Congress, NASA

Proposed full-year CR would almost fully fund NASA

As Space News and the Orlando Sentinel report, the draft of a full-year continuing resolution (CR) to fund the federal government for FY2011 would fund NASA at close to the level in the authorization act. The draft CR would appropriate $18.91 billion to NASA for 2011, up from the $18.72 billion in FY2010 and $90 million less than the $19.0 billion overall budget that was in both the administration original budget proposal and in the authorization act. A few highlights:

  • The proposed CR would fund heavy-lift development to the tune of $1.8 billion, $200 million above authorized levels, with specific direction that the proposed HLV lift “not less than 130 tons”, rather than the 70-100 tons initial capability in the authorization bill. The Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (aka Orion) would get $1.2 billion, $100 million above authorized levels.
  • The bill includes $1.8 billion for the shuttle program and $825 million for “additional” shuttle costs. Although it does not explicitly state those extra funds would go to an additional shuttle mission, the implication, at least among supporters for such a mission, is that the money could be used for that, but it could also be directed to other infrastructure costs.
  • There is $300 million for the COTS program; NASA officials said this week that any additional funding for COTS would be used for additional tests to reduce program risks. Commercial crew development would get $250 million.
  • One big loser is the “21st century spaceport initiative” at KSC, with a cut of more than $200 million from its original request of $429 million. That program already appeared targeted for reductions had NASA been funded at FY2010 levels for 2011, according to testimony at a Senate hearing last week by NASA CFO Beth Robinson.
  • The CR would also lift language in the FY10 appropriations bill that prevents NASA from canceling Constellation programs.

According to Space News, the House could act on the proposed CR as soon as today, while the Senate is drafting its own omnibus spending bill to be introduced next week. NASA and the rest of the federal government are operating under a CR that runs through December 18.

116 comments to Proposed full-year CR would almost fully fund NASA

  • So there might be a chance a almost fully funded CR will make it through the Lame Duck, eh?

    Look for the ATK porkers to lay out more pork, or the promise thereof. That government HLV won’t see the light of day until 2020. Orion/MPCV will launch on a commercial rocket first, lay money on it.

  • GeeSpace

    Hopefully such a continuing resolution for FY2011 will be approved. A real appropriations bill for 2011 would be better. But hopefullness doesn’t match with political reality at times.
    Now with the passing of this type of CR, NASA can start doing some “real work”

  • amightywind

    not less than 130 tons

    Interesting. The number has crept up to match the reality of mission requirements, as I predicted. Since the vehicle must be shuttle derived, it looks like the return of the Ares V. Such a vehicle has far too large to launch Orion only. Now the question is what will launch Orion?

  • CharlesHouston

    This bill, though not perfect, would go a long way towards easing the transition from Government Space to Commercial Space. It would preserve our aerospace talent during the change.

    Not too suprising that most of Constellation survives, of course they changed the names. Ares 1 is gone but some heavy lift will survive (to be cut in future years). Orion has been renamed.

    Also not surprising that the money for KSC is mostly gone – after three more flights it will be mothballed. Would make a great tourist attraction, maybe to be used again on some future program.

  • BeancounterFromDownunder

    The government HLV will be another Cx program. It won’t ever fly if NASA uses the traditional approach. Let’s call a spade a spade. It’s a jobs program.

  • Andy Clark

    You never know. Now that the Congress has decided that they are all Rocket Scientists, capable of designing big rockets, anything can happen!

    Seriously, funding stability for the next nine months would be better than the current thirty days or so. but we are already in the next budget cycle for planning purposes and this is not good. I do not understand the problems that seem to be obvious to the congress critters. Can someone explain why a country like this has to behave like a banana republic?

    Can someone also explain why the congress is incapable of looking after the interests of the nation and its population? Perhaps it is time to remove all lobbyists from the DC area and force them back into their home states and districts. let them work from there if they have to work at all. Elected politicians are there for all of us not just those with the largest bank rolls or loudest voices.

    Sorry, this went a little off topic but the topic is just symptomatic of the real problems.

  • Joe

    The Budget Numbers NASA has been given by OMB listed both Ares (now presumably HLV) and Orion at $925 Million.

    A lot of schedule planning (including a large number of layoffs) in the Orion area were made based on those assumptions

    That is an almost 100% increase for HLV and 30% for Orion. If this holds up it is going to intersting to see what happens next.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 8:45 am

    it looks like the return of the Ares V.

    Considering how far behind schedule Ares I was, and how far over budget it was running, you think this is a good thing? I’ll say it again – you’re no fiscal conservative.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 5:00 am
    You need to buy a history book. Shuttle has flown crews for nearly three decades and government funded space programs lofted humans beings into space for half a century. Meanwhile, as 2010 comes to a close, SpaceX has flown absolutely nobody. Tick-tock, tick-tock…..

    the joy of the ticking clock is that with every tick or tock more of the future comes to pass and the past passes…

    The shuttle era is ending and it and the infrastructure that runs it is sort of like the Maginot line in the era of battle tanks…obsolete.

    What worked in the past, particularly when it did not work very well at somepoint loses relevance to the future Unless along with current events it evolves…and the shuttle and the NASA management structure that put it together and sustains it…has been unable to evolve and change with the events of The Republic.

    You are happy to try and hang on to the past…I’m enjoying the show.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    While the shuttle orbiter remains attached to the pad…on less government money then the shuttle consumes in one month even when it does not fly.

    The Second Falcon 9 has achieved orbit and the Dragon has separated.

    The future just keeps coming

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “not less than 130 tons

    Interesting. The number has crept up”

    Someone only leaked a draft CR. It still has to be formally introduced, passed by the House, and then the Senate. I wouldn’t get excited about any language or number yet.

    “to match the reality of mission requirements,”

    What mission? What requirements?

    This is the problem with setting any HLV numbers, small or large, before the missions and architecture are defined.

    “Since the vehicle must be shuttle derived,”

    That’s not what the 2010 NASA Authorization Act states.

    ” it looks like the return of the Ares V.”

    You’re off by 75 tons.

  • Major Tom

    “The Budget Numbers NASA has been given by OMB listed both Ares (now presumably HLV) and Orion at $925 Million.”

    No, the FY 2011 budget for Orion in the FY 2010 budget was $1,939 million and Ares V was $25 million, or $1,964 million total.

    “That is an almost 100% increase for HLV and 30% for Orion.”

    HLV has been brought forward many years over the Ares V plan, so the FY 2011 SLS budget is a huge increase (72-fold) over the Ares V budget. It doesn’t make sense to have such egregiously enormous increases in an HLV development budget in the absence of a mission set and architecture to define the requirements for that HLV, but it is what it is.

    But Orion has actually been cut versus the old Constellation plan by $739 million, or almost 40%. An Orion-based MPCV almost certainly can’t be built for 40% less budget, especially given the requirements and timeline in NASA’s 2010 Authorization Act.

    Unless NASA exercises the flexibilities in the Act to free MPCV from Orion and pursue the most affordable SLS option (which is not an SDHLV), it’s another Constellation-esque trainwreck in the making.

    FWIW…

  • BeancounterFromDownunder

    OT but Yes I’m enjoying the show as well. Dragon testing it’s thrusters. Expect updates on 1st stage recovery in about an hour.
    Shuttle still on the pad!!?? Sorry, that was unkind.
    SpaceX have acknowledged NASA’s support on their website.

  • Mike Snyder

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 11:02 am

    LOL, please. Your bitterness about something in your past just shows more and more every time you post something.

    Frankly, I think it’s great that SpaceX just launched and had a successful insertion into orbit. I think there is room for everyone.

    Discovery’s tank will be fixed and she’ll fly one more time, just like the past 29 or so flights. We’ll fly two more times after that, with crew, to assure SpaceX and others have an ISS that requires their full support when they are ready.

    In other words, you clearly, and ironically, have some growing up to do.

  • Major Tom

    “Shuttle still on the pad!!?? Sorry, that was unkind.”

    It was unkind, but when considering which vehicles to base the future SLS and MPCV upon, we’d be stupid not to note the relative ease with which more modern and commercially designed and operated systems like Falcon 9 are modified and prepared for launch versus older, government systems like Shuttle. A one-day delay like what Falcon 9 experienced could have been absorbed within a multi-launch exploration campaign, but the multi-month delay that Shuttle is currently undergoing would have killed the same mission.

    FWIW…

  • Vladislaw

    amightywind wrote:

    “not less than 130 tons

    Interesting. The number has crept up to match the reality of mission requirements, as I predicted”

    Why not then just build a rocket with 118 tons because we know that would fit the mission because it did the first time. With modern materials et cetera they would actually get even more bang for the buck if they just stayed at Sat V numbers. Of course when every new phallic sysmbol has to be bigger than the last one 118 tons just won’t do it. So they needed to make it 130 tons. It has absolutely nothing do with mission requirements because no requirements have been defined, it is all about showing the world that America still has the “biggest one” than anyone else.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mike Snyder wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 11:33 am

    Everyone who has half a clue should have “a bad taste in their mouths” about an agency and management that killed 14 people and a lot of near misses through gross incompetence, incompetence that would not be tolerated at a Part 141 flight school at Pearland airport, and yet seems the norm at management in the agency.

    Having said that, while the loss of life is tragic; they were for the most part servants of The Republic and (again for the most part) knew the system in which they were operating in, knew the people and knew the track record of those people…so it is not as if (for the most part) they were not in some way aware of the risk of both the endeavor and the structure in which that endeavor operated in.

    That you and others try and label those who point out that “the emperor has no clothes” as people who simply dont have a good enough imagination is telling enough…

    but really why we should all be unhappy and not a little bit disgruntled is that for the hundreds of billions NASA has spent on human spaceflight since Apollo…the nation has gotten so little for it.

    Lets just look at the 10 or so billion spent by NASA (and most of the same people who hung out with the shuttle system) on Ares 1 and Orion…we should all be a tad “upset” (or to use your word “bitter”) at the notion that the 10 billion was spent and literally there is nothing useable to show for it.

    As SpaceX has demonstrated 600 million can go a long way toward developing both a functional rocket (rockets) and some sort of on orbit operations system. Its going to take some more to make Dragon flight ready, but in the end it will spend about a billion which is 1/10th the money spent so far on Ares 1 and Cx and is about the same number (600 million) spent on the Ares 1X “test” flight.

    Why cant NASA do something like that?

    Give the government and bureaucracies a little disadvantage…after all the Constitution class frigates were more expensive because of government pork…but TEN TIMES as expensive…to get nothing?

    NASA HSF has become symptomatic with all the ills of The Republic right now. The political pork, the contractor inefficiencies and government leaders who, well as mentioned would not have their incompetence tolerated at a single engine flight school.

    NASA HSF has failed…the failure is almost as complete as Chamberlain and his dealing with the short guy with the mustache. IT has not secured the nations future in space, and indeed had no real ability to do that at all.

    That at the end of the road the shuttle system has finally run up on this tank issue…makes it very clear that the criticisms of people like me were valid and the excuses of people like you, were well excuses.

    Robert G. Oler

  • KS

    Are there no liquid prop options to put 130 tons into orbit? Why is this necessarily pork for ATK? There was a story here a while ago about angry Utah congressmen. Is that worry of theirs now obsolete?

    No, I don’t work for ATK, if you’re wondering.

  • Das Boese

    I’m quite interested as to how they arrived at the 130t requirement. Why not 150t? 186.29t? 10,000t?

  • Even if this CR passes as stated, don’t be surprised if there’s a rescission bill in the spring, after the new Congress comes in.

  • Vladislaw

    The Atlas V phase 3 i believe was around the Sat V ballpark.

    http://ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/ULA-Innovation-March-2010.pdf

    Here is a good read on EELVs

  • Mike Snyder

    Major Tom wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    They are two completely separate issues and cannot be compared in the manner you are trying. While likely you will try to debate that point, you will be wrong.

    Be happy for goodness sake the SpaceX did it. It’s good for everyone and don’t ruin by needlessly bashing others (you too Robert – I didn’t even bother reading your “reply”) for no reason and ignorance.

  • amightywind

    Even if this CR passes as stated, don’t be surprised if there’s a rescission bill in the spring, after the new Congress comes in.

    I think you’re right. This is a possibility because Obama and the 111th congress has us operating on a continuing resolution – the last few twitches of the lame duck carcass still in denial. Washington will soon be inundated with tight fisted Tea Partiers eager to undue the fiscal damage. Sadly, NASA will not be spared.

    KS wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
    Are there no liquid prop options to put 130 tons into orbit? Why is this necessarily pork for ATK?

    The space shuttle’s stage and a half design is now the design benchmark for all credible heavy lift designs. Unless someone else can meet the ‘half’ part of the requirements, ATK has the job.

  • common sense

    @ Das Boese wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    “I’m quite interested as to how they arrived at the 130t requirement. Why not 150t? 186.29t? 10,000t?”

    How about that? We all know that cost goes with mass. Now, I do not know the cost per t of an HLV but maybe we could figure what this number is. Then you take about 15% of cost for company profit and then you use about $200K/yr for an engineer. Of course you’d have to get hardware cost as well but since they will never build anything just keep the FTE/yr as a basis. See how many people you come up with. Check how many people support shuttle. Then account for retirement and other attrition over say 10 yrs (2020) and see if you can feed all the workforce.

    Oh well…

  • Coastal Ron

    KS wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    Are there no liquid prop options to put 130 tons into orbit?

    There doesn’t appear to be. By design or coincidence, Saturn V (liquid fueled) was able to put 262,000 lbs in LEO (131 tons).

    SpaceX too has said that they could build a 150 ton launcher using RP-1/LOX, so it doesn’t look like solid rocket motors like the Shuttle SRB’s are mandatory.

    Like anything, you have to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages, and figure out what combination of technologies best meets your goals. Unfortunately with NASA (or any government contract), that’s hard to do without political considerations working their way in.

  • The space shuttle’s stage and a half design is now the design benchmark for all credible heavy lift designs.

    It’s the benchmark for unaffordable launch systems, that require a very expensive fixed-cost infrastructure, a new crawler and new crawlway.

  • Major Tom

    “They are two completely separate issues and cannot be compared in the manner you are trying.”

    They’re both structural issues, and engine structures are arguably more sensitive than intertank structures.

    And even if you want to ignore that, you can compare SSME mods to F9 upper-stage engine mods. The former take weeks to months.

    “While likely you will try to debate that point, you will be wrong.”

    If you’re not going to listen to or learn from others, then why bother posting in the first place?

    “Be happy for goodness sake the SpaceX”

    Where did I say that I wasn’t?

    “did it.”

    They havn’t yet. We’re still 10+ minutes from splashdown.

  • Major Tom

    “The space shuttle’s stage and a half design is now the design benchmark for all credible heavy lift designs.”

    Since when is the Space Shuttle a “heavy lift design”?

    And since when has Saturn V not been the benchmark for HLVs?

    Let’s think before we post.

  • Das Boese

    We’re still 10+ minutes from splashdown.

    Aaaand they did it. This day is one for the history books.

  • They’re down. This is the biggest day for human spaceflight in thirty years.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mike Snyder wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    at the very least if one is going to come to a forum and try debate you should do better then the stock internet lines “I didnt read your reply”…but thats typical.

    The issues of spaceX being able to triumph on not a lot of money and NASA HSF spending large amounts of money and being stuck on the pad due to an ET problem, the likes of which should have been well understood about a decade ago…are related.

    NASA HSF has lost the ability to execute projects and programs in anything approaching a coherent budgetary structure. The essence of management is to be able to define an issue to the point where the resources to achieve the “point” are well understood.

    That on 10 billion dollars NASA HSF was unable to take hardware which in all instances has evolved from present hardware and make it operational…is a sign of managerial incompetence.

    Hanley is now on the Webb telescope isnt he? LOL

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    1922 GMT (2:22 p.m. EST)
    A SpaceX spokesperson says the Dragon also landed on target in the Pacific Ocean.

    ….

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mike Snyder

    Major Tom wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    “They’re both structural issues, and engine structures are arguably more sensitive than intertank structures.

    And even if you want to ignore that, you can compare SSME mods to F9 upper-stage engine mods. The former take weeks to months.”

    And this is you debating, just like I figured you would, and this is you being wrong.

    Here’s why: An intertank provides for structural integrity of the whole vehicle. SSME is a completely different engine nozzle from the Merlin Vac Nozzle. Look it up if you so choose. But since you gave a vague and nebulous “example” and just through numbers out randomly is it likely irrelevant anyway.

    “If you’re not going to listen to or learn from others, then why bother posting in the first place?”

    What arrogance. Too bad is has no basis.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Major Tom,

    FWIW, splashdown 500 miles off of the coast of Mexico has been confirmed. Personally, I’ll only unclench when the RV is on board the recovery ship. That said, to have got as far as the have on their first attempt is pretty spectacular for such a relatively small operation.

  • Vladislaw

    Splashdown has occured, 2 in row for the F9 and now one for a working dragon vehicle.

    I can’t wait for amightwind to explain to me how this was actually another failure.

  • Vladislaw

    Robert G. Oler wrote:

    “NASA HSF has failed…the failure is almost as complete as Chamberlain and his dealing with the short guy with the mustache. IT has not secured the nations future in space, and indeed had no real ability to do that at all.”

    Robert, speaking of not securing, you will like this one too.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40557097/ns/technology_and_science-space/

  • They havn’t yet. We’re still 10+ minutes from splashdown.

    They sure did MT, at 2:04 pm EST (that’s 1404 EST for old vets like me and Oler).

    SpaceX presser on NASA TV at 3:30 pm (1530 to you Oler, and any other vet).

    Mission a complete success.

    I wouldn’t go looking for SLS funding from your Tea Party chums next year either Windy. Unless they go Establishment GOP.

  • On the SpaceX front …

    I was out with a bus tour at the Cape Canaveral Lighthouse at launch time. I videotaped the launch from that location. Click here to watch the video. You need Windows Media Player and a broadband (cable modem, DSL) Internet connection to watch.

    The SpaceX launch control center is right next to our museum’s history center. I stopped by after the bus tour. The SpaceX employees were outside celebrating with bottles of champagne. But they were also following Dragon’s progress; apparently the orbit brought it directly overhead.

    The Little Engine That Could … did.

    Go SpaceX!

  • common sense

    @GuessWho:

    So how about we compare Dragon to Orion now? Okay?

    Orion does not have a LAS, neither does Dragon,
    Orion does not have a life support system, neither does Dragon,
    Orion did not make it to orbit and back, neither… Oh wait!!! What’s this sound I just heard? Dragon splashed down from orbit? On first attempt? Come on it must be Orion! Ah nope! Orion is waiting half built in a hangar somewhere.

    More comparison today or we good?

  • amightywind

    Mission a complete success.
    I wouldn’t go looking for SLS funding from your Tea Party chums
    next year either Windy. Unless they go Establishment GOP.

    I congratulate SpaceX in progress to its ultimate goal, delivering
    fresh underwear to those poor souls marooned on ISS.

    You gloat over the mission equivalent of Mercury MA-1A, without the
    monkey and 50 years later! Yawn. My Tea Party chums will observe the
    fate of Dana Rohrbacher and his loss of a committee chair as a result
    of his support for Obamaspace. They will support the solid program.

  • Major Tom

    “And this is you debating, just like I figured you would…”

    Why are you criticizing me just for responding to your post?

    If you don’t want other posters to reply, then you shouldn’t post in the first place.

    Weird…

    “Here’s why: An intertank provides for structural integrity of the whole vehicle.”

    So what?

    Payloads can’t reach orbit without a second-stage engine.

    They’re both mission critical.

    Think before you post.

    “SSME is a completely different engine nozzle from the Merlin Vac Nozzle.”

    No duh. That’s what makes the Merlin easier, quicker, and cheaper to modify than the SSME.

    Again, think before you post.

    “But since you gave a vague and nebulous ‘example'”

    Nothing here is “vague and nebulous”. These aren’t even “examples”. These are actual problems happening in real time with real rocket motors and vehicle structures.

    For the third time, think before you post.

    “and just through [sic] numbers out randomly”

    What are you talking about? Aside from noting that Dragon was still 10-odd minutes from splashdown, I didn’t “through [sic] out” any numbers in my reply to you.

    Don’t make stuff up.

    “is it likely irrelevant anyway.”

    This part of your post isn’t even comprehensible. Learn basic English grammar and think before you post.

    C’mon, man…

    “What arrogance. Too bad is has no basis.”

    What arrogance? I’m just asking — if you dismiss other posters’ replies before they’ve been written, then why do you bother posting in the first place?

    If you want to talk about arrogance, then arrogance is dismissing other people’s writing before you’ve even read it.

    Pot, kettle, black and all that.

    Sigh…

  • Major Tom

    “Washington will soon be inundated with tight fisted Tea Partiers eager to undue the fiscal damage. Sadly, NASA will not be spared.”

    “My Tea Party chums… will support the solid program.”

    Which is it? Is the Tea Party going to be fiscally responsible and terminate duplicative vehicle development programs that cost billions more taxpayer dollars than the public/private alternatives and are still years from the orbital flight and reentry demonstrated today? Or is the Tea Party going to ignore its central campaign promise when it comes to civil human space flight?

  • common sense

    @ amightywind wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    “You gloat over the mission equivalent of Mercury MA-1A, without the
    monkey and 50 years later! Yawn. My Tea Party chums will observe the
    fate of Dana Rohrbacher and his loss of a committee chair as a result
    of his support for Obamaspace. They will support the solid program.”

    We can’t take it from you amightywind, you’re a hoot! The “solid” program? Ever tried stand-up comedian?

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Just a little line that I think I should pass onto this board from the post-COST-1 press conference.

    SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk pointed out that Crewed Dragon has all the same capabilities as Orion. He therefore would like to see Dragon considered as an alternative to Orion in all missions, LEO and BEO!

    He even said that there is nothing Orion can do that Dragon cannot do and that t here are even some things that Dragon can do that Orion cannot! These being words uttered at a NASA press conference!

    I think I know whose face will be going on the dartboards at MSFC and JSC from here on!

  • common sense

    @ Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    Elon surely is right that Dragon can fly while Orion cannot. ;)

  • amightywind

    He even said that there is nothing Orion can do that Dragon cannot do and that t here are even some things that Dragon can do that Orion cannot! These being words uttered at a NASA press conference!

    Musk’s mouth hurt his company’s prospects after the Obamaspace debacle. There is no reason to antagonize his enemies. The reality is he is late and over budget performing on a contract he is expected to complete. Bill Belichick says, “When you win, say little. When you lose, say less.” He would be wise to try this..

  • Vladislaw

    wind wrote:

    “You gloat over the mission equivalent of Mercury MA-1A, without the
    monkey and 50 years later! Yawn.”

    What does that say about NASA then, they couldn’t even launch a primate in six years and 10 billion dollars.

    The mercury program cost about 3 billion in today’s dollars, how much did Musk spend again?

    So the heat shield on the dragon was the same equivalent as on Mercury?

    It was said that you didn’t ride in the mercury capsule you wore it, as it only had room for a single passenger. So how does the internal volume compare? An equal equivalent?

    The Mercury Redstone 1A was a suborbital flight in preparation for a primate flight. So both of these were empty flights

    I find the comparison of equivalent hard to make.

  • John Malkin

    amightywind wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
    They will support the solid program.

    Is that Estes or is it a high powered G or H?

    To Orbit: Ares I – 0; SpaceX – 2; SLS – 0

  • DCSCA

    Congratulations to the team at SpaceX for successfully launching, orbiting and returning their unmanned Dragon spacecraft back to Earth today, December 8, 2010. The firm deserves high praise for putting their refurbished, taxpayer funded government owned launch facilities at Cape Canaveral to good use and duplicating a feat successfully accomplished by NASA in 1964, 46 years earlier, from the same locale. Congrats, boys, for taking America back to the future. Data on the pressure integrity, g-loads, etc., on the performance of the Dragon spacecraft will be an interesting read. Of course, in the 21st century, orbiting a crewed spacecraft is the true test. The world and investors await.

  • Bennett

    I think I know whose face will be going on the dartboards at MSFC and JSC from here on!

    So, no new picture for the dart boards?

    It was a great day for HSF, with more to come.

    Congrats SpaceX!

  • My Tea Party chums will observe the fate of Dana Rohrbacher and his loss of a committee chair as a result of his support for Obamaspace.

    Repetition of this idiocy doesn’t render it true. Hall got the chair because of his seniority. Rohrabacher’s space policy views had nothing to do with it. And the head of the Utah Tea Party has said that he will attempt to primary the Utah delegation over their ATK pork.

  • Coastal Ron

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk pointed out that Crewed Dragon has all the same capabilities as Orion. He therefore would like to see Dragon considered as an alternative to Orion in all missions, LEO and BEO!

    Likely he wouldn’t have mentioned that if this mission hadn’t gone so well. However I always wondered what the differences were between Orion, the MPCV version of Orion, Dragon, and even CST-100. I think that would make a nice comparison chart if someone could dig up the specs.

    It also makes you wonder why Orion weighs 23 tons and Dragon only 11 or so – how is the extra Orion weight being used?

    The other thing that Musk talked about was future Dragon capsules that would land on legs, and be able to be refueled to take off and reposition themselves – that was the biggest thing I heard. I hope we get more details on that, because that is a huge leap if they can do it.

  • DCSCA

    @Bennett wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    “It was a great day for HSF, with more to come.”

    They flew nobody.

    Next time you launch a model rocket with you kids, tell them it was a great day for HSF.

  • reader

    Rand Simberg wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
    They’re down. This is the biggest day for human spaceflight in thirty years.

    Not to deny SpaceX their victory, but i think thats an overstatement. IMO SpaceShipOne flights had far more relevance to human spaceflight.

    Once someone flies back to back flights in gas-and-go mode to space ( Masten ? Armadillo ? Blue Origin ? ) that will be even bigger day.

  • Mike Snyder

    Major Tom,

    In my opinion you are the classic “internet troll”. You are rude, you are abrassive and clearly do not have all the answers you “think” you have.

    You come in intially comparing two things that really cannot be compared. For reference see your post @ December 8th, 2010 at 12:11 pm. They cannot be compared because they were different problems, on different vehicles with different potential corrective actions. By trying to make this comparison, you were, intentionally or not, and it does not really matter, that somehow SpaceX will always be able to cure any issue that quickly. It is unlikely that will be the case and SpaceX has experienced delays like everyone has from time to time. Finally on this point, there is no logical way one can say with any certainty SpaceX will not have an issue on the pad one day that would kill “a multi-launch exploration campaign”.

    I commented next, @December 8th, 2010 at 1:01 pm for reference, that you could not compare the the Merlin nozzle issue and ET stringer issue. I also suggested you would try to debate that point and you would likely be wrong in doing so.

    You then replied @ December 8th, 2010 at 1:48 pm saying, and I quote, “they are both structural issues” waiving away the complexities and lumping them into one generic category. You then try to argue that “engine structures are arguably more sensitive than intertank structures”. The Merlin NOZZLE crack is an area of low stress and non-structural load bearing. That is not the case with the ET stringers and intertank. Sure, it could be repaired and we could have flown with it by now but that would not have been the right thing to do.

    In that same post, you then commented “And even if you want to ignore that, you can compare SSME mods to F9 upper-stage engine mods. The former take weeks to months.” On my post @ December 8th, 2010 at 2:26 pm, I first discussed the intertank issue. I then commented on your comparison of the SSME and Merlin nozzles. SSME is a regenative hydrogen-cooled nozzle. Merlin’s nozzle is an ablative niobium. You cannot compare these “mods”. The “example” I was refering to was YOUR suggestion of an actual length of time (weeks or months) for a modification SSME could not possibly undertake. Therefore, it appears your numbers were random and in the end irrelevant to the situation at hand. Just as I stated.

    You also posted “If you’re not going to listen to or learn from others, then why bother posting in the first place?” @ December 8th, 2010 at 1:48 pm. This to me suggested that if I do not listen to you and learn from you, when in fact I know very well you are wrong, I should not even come here to this site. That, again to me, is arrogant. Because you are quite wrong, I can again say this statement of yours has no basis.

    Your final post @ December 8th, 2010 at 4:12 pm takes it to new lows jumbling everything together, flavored with clever little remarks, that just further prove your ugly nature. I admit, I put “through” instead of “throw”. It happens, my mistake, but I would have to assume you are smart enough to understand the context.

    Thanks, and have a good rest of your day!

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Coastal Ron,

    I think you’ll find that most of the extra mass of the Orion is the AJ-10 engine, fuel tanks and life support for longer-duration missions. All of that is in the service module. However, if you were to take away the Orion’s SM and the Dragon’s trunk, I suspect that the two capsules would turn out to have very similar mass.

  • DCSCA

    @Rand Simberg wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
    They’re down. This is the biggest day for human spaceflight in thirty years.

    WHO IS THEY?

    SPACE X FLEW NOBODY!

  • Vladislaw

    “It also makes you wonder why Orion weighs 23 tons and Dragon only 11 or so – how is the extra Orion weight being used?”

    Fuel in the service module is a big part of the weight and why so much capability had to be chopped. Jon Goff over at http://selenianboondocks.com had a great article on it and how you could chop the weight if you fueled it inspace rather than launching it fully fueled.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    “NASA HSF has failed…”

    ????? Are you on salary for commercial space or just a lobbyist. This is nonsense. NASA has been successfully conducting HSF for half a century. Commerical space has orbited nobody.

  • SPACE X FLEW NOBODY!

    They could have, but it would have been unwise on a first flight. Had their been passengers aboard, they would have reportedly had a smooth ride.

  • Byeman

    “he firm deserves high praise for putting their refurbished, taxpayer funded government owned launch facilities:”

    Wrong. Don’t be an idiot,. The only thing that Spacex got from the gov’t is a plot of land with hole in the ground. The rest of the launch facilities is spacex’s

  • common sense

    @ reader wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    “Not to deny SpaceX their victory, but i think thats an overstatement. IMO SpaceShipOne flights had far more relevance to human spaceflight.”

    No not really. SpaceX ran an orbital flight, successfully today. Don’t be all hung up it was a capsule. A capsule is the cheapest way to do the job. VG will have the most affordable way to go to space but today is far from orbit. The two are complimentary and both deserve credits and admiration. I am sure some idiot will say that VG only did what the X-15 did years ago and that it only was Mach 3 instead of 7 but nonetheless. Both companies are doing good for HSF.

    “Once someone flies back to back flights in gas-and-go mode to space ( Masten ? Armadillo ? Blue Origin ? ) that will be even bigger day.”

    Well you have to start somewhere. Today VG and SpaceX are at the top. Tomorrow?…

  • DCSCA

    @Byeman wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 6:02 pm

    Wrong. The pad was refurbished withh tax dollars. Look it up.

  • DCSCA

    @Rand Simberg wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
    ROFLMAO If they could have they would have.

    There wasn’t anybody aboard. SpaceX flew nobody. But your paraphrasing JFK’s press conference comment about a NASA crewed chimp shot nearly half a century ago is amusing.

    The world awaits data on the performance of the Dragon spacecraft. It could be a gem… or deathtrap for all we know. But as you suggest knowledge not currently known to the public, please share. The world and investors await.

  • DCSCA

    A media comment– it was disappointing that CNN (selected by this viewer for its global reach) did not bother to carry the launch LIVE. A brief clip moments after liftoff was all the world saw. Quite Soviet in style. Regardless of what point of the compass you come from on space activities, it’s clear the media is absorbed by budget bickering and other mundane prattle. If this was supposed to be ‘the biggest day in HSF in thirty years’ per our hyper-ventalated Simberg, the media was decidely disinterested, at least for the launch. Space advocates need to find another Cronkite.

  • Doug Lassiter

    The SpaceX accomplishments deserve admiration and applause. Isn’t it interesting how many people, including me, feel some of the patriotic excitement today that we felt forty years ago? What SpaceX is showing us is that we, as a nation, can do something that has never been done before in any other nation. That being that we, our proudly capitalist nation, can render two-way access to Earth orbit something that can be done by investors with vision, instead of a federal agency. Sure, NASA put in some money. But they didn’t design Dragon or Falcon, and they didn’t even levy detailed requirements on them. NASA essentially said “here’s some cash (to add to your own) to give us what you think we as a nation might need.” SpaceX is giving us that, and we have other independent companies that are doing it too.

    I think the lesson here is that national pride in space exploration can be achieved in many ways. Including ways that are not about sending human beings to this or that destination before anyone else. Call it American exceptionalism, if you like. What SpaceX has done, in Hawthorne, California, with American workers, is truly exceptional.

  • Coastal Ron

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 5:28 pm

    I think you’ll find that most of the extra mass of the Orion is the AJ-10 engine, fuel tanks and life support for longer-duration missions. All of that is in the service module.

    Ah, I see that Wikipedia lists the Orion SM at 27,198 lbs, and the capsule at 19,650 lbs. Wikipedia also list the Dragon empty mass at 9,260 lbs, so now we’re talking about a 5 ton delta, although part of it is probably Orion payload that is added into their mass figure.

    Anyone know the Orion capsule empty mass weight? Just trying to find out what the differences are between Dragon & Orion, and why Musk thinks Dragon would be competitive.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 5:48 pm

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    “NASA HSF has failed…”

    ????? Are you on salary for commercial space or just a lobbyist. This is nonsense. NASA has been successfully conducting HSF for half a century. Commerical space has orbited nobody…

    yeah I realize that this is a big deal to you, but either 1) you are making a big deal of it for internet conversation or 2) you dont have a clue about either space policy/politics and the notion of what constitutes true technology advancement in a free society.

    And I realize that this is on deaf ears…but…

    The failure of the last 50 years of human spaceflight in terms of a free/capitalistic society is that despite billions of dollars human spaceflight has really not advanced much past the perview of government ops…AND those government ops are almost all “Make work”.

    Push comes to shove the US could completely (as it stands now) abandon human spaceflight AND all it would lose is its competition with other government run/government operated systems…which really have no value to THEIR individual society…other then the notion of projection in the softest form possible of societale/government power.

    The irony of all this is that NASA has more or less even priced itself out of the minimal residual spending that the US is willing to do on human spaceflight as a sort of “soft power” sort of thing. Had for 10 billion dollars NASA come up with some sort of shuttle replacement (and it clearly could have been done) then the US would have been content, in my view to stay in the “government only club”.

    That NASA could not do that is what has forced the hand of using private enterprise…and the fact that Musk has seemingly put together the technology, the infrastructure, and it seems the cost mechanisms which have done what he has done for under 1 billion dollars…

    is impressive on itself…and vital to the notion that rides to orbit can come down from the nearly 100 million a seat on the shuttle to now something quite less and that number will likely keep on going down.

    In a free society whose engine of economics is capitalsim monitored by government regulation; that the US has managed to spawn such enterprises even in the face of thunderhead bureacracies such as NASA is testament, in my view to the notion that if we can only get the government/industry structure righted again after decades of crony Republicanism ….we can recover as a nation.

    That Musk can redo Gemini on an affordable scale…is a very impressive feat.

    You and Whittington and Spudis and all the other big government forever people might not appreciate that, and it is your loss, but this is truly a momentous accomplishment….ranking as high as Syncom which is the ultimate feat of spaceflight todate either crewed or uncrewed.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Rand Simberg wrote:

    “SpaceX Succeeds; Will Congress Notice?”

    Great opinion column as always. It echoes my thoughts as I walked past the SpaceX launch control center this afternoon, the staff outside celebrating with bottles of champagne.

    My thought was, “The genie is out of the bottle.”

    This is the seminal moment for the next chapter of human spaceflight. Space advocates for decades have speculated about when and how a private company would put a craft into orbit. Today was that today.

    At the Air Force Space & Missile Museum we talk about the launch of Explorer 1 on January 31, 1958 from our museum which was the blockhouse for that launch. It was the first U.S. satellite into orbit.

    This is the first commercial vehicle. It was only up there for two orbits, but it *was* there.

    The building blocks are in place. The next flight comes within docking distance of ISS, and the one after that actually docks. NASA might combine the two. After that, SpaceX starts deliveries and we’ve significantly narrowed the gap created by VSE all those years ago. One can see human commercial flight within our grasp, for the first time in history. It’s entirely possible they’ll fly their first crew flight by 2014.

    The Shelbys and other porkers have been rendered irrelevent. What can they do? They can blow a lot of hot air, but they’ll just look ridiculous.

    I also ran into someone knowledgeable about what’s to come at the Air Force Station. A *lot* of other commercial ventures are quietly approaching them about launch opportunities at CCAFS. I think that within five years, we’re going to see a new golden era at the Cape, a new “space race” not between nations but between entrepreneurs.

    Someone asked Elon Musk at the press conference if Dragon will go to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum. He said he hadn’t thought of that, but it would be a very great honor — and I think he deserves it. Dragon will go down in history with the Wright Flyer and the Spirit of St. Louis. It’s the next chapter. And it began today.

  • Robert G. Oler wrote:

    You and Whittington and Spudis and all the other big government forever people might not appreciate that, and it is your loss, but this is truly a momentous accomplishment …

    Robert, with all due respect, you need to ignore them.

    The world changed today.

    If they can’t figure it out, it’s their loss.

    This equates to the invention of the horseless carriage. The stagecoach people will complain mightily, but they’ve been rendered irrelevant.

    Rather than wasting time and energy on people who don’t want to listen, let’s look forward and welcome the next chapter in spaceflight.

    We’ve been waiting for a game-changing moment. This is it.

  • Bennett

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    Well writen, Stephen. And it was Robert Pearlman of CollectSpace.com who aksed Elon Musk that question.

    collectSPACE – The Source for Space History & Artifacts

    A nice fellow who’ll take the time to answer your email.

  • eh

    If SpaceX flew around the Moon, some in Congress would just call it disrespectful.

    Here’s hoping someone notices how well they have done. Why we are so determined to pay Russian workers is beyond me.

  • Bennett

    Doug Lassiter wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    Doug, you really nail the WHY of why folks like me are excited about what SpaceX is doing. No matter what snark DCSCA posts here about today’s events having “been done in 1964″, we know that he’s so wide of the mark that it’s funny.

    It took 5% of GDP in 1964 to orbit and land a astronaut-worthy capsule, yet through great management and vision, SpaceX did it for 500 million.

    We all have a right to be proud of this achievement.

  • Bennett wrote:

    Well writen, Stephen. And it was Robert Pearlman of CollectSpace.com who aksed Elon Musk that question.

    I wish you folks could have seen the SpaceX people. There were maybe 30 people out front. Their operation is so humble. It’s a 40-year old brick building that was originally the Florida Solar Energy Center. Nothing fancy, needs a coat of paint.

    SpaceX and our history center share a commons with a couple picnic table. I spoke with one young lad who had a laptop. He looked to be about 25 or so.

    “Are you SpaceX?”

    “Yes.”

    “I just came back from the bus tour. What’s the status on Dragon?”

    “I’m looking at it now.”

    Very quiet. They all seem quiet and humble. They were celebrating, but certainly they weren’t rowdy.

    I keep thinking this must be what it was like here in the 1950s when the first rockets were launched. Keep it simple, keep it minimal, focus on the job and make history.

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 7:01 pm
    “That Musk can redo Gemini on an affordable scale…is a very impressive feat.”

    Not really. Gemini was affordable for its time- and the program paid for. But then, you may just be easily impressed with a demonstration of 1964 technology in 2010. And, of course, the big difference is Gemini 3 was actually crewed and piloted with 2 astronauts aboard. Dragon carried nobody. Some people are still awed by rotary phones and color television.

    HSF has been quite successful, particularly when funded by the government. Even the PRC is years ahead of SpaceX. They’ve actually orbited and returned crew safely. Commercial space has orbited nobody. But keep pitching.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    yes.

    we are going to see the same changes in the world that occurred in the decades after Syncom.

    gives one hope for the future

    Robert G. Oler

  • What SpaceX is showing us is that we, as a nation, can do something that has never been done before in any other nation. That being that we, our proudly capitalist nation, can render two-way access to Earth orbit something that can be done by investors with vision, instead of a federal agency.

    Yes, though they don’t realize it, what they are mourning is the death of corporate fascism in civil spaceflight, a subject that I will discuss in my course. And an upcoming article in The New Atlantis.

  • Bennett

    Stephen wrote:

    I wish you folks could have seen the SpaceX people.

    Like many here, I would have enjoyed that.

  • DCSCA

    “Someone asked Elon Musk at the press conference if Dragon will go to the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.”

    Why– NASM has room for only the most historic air and spacecraft. ABC News didn;t even include a report on today’s flight in their nightly network news. The first crewed Dragon that survives deserves that honor– if it ever happens– not an empty can. But then, we all know the fate of Freedom 7– once proudly displayed, then wharehoused…. then trundled out for view when Shepard passed and now on display at Annapolis.

  • Frank Glover

    “Even the PRC is years ahead of SpaceX. They’ve actually orbited and returned crew safely.”

    At a current rate of one mission every what…two years? Even as a test program, it appears SpaceX has the potential to build up experience and eventually carry out operational (including manned) flights more frequently than that. And flight rate matters.

    And while it currently repeats 1964 capability, it’s safe to say that it does so with something other than 1964 technology ‘under the hood.’ (aircraft [even non-commercial ones] crossing the Atlantic non-stop today, do not fly the route with the ‘1927 technology’ of the Spirit of St. Louis, either…)

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Sorry DCSCA, you’re a sore loser. Why don’t you simply admit that you got it wrong and get on with it.
    Regardless, SpaceX flew and will continue to do so. They may have failures in the future, but that won’t stop them.
    NASA needs them and I’ll predict that they’re in the catbird seat to pinch most of the dollars going in CCDev Rd2 and that they’ll have both NASA and Bigelow crew contracts before 2014. Who knows, NASA may decide to fund COTS-D. Wouldn’t that be a turn up for the books!

  • HowisSpacexDifferent

    Contractors that launch the shuttle get government money to launch things. SpaceX is getting government money to launch things. How are they (SpaceX) commercial and USA, Boeing, etc… is not commercial? Why does everyone think SpaceX is in some special category….Goofy.

  • Vladislaw

    “Not really. Gemini was affordable for its time- and the program paid for. But then, you may just be easily impressed with a demonstration of 1964 technology in 2010. “

    Gemini cost 5.4 billion, over 20 billion today’s dollars. It consisted of 12 flights. SpaceX has spent less than a billion and 300 million would make dragon flight ready for crew testing.

    NASA paid 1.6 billion for 12 flights of F9/Dragon.

    “But then, you may just be easily impressed with a demonstration of 1964 technology in 2010.”

    Exactly what technology on the gemini did SpaceX use on dragon?

    Gemini used the first on board computer are you trying to say Musk used a 1964 era computer with tubes?

    The radar and the artifical horizon they borrowed from the aviation industy… are you saying that is what dragon is going to use? Not Lidar?

    Gemini was extremely expensive for the day and was on the frontier of technology. Today everything is very well beyond anything gemini was using. To denigrate an American company and it’s American aerospace workers trying to build a new sector in our economy and create badly needed high tech jobs nothing more than a gemini redo is actually insulting. Why are you always about the hate, especially for American entrepreneurs and american workers.

    You remind me of the guy who kept saying no heavier than air vehicle would ever fly. Until the Wright brothers. Keep up the na saying, the mischaracterizations, you will only look the fool when it happens.

  • guest

    DCSCA-I think you miss the point.

    The same people who designed and built Shuttle were the same ones who designed and built Apollo and Gemini and Mercury, and it all happened between 30 and 40 years ago. The people who have been doing manned space since the first generation left-all by the early 90s, have never designed or built anything. Even ISS was designed and mostly built before the old guard left.

    For the last ten years they’ve been laying claim to being the core of manned space flight but all they did was turn the key and start the engines on the 35 year old design – this is space operations-not design and development engineering. That is where Hanley and most of his staff came from.

    We recently heard that one of the reasons Constellation was so expensive was because they were trying to keep their operations staffs on the job until they could get a new vehicle flying. I call that a jobs program.

    US manned space has done great at tremendous expense, and every time there has been a new commercial start up, they have killed their competition as quickly as they could. Look at Spacehab-that was a commercially funded, commercially operated program very similar to Space-X in the way it operated. It built and operated dozens of mission at a fraction of NASA’s cost. ISS could not stand to see its complex management scheme shown up, so they didn’t give Spacehab the contract for continued mission support and when Columbia went down, it took many of Spacehab’s assets with it. So now the company is defunct, very directly due to the NASA human space program.

    NASA has become a political organization in which competence and quality have nothing to do with the program. Constellation is just the latest example of a program gone bad.

    It is very unfortunate but the NASA management that sits in place today, and the people who put them there can take full responsibility.

  • Rhyolite

    amightywind wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    “You gloat over the mission equivalent of Mercury MA-1A”

    Mercury was 6 times the price of Dragon ($3B vs $0.5B Falcon/Dragon) for 1/6th the volume (1.7m3 vs. 10 m3) and wasn’t capable of reentry from escape.

    More to the point, by the time Orion performs its proposed unmanned suborbital flight in 2013 it and its launch vehicle will have cost 25 times than dragon ($13B est. vs. $0.5B) for a similar sized capsule.

    It’s not the function that’s impressive, it’s the price.

  • Rhyolite

    “not less than 130 tons”

    “One big loser is the “21st century spaceport initiative” at KSC”

    KSC’s crawlers, crawler way and pads were designed to handle a 130mt all liquid HLV.

    Upgrading KSC crawlers, crawler way and pad to handle a 130mt to LEO SD HLV with its heavy 5 segment SRBs will cost billions.

    Congress is telling NASA not to spend much if anything additional on KSC infrastructure.

    Therefore, congress is telling to NASA to build an all liquid HLV 130 – one that can be supported with the existing infrastructure. Anything else wouldn’t be practicable.

  • Coastal Ron

    I don’t think anyone mentioned this, but the Dragon test flight today only cost the American Taxpayer $5M in COTS milestone payments.

    Seems to me the last government test flight, which was Ares I-X, cost the America Taxpayer $445M, and none of that represented ultimate flight hardware.

    Just thought I’d point out that little cost difference. I’m sure the new Tea Party members of Congress will appreciate the ingenuity and cost effectiveness of private space industry…

  • DCSCA

    @Beancounter from Downunder wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
    You have to field players in a game to even suggest ‘winner,’ ‘loser’ or any other status, fella. . It bears repeating to you: SpaceX has flown nobody. Let that sink in.

    And be advised, cheerleaders wear skirts and stay on the sidelines– they don’t play in the game. Still waiting for the nunbers on Aussie investment in SpaceX, an American company, BTW. Put up– or as they say, shut up. Cheers!

  • DCSCA

    guest wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 11:13 pm

    Uh, no, am certain you miss the point- and it is crystal clear: SpaceX has flown NOBODY. It is not even a valid argument to make a comparison to government funded HSF operations, past, present or proposed. They have yet to sucessfully fly a soul.

    Look at the reaction on the ground. The media shrugged, if it even bothered to report it at all. ABC News didn’t. CNN ran a post launch clip. The world shrugged. An umnanned rocket launch– a big deal in the early 60’s, in 2010, not so much. Launching, orbiting and returning an umnanned craft in 2010 is a fairly ‘routine’ if not an old school event. The Russians have been ‘thumping-down’ Soyuz capsules, crewed ones at that, for forty years. And Americans have been winging their way back from orbit for three decades. It is just not a valid argument to make a comparison of an uncrewed Dragon flight to government funded HSF operations. But it’s a nice try at spin. SpaceX launched, orbited and returned an unmanned ‘satellite.’ An empty can. We have no idea what the on-orbit performance was of Dragon beyond SpaceX press releases and spin from commercial space advocates. It may be a gem- or a deathtrap. Does it have an operation environmental control system; were the g-loads survivable… no answers as of this posting. And investors might just like to know, along with NASA as well.

    And NASA accomplished the same thing from the same locale in 1965– when it was a lot harder with many more unknowns to overcome– and Gemin 3 carried a crew of two- Grissom and Young. It should have been much easier for SpaceX today with 80 years of rocket development history and 50 years of government funded HSF experience to draw from.

    The single, most glaring glaring hurtle facing commercial HSF advocates remains: launch, orbit and return a crew and spacecraft safely to earth. In other words, FLY SOMEBODY. The day that is accomplished is the day commercial space advocates — indeed all space advocates from all points of the compass– can mark as the historic milestone in HSF everyone has been waiting for.

  • Dennis Berube

    While the Musk accomplishment was good, lets not forget NASA paved the way, and are looking over his shoulder as we speak. I fail to see all the hype for a two orbit hop, around our planet. Sure it was good, and if Musk keeps the price down all the better. Some of the later figures I have seen though, make me wonder. Lets also not forgeet NASA sent men to the Moon, by no mean an easy task. If I had NASA backing me, Im sure I could launch a low cost rocket. Presently it is low cost, but I see higher prices ahead. Im sure NASA will go over all the plans before Dragon is allowed to link up to the space station. I truly hope our Congressional leaders see it for what it is and do not attempt to now down play Orion in any manner.

  • Dennis Berube

    One further point to ponder here. When Orion flies, why not man her. The first shuttle flights were manned, and no one thought anything about it. The shuttles were supposed to be able to fly a complete mission without crew, but they still put crew aboard. Lets do the same with an Orion flight, whether it be aboard a Delta heavy or some other launch system.

  • amightywind

    Thanks DCSCA for a little realism. Gemini 3 didn’t have the luxury of a 4th generation rocket engine, modern electronics, or TDRS and GPS. SpaceX, just make 12 ISS cargo deliveries and you’ll get more work.

  • If I had NASA backing me, Im sure I could launch a low cost rocket.

    I’m more sure you couldn’t.

  • common sense

    @Dennis Berube:

    Yeah we realize you miss the point and it’s sad because it was explained to you multiple times. Oh and btw Orion will not fly. Period. Yesterday’s Dragon flight success just cancelled Orion. You don’t believe me? Just watch.

  • Dennis Berube

    I havent missed any point. The point is achieveing low cost to orbit. If this happens great. However as with the idea of thw shuttle program to carry out low cost to orbit, it never happened. Instead it became a costly white elephant. As to Orion being cancelled now that SpaceX has launched, I doubt it. I think Orion will fly and on out into planetary space.

  • BeancounterFromDownunder

    Short memory DCSCA. Answered that one on support many posts ago. Feel sorry for you that you can’t see what’s happening under your own nose when I can from thousands of kms away. That you can’t support and be proud of a clearly amazing effort by a private U.S. company even with NASA support is simply sad. If you continue, you’ll become as irrelevant as Ares 1-X and the whole Cx Program.

  • BeancounterFromDownunder

    Spot on Common. No-one is going to agree to fund Orion for a lifeboat or anything else at the cost being suggested. As Musk said in the post-mission press conference, Dragon is, on a number of levels, more capable than Orion, eg. crew numbers, heat shield. Oh, and Dragon’s flown to orbit, performed telemetry and thruster tests, deorbited and successfully returned to Earth. Orion hasn’t even left the ground and it’s cost $4.5 billion.

  • Dennis Berube

    I dont think Dragon has the heat shielding for and high speed re-entry from deep space as does Orion. Not that it couldnt be fitted with such a thing. Also Dragon would need a beefed up service module to supply fuel and consumables to the crew, not to mention a powerful engine.

  • Vladislaw

    Yes it does, just do the research on the two types of heat shield materials. Orion is not using the latest, i believe they went with the old stuff because originally Orion was going to be so big they didn’t know if they could cover it.

    Regardless of what Dragon has or doesn’t currently have for missions it is not even slated to fly. We do know one thing for sure, it will not cost the billions that were dumped into Orion and never flying.

  • I dont think Dragon has the heat shielding for and high speed re-entry from deep space as does Orion.

    What you think isn’t relevant. Dragon has heat shield designed to come back from Mars. Orion is only designed for the moon.

    Also Dragon would need a beefed up service module to supply fuel and consumables to the crew, not to mention a powerful engine.

    No one would use a capsule like Dragon or Orion for a deep space mission by itself. It would be done in conjunction with something like a Bigelow module, to provide needed volume. And it wouldn’t need a “powerful engine.” That would be on the injection stage, and has nothing to do with the capsule design.

  • Major Tom

    “I dont think Dragon has the heat shielding for and high speed re-entry from deep space as does Orion.”

    You have them confused. Dragon’s TPS is PICA-X, which can handle everything from LEO to lunar to Mars reentry trajectories. Orion’s TPS is Avcoat, an old material from the ’60s that can’t withstand Mars reentry trajectories.

    “Also Dragon would need a beefed up service module to supply fuel and consumables to the crew, not to mention a powerful engine.”

    So would Orion for any BEO mission lasting longer than a week or two. These are just your ETO taxis and you’re better off using the most efficient one to save NASA’s budget for an actual BEO vehicle capable of multi-month missions.

    FWIW…

  • common sense

    @ Dennis Berube wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    “I dont think Dragon has the heat shielding for and high speed re-entry from deep space as does Orion.”

    Actually that is an open question for both? Believe it or not. Dragon is using PICA, a material initially selected for Orion. Since then Orion was supposed to use AVCOAT the Apollo heat shield material. However, AVCOAT’s recipe was lost and NASA worked crazy hard to come up with something that is as close as possible to AVCOAT. The idea was that AVCOAT flew and flew successfully. So why not PICA. PICA flew also. Well for a heat shield that size PICA has to assembled in tiles (like Shuttle) and therefore there is a need for so called gap-filler. Hence the problem. The gap-filler material has shown different rates of ablation as that of PICA itself at unexplained heat rates. So there is an uncertainty for using PICA. Well guess what there is an uncertainty with the “new” AVCOAT since it is not the same as Apollo’s. Which is less uncertain? Well according to NASA obviously the new AVCOAT. So how do we go about this problem? Well, you fly and you collect data.

    So in essence today Dragon has the TPS for lunar return, as much as Orion does. No one can prove otherwise. So far.

  • reader

    “Not to deny SpaceX their victory, but i think thats an overstatement. IMO SpaceShipOne flights had far more relevance to human spaceflight.”

    No not really. SpaceX ran an orbital flight, successfully today. Don’t be all hung up it was a capsule. A capsule is the cheapest way to do the job.

    Nobody is hung up on it being a capsule.

    Why i don’t see it as significant as SS1 for instance, is that their system is not going to break the paradigm of inherently low flight rates, and hence will also not bring about radical reductions in cost of spaceflight. Modest reductions, yes, and thats good in its own right. But they will only be competing with current Soyuz price point benchmark and flight rates.

    SS2 is designed for reasonably fast turnaround and modest flight rate, although its hybrid propulsion will hold it back.

    We are yet to see a system reach space that is truly capable of very high flight rates.

  • Vladislaw

    “Why i don’t see it as significant as SS1 for instance, is that their system is not going to break the paradigm of inherently low flight rates, and hence will also not bring about radical reductions in cost of spaceflight. “

    There is nothing inheirant in the Falcon 9 – Dragon that would not support high fly rates. They do not have to rebuild soild rocket motors, they do not have to rebuild SSME’s.

    SpaceX is more equiped to do assembly line production runs then anyone, because high fly rates is something he is banking on so he can do the lower cost launches.

    Soyuz is costing the United States 56 million dollars a seat for human launches. SpaceX is still firm on the 20 million dollar a seat price. That is almost a 2/3rds lower cost. In space flight hardware, that would not be considered a modest decrease.

    SpaceX is looking at the Bigelow market. The first station he puts up will be house 12 people, a 100% increase over the ISS. In recent interviews Robert Bigelow stated they are adding more options and it looks like his MOU countries that have signed agreements want smaller space options, ( you will not just be able to book a flight and goto a bigelow station, you need to have a leased space to park yourself. A company will have to lease space and turn it into a hotel first, before you can do that.)

    If BA customers stay 1 month, there would be 108 customers ( I believe Bigelow said 3 of the 12 would be BA staff.) or about 16 flights a year for SpaceX, add in the satellite launches, Cargo launches for NASA and you are closing in to 30-40 launches a year. The shuttle launches 9 times one year, most years were 4-6. Soyuz does 4 crew flights and about 6 progress.

    SpaceX will have the highest flight rate ever if they keep it on the track they are on.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    Also Dragon would need a beefed up service module to supply fuel and consumables to the crew, not to mention a powerful engine.

    Many of us have tried to educate you on this topic, but you seem to not understand. I’ll put it in nautical terms, since you say you’re a sailor.

    Capsules are like the launches that are used to ferry sailors from ship to shore. Sure they can hold lots of people, but you can’t really stay on them for long periods of time.

    Because capsules are so confining, especially if you have more than two people in them, any exploration will be done in larger volume vehicles, with the capsules attached as lifeboats, and for return to Earth. They are not big enough for the exercise equipment needed to keep astronauts from losing too much muscle mass during a mission.

    Got it?

  • Coastal Ron

    HowisSpacexDifferent wrote @ December 8th, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    Contractors that launch the shuttle get government money to launch things. SpaceX is getting government money to launch things. How are they (SpaceX) commercial and USA, Boeing, etc… is not commercial? Why does everyone think SpaceX is in some special category….Goofy.

    You’re confusing two issues. First, let’s talk about getting paid:

    If the Shuttle fails to take off, or fails to make it’s delivery in orbit, USA and all the other contractors still get paid. They are paid to perform work. Sure they need to do it right, but they are not responsible for whether NASA’s equipment performs it task.

    If SpaceX fails to make a CRS delivery to the ISS, SpaceX will not get paid. They are paid for a service, and not for the effort. No payload, no pay.

    Regarding what commercial is, when commercial space is being discussed it means that you or I could purchase commercial space services for things like putting payloads in orbit or getting someone to the ISS. There does exist a commercial launch industry, humans is a different story.

    Right now your only option for paying for a ride to the ISS is to buy passage on Soyuz. The Shuttle is reserved for NASA appointed passengers, and no one pays for their ride.

    So the reason we’re excited about a commercial space industry, is that it holds out the possibility for a space transportation market to emerge for human space flight. That won’t happen with government-run systems like Shuttle and it’s successor.

    Not so Goofy after all!

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    reader wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    Your statements demonstrate your ignorance wrt sub-orbital versus orbital spaceflight. The latter is so much more difficult than the former and the technology requirement is consequently also so much more difficult.
    Try doing some research before posting. Check out such things as energy , telemetry and guidance requirements and you might then take a reality check.

  • common sense

    @ reader wrote @ December 9th, 2010 at 8:08 pm

    “Why i don’t see it as significant as SS1 for instance, is that their system is not going to break the paradigm of inherently low flight rates, ”

    And you base this remark on what exactly? How do you know? My point is that you are comapring apple with oranges. SS1/2 is suborbital and of course a lot less expensive to design and operate. An orbital version of SS is not here yet that I know. And even if it were the cost would be a lot larger than that of SS1/2 and of Dragon. Even if reusable. It would take a very large number of fights to ammortize the development cost.

  • reader

    >> SS1/2 is suborbital and of course a lot less expensive to design and operate.

    Its not about the expense, not yet anyway.
    Its about the ability to do quick turnaround and reflight, so that at least there is potential to get into price ranges that are largely determined by propellant costs.

    >>My point is that you are comapring apple with oranges.
    I was not comparing the system capabilities or costs. I said that SS1 flights demonstrated something far significant that has bigger effects on breaking existing paradigms.

    BTW, SpaceX demonstrated flight rate so far has been pretty low. This is not to say that a lot higher potential is not there. If they really end up doing 30-40 flights a year that would be magnificent.

    However i think there are some significant roadblocks on the way, range availability being one of them for instance.

    >>Your statements demonstrate your ignorance wrt sub-orbital versus orbital spaceflight.

    And you are entirely missing the point.

  • Vladislaw

    “BTW, SpaceX demonstrated flight rate so far has been pretty low. This is not to say that a lot higher potential is not there. If they really end up doing 30-40 flights a year that would be magnificent.”

    I can not find the link now for the video but Elon said at one point he was setting up the engine production line for around 500 engines a year? One of the reasons he went with 9 small engines is it was cheaper to both develop and build. I think he said each engine cost about 1 mil+ a pop and that could be cut that in half if he can build about 500 a year, or 1mil per engine if he builds 500. Wish I could find the link, sorry.

    That would be about 50 flights per year of the F9 or a few less if you toss in a few F9 heavy launches which use 27 engines per flight. So I definately think he has his eye on really high flight rates.

  • @ Vladislaw

    I find this quite credible.

    I recall reading that an RL-10 rocket motor is somewhat less sophisticated than state of the art gas turbine helicopter motors that cost ~$100,000 to make. The reason RL-10s cost seven figures each and helo motors cost $100K is that thousands or tens of thousands of helo motors are sold each year while RL-10 production is in the small single digits.

    Of course, if SpaceX reuses those engines, the price per engine goes up because they need fewer if them. ;-)

  • reader

    I’d really like to see SpaceX achieve these production rates, that would be quite an industry.
    However, i think that long before they start being limited by their manufacturing throughput, they will run into other launch rate bottlenecks. Range availability for instance. Take the 365 days a year and divide by current average launch campaign length, factoring in inevitable slips. You wont be left with much.

    Of course, should the demand materialize, there would be a business case in investing further in launch infrastructure. But given Falcon I modest demand and launch rates, its hard to see the floodgates opening …

  • reader

    Oh, and if SpaceX really is planning for 500 engines a year, then its very obvious that they are not serious about reusability.

  • Coastal Ron

    Vladislaw wrote @ December 10th, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    That would be about 50 flights per year of the F9 or a few less if you toss in a few F9 heavy launches which use 27 engines per flight.

    There was an article in a composites magazine earlier this year that interviewed the manufacturing people at SpaceX. They said their current F9 tank assembly tooling would support one body every 3 weeks. I assumed it was only the 1st stage, and I would imagine they use the same fixture for the 2nd stage too for now. That would give them a capacity of at around 12 common cores per year – as many as 12 F9, or 4 F9Heavy.

    Once they get enough momentum going, I’m sure they have planned to add more production lines – maybe one line on the East Coast? Falcon X and XX (if funded) would likely be built near the launch site, so an East Coast production facility makes a lot of sense at some point in the future. Perhaps Shelby would lobby for it to be set up in Alabama… ;-)

    Regarding reusability, I think they are planning for the worst, while working on the best. Other than Shuttle, no one else has reused rocket engines of that size, and no one has reused rocket bodies. Truly rocket science, and only time will tell…

Leave a Reply to Das Boese Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>