONE but NASA, so NASA must cover all the infrastructure, all the workforce, etc.. No one in the private market is clamoring to buy Shuttle ET’s, therefore NASA pays all costs asssociated with ET’s.
And of course, as others have noted, it’s not so much about the legal formation of the company, but the contracting method used. SpaceX, if they are delayed, don’t get paid untill they pass the predetermined milestones.. Cost-plus contractors get paid regardless, because no one else want’s their products, so NASA has to guarantee it. But that singular revenue stream, as I pointed out, means public corporations have to guarantee their shareholders profit. NASA pays more for lift, has less available for payloads.
any claim that an HLV is need for BEO missions has to rest on it being more cost effective than the alternative
More than that, it has to rest on it being much more cost effective than the alternative, and it also has to take the potential advantages of alternative approaches (mainly jump starting cheap lift) into account.
“Elon Musk shares this view too as he has unveiled plans to build a super heavy launch vehicle, the Falcon X.â€
He’d do well to limit the press releases and just get a Dragon up and down safely.
He’d do well to limit the press releases and just get a Dragon up and down safely.
In what way? Why can’t he do both?
It would make as much sense to say you’d do well to not make ignorant comments on the Internet, and just get a life. But he’s as unlikely to take your stupid advice as you are to take our smart advice.
Constellation program was a NASA/commercial collaboration with ATK, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing. ATK, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing were designing the major elelments of the Ares I.
Once we get started euphemizing the English language, why stop?
@Rand Simberg wrote @ October 12th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
“In what way? Why can’t he do both?” In fact, he has really done neither. Perhaps that will change this month. “Our” advice? You speak for everyone now. What an egocentric and rude little man you are.
C.R. Keith wrote @ October 12th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
What an egocentric and rude little man you are.
et tu, DCSCA?
However, I don’t think Rand is.
FWIW, add C.R. Keith to your “ignore” list.
“In what way? Why can’t he do both?†In fact, he has really done neither.
Have you ever taken a course in logic?
No one has claimed he has done either. This latest idiotic comment is completely unresponsive to what I wrote.
What an egocentric and rude little man you are.
Wow. Pot, kettle on line two.
Once we get started euphemizing the English language, why stop?
The whole commercial/government thing is missing the point. Even if we believe there is no hope for truly commercial spaceflight in our lifetimes, then it would still be prudent to practice competitive procurement and to use multiple competing suppliers over the course of a program. That would almost certainly lead to use of existing launch vehicles, which are more than good enough. Setting requirements for the economic benefit of certain NASA centers and certain existing suppliers (ATK, USA) is simply corrupt. People have gone to jail and are going to jail for less than that. But those who make the law define it in such a way that they are apparently above the law.
Going to jail? How many went to jail over the Savings and Loans debacle of a few years ago? If you are high on the totem pole, you dont go to jail.
That was my point. Ordinary citizens go to jail, not lawmakers who make corrupt laws.
Even if we believe there is no hope for truly commercial spaceflight in our lifetimes
In fact we have had truly commercial spaceflight for decades now.
then it would still be prudent to practice competitive procurement and to use multiple competing suppliers over the course of a program.
No procurement, regardless of the contracting method used, is prudent unless the government program itself is prudent. Ares is obviously imprudent both in its goals and in its contracting method. In the case of “Commercial” Crew, the contracting methodology is somewhat better, but it’s still questionable whether expanding trips to ISS beyond what Soyuz can handle is prudent. It’s certainly not commercial: there are no private customers lining up prepared to foot the multi-billion-dollar bill.
Setting requirements for the economic benefit of certain NASA centers and certain existing suppliers (ATK, USA) is simply corrupt.
Stated this way, corruption in government contracting is inevitable. After all, the COTS/CRS requirements economically benefit Orbital and SpaceX.
Martijn Meijering wrote @ October 12th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
That’s right, there is policy advantage to encouraging the use of existing commercial systems based on reducing the cost of space access that would outweigh the benefits of an HLV if it can only be shown that one is slightly more cost effective than a non-HLV alternative.
Likewise, there is considerable cost and schedule risk in embarking on a new HLV development that could eat up the cost advantage an HLV unless it can be shown to be considerable to start with. Existing launch vehicles don’t have this risk.
Basically, an HLV must show a considerable life cycle cost advantage to justify its development.
In fact we have had truly commercial spaceflight for decades now.
Heh, I usually take care to insert the word ‘manned’ lest you take offense.
No procurement, regardless of the contracting method used, is prudent unless the government program itself is prudent.
Agreed. And in my opinion very few government programs are prudent.
Stated this way, corruption in government contracting is inevitable. After all, the COTS/CRS requirements economically benefit Orbital and SpaceX.
But they were not designed to benefit Orbital and SpaceX specifically, or even their particular sector of the economy. But if you’re sympathetic to the “government is a racket” point of view, then yes, corruption in government contracting is inevitable.
Martijn Meijering wrote @ October 14th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
“But they were not designed to benefit Orbital and SpaceX specifically, or even their particular sector of the economy. But if you’re sympathetic to the “government is a racket†point of view, then yes, corruption in government contracting is inevitable.”
Having lived in the “belly of the beast” so to speak (DOD contractors), I guess I have a different perspective.
When something is well defined, then it’s harder for “corruption” to occur. Need a commodity item? That’s easy to quantify as to where the best value is. Need a unique item? That’s where the wiles of the government contracting officers are pitted against the wiles of the contractors.
Usually contractors have program offices, and their sole focus boils down to revenue, whether that means running an effective product/service delivery team, or figuring out ways to get “add-on’s” for more product or services. This second part, “add-on’s”, and ill defined requirements from the customer (i.e. the government), is where the majority of excessive costs can be attributed.
You could attack costs by attacking those two items, but the nature of the beast is that they will always be there. The real solution, in the case of space transportation, is to move the responsibility to the private sector. That is where the tables are turned, and companies then become responsible for watching the cost/benefit curve, and where market competition improves service and rids the world of poorly run company and equipment.
We already know that the private sector can run challenging transportation systems, and there is no reason why NASA can’t buy and fly it’s own capsules, so there is no reason not to turn over the design and manufacturer of space vehicles to our aerospace industry. NASA can’t do it better – only more expensively. It’s time.
I think NASA’s next manned program should include cutting technologies to prepare a road toward interstellar space travel.