NASA administrator Charles Bolden made a surprise appearance Wednesday morning at the 14th Annual FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference at the Washington Convention Center. Bolden was not on the conference agenda, but he was squeezed in between FAA administrator Randy Babbitt and keynote speaker Robert Bigelow. Given the audience, Bolden focused his remarks on commercial spaceflight and how important it is to NASA.
“We cannot survive without you,” he said to the approximately 400 people at the conference, representing a wide range of orbital and suborbital vehicle developers as well as others involved with the industry. “I can’t tell you any stronger. We are big fans of commercial, we are huge fans of commercial space.”
He sought to emphasize NASA’s dependence on commercial providers, particularly for crew transportation to LEO once the shuttle is retired. “When I retire the space shuttle… that’s it for NASA access to low Earth orbit,” he said. “The sooner that everyone in this room and around the world understands that, the better off we’re going to be.”
He added that NASA had no interest in competing with commercial providers for crew transportation to LEO, even though the Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (aka Orion) included in the NASA authorization act are intended to at the very least provide a government-operated backup to commercial entities. “There’s got to be two people in the ring to have a fight. I’m not in the ring for access to low Earth orbit,” he said. “We explore.”
He also hinted, obliquely, at some congressional criticism or skepticism about commercial crew developers. “We have a difficult road ahead. I don’t want to kid you, a very difficult road ahead, but it’s not because of anybody in this room,” he said. “We have people that make decisions that we’ve got to just convince that we know what we’re doing.”
Bolden’s speech is the latest in a blitz of events by agency leadership regarding commercial spaceflight. Last week deputy administrator Lori Garver visited Bigelow Aerospace in Las Vegas and Sierra Nevada Corporation (one of five first-round CCDev awardees) in Colorado. On Monday Bolden was at the Stennis Space Center to witness a test-firing of the engines that will be used on Orbital’s Taurus 2 rocket being developed under the COTS program. Bolden also revealed in his speech that he paid a visit last week to Blue Origin’s facilities in the Seattle area; Blue Origin is another CCDev awardee.
Cool, then go to Congress and ask them why the STS needs to be human rated. Tell them that you can achieve their cost and schedule *only* if the safety requirements are skimped and the best way to do that is to not launch humans on it.
If you must have an HLV, use it for delivering payloads that are actually heavy. Seems obvious doesn’t it? A commercial crew launch can rendezvous with whatever the HLV throws up there and shoot off to explore.
We’re in the 21st century now, and the exploration of space starts in LEO.
“We have people that make decisions that we’ve got to just convince that we know what we’re doing.â€
Given the uneven history of shuttle operations since 1981 and the lackluster management at NASA, we’re pretty much convinced you don’t know what you’re doing. Pretty much all your projects were over budget, delayed or a PR fiasco (recall the blurry Hubble mess.) You lost two very expensive orbiters and killed 14 astronauts chiefly due to lousy management. However, your agency did make headlines this week as a the go-to guys for a high tech Mr. Goodwrench once over for problem plagued Toyotas. Yeah, there’s a market with a commerical future for NASA- Japanese auto repairs.
Bolden is reselling what has already been rejected by a hostile bipartisan opposition. One wonders what he hopes to achieve, beyond the destruction of NASA’s hardware capabilities that is.
“beyond the destruction of NASA’s hardware capabilities that is.”
Hardware that they have other commercial companies build for them at cost plus you mean?
Gen. Bolden is preaching to the choir in this instance, quite a change from what he’s experienced in the past 12 months.
Unfortunately he has to go back into the lion’s den to do more reselling yet.
With these reduced budgets NASA will have no choice but go to fixed contracts in order to accomplish anything.
The thing is however, will the Congress-critters force NASA to award most of the CCDev2 money to USA and ATK/Astrium?
Time will tell.
“Bolden is reselling what has already been rejected by a hostile bipartisan opposition.”
The House voted for the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, which authorizes billions of dollars for COTS, CRS, and CCDev, by a 3 to 1 bipartisan margin.
Don’t make stuff up.
“One wonders what he hopes to achieve, beyond the destruction of NASA’s hardware capabilities that is.”
Destruction and transformation aren’t the same thing. NASA doesn’t need to be in the 50-year old ETO rocket and capsule game anymore. They need to be in the deep space hardware game.
Think before you post.
Cripes…
“Bolden is reselling what has already been rejected by a hostile bipartisan opposition. One wonders what he hopes to achieve, beyond the destruction of NASA’s hardware capabilities that is.”
More spin from ablastofhotair. The fact that the Senate bill was passed means that both houses have essentially come to terms with the fact that reliance on commercial to get to LEO is here to stay.
BTW, here is a video produced by some TEA Party members in support of NASA’s reliance on commercial space.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h_d6YVA1Kg&feature=player_embedded
As for DCSCA
You lost two very expensive orbiters and killed 14 astronauts chiefly due to lousy management.
B.S. DCSCA phrases his comment as making an address to Bolden and he was not an administrator then. So saying “You” killed 14 astronauts due to lousy management is ludicrous.
What a breath of fresh air to have the Administrator speak to the issues and challenges in such a straightforward manner. The budget issues faced by congress may end up being the only thing to stop those who would like to obstruct commercial space in favor of the status quo of bribes for pork.
We’re at a tipping point here, and the next few months may finally put the world on course to take first real steps towards becoming a space faring society.
Charlie is correct…NASA needs free enterprise and free enterprise needs NASA…it is after all a country whose economic foundation is based on well free enterprise.
NASA now mimics most of what is wrong with the industrial/government interaction in The Republic…the relationship has become incestuous and what Whittington once referred to as “crony capitalism”…and with the cost plus contracts the folks who are in “private enterprise” are more then happy to play along.
Its easy money. When McDee built the MD-11 the airplane failed in large part because it could not perform as was advertised. The signature US customer American Airlines and McDee tried everything that could be done to try and make the MD-11 do what it was advertised to do…fly from DFW to Japan with a certain load. Problem is it simply couldnt.
NASA HSF and the folks who were contractors on Cx need to understand why the thing failed…a large part of it was NASA HSF sloth…simple incompetence in management…but a large part of it as well was the US government keeping organizations (like ATK) afloat “in the game” simply to be in the game.
SpaceX has done what it has done because it operates on a tight group that is focused on a specific project to satisfy a specific niche…All the other groups that are succeeding are doing the same thing.
Robert G. Oler
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1102/10cst100/
this shows you how fast the commercial train is moving…note the interaction with Bigelow and Boeing! Robert G. Oler
Bennett wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 10:08 am said
We’re at a tipping point here, and the next few months may finally put the world on course to take first real steps towards becoming a space faring society.
COTS changed the game. It has been well executed by NASA for far less money than comparable programs. It’s gaining momentum because of early success. Unfortunately I think the momentum will only continue if SpaceX is successful this year. I think a failure at this point would give fuel to the old way of doing business and tip the momentum in the wrong direction. A SpaceX failure would hurt a lot even if it’s not fair.
Bennett wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 10:08 am
“We’re at a tipping point here, and the next few months may finally put the world on course to take first real steps towards becoming a space faring society.”
that is about right…the politics and economics are all moving in about the same direction…
this is one of the better things that is happening in the world now. I am just old enough (grin) to recall with the US had significant regional differences and today not so much…when my little daughter is my age…she will find (I think) that the regional differences among the industrialized powers will have shrunk as well.
The folks who are pushing human spaceflight just for the sake of exploration are just completely lost.
Robert G. Oler
this shows you how fast the commercial train is moving…
Yup, and a sale to India and Japan wouldn’t hurt either.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 11:07 am
“this shows you how fast the commercial train is moving…note the interaction with Bigelow and Boeing!”
Good news to hear that their pusher abort test went well. Having Boeing as one of the two leading capsule manufacturers makes it harder for Congress to ignore how far along commercial space is towards creating a competitive LEO crew transportation service.
I also think it’s a wise choice for Bigelow to hitch their wagon to Boeing, since SpaceX is going to develop their Dragon anyways, but Bigelow wants a redundant crew transportation market so that his space station business has a better chance of becoming a sustaining business.
Looking good for commercial space.
dad2059 wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 11:49 am
“Yup, and a sale to India and Japan wouldn’t hurt either.”
yes it is the icing on the cake. The notion of human spaceflight as something that is like aviation meaning parts are parts and we sale these things or technologies and they make money for the companies and for the US…thats pretty much what this is all about.
Robert G. Oler
Coastal Ron wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
yes…this puts the lie to statements that come from people like Whittington that the commercial effort is not really a true commercial effort…
What you see here is the start of many many efforts where most will fail, but a few will succeed and things will change based on those efforts.
It is a great day for those of us who have hoped for such efforts for a long time.
Robert G. Oler
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 11:07 am
As I once – and actually several times – said. Never discount Boeing. They have the talent, the expertise (more so than any one else in the US) AND they know commercial – Boeing Airplanes. You take a couple of smart managers, send them to Seattle to learn how to make it happen and you have all the technical talent necessary around.
If NASA (and Congress of course) is SERIOUS about commercial then the real immediate competition to SpaceX dragon might be Boeing CST-100.
Let’s the fun begin! Come on! Space competition like the old days of aviation! That’d be something!
I do not disagree that Commercial aerospace companies have the means of getting the crew to the ISS. The question is that can they do this without the cost of lives. Out of 133 shuttle missions, there were only 2 fatal failures. I would like to see how the commercial sector will be able to respond to such failures – if such failure occurs, cost will be driven up SIGNIFICANTLY and when they can NO longer make a profit – they will not exist.
I find it so amusing how some fans of commercial space flight put down the space agency. We are trying to work together – not against each other. The commercial sector should really tap into the resources at NASA.
Robert G. Oler wrote:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1102/10cst100/
“this shows you how fast the commercial train is moving…note the interaction with Bigelow and Boeing!”
I have been saying this for a while now and this only confirms what I have been saying, it isn’t going to be “joyrides for billionaires” that are the initial customers that will close the business case. It is the 50-60 2nd and 3rd tier countries with a big enough checkbook to have their own full up space program. Lease space on a Bigelow Station and get a couple crew swaps for around 200 – 300 million per year.
I personally believe that actual tourists are going to find it just as hard to get a flight to a BA station as getting a ride on a soyuz to the ISS. All these other countries will be at the head of the line.
As Robert Bigelow stated, you have to lease a spot or have permission from another lease holder first before you can book your flight. So until a firm leases a section of a module and turns it into a hotel there really isn’t going to be any place for an actual tourist to camp out at a station.
Blue Origin also completed all it’s milestones for a pusher type crew escape system. It looks like that tower/tractor system will be replaced by pusher systems. The dual use of the fuel is what makes it so attractive.
Thank god gaetano marano invented the thing.
MM_NASA wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
“I do not disagree that Commercial aerospace companies have the means of getting the crew to the ISS. The question is that can they do this without the cost of lives.”
oh who knows but since NASA HSF has offed 14 people and come darn close to doing a great many more it is hard to see how the notion of commercial being “safe” is something that should be taken seriously.
It is fairly clear when it comes to the notion of flying safely that NASA HSF has not a clue how to do it. They spend a lot of money hold a lot of meetings and in the end still launch with foam coming off the vehicle and O rings that were known not to seal…and a few other things.
I dont think that the profit picture (at least in the short term) will enter into the notion of safety.
as for working together. It is hard to see what expertise NASA HSF has to bring to the equation.
Robert G. Oler
@ MM_NASA wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
“The question is that can they do this without the cost of lives.”
And why is that important? Can Boeing, Airbus, and the others perform commercial passenger transport without the cost of lives?
” if such failure occurs, cost will be driven up SIGNIFICANTLY and when they can NO longer make a profit – they will not exist.”
Are you saying flying on airlines is too expensive for you because it’s funny it seems the cost of flying for passengers has come down over the years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_accidents_and_incidents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act
“I find it so amusing how some fans of commercial space flight put down the space agency. We are trying to work together – not against each other. The commercial sector should really tap into the resources at NASA.”
No one does this you are claiming. And if so please give us a link where it happened. Saying that NASA cannot manage (for whatever reason, valid or not) a project the size of Constellation is a fact, not trying to put NASA down. The commercial sector taps as much they are allowed to do by NASA itself, the laws, Congress and competition.
common sense wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
“Let’s the fun begin! Come on! Space competition like the old days of aviation! That’d be something!”
it really could be…it could be the start of “real” exploration of space…where things are done for a price that is affordable and have some connection with the folks who pay the bills.
What Dragon (and Boeings effort to name two) are putting the lie to is that it takes tens of billions of dollars to develop crewed lift to space. And once that is clear, it will also be clear that it wont take tens of billions of dollars to say build a lunar lander…or even wow return to the Moon.
Robert G. Oler
If only they could find full rejuvenation dust with Viagra side effects on the surface of the Moon, Mars, or the asteroid Obama wants to go to. Then, and only then we’ll be talking true commercial space. For now, as someonw wrote here, it’s just a [chaotic] reform in the NASA procurement process. At least, I hope it’s for the good, waiting for a vision and a mission.
MM_NASA wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
“…can they do this without the cost of lives.”
I find this entire conversation a tad outrageous. Is the life of an astronaut more valuable than that of a marine? If so, how much more important? 10X? 100X?
How many marines have died in the last 8 years over in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are we stopping that mission because of the loss of life?
People get killed every day, why is it so special or earthshaking when they die on the way to or from space?
The folks who own the Commercial Space Companies are certainly not making disparaging comments about NASA. In fact, they make sure everyone knows how important the help they have received from NASA was/is to their success. Both Greason and Musk have issued statements praising NASA and the folks who have been working COTS from NASA’s end.
If you work for NASA and believe that your work is advancing knowledge or technology, I’d like to buy you a beer and say thanks!
Yes, Mr. Wind it is time to get on the right side of yesterday`s war or breeze out to pasture.
How about that Liberty rocket? 25 tons- same as the shuttle, reusable first stage, escape system already tested, 40 launch ariane second stage; looks like the jig is up on SpaceX and the rest of the commercial NASA raiders. It will preserve infrastructure for the HLV to come, and also brings the french on board. It looks like all those terrible vibration problems and air force study parachute burn horrors are not going to stop the 5 segment booster. You heard Bolden, NASA is about BEO exploration and with this to carry Orion and the HLV to put the big components up, we will not be trapped in LEO. We will defeat Apophis and conquer the stars.
Goodbye to Musk, hello to Orion. I am so happy. Give me Liberty or give me death.
“Let’s the fun begin! Come on! Space competition like the old days of aviation!”
It is not aviation. It is not “the old days” and never will be. Competition is great for selling tennis shoes to teenagers but has disadvantages for leaving planet earth.
The space shuttle failed because of going cheap and competition for the least expensive most profitable system. The profit motive and space exploration do not compliment each other- one is a necessary evil to accomplish the other.
Gary Church wrote “The space shuttle failed because of going cheap and competition for the least expensive most profitable system.”
Do you actually believe what you write, or are you simply stringing words together, hoping that no one will notice that they don’t add up to anything even close to the truth?
You and windy need to get a room.
@ VirgilSamms wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Ah VirgilSamms… So you know that “Liberty” is for CCDev-2 right? You know what this means? Here Commercial Crew Development-2.
Thus, no CCDev-2 means no Liberty.
Or shall I say you cannot get liberty without commercial crew? How’s that?
VirgilSamms wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
“25 tons- same as the shuttle…”
And the same as two existing launchers, Delta IV Heavy (the choice of DoD/NRO) and Ariane 5, which is where Liberty gets it’s upper stage (viva la France!).
Plus, if we needed something bigger, Atlas V Heavy is waiting in the wings (40% more payload to LEO) as is Falcon 9 Heavy (57% more payload to LEO) which already costs $3B less in R&D and is half the price per launch ($95M vs $180M).
Liberty is a “me too” launcher that has more liabilities (SRM vibration issues, crew survivability, launch pad wind deflection, etc.), and won’t fly enough to demonstrate enough reliability to merit carrying humans. Someone want to volunteer their first born to fly on this thing?
Who’s going to use it?
“looks like the jig is up on SpaceX and the rest of the commercial NASA raiders”
Continuing on the “who will use it?” theme, why does it affect any other launch company?
SpaceX will use their $56M Falcon 9 to launch Dragon for cargo & crew.
Boeing will use Atlas V ($102M) or Falcon 9 for CST-100.
Dream Chaser is going to use Atlas V or Falcon 9, both of which cost far less than Liberty.
Lockheed Martin is going to use their ULA Delta IV Heavy for MPCV testing, and ULA has said it can man-rate Delta IV Heavy for $1.3B.
Even the DoD and NRO will stick with Delta IV Heavy, since it shakes less and they already know it works. Besides, DoD is not going to spend more $Billions to develop two more sets of launch pads (one on each coast), especially not the skyscraper facility that Liberty needs.
So who will use Liberty enough to allow ATK to charge $180M/flight?
No one. Sorry to burst your bubble.
@VirgilSamms wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
“escape system already tested”
Was it? For Liberty? Hmm I did not know that. Interesting.
Oh well…
VirgilSamms wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
“Competition is great for selling tennis shoes to teenagers but has disadvantages for leaving planet earth.”
So only communism works?
I don’t think you understand the concept of capitalism, and how competition drives innovation and lowers costs. It will work just fine for space transportation.
“The space shuttle failed because of going cheap and competition for the least expensive most profitable system.”
A lot of people had a lot of opinions about what the Shuttle would be able to do, and many of them turned out to be wrong. I think Shuttle was a wonderful program, but we didn’t learn enough lessons from it quick enough, and that is why we don’t have an immediate follow-on crew system after Shuttle retires.
However, your ideas about “going cheap and competition for the least expensive most profitable system” is not supported by the facts. The Shuttle was never planned to be a commercial system, just a not-so-expensive government one. It failed at that because it’s design is too complicated, not because of “competition”. The Shuttle had a monopoly on U.S. crew transportation for 30 years, so your assertion is laughable.
The biggest lesson from the Shuttle is that jack-of-all-trades spacecraft are useful for some limited applications (initial ISS assembly, satellite servicing, etc.), but there is not enough of that work to sustain their need indefinitely.
Instead the U.S. needs to focus on implementing targeted transportation solutions such as cargo and crew to LEO/ISS, and let the need for greater capabilities drive future vehicle designs. That’s also why the SLS & MPCV are not needed, because, well, there is no long term program that needs them.
You need to have a little more faith in U.S. capitalism, and stop being so in love with communist-style central planning.
VirgilSamms wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
“The space shuttle failed because of going cheap..”
that is an interesting statement but one that seems to be devoid of fact.
The “only” entertaining thing that seems to have come out of the USA fly the shuttle forever plan…is that there are ways that the shuttle can be flown cheaper…
I doubt it could ever get to the mythical 100 a pound…but its pretty clear from the various proposals that a great deal of the cost are not the technology but the bureaucracy.
Anyway you can go back to trolling now
Robert G. Oler
VirgilSamms wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
It is not aviation. It is not “the old days†and never will be. Competition is great for selling tennis shoes to teenagers but has disadvantages for leaving planet earth.
Isn’t Liberty a commercial spacecraft created because of competition for CCDev2? ATK realized there was no way to compete with the Ares I system so they “innovated” to something “cheaper”. Why didn’t they propose this system originally? How much cheaper will it be in reality?
But either way competition works!
Only idiots think Liberty is a viable vehicle.
“How about that Liberty rocket? 25 tons- same as the shuttle”
No, it’s only 22 English tons or 20 metric tons.
http://www.space.com/10792-liberty-rocket-ressurects-scrapped-nasa-ares1.html
Read for comprehension.
“reusable first stage”
What “reusable” first stage? Ares I-X demonstrated how to destroy, not recover, SRB segments when recovered in a single-stick, four-segment configuration. It’s going to get even harder going to five segments.
Don’t make stuff up.
“escape system already tested”
What escape system? ATK/Astrium are bidding the booster, not the escape system.
Again, read for comprehension.
Moreover, even if they were, they’d have to define which capsule or spaceplane is riding on top before they could define the escape system.
Think before you post.
“40 launch ariane second stage”
What “40-launches”? The second-stage on Ariane V employs HM-series or Aestus engines, whereas the second stage that ATK/Astrium are proposing employs a Vulcain engine. There are huge differences between these engines. Aestus and Vulcain use completely different propellants, and HM and Vulcain have completely different ignition environments — HM in the air and Vulcain on the ground. Claiming that Liberty’s “Ariane” upper stage has 40-odd flights behind it is like putting a diesel engine in my wife’s Honda Civic and claiming that it has 50,000 miles worth of demonstrated performance (per the odometer). It’s a total fabrication.
Don’t make stuff up.
Getting an air-start version of the Vulcain engine developed and tested is a huge hurdle. NASA couldn’t clear it in the original four-segment/SSME version of Ares I, which is part of what necessitated the change to the five-segment/J-2X version. There’s little reason to believe that Astrium will be anymore successful.
“looks like the jig is up on SpaceX and the rest of the commercial NASA raiders.”
Yeah, I’m sure SpaceX and ULA are just quaking in their boots when confronted with a launcher with a stated per unit cost nearly four times Falcon 9 and double Atlas V, no five-segment first-stage flight heritage, no air-start Vulcain second-stage flight heritage, and which doesn’t address NASA’s critical need — crewed capsules and spaceplanes — in the first place.
“It will preserve infrastructure for the HLV to come,”
It doesn’t preserve any infrastructure beyond ATK SRB production. (And the only flown HLVs to date, Saturn V and Energia, didn’t use SRBs or solid boosters of any kind.)
In terms of the other elements of the launcher, it sends billions of US taxpayer dollars and US jobs overseas to Astrium. It will do more to compete with/destroy the US domestic infrastructure for upper stages than help it.
Think before you post.
“It looks like all those terrible vibration problems and air force study parachute burn horrors are not going to stop the 5 segment booster.”
Why not? Because ATK/Astrium want a few million more study dollars for a booster to nowhere?
“You heard Bolden, NASA is about BEO exploration and with this to carry Orion”
Per the article linked earlier in this post, Liberty underperforms Orion by about 3 tons.
Read for comprehension, learn grade school math, and think before you post.
Even Ares I, which had better predicted performance than Liberty, couldn’t launch Orion. Among existing launchers, only Delta IV Heavy has the necessary throw weight.
“and the HLV to put the big components up”
As HEFT shows, there are no “big components” that require an HLV. The only “big component” is propellant, and that’s infinitely divisible and deliverable via smaller vehicles.
“We will defeat Apophis”
Even Apophis has a very small chance of hitting Earth, and Liberty has nothing to contribute to asteroid deflection, anyway.
Focus. Stay on topic.
“and conquer the stars.”
Rockets and launch vehicle, of any shape, have nothing to do with “conquering the stars”. That requires a deeper understanding of physics that we don’t have yet.
Focus. Stay on topic.
“The space shuttle failed because of going cheap and competition for the least expensive most profitable system.”
The Space Shuttle had _no_ competition.
Don’t make stuff up and think before you post.
“Give me Liberty or give me death.”
Have fun at your funeral.
Oy vey…
@VirgilSamms
Dream on little broom stick cowboy. Liberty is ATK’s desperate attempt to get back into the game now that they see which way the winds are blowing. It’s as bad a farce as Ares. For the details as to why, read this article:
http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=27079
Wow, most of you are really stuck in your world here… Have fun bashing each other and not looking at alternatives to “competitive business” and in the end helping the U.S.
Awards from CCDev Rd2 are expected around the end of March. My predictions stand: SpaceX, Boeing, with others open at this point but I wouldn’t expect more than a couple, not if NASA is serious about getting crew transport in a reasonable time, i.e. 3-4 years.
That’ll put it ready for Bigelow’s Sundancer due to launch around 2014.
I didn’t really want to get my hopes up after watching NASA for the last 40years but ye gods, it’s starting to look good.
BTW, for those who don’t think commercial will be involved in BEO, think about this:
1. Elon has continually stated that he’s looking at Mars, and he is getting real close to having hardware to do it;
2. Bigelow has for some time now, discussed using his modules on the moon.
Elon might not have the personal resources of Bigelow but he certainly has investors waiting in the wings to come on board, and they might be willing to do BEO.
Bigelow has only spent about half of that initial $500million he indicated he would so his pockets are still deep.
In summary: both these individuals have business plans that realise future income streams. They have investors and clients – potential and actual. They’re developing real flying hardware. They’re using an incremental approach building on experience and lessons learnt. And they complement each other.
The future of commercial space in LEO and I think BEO is looking rosy. 40 years of waiting and so close now, you can almost touch it.
Here’s a redneck haiku that describes the Corndog On Steroids (aka “Liberty”):
ENIGMA
Rusty paradox
Half Camaro, half Transam
Yet it will not run
Rick Boozer wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 9:43 am
‘you’ as in NASA management, which Bolden DOES represent. and whether ‘you’ like it or not, lousy management killed 14 astronauts and lost two very expensive orbiters. ‘Denial,’ it seems, not only flows as a river in Egypt but through the corridors of NASA as well.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
VirgilSamms wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
“Competition is great for selling tennis shoes to teenagers but has disadvantages for leaving planet earth.â€So only communism works?”
If you think so, then so be it. Communist Red China seems to be ‘worknig fine’ these days. As to spaceflight operations, socialist/fascist/communist governments led the way into the cosmos with western powers performing in their ritualistic, reactionary way, turning to government to make it work. It’s in all the history books outside of Texas.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 10:49 am
“Charlie is correct…NASA needs free enterprise and free enterprise needs NASA…it is after all a country whose economic foundation is based on well free enterprise.” Charlie may seem correct if your mind set is in 1985. Today, not so much.
http://twitpic.com/3yeb09
this is pretty nice…I assume Jeff at somepoint will fill us in (grin)
Robert G. Oler
Oh c’mon MT, you have to admit “Virgil” and Windy add spice to forum discourse, lol.
@ common sense wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
If you mean that without the CCDev2 competition, you’re probably right. But ATK noted (and I think someone upthread mentioned this) that they would build their Franken-corndog anyway, with or without CCDev2 money. ATK really means to have this beast compete in the medium lift market.
My question is that will this thing be competed on the market fairly without political influence (one could say the same about ULA) or will this be a real competitor on the open market?
Robert G. Oler wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 10:49 am
“Charlie is correct…NASA needs free enterprise and free enterprise needs NASA…it is after all a country whose economic foundation is based on well free enterprise.â€
When NASA doesn’t have enough $ to do the job it seeks international partnerships (which drive costs up and make projects un-cancelable , despite poor performance : see ISS), or they seek commercial dollars.
This is less about an ideological bent by the administration and more about a broke NASA.
Take away the ISS and , notwithstanding space tourisms great leap to suborbital, there is no commercial HSF launch industry interest, because there is no market that justifies an ROI into commercial HSF LEO vehicles.
..and the free market enterprise is contributing to the congress critters having no long term interests in the health of our nation, just short term political plays to satisfy lobbies and corporations that have ‘jobs in our district’.
The form of government we have now is not going to resolve any of the chronic issues that are now bankrupting the republic.
“‘you’ as in NASA management, which Bolden DOES represent. and whether ‘you’ like it or not, lousy management killed 14 astronauts and lost two very expensive orbiters. ‘Denial,’ it seems, not only flows as a river in Egypt but through the corridors of NASA as well.”
And “you” as in DCSCA have as much problem discerning reality sometimes as ablastofhotair. Bolden’s position is that previous practices of management in the past will not continue and are being replaced by new ones. What happened under the old paradigm does not necessarily apply to the new one.
@Shaggy
Wow, most of you are really stuck in your world here… Have fun bashing each other and not looking at alternatives to “competitive business†and in the end helping the U.S.
Many of us have been looking for “alternatives” to business as usual for decades, and the best option that we have found is “competitive business”. If you think you have a better option, please tell us so that we may seriously consider it.
Rand Simberg wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 10:39 pm:
Here’s a redneck haiku that describes the Corndog On Steroids (aka “Libertyâ€):…
Elon Musk funded astroturfers should be more subtle. Liberty is just another entrant into an increasingly crowded field. It is just the scale and credibility of the ATK/Astrium proposal that has SpaceX fanbois spooked. Don’t worry. As long as their cronies run NASA, SpaceX prospects remain good..
As long as their cronies run NASA, SpaceX prospects remain good..
What, no mention of ATK cronies in Congress Windy? LOL.
I bet there’s more of them than the mythical SpaceX cronies in NASA!
@ablastofhotair
“Elon Musk funded astroturfers should be more subtle.”
Really? You have no evidence that any of us that back the commercial option have been bought. I can state from years of experience that Rand is just as much for the success of ULA, Orbital and anybody else who can make a viable contribution. He (and I as well) would even be for ATK if they had a truly sensible alternative. We know by your own previous admission your self-serving interest in ATK’s success.
Don’t you ever get tired of being embarrassed from your ridiculous statements? As I have said before and proven by restating many of your earlier ludicrous misstatements, you are the laughing stock of the space blogosphere.
Just announced… “Liberty” does not need further NASA funding and the launcher project will go ahead with or without CCDev funding.
byeman wrote @ February 10th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Only idiots think Liberty is a viable vehicle.
I was only saying that competition has changed ATK’s tune and now ATK will have to actually compete. The fact they didn’t enter Ares I design into the CCDev2 is because they know the design isn’t cost effective. Personally I don’t think it’s a good move for Astrium.
@ mr. mark,
If true, it makes one wonder exactly why they needed so many more billions of dollars to do it for NASA. Either ATK are planning in advance to use the “optimism isn’t a crime” defence or NASA (and by extension the American people) have been thoroughly hosed down ever since ATK got the 5-seg contract.
Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 11:13 am
Exactly! This is looking more and more like ATK simply wants a piece of the 200 million CCDev2 money. They don’t need it buy hey, if it takes it away from a competitor all is good.
amightywind wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 9:00 am
“It is just the scale and credibility of the ATK/Astrium proposal that has SpaceX fanbois spooked.”
I’m sure you have a market analysis you can share that shows how a launcher that is twice as expensive as Falcon 9 Heavy, and carries 50% less mass to LEO, is a worry to SpaceX.
Not to mention that they say it will cost them 3X as much to build their one launcher than SpaceX will have spent for three launchers AND a capsule.
Yes, the economics of the ATK/Astrium proposal look so good. NOT!
“Regardless of whether the government agrees to help fund Alliant Techsystems’ rocket that would take astronauts to the International Space Station, the Utah company intends to move forward with its project because it believes there will be no shortage of commercial customers. ATK and a partner on Tuesday unveiled the two-stage Liberty rocket that they want NASA to use as the next launch vehicle for the U.S. space program. And they are hoping the space agency will see fit to award it at least a portion of a $200 million pool of money set aside for promising projects.”
Looks like ATK still wants seed money but will go it alone regardless.
@ dad2059 wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 5:42 am
“If you mean that without the CCDev2 competition, you’re probably right. But ATK noted (and I think someone upthread mentioned this) that they would build their Franken-corndog anyway, with or without CCDev2 money. ATK really means to have this beast compete in the medium lift market.”
How do you call up a bluff?
But if it were up to me they can build whatever they like on their own cash. They may have non competitive rocket with no payload up “soon”. It would also beg the question of the price vs. Ares-I quoted to the USG. Did they make an “illegal” quote? Just wondering… Of course when you’re sole source it’s easier. Well they are no longer sole source.
“My question is that will this thing be competed on the market fairly without political influence (one could say the same about ULA) or will this be a real competitor on the open market?”
Without naivete you have to know that “fairly” does not exist on the market. people will always try to buy advantages if they can one way or another. The political influence is part of the game. ATK however is not in a win-win situation. Again they have to explain to the taxpayer why Ares-I was so expensive and why they needed all that cash when they just proposed something cheaper. Also they may have to justify the use of government money to enter another government competition which may as well be illegal – we would have to know all the clauses in their Ares/Constellation contract with USG though.
It is not as simple as it seems, nor that complicated.
I don’t believe seat prices are going to plunge once the Soyuz has a competitor. If NASA is paying 56 million a seat currently, I would predict that SpaceX would offer up seats at 50 million forcing price reductions from the Russian firm. Then it will be back and forth until the next player, Boeing enters.
If ATK does actually come in at 180 million (no word on what capsule they plan on launching?) and has a seven seat capacity they would be 25 million a seat. 25% more than SpaceX’s projected 20 million a seat price.
I believe NASA will not ( I hope they don’t anyway) be writing long term contracts with single players. If NASA spreads it out and also sends researchers to a BA facility everyone should be able to snag a couple launches from all the governments that will want to launch domestic astronauts.
I think the status factor among governments will be everyone will want to have their own going into space. More than opening up space tourism, it will open it up for most countries to finally have their own space program.
Vladislaw wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
“If NASA is paying 56 million a seat currently, I would predict that SpaceX would offer up seats at 50 million forcing price reductions from the Russian firm.”
Musk has been quoting $20M/seat for a full capsule (5 passengers?), and he has not been shy about keeping prices far below market. The Falcon 9 is advertised for $56M/flight, whereas Atlas V is around $100M. Delta IV Heavy is supposedly around $300- 450M/flight, and SpaceX is advertising their Falcon 9 Heavy, which lifts 40% more to orbit, for $95M/flight. I think SpaceX will be aggressive with their crew pricing from the get-go.
“If ATK does actually come in at 180 million (no word on what capsule they plan on launching?) and has a seven seat capacity they would be 25 million a seat. 25% more than SpaceX’s projected 20 million a seat price.”
Keep in mind that SpaceX owns the launcher and the capsule, so they are advertising their complete price. The Liberty is just a launcher, and you have to add the cost of the capsule/spacecraft on top of that, so it’s more than the # of passengers divided by the cost of the launcher.
For instance, if Boeing were to launch the CST-100 on the Liberty, and they had a crew of 2 + 5 passengers, then Liberty would cost $36M/passenger, plus the cost of Boeing will charge for CST-100. It would hard to see how a crew system using the Liberty would be able to beat Soyuz on price, much less SpaceX.
I think CST-100 on Atlas V will still be a more competitive proposition than CST-100 on Liberty, and it would be a waste to put a 20,000 lb payload on a launcher capable of 44,500 lb to LEO. Besides, being a solid rocket motor, you can’t adjust your thrust profile, so I suspect that they will have to launch with the same mass each time, even if it’s ballast (i.e. dead weight).
I still don’t see the value proposition of the Liberty launcher…
@common sense wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Without naivete you have to know that “fairly†does not exist on the market. people will always try to buy advantages if they can one way or another. The political influence is part of the game.
Wha…you mean ATK wouldn’t be above (or should I say below?) using its political influence? LOL
In essence I agree with what you’re saying cs and the Franken-Corndog could very well be a bluff move by ATK due to those previous government contracts for CxP.
Time will tell I suppose.
@ dad2059 wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Well if they, ATK, cannot play then they have to disrupt the game. So they are trying. We’ll see how far that goes.
If I were NASA I have to say I would love to see the bid for CCDev and that for Constellation/Ares – even though being “sole source” they did not even need to bid anything then! And then I would ask ATK why, oh why, the cost for Ares was so large… Just in one of those remarkable hearings Congress is having.
Don’t even need the other players. But will it ever happen?…
Vladislaw wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 1:05 pm
“I don’t believe seat prices are going to plunge once the Soyuz has a competitor.”
I dont think that they will plunge, but I do think that a few things will happen…price will go down to whatever the baseline of the providers are..or competition for the seats will go up…and to some extent that will drive cost.
I really think that the latter is going to happen…and I suspect that is going to be teh key to ISS and Bigelow being a success.
Robert G. Oler
Did Charlie forget that Congress specifically mentioned SLS/Orion as a hedge in the event of Commercial providers not being able to deliver? He may have to answer a pointed question or two about that next time he’s on The Hill. Once any (Boeing, Orbital, or even..ugh..SpaceX) of the commercial providers actually send people up-not just boilerplate Dragons, the doubters will be convinced. Until that happens, there will be those who will be rightly skeptical of the commercial companies.
Rick Boozer wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 7:26 am
Uh-huh. Which doesn’t change the facts that poor decisionmaking killed 14 astronauts and lost two orbiters. Clearly your bold talk ’bout a Cold War relic 20 years out of sync with the realities of the modern world and the economics at work smacks of bravado fed by the past. NASA’s management is poor, its bureaucracy bloated; its vision blurred; its leadership negligible. Bolden is a product of that era to to espouse otherwise is just another examply of denial at work. Bolden is useless. So to, Garver. A good house cleaning, a strong budget cut with a scalpel, not an ax– and streamlining of its organizational chart will get it healthy again after shuttle is finally ended. Have your resumes ready.
One other thing: If he wants this Congress to go along with what he has in mind, he’d be well advised to spend less time preaching to the choir, and more time talking with the key Congresscritters-especially on the House side. Because they’re the ones swingin’ the budget ax, not the Senate. Still, my guess (and just a guess) is that he’d still have trouble with Congress even if the GOP hadn’t won control of the House last fall.
“there will be those who will be rightly skeptical of the commercial companies.”
Those who do are part of the unwashed masses and don’t know anything about spaceflight.
@DCSCA
The only person I see exercising “bravado fed by the past” is you.
Matt Wiser wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 12:05 am
“If he wants this Congress to go along with what he has in mind, he’d be well advised to spend less time preaching to the choir, and more time talking with the key Congresscritters-especially on the House side.”
If Congress were a purely deliberative body, and looked at issues from a “what’s best” standpoint, then I would agree.
However besides some part of their time addressing the “what’s best” perspective, they are also looking at the “what’s best for me & my constituents”. And remember “constituents” include corporate interests that may not be in their districts, so it is, as they say, “complicated”.
For instance, the Utah delegation is publicly and vocally in favor of solutions that involve ATK SRM’s, so they advocate for rockets that employ them. That tends to eliminate alternative technologies like liquid-core boosters or single-core liquid rockets. They want less choice, not more.
Nothing Administrator Bolden says is going to change the minds of those in Congress that have constituents with specific desires. But what he could be doing, and this is where I agree with you, is trying to influence those that DON’T have existing constituencies related to NASA. Unfortunately the ones with constituencies are on the NASA-related committees, and they make the funding decisions, so to put it mildly, it’s a challenge.
So an alternate avenue is to get the space industry pushing on their representatives, as well as popular opinion. Because the only way to win over some of these congress-critters is to use popular pressure. I guess we’ll see how it goes, but with a Democratic administration, and the House under Republican control, there is going to be tension and conflict no matter how good a program or idea is. That’s just the way it is…
Coastal Ron wrote:
“Musk has been quoting $20M/seat for a full capsule (5 passengers?), and he has not been shy about keeping prices far below market. “
I couldn’t find it but there was one interview that Musk did right after NASA signed that 56mil per seat deal with Russia. The interviewer was asking him what his price would be compared to Russia. I will paraphrase what he said:
Of course SpaceX will be competitive and there is no reason we will come in at more than 50 million.
For me it was a future hedge or that a NASA Dragon (more needless bells and whistles) might be more expensive than a Bigelow Dragon.
If NASA adds complexity that a Bigelow Dragon will not need SpaceX can justify a two price system. One for NASA one of BA. If that becomes the case SpaceX will come in just under what NPO Energia charges. They would be foolish to do otherwise. Then it will be the back and forth on price drops until Boeing enters.
The reason it stood out was it was the first time I saw Musk deviate from the 20 million per seat price he has always used.
SpaceX has always said seven passengers, I am sure that NASA’s astronauts would rather be in control of the stick and require manuel control. I thought SpaceX was looking at auto controls rather than a crew to pilot Dragon. Here is an issue that could drive costs for a NASA Dragon rather than requirements for BA Dragon.
Robert G. Oler wrote:
“I dont think that they will plunge, but I do think that a few things will happen…price will go down to whatever the baseline of the providers are..or competition for the seats will go up…and to some extent that will drive cost.
I really think that the latter is going to happen…and I suspect that is going to be teh key to ISS and Bigelow being a success.”
NPO Energia and soyuz will be the gold plate standard for LEO access once the shuttle retires and will be setting the price.
I believe tourists will be more likely to willingly pay a premium to ride a soyuz than a new launch provider.
For governments I believe they will be more willing to ride a lower cost new launch provider. (except NASA probably)
I believe prices are going to hinge on NASA’s requirements because of the two destination they are going to have different requirements. If traveling to the ISS causes Dragon to be saddled with more requirements it’s price will rise.
Bigelow said his business case is based on 15-20 million a seat price. NASA of course has never said what they are willing to pay per seat, but we already know they are willing to pay between 56 million – 100 million (Shuttle costs?)
Depending on NASA requirements it might evolve into a two tier system. I really hope it doesn’t.
I believe tourists will be more likely to willingly pay a premium to ride a soyuz than a new launch provider.
I seriously doubt that. If SpaceX has a string of successful capsule flights, people will be happy to fly with them if the price is good, and prefer not to have to spend six months training in Russia and learning Russian. As for the prices, it’s not about price. Once there is an American alternative, Soyuz is out of business for NASA money, because every year we have to purchase their services is another year that Congress has to waive INKSNA for them. If Elon can match the Soyuz price, he’ll get the business. As will Boeing.
Vladislaw wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
“Depending on NASA requirements it might evolve into a two tier system. I really hope it doesn’t.”
Nicely laid out. And that is really the kicker here, which is how “government” NASA will end up going with commercial crew systems.
So far Bolden has been intimating that they will try to be less onerous, and critique what the companies offer up. But first we have to get Congress to release the funding, and who knows, if they don’t put much money into it, NASA may be forced to go with less oversight, and we end up with less costly transportation. Interesting times ahead.
“there will be those who will be rightly skeptical of the commercial companies.â€
“Those who do are part of the unwashed masses and don’t know anything about spaceflight”
Just like the sub prime mortgage industry, huh? Those big business guys really know what they are doing.
Commercial companies have spent billions on some of the biggest blunders in history and frequently take the public for all it’s worth on hopeless projects that defy physics- like SSTO.
Byeman, you have alot to learn. This member of the unwashed masses considers you……well, I want this comment to get posted so I can’t say.
Rick Boozer wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 11:49 am
Perhaps you cannot comprehend your own postings. Bolden and Garver are old business. Accept it, clean house, cut budgets and press on. Otherwise, have your resume ready. The Cold war ended 20 years ago and with it, the rationale for keeping NASA around as is.
@Rick Boozer wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 10:09 am
@ablastofhotair“Elon Musk funded astroturfers should be more subtle.â€
“Really? You have no evidence that any of us that back the commercial option have been bought. I can state from years of experience that Rand…”
Uh-huh. It’s self-evident. The shills abound. Anybody who lobbys with poor decision-makers such as Bob Walker (a New Gingrich and Fred Thompson supporter BTW) says it all.
Rand Simberg wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
If SpaceX has a string of successful capsule flights, people will be happy to fly with them if the price is good, and prefer not to have to spend six months training in Russia and learning Russian.
ROFLMAO Soyuz has been flying humans into space since the late 1960’s– for over 40 years. SpaceX has not flown ANYBODY.
Rand Simberg wrote:
“As for the prices, it’s not about price. Once there is an American alternative, Soyuz is out of business for NASA money, because every year we have to purchase their services is another year that Congress has to waive INKSNA for them. If Elon can match the Soyuz price, he’ll get the business. As will Boeing.”
I did specify the different purchasers, tourists versus government employees. Governments would, I believe, be willing to accept more risk for a reduced price. Billionaire tourists on the other hand, when listening to the sales pitch, might be more cautious.
“I understand Mister Jones, but would your wife and kids like to see you fly on a brand new launch system that has only flown passengers a couple times or ride the Soyuz that has successfully flown ..blah blah blah.”
As far as selling points, I could make one hell of a case to a potential customer about riding new versus established. (fear factor) Tourists have already been willing to spend twice as much as what SpaceX has proposed. I have a feeling that the insurance premiums will run lower for Soyuz in the beginning also.
NPO Energia has increased the production to five for the manned soyuz and if NASA does not use them anymore they will have 3 flights to be sold either to the other partners of the ISS or tourists. If NASA is not the customer they would drop the prices and even if they are higher than SpaceX I believe their record will allow them a premium for the beginning tourist market.
As you say “match the price” of soyuz, meaning SpaceX doesn’t really have to come in at that 20 million per seat price Musk has so often used. If NASA only has one alternative to Soyuz, and it is a domestic provider like SpaceX, SpaceX will only have to skate under the Soyuz rate and still get the launches. I believe it will take that second destination from Bigelow and a third provider like Boeing to start the real downward slide in prices.
@DCSCA
@ablastofhotair“Elon Musk funded astroturfers should be more subtle.â€
“Really? You have no evidence that any of us that back the commercial option have been bought. I can state from years of experience that Rand…â€
Uh-huh. It’s self-evident. The shills abound. Anybody who lobbys with poor decision-makers such as Bob Walker (a New Gingrich and Fred Thompson supporter BTW) says it all.”
You just showed your hubris. I can HONESTLY state to you that I am NOT on the take from any company and neither is Rand. All I care about is making sure that my country becomes the number one space faring nation in the world. I don’t care WHICH company or companies make it possible. Only a coward would charge me or someone else with that from behind a pseudonym.
I will admit that you are a bit more eloquent with you obfuscation and misdirection of the issues than ablastofhotair. However, if you are going to charge someone who is openly revealing who he is with dishonest actions, the least you could do is not cower behind a false name. But go ahead and have the last word, even if you’re not making a valid point with solid logic behind it, since the endorphin boost from that seems to be what you are really after.
“If Elon can match the Soyuz price, he’ll get the business. As will Boeing.â€
No, Liberty will be flying our astronauts for the next several decades. A test flight in 2013 puts them way ahead of the pack.
It’s the money that counts- all those decades and billions spent on perfecting the SRB, and on the European upper stage, which is basically what we were building with the J-2X, except Ariane is already done and has flown 40 times. All the data from Ares1x is going to decide the outcome.
The competition is over. The only question is what capsule is going to go on top? Since the LAS for Orion is already tested I guess that question has already been answered.
VirgilSamms wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
{quote}Just like the sub prime mortgage industry, huh? Those big business guys really know what they are doing.
Commercial companies have spent billions on some of the biggest blunders in history and frequently take the public for all it’s worth on hopeless projects that defy physics- like SSTO.
{/quote}
@VirgilSamms, if you want to say something sensible use the same definitions as everyone else. The “Commercial companies” are the small ones.line SpaceX and Bigelow. It is the old space companies like Boeing that are the big ones.
Byeman, those “unwashed masses” you speak of do include members of the relevant Congressional committees on both the House and Senate side. Their reaction has ranged from a couple cases of enthusasism (Rohrbacher for one) to skepticism (the majority) to downright hostile (the rest). What it’s going to take for Congress to go along with the Commercial crew side of things is not only the commercial sector talking with these members, showing their ideas, and demonstrating that this approach to LEO is good for NASA and the country. Not to mention flying actual hardware-including people-in due course. Pissing off members of Congress or dismissing concerns expressed by members on these committees is a fast way to your plans not getting Congressional approval.
Ron: do you agree that Charlie would still have problems, even if the House hadn’t gone the GOP’s way? Because it seems that every time he’s on The Hill, especially on the House side, he gets flayed alive.
“If Elon can match the Soyuz price, he’ll get the business.”
<- ROFLMAO A totally bogus pitch. SpaceX has no operational manned spacecraft. 'Elon' has flown no one. (but plans to retire on Mars}. Meanwhile, manned Soyuz spacecraft have been flying over 40 years. Good grief.
Matt Wiser wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
“Ron: do you agree that Charlie would still have problems, even if the House hadn’t gone the GOP’s way?”
I guess you didn’t watch any of the Senate or House hearings on the NASA budget proposal last year?
You keep forgetting about the power of political pork. Why is that?
You could have put Neil Armstrong up there selling the Administrations NASA budget proposal, and maybe they would have been nicer, but they still wouldn’t have liked it, Democrat or Republican.
Remember what districts the members on the relevant committees represent. They don’t want the status quo money going into their districts & patrons to be upset. Very few of the committee members have a genuine interest in space related issues, while some that do have close ties to existing NASA contractors that would be affected by the changes proposed by the Administration.
So don’t be so naive about the power of “one-on-one chats”. This is politics.
“No, Liberty will be flying our astronauts for the next several decades. A test flight in 2013 puts them way ahead of the pack. ”
Your alternative pink reality is a fun one. Can I get ticket?
If NASA only has one alternative to Soyuz, and it is a domestic provider like SpaceX, SpaceX will only have to skate under the Soyuz rate and still get the launches.
Again, price is pretty much irrelevant, within broad bounds. Every year that we have to rely on the Russians for rides and lifeboats is another year that we have to waive INKSNA in order to purchase their services. The day that an American provider is available, it will get the business and the Russians will be looking for other customers.
And if SpaceX has a few consecutive successes, they’ll get plenty of business from billionaires (and multi-millionaires), very few of whom have the time or the inclination to spend months training in Russia and Russian. The market will vastly expand once this requirement goes away.
“Again, price is pretty much irrelevant, within broad bounds.”
You have me really confused Rand. I must have read a dozen times you saying the only thing that matters is the price per kilogram to orbit.
I guess something else matters.
@Rand Simberg wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 3:35 pm
“And if SpaceX has a few consecutive successes, they’ll get plenty of business from billionaires (and multi-millionaires), very few of whom have the time or the inclination to spend months training in Russia and Russian. The market will vastly expand once this requirement goes away.”
Not if shills like you keep posting comments like this, from another thread: “Crew is more valuable than a billion-dollar reconnaissance satellite in a war? I don’t think so. Crew is more valuable than a two-billion dollar Shuttle orbiter? Nope. We have lots of astronauts (a surplus, in fact), and plenty of people willing and able to replace them. Hardware is much more valuable.†-Rand Simberg.
You have me really confused Rand. I must have read a dozen times you saying the only thing that matters is the price per kilogram to orbit.
When it comes to American vehicles, yes. Not Russian ones.
Swallow, you are wrong as usual.
Commercial includes Boeing and others. It is people like you that erroneously apply it to only nuspace.
“Liberty will be flying our astronauts for the next several decades”
Another idiotic statement by VirgilSamms. Lets count the ways:
1. It is only a power point concept
2. It hasn’t even been validated that it is feasible
3. It is commercial vehicle, so it would have to compete with everything else and there is no guarantee that it will be flying any of “our” astronauts, much less for decades
4. It won’t be available for NASA missions because it will have less than 50 percent USA content.
5. The Liberty does not have any advantages over other vehicles, except for marketing lies that the unwashed masses believe.
6. It is a subpar vehicle just like Ares I.
7. Only the unwashed masses believe Ares I-X was a valid engineering exercise.
Ron: I watched those hearings, and some of ‘em, especially on the House side, did get testy. Even with the Democrats in control of the House, things certainly weren’t going the Administration’s way. And remember the exchange between Bolden and one GOP member over the ChiComs beating us back to the Moon, and Charlie not being concerned? The GOP is running the House, and he’d better placate the GOP members if he wants their approval for the new budget. On the Senate side, Bill Nelson and Kay Bailey Hutchinson were pretty strong with him, though Nelson was somewhat more accomodating to Commercial than Hutchinson is. But the Senate wrote the NASA Authorization, and it didn’t give the Administration what it wanted originally, and even in the revised proposal.
FWIW, any congresscritter whose constitutents would be threatened by a major shift in NASA policy would be derelict in his/her duty to those constitutents in not fighting to keep jobs, companies, etc. in their district. It’s not just with NASA, but look at DOD: whenver they try to kill a major weapons system, it’s not just prime contractors, but subcontractors, and sub-sub contractors whose congresscritters holler bloody murder. Remember Tip O’Neil’s saying? “All politics is local”. Same thing here. When policy changes affect the people who sent them to D.C., they act to either (a) make sure those changes don’t happen, or (b) failing that, those changes do affect their constitutents in a positive way.
VirgilSamms wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
“I must have read a dozen times you saying the only thing that matters is the price per kilogram to orbit.”
For cargo the unit of measure would be $/kg. For humans, it’s $/seat.
Of course there will be size limitations, just like on airliners, so it’s going to adversely affect the number of NFL linemen and NBA players that get rides…
To quote from “First Lensman” — the novel by E.E. Smith in which the leading character is “Virgil Samms”.
Kinnison: “You know more about what Communism was, I suppose, than I do.”
Samms: “Just that it was another form of dictatorship that didn’t work out.”
Somehow, I don’t think the one using the VirgilSamms name above quite got the message….
FWIW, any congresscritter whose constitutents would be threatened by a major shift in NASA policy would be derelict in his/her duty to those constitutents in not fighting to keep jobs, companies, etc. in their district.
“A statesman, never losing sight of principles, is to be guided by circumstances; and judging contrary to the exigencies of the moment he may ruin his Country for ever.†— Edmund Burke
Politicians in a republic have a duty to their country as well as to their constituents.
Right on, Rand. As I’m sure you know, it extends even farther than that. Citizens in a republic have a duty to their country as well as themselves. That’s a lesson that people like ablastofhotair should learn.
Matt Wiser wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
“And remember the exchange between Bolden and one GOP member over the ChiComs beating us back to the Moon, and Charlie not being concerned?”
I’m not worried either. They could announce they’re going to Pluto, and I still wouldn’t be worried. Explain why we should be worried – specifically, how does it impact us?
“When policy changes affect the people who sent them to D.C., they act to either (a) make sure those changes don’t happen, or (b) failing that, those changes do affect their constitutents in a positive way.”
Which is why it doesn’t matter WHO goes in front of Congress when big changes to money distribution is proposed. No one wants their cheese moved.
“But the Senate wrote the NASA Authorization, and it didn’t give the Administration what it wanted originally, and even in the revised proposal.”
The NASA Authorization Act tracked the Administrations proposals pretty good program-wise, and it was just a matter of how much programs got & timing that was different. Constellation cancelled, commercial crew is the law of the land (MPCV is only a backup).
We had a party to celebrate – didn’t you get the invite?
Rand: In the ideal world, I would happily agree with you. But, when constitutents’ jobs and businesses are threatened by policy or acquisition changes in any government agency, the first reaction of the congresscritters is to do whatever it takes to protect their constitutents. Tip O’Neil’s adage, “All politics is local” applies very much here. And if that policy decision can’t be changed, then the congresscritter will do what he/she can to ensure that their constitutents do benefit in some way from the new change. (i.e. suggesting that companies in their districts bid on new programs, for example)
Ron: I was pleased at the Authorization Act. It’s the right balance between the disaster of the original FY 11 request (and the revised one) and what some in Congress wanted (keep going with CxP). But how much money commercial crew will get is still TBD-and some on the Hill say they’re getting too much at the expense of Heavy-lift and Orion. As for the ChiComs, the idea of someone beating us back to the Moon doesn’t make certain members of Congress (usually GOP ones) very happy. National pride still counts in this world, like it or not.
As for the party, I didn’t get an invite. My regrets at not attending, but it never arived in the mailbox….
Matt Wiser wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Here is what Congress swears an oath to when they take office:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Local politics is a given, but they have an obligation to a higher calling. There are those that rise to it, and there are those that see being elected as a way to sweeten their pot. Such is life.
The real test is when something affects the livelihood of someone’s district. They should fight for the best possible outcome for their constituents, but not at the detriment of making the nation weaker.
Regarding the NASA Authorization Act, I guess we just have different perspectives, but I guess the good part is we both see it as a win, regardless if we differ about how close it tracks the Administrations original budget request. However, saying that it keeps CxP going is a wildly generous interpretation of the facts, as only pieces and parts have been kept, and not even fully funded.
“But how much money commercial crew will get is still TBD-and some on the Hill say they’re getting too much at the expense of Heavy-lift and Orion.”
Let’s compare.
Commercial crew is all about creating a capitalist system for crew and cargo transportation, which will allow government AND non-government commerce expand outside of NASA-only funding.
The SLS and MPCV are all about keeping a government-funded transportation system going, which will NOT allow commercial companies to leverage it’s capabilities.
You can guess what plan capitalists like me support.
“National pride still counts in this world, like it or not.”
It’s one thing to have pride, it’s another to act foolish. Some people have problems separating the two.
I sure do, and that’s where reasonable people can disagree. Orion/MPCV and SLS are needed for BEO, and I think that’s one thing we can agree on. Notice I mentioned that there were those in Congress who wanted to keep going with CxP-and the language killing that will be official soon,once the CR is signed into law. Then it’s done. The big question is this: How much will Commercial Crew get out of it? Bolden and the Commercial sector are going to have to press the flesh with members of Congress not on the relevant committees-as well as talking long and hard with those who are-to get the funding they want. What they need to do is show that Commercial to LEO enables NASA to go BEO. But given the way things were spun to the contrary last year, it’s still going to be a tough sell.
It’s the same thing over at DOD…especially when base closings and weapon system cancellations come up. There are congresscritters who are very strong advocates of both-until the base in their district is on the chopping block, or the weapon being built by a contractor in their district is axed. Then they fight tooth and nail for their constitutents.
@ Matt Wiser wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
“National pride still counts in this world, like it or not.”
Yeah, I did not find the amendment to the Constitution that says that the Federal Government is responsible for national pride. Then again it must be tucked somewhere with the one that says NASA is all about “manned space exploration”.
Ah and I am not sure how a big rocket would nurture national pride. Would you care to elaborate?
Oh well…
In case you haven’t noticed-or don’t seem to care-the congresscritters (who write the checks) are the ones who were pretty harsh with Charlie Bolden last year, and you can bet they will this time around. When Bolden said he didn’t care if the ChiComs beat us back to the Moon, the Congressman who asked him that question replied “It does to me.” And this was in the House Science and Technology Committee. (not the subcommittee dealing with NASA, but the full committee). To many in the GOP (and probably the Democrats, too) China is seen as a competitor, not a partner. And the idea of someone beating us back to the Moon is something certain parties can’t stomach. And when those people are in a position to determine NASA funding, that should paint a picture.
@ Matt Wiser wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
“And the idea of someone beating us back to the Moon is something certain parties can’t stomach. ”
No one is beating us “back” to the Moon. This is getting tiresome. China does not care and if they were to care it is because they would fund our initiative to the Moon, which in turn would fill their coffers even more with interest payments. China has a lot more on their plates than going to the Moon.
National pride? Millions unemployed yet we establish a “return to the Moon” program. Misplaced pride I think.
To you, perhaps. To those who sit on the relevant Congressional Committees, it isn’t. Especially those in the House, now that it’s GOP controlled.
@ Matt Wiser wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
“To you, perhaps. To those who sit on the relevant Congressional Committees, it isn’t. Especially those in the House, now that it’s GOP controlled.”
Nope you get this one very, very wrong. It does not matter to me and to most citizens of this country (GOPs and Dems included) and of the rest of the world.
Congress will not give you a return to the Moon program at the cost of Constellation. And probably not even if the cost is 10% that of Constellation.
Congress on the other hand will provide a lot of rhetorical nonsense to attract voters who think it is a vital issue for this country. Catch my drift?
But you are free to believe otherwise.
Like it or not, but National Pride still counts these days. Care to say otherwise to members of Congress? If you want Congress to approve NASA’s budget, those kinds of things do appeal to them-not just the ones on the Committees. Even if the Dems had retained control of the House, the Administration would’ve had a fight anyway-look at how they rejected the FY 11 requests and wrote their own.