Congress, NASA

Authorizers versus appropriators

The 112th Congress started yesterday, which means big changes in the House as Republicans take power after four years of Democratic control. The new Republican leadership has already made its stamp on the science committee, which, according to its web site, is now known as the Committee on Science, Space and Technology; it had previously been known as the Committee on Science and Technology. (That’s one of the few visible changes for the time being, though: the site, which previously had been the one for the committee’s Republican caucus, still refers in some places to chairman Ralph Hall as the ranking member, and the link to the committee’s Democratic site was, as of Thursday morning, still listed as “Majority Website”.)

The name change, and other factors, have led some to conclude that the committee will take a sharper, more critical look at NASA and the Obama Administration’s space policy in the new Congress. “NASA may be especially susceptible to political wrangling in the new Congress because many influential Republicans” such as Hall, Nature News reported this week, “have NASA centres in their districts or states and support a strong manned-spaceflight programme. Their resistance will make it harder for Obama to give the agency a fresh direction.”

However, the ability of authorizers like the science committee to affect change at NASA may be limited during the next two years. With a three-year authorization act in place, there seems little opportunity to substantial changes to the bill: the House could always pass legislation to amend that authorization or make other changes, for example, but it would be difficult to get that through the Senate, which authored the current authorization act and whose proponents, like Sens. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), remain in office. The committee can hold hearings, of course (and Hall has already talked about bringing executives of commercial spaceflight providers like SpaceX before the committee), and provide insights and advice to appropriators, but legislative actions may be more difficult to enact.

In the new Congress, it seems that influence on space issues will shift from authorizers to appropriators. Last year appropriators by and large deferred to authorizers, waiting for a NASA authorization act to be passed, and even then the best they could do was a Senate appropriations bill, which closely followed the authorization bill, that made it through the full appropriations committee but no further. The new Congress will soon have to take up an FY11 appropriations bill of some kind, and soon thereafter start work on FY12 spending bills, with concerns about reducing the budget deficit weighing on members. That’s likely where the real action will be in the next two years.

48 comments to Authorizers versus appropriators

  • Mark R. Whittington

    The take away from this is that Elon Musk is soon going to bitterly regret calling the House Republicans the equivilent of the Soviet Politburo.

  • Robert G. Oler

    No Mark…the takeaway on this is that Commercial ops are going ahead, and the lunar visions such as they are of Mr. Bush…are dead.

    The House Republicans are not the equivelent of the Soviet Politburo…they are the equivalent of pigs porking at the trough.

    How does it feel to have backed the wrong horse Mark?

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    Their resistance will make it harder for Obama to give the agency a fresh direction.

    Another way of saying congress will have more backbone to shield NASA from irresponsible Obama adventurism. Let us hope the new congress gives NASA HSF a clear mission, time, and stable funding.

    I agree with MRW that Musk’s prospects are poor in the new congressional environment.

  • @Whittington:

    The take away from this is that Elon Musk is soon going to bitterly regret calling the House Republicans the equivilent of the Soviet Politburo.

    Oh yeah. GOP Congressmen have nothing better to do than play petty games with industry.

    No Mark…the takeaway on this is that Commercial ops are going ahead…

    As they always were.

    …and the lunar visions such as they are of Mr. Bush…are dead.

    Wouldn’t bet on that.

  • @AMW:

    I agree with MRW that Musk’s prospects are poor in the new congressional environment.

    Why? Who’s ever voted against any of the government money he’s taken?

  • CharlesHouston

    Perhaps we could have a rational discussion – and people could avoid reflexively pasting in their preconceived phrases?

    First, can we pull very far back from a shift to more commercial lift? No. With the Shuttle about to retire – we need something fast to allow us to get people into space.

    First the capsule – Orion has made good progress but hopefully we will not make the mistake of putting all of our hopes on one craft. Dragon has flown one time (and while it has it’s unknown faults) and has some momentum. CST-100 might come along behind them – it is backed by a highly experienced team as well.

    On the rocket side of the equation – it would be very tough to find an alternative to Delta. Dragon will fly on Falcon 9 – so we will hopefully (AT LAST!!) have some redundancy.

    The people who have to approve the direction are Senators Nelson, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Shelby, and Mikulski. They are the ones who are actually running NASA. The new Representatives have enthusiasm but little influence so far – and their relection campaigns start today. Those new folks need to bring the goods home if they want to get re-elected.

    Likely, the current Authorization bill will be followed – but after some posturing, pontificating, and compromising. This means more months of drift and of loss of experienced people. The Government is a big ship with a small rudder, it takes a lot of time to change direction.

  • Unless he issues a subpoena, the commercial space folk are under no obligation to appear before the grandstanding Mr. Hall, although it’s probably good politics to do so.

    Handsome contributions to Hall’s campaign funds will convert him to commercial space. Just watch.

  • Aremis Asling

    “Another way of saying congress will have more backbone to shield NASA from irresponsible Obama adventurism.”

    Do you work for political campaigns? I have to say I rarely see someone with such a talent for writing meaningless statements almost entirely out of talking points and buzzwords. I can’t even say you’re wrong because you haven’t actually said anything more or less backed it.

  • Aremis Asling

    “I agree with MRW that Musk’s prospects are poor in the new congressional environment.”

    The only way this would be true would be if they were to punish the whole industry for his comments. That’s possible, but not particularly likely, especially as SpaceX and OSC rack up the progress points. The two Falcon flights have significantly changed the way congresspeople are talking about commercial LEO.

    Assuming there’s no appetite for trying to ammend or repeal the NASA authorization or retract the appropriation, which is a fairly safe assumption, we’re looking at 2012 for any major changes. By the time the real debate begins on FY2012, SpaceX will have logged at least one more launch and a possible docking. And there’s rumor out there of them launching an animal on board the next flight, which would be a big PR coup.

    Congress may want to adjust NASA’s direction, but the time to drop or even significantly alter commercial’s role is slipping very quickly. I think any real changes would be to the big government rocket or the BEO plan. And given that the Cx ship has largely sailed, I don’t even see much happening to that. It’ll all be debate over the details.

    “Their resistance will make it harder for Obama to give the agency a fresh direction.”

    I don’t agree with this at all. I think the authorization and initial draft appropriation have put a pretty firm stamp on his direction change. While it is possible to change course, I really don’t see that fight making it all the way to the president’s desk and it would likely die there even if it did. People seem to be laboring under the dilusion that authorization is somehow significantly different from Obama’s plan. Its different only in the details.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    The commercial vision may go ahead, but it will be despite Obamaspace rather than because of it. I also see that Oler is still seething with his rage against Mr. Bush and his “lunar visions.” The logic of going back to the Moon first transcends such displays of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Presley Cannady wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 9:13 am

    I wrote:
    …and the lunar visions such as they are of Mr. Bush…are dead.

    you replied
    Wouldn’t bet on that….

    oh I am comfortable on that bet.

    NASA couldnt manage its way out of a brothel, much less manage for any reasonable amount of money on any sort of budget a project as extensive as returning to the Moon. For what Musk spent a little over 1/2 billion and got something NASA HSF has spent over 10 billion and has zero flight hardware.

    They are incapable with the people and the system that they have of doing anything internal on budget…and that alone will kill it…but the notion of spending billions to go to the Moon while people at home are having more popular programs cut is something not even the GOP is going to try.

    Plus most of the right wing overestimates the power of the GOP…they control one house of Congress and you can watch with excitement as they have a good time trying to control their own caucus…

    I’m pretty good…a long time ago when folks like Whittington et al were crowing over VSE I predicted almost to the year the moment of its demise…

    I know NASA better then you do…its so exciting.

    Robert G. Oler

  • LOL, Mark and Windy are up to their usual political hackery, nothing new there.

    Jeff might have a point in that just because Hall is now head of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, that doesn’t mean he can get some policy changed back to favor his district financially, but he can however make trouble and slow down the progress of commercial space.

    He can only slow it down so much, SpaceX has two launches and Orbital test launches Taurus II this year.

    Time marches on.

  • IMHO, what the new Congress will give us is continued gridlock and a continued lack of any clear direction for NASA. Remember, until or unless the House and Senate get on same page, nothing * can * happen.

    Also ,the White House might use NASA gridlock as an opportunity to significantly scale back NASA HSF funding, as a high profile austerity measure.

    In that event, I predict some zombie “R&D” awarded to traditional areospace will live on with token funding and minimal results even as SpaceX and Orbital fly to ISS but SpaceX and Orbital will not fly in sufficient numbers to matter much.

    Whether there is a “game changer” will depend on whether Bigelow (or someone like him) seizes the opportunity arising from NASA being in gridlock and actually accomplishes something in space by going around NASA rather than going through NASA.

  • common sense

    @ Bill White wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    “IMHO, what the new Congress will give us is continued gridlock and a continued lack of any clear direction for NASA. ”

    Yeah. And it is the crux of the matter for NASA in general and NASA HSF in particular. This gridlock will contribute to the extinction of NASA HSF. All the while our great leaders debate grandiose plans to do this or that never to provide the money, some commercial entities will fly. Some already started.

    “In that event, I predict some zombie “R&D” awarded to traditional areospace will live on ”

    Unfortunately you may be true since a real tech funding has been fought over by the forces of darkness. Whatever budget will be allocated to R&D may end up being too small for anything significant while billions, BILLIONS, will be wasted doing nothing, absolutely NOTHING. I guess it is a nice reflection of our Congress.

    “Whether there is a “game changer” will depend on whether Bigelow (or someone like him) seizes the opportunity arising from NASA being in gridlock and actually accomplishes something in space by going around NASA rather than going through NASA.”

    I think you are right again. Watch as they make progress. And if they fail then we can still make plans to build a Moon base.

    Oh well…

  • Aremis Asling

    “Whether there is a “game changer” will depend on whether Bigelow (or someone like him) seizes the opportunity arising from NASA being in gridlock and actually accomplishes something in space by going around NASA rather than going through NASA.”

    Bigelow is moving forward one way or another. He will launch more modules. The questions is, and always has been, is there a market for it? I think there is and he states there are a half dozen ‘soveriegn clients’ interested before he even pitches it to commercial. While Bigelow has lain low of late, they were the earliest and biggest success of the NewSpace movement and there’s no indication the’ve stopped or even slowed their plans. They’re testing their life support systems just down the road from me (literally) here in Madison. And in true ‘money where your mouth is’ style, they’re using company execs as test subjects. Bigelow, to my knowledge is not among the test subjects.

  • Vladislaw

    I guess if Musk is brought before Hall, Hall would take the opportunity to tell Elon this:

    ““Congratulations to the entire team on the successful first flight of the Falcon 9 rocket. I wish SpaceX continued success as they prepare for next month’s first-in-a-series of flight demonstrations for NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation System (COTS) program.

    “As a strong supporter of the International Space Station (ISS), I think NASA must ensure the Station’s long term viability as a preeminent research facility. We have waited a long time for NASA to develop plans and demonstrate the capabilities to support the ISS after the eventual retirement of the Space Shuttle. The COTS flight demonstrations that SpaceX hopes to begin as early as next month are vital to pave the way for the eventual delivery of much needed cargo to the ISS.” “
    http://science.house.gov/Pressroom/Item.aspx?ID=249

    Hall would get to say that to Musk in person rather than a press release.

  • @Oler:

    NASA couldnt manage its way out of a brothel, much less manage for any reasonable amount of money on any sort of budget a project as extensive as returning to the Moon.

    A pretty categorical statement, based on a sample of all of one go, but also non-sequitur. We were talking about “lunar visions,” remember?

    Plus most of the right wing overestimates the power of the GOP…

    Your armchair political commentary is also non-sequitur.

    I know NASA better then you do…its so exciting.

    I look forward to the day you demonstrate as much.

  • @Bill White:

    IMHO, what the new Congress will give us is continued gridlock and a continued lack of any clear direction for NASA.

    The authorization passed with a whimper. There’s no reason to suspect the appropriators will have a hard time funding it.

  • borecrawler

    Regarding the comment from Charles Houston, “The Government is a big ship with a small rudder, it takes a lot of time to change direction”. The same was true of Titanic-unfortunately it struck an iceberg and sank before it was able to go in a new direction. If our government continues to posture and play games with the HSF program, it will sink HSF. There are plenty of “ships” out there; China, Russia, even India, who would like to see this happen, so they could take over the lead in space. If there was ever a time for fast action, it is now! We have the technology and expertise to begin heavy launch (as well as an authorization bill). We need to encourage our leaders to go forward as soon as possible. The billions already spent on Ares will not be wasted if we get the ball rolling NOW! Commercial space is a great thing and I believe it will continue to grow as the market for their product grows. Some things, however, need to be done by the country, and HSF is one area that America can’t afford to cede.

  • Aremis Asling wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    I believe there would be an even bigger market in helping many nations plant their national flag on the moon. Take the “sovereign client” business model to new levels.

    But again, this would be going around NASA rather than going through NASA.

    My first choice is for Congress (House and Senate), NASA and POTUS to all get on the same page but I wouldn’t suggest holding one’s breath, while standing on one foot, waiting for that to happen.

  • Dennis Berube

    As for Bigelow and his orbiting inflatables. I think there will be a market if costs are kept to a minimum, to utilize these habitats.

  • Das Boese

    Unless your Congress finds a way to keep SpaceX from launching their rather large manifest of commercial payloads (which is severely at odds with how capitalism is supposed to work in a democratic state), it’s unlikely that Mr. Musk will regret anything.

  • Das Boese wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    Unless your Congress finds a way to keep SpaceX from launching their rather large manifest of commercial payloads (which is severely at odds with how capitalism is supposed to work in a democratic state), it’s unlikely that Mr. Musk will regret anything.

    Agreed. However, there a pesky “if” at the beginning of your chain of logic.

  • Gregori

    “The logic of going back to the Moon first transcends such displays of Bush Derangement Syndrome.”

    What?

    What logic? The human spaceflight program is pretty logic free.

    Its not for the science (which can be done cheaper and better with robots).
    Its not for the economy (there is no possible resource on the Moon that would pay for the costs of retrieving it)

    Its not to expand life into the solar system ( The Moon is so dry,hostile and lacking in resources it makes the Earth’s deserts look like paradise)

    Its not good practice for Mars (Most of what it has it common in Mars are that its a round, has no magnetosphere and is made of rocks)

    When you boil it down, the so called “logic” is that the Moon is THERE!!! After we got there in the late 60’s, we never really figured out a good “WHY?” to justify the massive expenses after beating the Soviets.

    If we are going to risk lives on something as illogical as a human space program, we might as well have the astronauts achieve something new and daring, not repeat the the 1960’s. We’ve already practiced the Moon, we know how to do it. An Asteroid visit or Mars is a feat worthy of a great nation. Its far into the future, but Mars and space toroidal space colonies made from asteroid materials are places that human being may actually be able to live and thrive!!

  • Bennett

    Presley Cannady wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    The authorization passed with a whimper.

    What exactly does that mean? I didn’t hear any whimpering coming from the Senate when it passed. But I did hear some whimpering from the folks who repeatedly said that “Obamaspace” was dead…

  • We have the technology and expertise to begin heavy launch (as well as an authorization bill).

    Too bad we have neither the budget, or the need for it.

  • Coastal Ron

    borecrawler wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Some things, however, need to be done by the country, and HSF is one area that America can’t afford to cede.

    Fine, but I don’t see that as the big debate.

    Congress wants NASA to build “big iron” launchers, but NASA does not know how to build rockets anymore. At least not on schedule and on budget.

    Instead, they should define what they need, hold an open competition, and then buy what they need on a fixed price basis. I don’t care who operates the equipment, and if NASA wants to be the owner/operator, OK by me.

    Bolden is already trying to move towards this model, in that NASA has awarded small contracts to a number of companies for HLV proposals. However Congress has entrenched interests that don’t always match up to sustainable realities, so I expect Bolden to trudge up to the Hill for many “friendly” grillings.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Bill White wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
    Das Boese wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    Where does Congress get to tell SpaceX anything to do with their commercial flights? Even their NASA contract is not subject to any direction by Congress.
    SpaceX will continue to demonstrate the total ineptness of NASA management and Bigelow will demonstrate how to do commercial space stations. The catch is the commercial crew transport – how soon – and that’s subject to FAA licencing not NASA requirements.

  • @Gregori:

    Its not for the science (which can be done cheaper and better with robots).

    That you (or anyone) so readily separates science from commerce explains a good deal that’s wrong with national space policy in general.

    Its not for the economy (there is no possible resource on the Moon that would pay for the costs of retrieving it)

    Then what is any of this for?

  • @Simberg

    Too bad we have neither the budget, or the need for it.

    We’ll eventually need it for this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=egghoHCT9fk

  • @Bennett:

    What exactly does that mean? I didn’t hear any whimpering coming from the Senate when it passed.

    My guess is because we pay more attention to it than most. Anyways, the authorization passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and under suspension of the rules in the House–about as noncontroversial as you can get in the United States.

    But I did hear some whimpering from the folks who repeatedly said that “Obamaspace” was dead…

    Not a surprise, considering Obamaspace was a product of their imaginations.

  • Vladislaw

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “I don’t care who operates the equipment, and if NASA wants to be the owner/operator, OK by me.”

    Didn’t NASA start out as the operator of the space shuttle and in order to lower operating costs that duty was taken from NASA and moved to the private sector, I believe under Reagan?

    If that was the case, if it means lowering costs to NASA I would prefer that going to the private sector, that leaves more of NASA’s budget intact that can be used to fund more actual hardware, like robotic probes to Luna. If NASA is the owner and means they can keep doing endless design changes, like they did for Ares I/Orion, I would prefer they be kept out of that also, again if it means NASA would retain more of their budget for other hardware.

    NASA should define the tonnage they need launched and let the aerospace firms compete on what launch vehicle they believe they can build and operate, on a fixed price, to put that tonnage into orbit.

    I just hope NASA doesn’t get to do a capsule on a big rocket for the one off launches to Luna. If they really are going to get some form of HLV I just hope it is a hardware only launch vehicle or NASA and congress will make sure the costs are through the roof.

  • Das Boese

    Beancounter from Downunder wrote @ January 6th, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    Where does Congress get to tell SpaceX anything to do with their commercial flights?

    That was kinda my point ;)

  • Robert G. Oler

    Presley Cannady wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 12:06 am

    “That you (or anyone) so readily separates science from commerce explains a good deal that’s wrong with national space policy in general.”

    there is science and there is “commerce” and while “commerce” as a broad sense involved science there is little or no science in commerce.

    For instance, the general claim that Anne Spudis makes here all the time boils down to “if it is proved that lunar resources can be extracted then there are commercial operators who will be interested in it”…is nonsense.

    it is one of those goofy statements that tries to cover something with a generic line.

    If it was proved that lunar resources could be extracted for a PRICE COMPETITIVE with launching earth resources into orbit…

    well then commercial would be interested in it. But until the price point is competitive then they are not going to care.

    An example. NASA has demonstrated with both Hubble and the space station that on orbit repair/assembly/replacement of satellites is a viable task. No one is building satellites to be repaired/replaced/assembled by astronauts on orbit, not even the DOD because the cost to repair Hubble is more then the cost to launch a new one.

    NASA HSF doesnt have a clue about affordability. If they did they would not end up with toliet programs on the shuttle which end up costing 1/2 billion dollars or even minor things…like requiring about 1 million dollars in “cost” to fly a 300 dollar Amateur radio transciever. (and the lift was free)

    Robert G. Oler.

  • Martijn Meijering

    NASA should define the tonnage they need launched and let the aerospace firms compete on what launch vehicle they believe they can build and operate, on a fixed price, to put that tonnage into orbit.

    That would still mean relying on a single launch vehicle, instead of having relentless competition to drive down prices. It is unlikely that would lead to a breakthrough, so you would be spending a lot of money for a new launch vehicle without much to show for it even if the thing ever flew.

  • Peter Lykke

    Funny, but Borecrawler made me think too, when he compared Titanic to NASA. Let’s see what we can find:

    Titanic was built on a cost – plus basis. White Star simply asked Harland og Wolff to build the largest and most luxurious passenger ship ever. No contract was made, as White Star payed as the yard built the ship.

    Titanic was delivered on schedule.

    Titanic was built to the highest engineering standards. It was technically unsinkable and was set to break all speed records between Europe and USA. Reports have surfaced about “production shortcuts” being taken during the building period.

    Sightings of icebergs in the path of the ship was not relayed from the radio room to the bridge. A slight correction of the course was done, but had to be sufficiently small to make breaking of the speed record possible.

    The distance to stop the ship from full speed was measured to 850 yards. Sighting ahead of the shup’s course was done by lookouts. An iceberg can be difficult to see during limited visibillity.

    When the ship hit the iceberg it took very long time before it was realised that the ship was sinking. Generators for deck lights was being operated until the ship went under. The ship band played alledgedly while the ship went under, and the bars were open – and free.

    On a longer scale, the general belief on technical progress as a solution to all problems imagineable was sent to the bottom together with Titanic. That skeptism towards technics is still measureable today.

    I will leave it up to you to fill in the similarities here, but surely they could be found. I have a feeling that the half billion Constellation $ is comparable to the free bar on Titanic.

  • Vladislaw

    Martijn Meijering wrote:

    “That would still mean relying on a single launch vehicle, instead of having relentless competition to drive down prices. It is unlikely that would lead to a breakthrough, so you would be spending a lot of money for a new launch vehicle without much to show for it even if the thing ever flew.”

    I agree, but I highly doubt there would be enough payloads to support multiple heavy lift launch vehicles. My thoughts were if NASA is going to get a HLV come hell or high water, at the very least it will not be done in the NASA traditional way and whatever one they get, it is the absolute lowest cost path taken saving as much of NASA’s budget as possible for other hardware. My fear is it will be just another budget buster cost plus monster that eats up time and budget.

  • Martijn Meijering

    I agree, but I highly doubt there would be enough payloads to support multiple heavy lift launch vehicles.

    Agreed, which is part of the reason I’m opposed to spending money on an HLV specifically. Especially as you don’t need it for exploration whereas development of cheap lift could sure use the traffic.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Peter Lykke wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 8:18 am

    nice post.

    The voyage of RMS Titanic into history is one of the more entertaining of technical disasters…because in the end while there were a lot of “contributing factors”…the main one, the one that sunk here was the decision to steam at a rate where answers to the helm were longer then what the Lookouts could effectively spot targets. And if the various “docusomethings” on the event (A Night To Remember Walter Lord is about the best still)…the standing bridge watch tried, in the etiquette of the sea…to communicate their concerns to the Captain…who didnt give them enough weight.

    There are a lot of other things which rolled into it…the biggest is that standard steaming doctrine of that era in terms of engine commands with hard over rudder was probably not the best… but as in every “goof” there is always one “focal point” where the accident is assured and nothing really will stop it…and nothing before really matters.

    Where the Cx program floundered was the decision by Griffin to develop boosters instead of using what “is” and adapting the strategery to figure out how to make us of what was…

    But what we dont know, and Mike is babbling on to much to say…is that political support for the project, always pretty tenuous might have evaped all together without the Utah group being behind it…and all the folks who thought all the jobs from shuttle were going to be “saved”…and Griffin might have been faced with that.

    If so, thats something to ponder but Mike is really doing an even greater disservice with his current level of babbling and interference in the new direction.

    The reality of the entire mess is that NASA HSF and the thunderheads that run it are incapable of doing anything serious (or even trivial) for any sort of set budget.. They are about the most incompetent people, particularly Shannon to manage a project since oh the F-35.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    Vladislaw wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 2:37 am

    If NASA is the owner and means they can keep doing endless design changes, like they did for Ares I/Orion, I would prefer they be kept out of that also, again if it means NASA would retain more of their budget for other hardware.

    I wasn’t clear in what I originally said about me being OK with NASA being an owner/operator. What I had in mind was NASA buying an existing launch system and operating it, not a custom built one like the Shuttle.

    For instance, if they want their own way to get crew to LEO, then I’d be fine with them buying their own CST-100 or Dragon capsules. In my mind it would be no different then when they buy and operate their own Gulfstreams.

    However my real preference would be that they define the payloads and put them out for competition. In order to do that even better, they should create payload “families” that can fit on inter-changeable launchers, such as 10,000 kg, 20,000 kg, 25,000 kg, etc.

    It’s no secret that the reason we’re so efficient at moving cargo around the world today is because of the standardization of shipping containers, and that should be the goal for space too. The Shuttles payload volume constituted one standard, and I hope that the spacefaring nations can at least agree on certain standards that will help define common design, manufacturing and logistics commonalities which will also lower the overall cost of doing things in space. For instance, agreeing on 4.5m as the standard diameter for habitat modules.

  • There are a lot of other things which rolled into it…the biggest is that standard steaming doctrine of that era in terms of engine commands with hard over rudder was probably not the best

    Really getting OT here, but hard-over rudder would have been fine if they hadn’t reversed the engines, which wiped out most of its side thrust. In fact, it was the attempt to miss it that doomed them. If they’d hit it head on, it would have killed/injured people, particularly up front, but it would have damaged only the front. Instead, they side swiped it and took out too many chambers to maintain buoyancy once they filled.

  • Vladislaw

    Martijn Meijering wrote:

    “Especially as you don’t need it for exploration whereas development of cheap lift could sure use the traffic.”

    We are on the same page for heavy lift. For reusability that is something I have went back and forth on. Should the federal government back a program to create it, or should they do the grunt work of marginal change R&D on what is currently provided by the marketplace, i.e. what NACA(?) did in the airspace arena with aircraft research, wings, cowlings et cetera.

    Currently numbers I crunched says let the marketplace determine when it needs to make the switch to reusables and it will first take place for non human cargo.

    That is why I have advocated for multiple LEO destinations and pushing for longer term stays in LEO to increase cargo traffic. I believe Bigelow is on the right track for going after the 2nd and 3rd tier governmental space programs.

    I don’t believe straight up ‘short stay’ tourism would provide the cargo traffic you need for enough competition to make the R&D investment jump into reusables.

    NASA numbers, as always, never tell a complete picture. The range I have seen for how many pounds of consumables/spare parts et cetera needed to keep a person in LEO has ranged from 42 to 67 pounds per day.

    Using a baseline of 55 pounds per day and average stay per person of 180 days ( I believe other governments will try and match what ISS personal are doing with six month stays and by going with 180 days it would mean they would only need crew launches 2 times per year lowering their overall costs) you will need a 5 ton cargo launch once a year per person per six month stay. For me it looks like the numbers game will be trying to get about 100 people in LEO at a time for six month stays. If Bigelow’s numbers pan out that capability will be reached around 2020. That is about the time where reusablity will actually start making sense as far as R&D spending by launch providers.

    It is kind of a chicken and egg senario though, have cheap launch first and then the demand follows or create the traffic and demand first and let the reusablity evolve from that.

  • Should the federal government back a program to create it, or should they do the grunt work of marginal change R&D on what is currently provided by the marketplace, i.e. what NACA(?) did in the airspace arena with aircraft research, wings, cowlings et cetera.

    They should created it by doing the latter (including real X-rockets) and by providing a large market (e.g., propellant or water delivery).

  • Martijn Meijering

    @Vladislaw:

    I agree almost completely with what you said. I was just trying to point out the opportunity cost of an HLV, not because I thought you weren’t aware of it, but because you didn’t mention it.

    It is kind of a chicken and egg senario though, have cheap launch first and then the demand follows or create the traffic and demand first and let the reusablity evolve from that.

    A propellant market in support of an exploration program would have been perfect for breaking that deadlock. Alas, such an exploration program now looks very unlikely to happen any time soon even though enough money for such a program will continue to be spent on efforts that have not borne fruit and aren’t likely to do so.

    I’d even support discontinuing the ISS early to free up funds for such a program since I believe cheap lift is more important than a permanent LEO station. Not that there is a real contradiction, since once we had cheap lift commercial LEO stations would surely follow. Still, it is probably best to continue ISS for long enough to facilitate commercial crew, because there is a possibility it will help Bigelow succeed. That might be the perfect moment to retire the ISS.

  • common sense

    @ Martijn Meijering wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 1:40 pm

    “I’d even support discontinuing the ISS early to free up funds for such a program since I believe cheap lift is more important than a permanent LEO station. ”

    I don’t think it’d be a good idea to retire the ISS now. If one can show as you suggest that others stations would be on the way then maybe but there is a lot to the ISS including science, international cooperation, engineering, etc.

    I think it’d be interesting at the end of its life, if there is such a thing for a modular station that it might be used as a deep space exploration vehicle prototype, crewed or instrumented. For example we could put a crew in there to L1. Stay there for a while. Assuming depots and a propulsion system then we could move the thing uncrewed to deep space with life science experiments including radiation experiments. You would attached a deep space Dragon ( ;) ) to it for returning the crew back to Earth when needed. We could also imagine a large heatshield, deployable, and attempt (some form of) aerobraking to LMO at Mars for such a large vehicle… Possibilities are endless in space ;)

  • Coastal Ron

    common sense wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    I don’t think it’d be a good idea to retire the ISS now.

    It wouldn’t have to be retired. That implies deorbiting it, which I think would be a huge waste of money spent.

    It could be sold. Not too many potential buyers, but still an option.

    It could be broken up and used in other space projects. I think this is the mostly likely future for it anyways, in that I think it’s unlikely that it will last long enough to turn into a museum.

    But until then, I support fully using it, and even expanding it as part of testing next generation assembly components.

  • common sense

    @ Coastal Ron wrote @ January 7th, 2011 at 4:05 pm

    “It wouldn’t have to be retired. That implies deorbiting it, which I think would be a huge waste of money spent.”

    Exactly what I meant.

    “It could be sold. Not too many potential buyers, but still an option.”

    China might buy it. I’d love to see a debate on that one though. Even if we remove all the “sensitive” systems inside. A little like when some country sells its old stripped-down aircraft carrier to another one.

    “It could be broken up and used in other space projects. I think this is the mostly likely future for it anyways, in that I think it’s unlikely that it will last long enough to turn into a museum.”

    That might be the subject of a very interesting RFI from NASA.

    “But until then, I support fully using it, and even expanding it as part of testing next generation assembly components.”

    I think if we are not too stupid on that one that we can use the ISS for many years to come. It’s built, it’s operational and it’s not far. If someone was willing to come up with a plan, industry and/or government, as to what HSF will be from here on then it could really be used to validate the plan. But I am not going to hold my breath especially if we need any form of Congress approval in the mix.

  • @Martijn:

    I’d even support discontinuing the ISS early to free up funds for such a program since I believe cheap lift is more important than a permanent LEO station.

    This point is probably moot by now, if only because the private sector is likely to close the remaining gaps in national spacelift capability with cheaper alternatives to heavy lift before any conceivable government system hits the pad.

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>