Congress, NASA

Could Congress shortchange commercial crew funding?

When the Obama Administration released its FY2011 budget one year ago Tuesday, the proposal called for spending $6 billion over five years on commercial crew development. After the extended debate on the subject the near-term spending on the program was trimmed in the authorization bill to $1.3 billion in 2011-2013, compared to $3.3 billion over the same period in the budget proposal. However, there was a long-term, if informal, plan expressed by people like Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) to commit the full $6 billion to the program over six years, instead of five, implying that commercial crew development spending would ramp up significantly in the 2014-2016 period.

But at least one official doesn’t think that additional money will come, at least at that level. An anonymous Senate aide told the New York Times that the $6 billion over six years won’t materialize. “They’re not getting $6 billion over six years for commercial crew,” the aide said. “That’s never going to happen.” The article didn’t go into specifics about why the aide felt that way, but certainly ongoing debates about cutting federal spending would play a key role. The aide instead suggested the commercial crew program “might receive half that much”. That would restrict NASA’s ability to support multiple providers—Orbital Sciences, for example, estimates a development cost of $3.5-4 billion for its proposed system—and/or also force companies to shoulder a greater burden of development costs.

50 comments to Could Congress shortchange commercial crew funding?

  • Coastal Ron

    Even $3B over 5 six years would be HUGE for commercial crew, and should easily fund at least two commercial crew capsule systems (likely CST-100 & Dragon). In addition, my hope would be that there is enough money left over to start a program like Dream Chaser as a follow-on system.

    However this all hinges on Congress suddenly realizing that commercial crew is something that is in the best interests of the Nation, instead of perpetuating the “only NASA can do space” mythology (I’m looking at you in particular Senator Shelby).

  • G Clark

    Why, oh why, am I not surprised?

  • I’m not sure what multiple providers means since there’s not enough manned spaceflight traffic to the ISS to support more than one or two companies.

    It is, however, in the national interest for the Federal government to help private commercial companies achieve their own manned spaceflight capability for their own private commercial uses.

    Of course, private investors in the US are currently sitting on about two trillion in potential investment dollars. But I guess they’re not too impressed with the new private space ventures. That’s why we need to have a Federal government that’s willing to look at things in the long run and to help foster the development of new and potentially revolutionary enterprises in America that will help to grow the economy and create new jobs!

  • file under wistful thinking:

    Couple years back Warren Buffet donated 10 million shares to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, roughly $31 B at the time. Propose a grant request funding the order of five seats for select US colleges from a US Commercial Space Launcher, to be matched by NASA. $1B each, four years to launch.

    Anyone here have experience writing grant requests?

  • James T

    Well… considering the fact that NASA will likely not get those budget levels anyways, when proposed budget cuts/freezes hit NASA, I want to ask the question another way…. can congress AFFORD to shortchange commercial crew funding? I say no.

    A cut and/or frozen budget should be the nail in the coffin for ASAP-HLV. If republican members of the space pork cabal somehow convince the rest of their GOP buddies (which includes plenty of anti-spending tea party people) to keep HLV going… the impending financial disaster could cause NASA to virtually implode when national support goes into the negative (as opposed to its current mildly positive state). So I see ending the SLS program as really the only short term option for a stronger NASA in the future.

    Once an HLV is off the table as an American option for ISS crew delivery, what is left on the table? Commercial.

    So I come back to my question. Can congress afford to shortchange commercial crew development? We’re already going to be paying the Russians to take up our astronauts for a interim period, no matter what is queued up to replace the shuttle. The longer it takes commercial to be able to meet our demand, the longer we have to pay the Russians. This is a double don’t in my book since not only would we be paying more money than we have to, but that money will be spent outside of our economy.

    The simple purely cost effective solution would be that we invest the amount equal to the number of launches earlier we get the service times the amount saved per launch. Without knowing the exact figures, and not having any way to predict how much investment equals how much earlier, it’s a hard to say what we should spend under that mindset. But even that amount should not be considered a ceiling, as there are other benefits to supporting home grown industries other than just the cost.

    If there is any money left over afterwards it should be redirected into R&D for future space missions. With commercial providing us with the cheap launch services we’ll have more money left to spend on the mission payloads. This will help support the commercial sector even further by providing them with the business of launching our stuff. The more stuff we have to launch, the more business there is to compete for, the lower competing commercial prices become. The lower prices become, the less we have to spend launching our payloads, which makes more money left over for more payloads, and so on and so forth.

  • Because bailing out MSFC is so much more important than helping stimulate commercial manned space transportation…

    ~Jon

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Commercial companies forced to come up with private funding for their devlopment programs. What an amazing concept.

    It looks like Obamaspace just isn’t sustainable.

  • Robert G. Oler

    I wonder what Senate staffer is that stupid.

    The guy who post over at NASAspaceflight.com couldnt hit the ground with a book in terms of his political projections. “51D”

    Anyone who in this day and age starts making a “six year” projection of political will immediately qualifies for the Sarah Palin stupid club.

    But this is what the political landscape in HSF will look like a year from now.

    By that time all the shuttle hardware will be AIP (abandoned in place), inusuems (or on its way) and tthe shuttle non NASA workforce will be out int he real world trying to find non technowelfare work.

    Meanwhile the first cargo delivery to the space station by a COTS provider will have occurred and a few non NASA institutions will be thinking about how to get grant or federal money to do things on the space station (or in Dragonlab) that NASA simply cannot afford to do because of its overhead.

    The smart people at NASA (and as the Nautilus proposal indicates there are some) will have already figured out that “Apollo mold line” projects are dead and will be pushing uncrewed delivery of more nodes to the station including a Bigelow module..

    Other groups will already be talking about how to get their own people up on the space station outside of NASA and some college/university will be in the talking stage of putting a module up on the station…

    There will not be a NASA manged HLV program and the NASA budget will be headed for even more cuts as the economic situation in terms of the federal budget is still grim.

    Mark Whittington will still be thrashing about the Chinese taking over the Moon, Stephen from DIRECT will still be singing his song and in the meantime the NASA as it has been known for the last 50 years will be a thing of the past.

    Commercial space will be in the process of changing how we do spaceflight in The Republic and that is a good thing

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    sftommy wrote @ January 31st, 2011 at 9:34 pm

    you nailed it…there is private grant money, some universities are already looking toward seeking federal money outside of NASA for efforts on the space station or Dragon lab

    this is the latest in the end game of people trying to prolong the status quo.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 12:50 am

    It looks like Obamaspace just isn’t sustainable.”

    dont worry Mark, in a few years when commercial space has opened LEO and GEO to the American dream…you can claim that you thought of it…in The Weekly Standard ARticle.

    LOL Robert G. Oler

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Oler, if it is your contention that all commercial space needs to do those wonderful things is to be free of the government teat, then you might actually have stumbled upon the truth–for a change.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    I’m with Jon Goff on this one.

    The very real risk is that protecting the shuttle infrastructure chain will be considered an end in itself, even if they are just paying for it to sit idle. I think it is very possible that every useful part of NASA will be stripped of their budgets whilst projects and offices that only push paper but are in important districts have their budget’s ring-fenced. It’s the sort of short-term thinking that one is used to from politicians. It tends to lead to situations like today where several western-bloc countries are trying to figure out how to make their economies work without a manufacturing sector of any significant size.

    I tend to think of it as a massively downsized company that has outsourced or sold off everything except administration and a marketing department to tell everyone how lucky they are to be paying for… being told they are lucky to be paying for the advert they’re currently watching.

  • Fearless Leader wrote:

    An anonymous Senate aide told the New York Times that the $6 billion over six years won’t materialize.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if this aide worked for a certain pork-obsessed Senator from Alabama.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 7:09 am

    Oler, if it is your contention that all commercial space needs to do those wonderful things is to be free of the government teat, then you might actually have stumbled upon the truth–for a change..

    ……………………………

    that is not my contention and such a contention is goofy on its face.

    IN a world where we have had 50 plus years of government control of not only access but the manufacturing process for human spaceflight AND where government controls the one single solitary permanent asset that uses humans in space (the space station)…it is ludicrous to try and create a commercial space market without involving that one single solitary permanent space asset in the process.

    It might can be done, ie it is possible that commercial space ops might lower the launch cost bar and bureaucratic access bar low enough to allow some group or consortium to spend their capital on efforts on say Dragonlab (or a Bigelow module) that “strikes” economic paydirt and then starts the process of commercial reinvestment.

    But the issue is why not use what government is going to do in space as a function of “a great power” to enhance the cycle to drop the launch bar even further?

    Particularly in light of the fact that government efforts to develop its own ability to maintain the station (ie Cx) have failed so miserably having spent so much money.

    I dont understand why you support a program, Cx that has demonstrated incompetence and poor value for cost returns on the spending…and dont support efforts to increase the “mileage” that federal dollars go by using more efficient systems developed by private enterprise.

    YOu claim to love The United States and dont like wasteful federal spending…and yet you make one excuse after another for a program that so far has consumed 10-12 billion dollars and will need oh another 10-15 billion by the most optimistic forecast JUST to go up to the ISS…

    and shun private enterprise solutions to lift to ISS which might end up costing at worse 6 more billion dollars over the next 6 years FOR MULTIPLE ACCESS POINTS.

    I’ve given up trying to understand your theories on free enterprise, or the chinese taking over the Moon, or Saddam and his non existent WMD or all those other things that are like Palin’s statement on the Soviets winning the space race…just not comprehensible.

    But I am still somewhat amused by the notion that you would prefer a 20-30 billion dollar solution over a 1-6 billion solution…and the more expensive solution has far less capability.

    That to me shows how far you have gone in your political discourse

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 7:10 am

    I’m with Jon Goff on this one.

    The very real risk is that protecting the shuttle infrastructure chain will be considered an end in itself, even if they are just paying for it to sit idle…

    there is not enough money to do that…the only part of the shuttle infrastructure that will survive is the NASA people whose jobs are civil service and protected.

    The rest are headed out the door

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ben Russell-Gough wrote:

    The very real risk is that protecting the shuttle infrastructure chain will be considered an end in itself, even if they are just paying for it to sit idle.

    That’s been the rationale used for years by porking members of Congress. The existing infrastructure is a “national asset” and must be protected. They never explain why.

    Using their rationale, the U.S. Cavalry never should have been allowed to upgrade from horses to tanks and helicopters because those horses were a “national asset.” Gotta keep those groomers employed, y’know.

  • Ron

    sftommy wrote @ January 31st, 2011 at 9:34 pm

    “Anyone here have experience writing grant requests?”

    You can always hire a professional to write a grant proposal for you. Just do a Google search. It’ll cost you some money though.

  • Ron

    James T wrote @ January 31st, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    “can congress AFFORD to shortchange commercial crew funding? I say no.”

    Don’t tell that to Nelson or Hutchison:

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/columnists/os-mike-thomas-challenger-013011-20110129,0,1872724.column

  • red

    Maybe getting half of $6B … that’s only $3B to build multiple services to do what Ares I/Orion couldn’t do for $50B. Meanwhile, SLS alone will cost $2.6 B (development) + $400M (infrastructure modernization) + various hidden costs (e.g.: cross-agency support) PER YEAR according to the Senate’s look-ahead guess to future year budgets. That’s for an SLS that probably will never be built because of typical delays, cost-overruns, initial expected costs, lack of money for a payload for it, etc.

  • red

    Mark: “Commercial companies forced to come up with private funding for their devlopment programs. What an amazing concept.”

    No, commercial crew is intended to solve NASA’s problem. Any benefit the commercial companies might get from selling their services to non-NASA customers is up to them. The point of the NASA funding is to solve NASA’s problem affordably. Commercial companies aren’t going to be forced to come up with private funding to solve NASA’s problems without significant NASA “skin in the game”. They just won’t do it. In that case, NASA HSF space access will be based on the Soyuz, or just abandoned.

  • Dennis Berube

    One way or the other, I dont see human spaceflight ending. I think the politicians will extend enough money to keep NASA going. Whether NASA relys on commercial more remains to be seen. I think if Dragon was already flying on a regular basis, this would have helped commercial sustain funds. I think Orion will be built and used for deep spaceflight, however how long it will be before that happens remains to be seen. I think now with budget cuts looming, NASA should put the money into getting Orion ready to go asap, but perhaps use a Delta IV ro Atlas V to launch it. Two programs need continuing. The James Webb tele, and Orion. I believe now the the Mars Science Lab already has its funding to continue an will be launched by the end of this year. The Atlas V has been chosen for that mission from what I understand.

  • Justin Kugler

    Couldn’t have said it better, red. This is about NASA obtaining needed services at a lower price point and life cycle cost than is possible with the traditional, in-house process. Anyone who calls this a subsidy is being dishonest.

  • Justin Kugler

    We don’t need Orion if we have commercial crew capsules, Dennis. NASA’s limited funding would be better spent on something like NAUTILUS-X, instead.

  • Major Tom

    “Commercial companies forced to come up with private funding for their devlopment programs.”

    They have “come up with private funding for their devlopment [sic] programs.”

    Sierra Nevada has spent more on Dream Chaser than NASA to date:

    “Mr. Sirangelo said the company had invested its own money into the Dream Chaser — indeed, more than the $20 million that NASA has provided.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha210

    SpaceX investors have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to date on Falcon 9 and Dragon, again more than NASA’s $278 million COTS investment:

    “Dragon space capsule in tow, the Falcon 9 represents a US$400 million investment from, among others, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who cofounded online payment company Paypal.”

    http://www.technewsworld.com/story/71408.html?wlc=1296571725

    VC firms have invested:

    “SpaceX Blasts Off With $50M”

    http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2010/11/11/the-daily-start-up-spacex-blasts-off-with-50m/

    “SpaceX Receives $20 Million Investment From Founder’s Fund

    http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=47

    “What an amazing concept.”

    It’s only “amazing” if you’re ignorant of the investments that have already occurred.

    “It looks like Obamaspace just isn’t sustainable.”

    As opposed to a Constellation program that busted its budget by $3-5 billion per year?

    Because, unlike Constellation, companies and investors are actually putting private capital into these systems?

    Do you think at all before you post?

  • unaffordable-x

    Orion isn’t going anywhere just accept it. Congress wants NASA to own and operate a manned vehicle that can launch crew. In that case id rather complete Orion than start over again.

    A gaint star destroyer ship isn’t going to happen, espicially with limited funding. You ain’t gonna get it with Orion money that’s for sure.

    Maybe if you saved avionics from orion and scrap the rest, and also deorbit ISS. BOTH need to be canceled. ISS is a budget sucker that keeps us stuck in leo. The science is is a joke for the price tag. Although the ants on ISS has advanced the fields of watch making and watch repair…

  • @Major Tom

    Unfortunately, you forgot to add the cost of continuing the $3 billion a year ISS program as a– workfare program– for some these new emerging private companies for at least another decade or two. And this is going to cost tax payers tens of billions of dollars!

    Although I opposed the unnecessarily expensive Constellation architecture, at least under Griffin, the ISS boondoggle was scheduled to be decommissioned after 2016.

  • Major Tom

    “Unfortunately, you forgot to add the cost of continuing the $3 billion a year ISS program as a– workfare program– for some these new emerging private companies for at least another decade or two.”

    I’m no fan of ISS either, but it’s never been rationalized as a “workfare” program for commercial human space flight. It’s been justified on the basis of foreign policy and international cooperation, not domestic industrial policy.

    Commercial human space flight activities arguably may save the ISS after Constellation’s implosion and failure to deliver. But if you don’t like ISS, it’s not Boeing, OSC, SpaceX, or Sierra Nevada’s fault that ISS is being saved. They’re just developing the capabilities and delivering the services that the government has contracted for.

    “…at least under Griffin, the ISS boondoggle was scheduled to be decommissioned after 2016.”

    That’s a myth. No Congress or White House has ever created a law, budget, or policy document that directed ISS into the drink in 2016 (or any time earlier than 2020).

    FWIW…

  • @Major Tom

    This was started by the Augustine Commission when they began to repeatedly question going to the Moon and questioned decommissioning the ISS program in 2016. In fact, I would call the Augustine Commission the ISS glorification commission: Practically every panel member thought the ISS was the best thing since sliced bread! Their fundamental rational, however, was that crew launch vehicles would have no place to go if the ISS did not exist after 2016. But I thought NASA was supposed to focus on beyond LEO mission which was something that they also repeatedly talked about?????

    NASA under Griffin planned to decommission the ISS after 2016 in order to provide funds to develop the Ares V LOX/LH2 core stage, EDS, and Altair lunar lander. With limited funding, Griffin reasoned that this was the only way that the Constellation program could be properly funded and completeed. And that’s why he was against any extension of the ISS program.

    However, there are those who suspect that US foreign partners would move in to continue the ISS program after the US pulled out most of its financial support after 2016.

  • Justin Kugler

    The ISS is the only asset we have to enable transition to whatever comes next in human space flight. Without the ISS to bridge the gap, we have nothing. That’s why we just created an Exploration Research & Technology Development Office here in Payloads – to handle all the tech demos that are coming Station’s way.

  • common sense

    @ Justin Kugler wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 1:18 pm

    “The ISS is the only asset we have to enable transition to whatever comes next in human space flight. Without the ISS to bridge the gap, we have nothing. That’s why we just created an Exploration Research & Technology Development Office here in Payloads – to handle all the tech demos that are coming Station’s way.”

    Yes and hopefully the next “ISS” will be a Bigelow station or a combination of Bigelow and ISS. Hopefully there will be more than one Bigelow station. We need a lot in LEO before we can think of anything substantial BEO.

    Is your ESR&T effort associated with private partners? Is it NASA only? Make sure, if you can, to open it to the industry at large and to international partners, usual and others, if at all possible.

    Funny how people deride the only HSF program with a future… Good luck to you!

  • unaffordable-x

    The ISS is not required to transition to any new exploration program…. Lessons learned from iss? Sure. The actual iss needed? No.

    That new office (yeah what jsc needs is more offices and working groups) is an attempt to make the ISS fit with the new program.

    What we need is real exploration hardware, not tech demos and pet projects, which is mainly all that orbits up there anyways.

  • byeman

    “US foreign partners would move in to continue the ISS program after the US pulled out most of its financial support after 2016″

    Pipe dream and not based on any reality. The partners would not fund NASA and its contractors to keep the ISS flying. No NASA, no ISS.

    “he was against any extension of the ISS program. ”

    And he was wrong in assuming that he could make such a decision.
    The notion that the ISS would end in 2016 is another fantasy, just like most of CxP plans.

  • byeman

    “I thought NASA was supposed to focus on beyond LEO mission ”

    Not at the expense of the ISS. You thought wrong.

  • Justin Kugler

    Yes, it is associated with private partners. I work in the National Lab Office and we are making a big push to get commercial payloads on the Station over the next few years. In fact, most of my effort for the past month has been on initiating a public-private tech development partnership.

    Unfortunately, many people make a false dichotomy in separating the ISS from the development of exploration hardware. All of the commercial partners I work with understand that the Station offers them the capability to flight-rate their hardware without the expense and risk associated with a full-scale development that leaves much of space technology unable to emerge from the so-called “valley of death”.

    The new Tech Development Office consists of people that were already in the Payloads Office or working Station, but they are empowered to focus on facilitating the integration of NASA-developed exploration systems & tech development projects on the Station. There are plenty of NASA users that have interest in the ISS as a platform for the same reasons as the commercial teams I work with.

    Besides, terminating the ISS now would be the easiest way to kill human space flight. Without it, mission operations would be decimated and we’d lose their institutional knowledge. With no follow-on activities in place, the entire HSF enterprise would be open to the budget axe. That reality is precisely why we had to stop Constellation before it got us to a place where we had nothing but Orion flying twice a year to go nowhere with no payloads.

    We can and should use the ISS as a technical and programmatic bridge to further exploration. It is our toehold to keep HSF alive and a relatively safe harbor to test and validate the exploration hardware we will need before we take it out in deep space.

  • Major Tom

    “This was started by the Augustine Commission when they began to repeatedly question going to the Moon and questioned decommissioning the ISS program in 2016.”

    The Augustine Committee pointed out that Constellation cost growth was going to force NASA to put the ISS in the drink in 2015. The Committee had to present options within budget, so they presented options that included deorbiting the ISS or leaving the ISS partnership by 2015. There was never a law, budget, or policy to do so.

    And it was 2015, not 2016. Get your chronology straight.

    “In fact, I would call the Augustine Commission the ISS glorification commission: Practically every panel member thought the ISS was the best thing since sliced bread!”

    You can call the Augustine Committee whatever you want. That doesn’t mean that your label is a factually correct one. Only six pages out of the Committee’s 153-page final report dealt with the ISS. That’s hardly “glorification”.

    And it’s the Augustine “Committee”, not “Commission”. If you’re going to insist on making up false facts about a blue ribbon panel of experts, at least get the actual name of the panel right.

    “Their fundamental rational, however, was that crew launch vehicles would have no place to go if the ISS did not exist after 2016.”

    Where in the report does the committee state this? Quote, reference, page number?

    Don’t make things up.

    “But I thought NASA was supposed to focus on beyond LEO mission which was something that they also repeatedly talked about?????”

    Yes, and the bulk of Committee’s final report offered seven alternatives to the PoR for doing so. If the Committee really had been all about ISS “glorification”, their options would have reflected that. But there was no “ISS only” option — not one — in the Committee’s final report.

    Stop making stuff up.

    “NASA under Griffin planned to decommission the ISS after 2016

    NASA did no such thing. Griffin may have wanted to put ISS in the drink circa 2016, but he never received direction to do so from the White House or Congress.

    “in order to provide funds to develop the Ares V LOX/LH2 core stage, EDS, and Altair lunar lander.”

    Altair was cancelled before Griffin left. Ares V (including the EDS) was reduced to a $25 million per year study. Both required billions and billions more than are available within the $2.5 billion/year ISS budget.

    “With limited funding, Griffin reasoned that this was the only way that the Constellation program could be properly funded and completeed.”

    If Griffin actually “reasoned” this, he was wrong.

    “However, there are those who suspect that US foreign partners would move in to continue the ISS program after the US pulled out most of its financial support after 2016.”

    That’s financially and technically unrealistic. Excluding Russia, the foreign partners’ contributions are ~10% of NASA’s. And ISS can’t be run without U.S. mission control.

  • VirgilSamms

    They should stop paying these entrepreneurs for worthless junk and go with Sidemount.

  • Coastal Ron

    Justin Kugler wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    Unfortunately, many people make a false dichotomy in separating the ISS from the development of exploration hardware. All of the commercial partners I work with understand that the Station offers them the capability to flight-rate their hardware without the expense and risk associated with a full-scale development that leaves much of space technology unable to emerge from the so-called “valley of death”.

    Well said, and really the key point that many people do not understand. The ISS is the only place we have right now for evolving our technology so that it will be ready when we can afford to go beyond LEO again.

    Some may think that ending the ISS will save money, but all that space technology evolution needs to happen before we can leave LEO, so in my eyes the ISS is actually SAVING us money in the long run, and is the quickest path to leaving LEO with robust & tested systems. Doing otherwise would be risky and foolish.

  • common sense

    @ Major Tom wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    You say all that because you do not understand that this WH actually killed HSF at NASA!!!! Your facts don’t mean anything they are just a nuisance hampering our dreams. Your facts are just from the reality based world.

    Yet in the real reality world the following are facts:

    Fact: We will stop two wars, the F-35, defund the DoE, and use all that cash to fund a 1000 ton spaceship serviced by sidemounts once or twice a year.

    Fact: I am not sure if the 1000 ton is metric or otherwise but use 75 mt for sidemount: It would only take about 7 years to bring up all the stuff (twice a year flight rate). What’s 7 years? Only 1 year for a dog!

    Fact: We can deorbit ISS because we rule the world and we are the baddest.

    Fact: We will kill every other world treaty to send nukes to orbit, because ya know the 1000 ton spaceship runs with nukes, big nukes.

    Fact: Boeing, ULA, ATK and LMT are NOT commercial companies. Only SpaceX is one.

    Fact: Socialism is better equipped for space exploration. This is why the Russians are still flying and why we support Shelby, Nelson and cohort who understand simple facts and can work in a bipartisan way!

    See it’s just a matter of perception of reality. You’ll come to it with enough time.

    Oh I forgot

    ;)

  • Bennett

    common sense wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 3:51 pm

    Nice parody. Lost on the muttonhead of course… ;-)

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    VirgilSamms wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 3:19 pm
    They should stop paying these entrepreneurs for worthless junk and go with Sidemount.

    Good on you Virgil. Continue your quest for the mythical beast while commercial gets on with the job that NASA’s has completely and utterly screwed up.
    Honestly, why don’t you do some research instead of relying on what Shelby et al spout for their constituents.

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ February 1st, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    They should stop paying these entrepreneurs for worthless junk and go with Sidemount.

    If you mean Orbital and SpaceX, NASA is paying them to perform a service, which is delivering supplies to an outpost. No different than what is done today at outposts around the world, including war zones.

    Or, if you mean Blue Origin, Boeing, SNC, Paragon, and ULA, maybe you haven’t noticed, but besides the MPCV (Orion), America doesn’t have a domestic crew transportation system, and the MPCV is not meant for routine LEO transportation, so don’t you think it would be a good idea to have a home grown alternative to Soyuz?

    Whoever you really are, you need to understand how incremental the improvements in space technology are, and that Apollo was an aberration, not the norm. Now maybe some future peril will threaten the Earth, and the U.S. will decide to build your 1,000 ton nuclear-powered spaceship. But until then, no one needs it, Congress won’t fund it, and you just sound like a spoiled child for continuing to say it’s the only thing that will be acceptable to you.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Marcel F. Williams,

    The reason why the Augustine Committee was so interested about having somewhere to go after the new crewed spacecraft was introduced was because how ridiculously drawn-out the development of a BEO cargo launcher, EDS and mission vehicle were becoming. It was rapidly becoming likely that, if ISS were abandoned, NASA would be looking at a ten year period during which the only thing that they could do was launch 14-day Apollo 7-style missions to LEO. Rightly, they suspected that HSF could not survive such an event.

    Any BEO HSF plan that does not include an initial LEO phase to last until the BEO launcher and mission vehicles are ready to go is automatically worthless. Without the ISS, NASA would be looking at even further expense to build LEO mission vehicles to justify Orion’s continued existence. It was just another budgetary train-wreck to even consider doing without ISS for any part of the pre-BEO phase.

  • DCSCA

    “Could Congress shortchange commercial crew funding?”

    Let’s hope so. Particularly in the Age of Austerity. Private capital markets are the proper source for commercial crew funding. Investors await.

  • Yesterday I wrote:

    That’s been the rationale used for years by porking members of Congress. The existing infrastructure is a “national asset” and must be protected. They never explain why.

    And then today our Fearless Leader posts this link to a WDAM TV article about Rep. Steven Palazzo touring NASA’s Stennis Space Center yesterday:

    Palazzo said he will be looking out for Stennis’ best interest.

    “It’s important to our nation. It’s a national asset,” Palazzo said. “We have the infrastructure here to be able to do anything we want to do. Some questions are what is the mission of NASA for the future, and I think it’s going to be space exploration and man flight.”

    The porkers all seem to read the same playbook.

  • Major Tom

    “Private capital markets are the proper source for commercial crew funding.”

    Not when the government is buying capabilities and services for ISS support. Goldman Sachs doesn’t pay for JSF development or for troop transport on United Airlines.

    Think before you post.

    “Investors await.”

    Investors aren’t “awaiting” anything.

    Sierra Nevada has spent more on Dream Chaser than NASA to date:

    “Mr. Sirangelo said the company had invested its own money into the Dream Chaser — indeed, more than the $20 million that NASA has provided.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/space/01private.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha210

    SpaceX investors have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to date on Falcon 9 and Dragon, again more than NASA’s $278 million COTS investment:

    “Dragon space capsule in tow, the Falcon 9 represents a US$400 million investment from, among others, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who cofounded online payment company Paypal.”

    http://www.technewsworld.com/story/71408.html?wlc=1296571725

    VC firms have invested:

    “SpaceX Blasts Off With $50M”

    http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2010/11/11/the-daily-start-up-spacex-blasts-off-with-50m/

    “SpaceX Receives $20 Million Investment From Founder’s Fund

    http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=47

    Some of these references are a couple years old. Try to keep up.

    Sigh…

  • Vladislaw

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote:

    “Any BEO HSF plan that does not include an initial LEO phase to last until the BEO launcher and mission vehicles are ready to go is automatically worthless. Without the ISS, NASA would be looking at even further expense to build LEO mission vehicles to justify Orion’s continued existence.”

    naa .. they would just do what they did with the shuttle and say they need a new space station. They would justify it by saying since the shuttle was so slow and expensive they would use cheap EELV’s and they could put up a new station for half the price of the old one.

  • DCSCA

    @Major Tom wrote @ February 2nd, 2011 at 10:05 am
    “Private capital markets are the proper source for commercial crew funding.”

    Not when the government is buying capabilities and services for ISS support. Goldman Sachs doesn’t pay for JSF development or for troop transport on United Airlines.

    Not for long. Old policy for the age of Austerity. Think before you post- you’re living in the past. And, of course, SpaCEX has failed to expand its investor base beyond the circle of Musk’s cronies. It’s a failing venture for long term space exploration planning.

  • Frank Glover

    “ISS is a budget sucker that keeps us stuck in leo.”

    I hear a number of BEO fanboys say that a lot. yet when the ISS came within one vote of cancellation in 1993, I don’t recall anyone in Congress at the time saying anything to the effect of:

    “We should be using the money for this station, to go back to the Moon and/or to Mars instead.”

    Today, I still don’t hear that from the hallowed halls..

    Terminating ISS would likely mean its support funding would go to deficit reduction, not another HSF project. (except maybe some of it going to an HLV with no funded mission)

    It would also mean no ‘anchor tenant’ for commercial human space development, no government HSF with nowhere for the the Russians to take us, loud Constellation-like arguments about cancellation after ‘having spent so much on it already,’ (but with greater legitimacy, as ISS *is* up there and virtually complete…Constellation so far has spent much to produce little hardware), and foreign partners will be disinclined to work with us on major projects in the future (not that that’s always as desirable a thing as some believe, but it’s another argument)…

    We’re ‘stuck’ in LEO largely through institutional, bureaucratic and political inertia and investment in the status quo, shaped by the Apollo mindset of BEO space flight…just as we were before ISS.

    And just as we would be ‘after’ it, if that were the only thing that changed.

  • Ferris Valyn

    DCSCA – I think I have a better idea than putting NASA into the DOD – lets put it in the Dept of Agriculture. Everyone knows farm subsidies aren’t going away – farmers can ALWAYS be counted on to vote. Therefore, lets repackage NASA as a farm subsidy, and its protected for a long time to come

  • Major Tom

    “Old policy for the age of Austerity.”

    No, it’s not. It’s the only policy for the “age [sic] of Austerity.” Which can the government better afford? A $10B+ Orion capsule? Or a $300M+ crew-rated Dragon capsule? (Or a $1B+ Dreamchaser HL-20 derivative?, etc.)

    “Think before you post”

    I am. You’re not. You harp on fiscal prudence, but apparently don’t take the time before you post to compare a few simple costs that differ by orders of magnitude.

    Or maybe you don’t have the basic math skills to be able to understand the difference between $10 billion and $300 million? Or maybe you’re just extremely hypocritical?

    Regardless, it’s your deficiency, not mine. Don’t blame me for your problems.

    “you’re living in the past.”

    Again, you’re the one clinging to $10B+ capsule programs developed in the old Apollo mode, not me.

    “And, of course, SpaCEX has failed to expand its investor base beyond the circle of Musk’s cronies.”

    Do you really think successful, independent investors would throw totals approaching a $100 million at a company just because they’re “cronies”?

    Are you really that niave? Or do you just understand how much $100 million is?

    “It’s a failing venture for long term space exploration planning.”

    Yes, having an ETO system that costs an order of magnitude or two less than the alternative, including a capsule with TPS that’s rated for lunar and Martian reentry profiles and a mid-lift booster that can be affordably expanded for heavy lift, has no relevance to “long term [sic] space exploration planning” whatsoever.

    Oy vey…

Leave a Reply to DCSCA 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>