Two hearings on Capitol Hill yesterday covered, or at least referred to, NASA’s current budget situation, although neither appeared to make any breakthroughs, and other developments suggested that, if anything, the agency’s budget prospects may be worsening.
The Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee conducted a hearing on oversight of NASA and the NSF, with NASA inspector general Paul Martin as one of the witnesses. In his prepared testimony, Martin mentioned his warning to Congress last month about NASA being forced to spend money on Constellation systems that will not be continued under the plan laid out in the agency’s new authorization act. He also warned about cost overruns on the James Webb Space Telescope and finding the money for the additional shuttle flight included in the authorization act, according to Nature News’s summary of the hearing. The subcommittee’s chairman, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), and others did ask about overlap between Earth sciences research performed by NASA and those by other agencies, but Martin said that was a policy issue he could not address.
While the subcommittee was examining NASA, the chairman of the full committee said more budget cuts would be coming. Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) issued a statement Thursday saying he would increase the budget cuts in the committee’s planned FY11 continuing resolution to $100 billion. The committee’s plans earlier this week included $74 billion in cuts, $58 billion in non-security discretionary programs, but some fiscal conservatives wants to see that level increased to the $100 billion previously sought by House GOP leadership. “Our intent is to make deep but manageable cuts in nearly every area of government, leaving no stone unturned and allowing no agency or program to be held sacred,” Rogers said in the statement. No specific details about how the committee will make those additional cuts—including how much for NASA overall, or to specific programs—have been released.
Meanwhile, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee held its organizational meeting Thursday and released its oversight plan, which covers the portions of NASA and other agencies it will be overseeing. Members of the committee also made plans to attend this month’s launch of the shuttle Discovery, with some advice from the committee’s ranking member, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX): “I just want everybody to know that the schedule is frequently changed because of weather,” she said, according to Florida Today. “Don’t go and be disappointed if you go and it doesn’t take off.”
The committee’s new chairman, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), did make one interesting comment the Florida Today article picked up on. “My goal is to keep our position in space, keep our leadership in space and keep our national and international partners,” he said. “I’m not urging anybody to go to Mars right now or back to the moon, or any place when people can’t go to the grocery store. The economy has to be good. But we’ve got to continue to work toward it and plan for it.”
Hall made a very similar comment later Thursday at a Space Transportation Association reception in his honor. “Space is in trouble,” he said in brief remarks, mentioning in passing proposed budget cuts by House appropriators. “We have to preserve our position in space. We just can’t let it slip away.”
“I don’t know what we really want to do. I want to go to Mars someday and I want to go back to the Moon someday but I don’t think we want to go back when our people can’t go to the grocery store,” he said. “That means that maybe we can’t go in this economy but we have to keep working towards it. Let’s keep planning for it, and let’s keep encouraging people to go, whether it’s commercial or otherwise.”
Perceived development problems with the JWST lie solely with those who did the planning. It is not late or over budget. Neither the schedule nor the costs were estimate properly. Isn’t it remarkable with a century’s worth of data on technological development that project estimation is still a shot in the dark? The problem is that realistic planning is always tainted by management’s unreasonable expectations of time and cost.
As for Mr. Hall’s comments, no one can be happy with the lowly state of NASA. An honest person cannot deny the damage done to the agency by the current NASA leadership team.
@ablastofhotair
“Isn’t it remarkable with a century’s worth of data on technological development that project estimation is still a shot in the dark?”
Not so much a shot in the dark as it is a condemnation of cost-plus contracting where there is little incentive to make a serious effort to give an initial budget estimate that will match later reality. Thus, to blame it on the current NASA leadership is more of your superficial poppycock.
An honest person cannot deny the damage done to the agency by the current NASA leadership team.
Oh, and I suppose the unfunded mandate that was CxP had nothing to do with it, eh?
Have much practice with Double-Speak Windy? You’re pretty good at it, lol.
Oh, and I suppose the unfunded mandate that was CxP had nothing to do with it, eh?
All I know is that Ares I-X flew successfully at the end of 2009 and the US was tracking for a return to the moon. Heck, it was voted as the best invention of 2009. And then the Visigoths stormed the gates and it was gone. My criticism of Holdren, Garver, Bolden, and Obama is that they trashed the program of record a full year into Obama’s term without creating any consensus about what comes next. You break it, you bought it.
Sounds like NASA’s biggest supporters among conservatives in the House have surrendered defending appropriations for the agency at least for the short term.
Limited funding takes me back to Obama’s plan to delay heavy lift development until 2016. We need to focus on human-rating the lifters we’ve got and developing cheaper LEO access, which means commercial competition, and completing the Orion capsule.
Suspect wherever the money goes under the House leadership, ATK, Lockheed and Boeing, et al won’t be left an empty plate.
All I know is that Ares I-X flew successfully at the end of 2009 and the US was tracking for a return to the moon. Heck, it was voted as the best invention of 2009.
Ares I-X was no more the proposed final Ares I rocket than an Estes model rocket is a spaceship. It went only to sounding rocket altitude, not even reaching HALF the maximum altitude of SpaceShip One. It cost NASA $450 million just to launch that one rocket and they have paid SpaceX less than 270 million to date for TWO orbital launches of Falcon 9 with one spacecraft returned from orbit. And it was those brilliant technical minds at Time magazine that voted Ares-I as invention of the year based on nothing but hype. It was a dog and pony show to give the impression that more progress was being made than actually was.
You are truly a masochist!
@amightywind wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 11:40 am
“All I know is that Ares I-X flew successfully at the end of 2009 and the US was tracking for a return to the moon.”
Yeah well by your own admission it is ALL you actually know and that does not make you an expert and just lowered the value, if any, of your comments.
“Heck, it was voted as the best invention of 2009.”
Who voted it the best invention? Can you ever be a little more assertive in your observations?! Ever?
As for the rest…
They won’t need to human rate anything except the vehicle that is already human rated; Liberty. At less than 180 million a launch, it is now the vehicle of choice, hands down, and has completely changed the entire outlook for commercial crew.
The 5 segment motor is based on the space shuttle’s solid rocket booster, which has a spotless flight record over the last 23 years (214 flawless firings)
The Ariane 5 rocket is the world’s leading commercial satellite launcher, having flown 41 straight successful missions. And unlike the cargo rockets in the competition, was originally human rated for the Hermes space plane.
It can lift more than any of it’s competitors, it makes use of existing facilities and works in concert with the coming HLV.
It is the winner everyone has been waiting for- and just made losers of everyone else trying to pirate NASA HSF dollars.
You can push down on the flush handle for musk or the other cargo rockets ever carrying anyone. The stick is going to fly.
amightywind wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 8:23 am
“Perceived development problems with the JWST lie solely with those who did the planning. It is not late or over budget. Neither the schedule nor the costs were estimate properly.”
It is kind of like Col. Flagg’s statements you pushed out but really the above is the most stunning indictment of NASA management that I have read in sometime from someone who claims to be their friend.
Robert G. Oler
My criticism of Holdren, Garver, Bolden, and Obama is that they trashed the program of record a full year into Obama’s term without creating any consensus about what comes next.
They trashed it after the Augustine Committee determined that it would cost taxpayers an additional 5-9 Billion dollars a year to get CxP back on track to where it could Ares 1 built. Not politically viable, despite of your double-speak. And in August 2009 the GAO determined that CxP wasn’t able to close its business case.
And the cost of $445 million to launch Ares 1-X? Please.
You’re a hoot Windy. Are you sure you’re not Stephen Colbert?
It is kind of like Col. Flagg’s statements you pushed out but really the above is the most stunning indictment of NASA management that I have read in sometime from someone who claims to be their friend.
It is not my indictment on NASA project management, it is my indictment on the profession. A personal view developed over 20 years.
They trashed it after the Augustine Committee determined that it would cost taxpayers an additional 5-9 Billion dollars
I wonder how many shots at defining the future of NASA an ‘Augustine Committee’ is going to have? It was packed, both times, with democrat operatives. What we could really use is an ‘Armstrong Committee’.
VirgilSamms wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
“They won’t need to human rate anything except the vehicle that is already human rated; Liberty.”
Ignorance is bliss for you, isn’t it?
“At less than 180 million a launch”
No, $180M. Pay attention to words. And that’s their forecast, with lots of assumptions that have to be right before that price is reached.
“The 5 segment motor is based on the space shuttle’s solid rocket booster, which has a spotless flight record over the last 23 years”
But gee, the Shuttle has been flying for 30 years, so why do you only go back 23? Oh yeah, that big spot on it’s record where it failed, causing the loss of all aboard. No one is perfect, but there is no need to hide the truth either.
“The Ariane 5 rocket is the world’s leading commercial satellite launcher, having flown 41 straight successful missions…”
As a 1st stage engine, not a 2nd stage. Small details to you are big details to potential customers.
“It can lift more than any of it’s competitors…”
If you compare it to a smaller launcher, like Atlas V, well of course it can lift more. But it lifts LESS than Ariane 5 (whose 1st stage it uses) and less than Delta IV Heavy. And SpaceX is working on deploying their Falcon 9 Heavy, which lifts 50% more mass to LEO, and for about half the cost ($95M vs $180M).
Also, you ignore the needs of the customers. Boeing only needs an Atlas V or Falcon 9 lifter to put their CST-100 capsule into LEO, and both of those cost FAR LESS than Liberty. Same with Dream Chaser, which plans to use Atlas V.
So where is the Liberty advantage? It costs more for simple capsules, and it lifts less than existing (and proven) liquid-fueled launchers.
“It is the winner everyone has been waiting for- and just made losers of everyone else trying to pirate NASA HSF dollars.”
If that’s true, then show us the facts & figures. Who is “waiting for it”, and why?
Ralph Hall’s concept of planning for America’s future in space is to go no place fast.
“I wonder how many shots at defining the future of NASA an ‘Augustine Committee’ is going to have? It was packed, both times, with democrat operatives.”
Yeah, they were all “Democrat operatives”, just like when you claimed all of the supporters of commercial space were left wing radicals. BTW, how do you explain the TEA Party members who support commercial? Oh wait, I know! They’re all secret undercover Democrats!
You truly are our entertainment here, Windy.
“They won’t need to human rate anything except the vehicle that is already human rated; Liberty.
What’s human rated? The 5-stack has been ground fired but not flight tested. The 2nd stage has never been air started and wasn’t even designed for doing that. It may have been designed in the beginning for the Hermes shuttle but that was a long, long time ago!
“At less than 180 million a launch, it is now the vehicle of choice, hands down, and has completely changed the entire outlook for commercial crew.”
Who says it’ll be $180 million? ATK? Question: does that number include the costs to use the VAB, LCC, crawler, LC-39, etc? If not, how much will all that cost/who’s paying for it?
“The 5 segment motor is based on the space shuttle’s solid rocket booster, which has a spotless flight record over the last 23 years (214 flawless firings)”
It might be based on the shuttle’s SRB but with the 5th segment and different propellant fill it makes it a different rocket. Orion might be based on the Apollo capsule but that doesn’t mean they are the same thing.
“The Ariane 5 rocket is the world’s leading commercial satellite launcher, having flown 41 straight successful missions. And unlike the cargo rockets in the competition, was originally human rated for the Hermes space plane.”
What’s your point? In this configuration its being used as a 2nd stage. A mission it was never designed for so must of that experience doesn’t count for much.
“It can lift more than any of its competitors, it makes use of existing facilities and works in concert with the coming HLV.”
Very debatable. We have just the preliminary numbers and we know how they can change. By using an solid as a 1st stage they’ve locked themselves into it. Very hard to do any upgrading or modifications there. And with existing facilities that means you’re locked into their costs as well. Who know if the HLV will even be built?
“It is the winner everyone has been waiting for- and just made losers of everyone else trying to pirate NASA HSF dollars.”
Everyone? More like a bunch of people in Utah worried about their jobs…
“You can push down on the flush handle for musk or the other cargo rockets ever carrying anyone. The stick is going to fly.”
Yeah right.
It was packed, both times, with democrat operatives.
Surrre Windy. They were also secret Chinese Manchurian candidates sent to destroy our illustrious Constellation Program that was to land Americans back on the Moon by 2020..er..2025..er..203…35.
Dirty Chinese Democrats!
Coastal Ron:
Great minds think alike…
“Perceived development problems with the JWST lie solely with those who did the planning. It is not late or over budget.”
The team reasponsible for the project is also responsible for the budget estimates. Whether the error was made on day 1 or 5 years later, they set the budget and the deadline and grossly missed both. It doesn’t matter one lick if the error came early or late, it was an error, and a big one.
“They won’t need to human rate anything except the vehicle that is already human rated; Liberty.”
Falcon 9 is essentially human rated. There isn’t a component that needs to change on it to fly crew. That has been true since day one. And that’s the valid comparison. Remember, Liberty doesn’t have a capsule. It’s just an engine, as is Falcon 9. And I dare say, unlike Falcon 9/Dragon, which will remain substantially similar to the model that flew late last year, Liberty will have to undergo a lot of changes. SRB’s have been man rated. 5-segment SRB’s have not. Ariane as a second stage hasn’t either, and the whole stack from top to bottom is a radical change from anything ATK has done before. They talk as though SRB’s, the Shuttle and Liberty are one and the same. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Throw into that the fact that ATKs design uses solid motors with all of their attendant safety issues, and the sure-bet looks a little more doubtful.
“At less than 180 million a launch, it is now the vehicle of choice, hands down, and has completely changed the entire outlook for commercial crew. ”
Falcon 9/Dragon would be 150 million last I saw, almost a 17% discount on Liberty. That is assuming Liberty’s costs wont’ go up. Falcon/Dragon has been around a while and their prices have largely stabilized. Liberty is a napkin sketch and any launch is essentially a WAG (Wild-@#$ Guess). And unlike Liberty, the Falcon 9/Dragon cost includes the capsule as well. Liberty has no current capsule, so the final chosen capsule would be in addition to that amount. For an even more valid comparison that takes capsule out of the equation, the cost/kg to LEO for Falcon 9 is estimated at 5,359. F9 Heavy is estimated at 2,969. Liberty? 8,899/kg to LEO. In short, it would cost less to launch roughly the equivalent amount on two F9’s than it would to launch one Liberty (Falcon 9 is estimated to cost $56 million per launch).
Granted, Liberty would be capable of launching more cargo on a single launch than Falcon 9, but I see that as a liability as much as an asset. Some excess capacity is good, but a lot of excess capacity means paying for lift you don’t need. Perhaps Liberty is well-placed for beyond LEO, but for ISS resupply it significantly overshoots the mark. Even so, Falcon 9 Heavy could be ready in 2-3 years and would outpace Liberty’s LEO capacity by over 50% if the need was expressed. Liberty has no lower-lift design and it’s lift is under SpaceX’s heavy lift capability.
I like that ATK has stopped whining to revive Cx and put its hat in the ring. I support any and all comers on the commercial front and I wish them all well. I hope they all succeed and would be exceedingly happy if even a few make it. But ATK’s design is not a slam dunk. They’ve got as much fight on their hands as anyone else. And that’s exactly the way it should be.
“They won’t need to human rate anything except the vehicle that is already human rated; Liberty.”
How can a launch vehicle be “human rated [sic]” before it has undergone flight testing? Critical design review? Preliminary design review? System requirements review?
Think before you post.
“At less than 180 million a launch, it is now the vehicle of choice, hands down, and has completely changed the entire outlook for commercial crew.”
Why would a vehicle with a stated per launch cost that is nearly four times Falcon 9 and about twice Atlas V be the “vehicle of choice”? How can something that is so much more costly than its competitors change the “outlook” in any market?
Again, think before you post.
“The 5 segment motor is based on the space shuttle’s solid rocket booster”
Only in the most general sense. The propellant chemistry, the propellant geometry, the number of motor segments, the burn duration, the acoustics, and more are all very different. Moreover, the five-segment flies in completely different vehicle configuration (single stick) than the four-segment (Shuttle stack), where it does not have the benefits of the Shuttle stack providing dampening and attitude control during flight.
It’s like comparing a diesel engine on a tractor trailer to the four cylinder gas engine in my wife’s car. They’re only generally related to each other, and one certainly cannot substitute for the other.
“The Ariane 5 rocket is the world’s leading commercial satellite launcher, having flown 41 straight successful missions.”
Which has nothing to do with Liberty. Liberty doesn’t use the same first stage (or boosters) as Ariane 5, and its second stage employs a completely different rocket engine.
Again, think before you post.
“And unlike the cargo rockets in the competition, was originally human rated for the Hermes space plane.”
Ariane 5 is a good GEO workhorse, but it was never human-rated. Hermes was cancelled in 1992, nearly a half-decade before the first Ariane 5 launch in 1996.
Don’t make stuff up.
Moreover, you human-rate the integrated system, not the launcher in isolation. Even if Ariane 5/Hermes had been human-rated, that doesn’t mean that Ariane 5 is human-rated for launching other spaceplanes or capsules.
“It can lift more than any of it’s competitors”
No, it can’t. Delta IV Heavy has several tons more throw weight.
“it makes use of existing facilities”
Unlikely. The height probably requires expensive modifications to the VAB, and there’s no completed launch stand that can acommodate this vehicle.
“and works in concert with the coming HLV.”
What “coming HLV”? NASA sent a letter to Congress stating that it can’t build an HLV to Congress’s specs/budget/schedule/constraints.
“It is the winner”
How? It’s not needed to launch any of the commercial capsules and spaceplanes currently in the running, it can’t launch Orion (unlike Delta IV Heavy), it loses on cost to Falcon 9 and Atlas V by a factor of 2-4, it’s first stage is unflown, it’s second-stage engine likely can’t be built (like the air-start SSME that the original four-segment Ares I design was based on), and it send U.S. taxpayer dollars overseas to create foreign jobs.
“everyone has been waiting for”
“Everyone” who? Who in NASA is saying they want this? Which commercial capsules/spaceplane providers are saying they want this?
Don’t make stuff up.
“and just made losers of everyone else trying to pirate NASA HSF dollars.”
So you admit that ATK/Astrium are trying to “pirate NASA HSF dollars” with Liberty?
“The stick is going to fly.”
This isn’t Griffin’s “Stick”. It’s yet another, substantially different vehicle.
Sigh…
What we could really use is a space program funded to meet mission goals and not political payback.
We need a mission. That is the only way to put the politicians in their place. I would say planetary protection is that mission. That is how the money will go from DOD to NASA. That is how the nukes will go from DOD to NASA. And that is how human space flight will finally go from NASA to some air force officers in charge of the weapons on the spaceships.
Get the nuclear industry involved- the space industry is a nuclear industry.
Get the robotic refineries to produce water at the lunar poles.
Get the water into the spaceships as a radiation shield.
Get the nuclear propulsion systems on line to go into deep space.
We have a planetary protection panel in operation right now if I am not mistaken. Why don’t we all write them a letter and all of us sign it?
If any of you have the guts.
“The 5 segment motor is based on the space shuttle’s solid rocket booster, which has a spotless flight record over the last 23 years (214 flawless firings)”
And there’s a BIG difference between the characteristics of a 4 segment booster and a 5. For one thing the vibrational harmonics will be lower due to the longer combustion column, making the infrasonics that show up as severe vibration even worse. Not to mention the extra flexing loads due to the increased length. Thus, any human rating of the 4 segment would not carry over to the 5. Also, the new COMBINATION of the first and second stage boosters will have to be been man-rated.
There are a number of other issues as well, but I have better uses for my time than to explain them to someone whose religion won’t even accept the possibility that they exist. And you are A TRUE BELIEVER in the old way of doing things.
Take a reality pill and call me in the morning.
“it lifts less than existing (and proven) liquid-fueled launchers.”
You mean the Delta IV? And how much does that cost per launch? And how much more will it cost to human rate it?
Your Falcon heavy is a monstrosity and will never fly. Your arguments are full of holes- as usual. And the New York Times said “less than 180 million”; pay attention to other sources.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/business/global/08rocket.html?_r=3&src=busln
Excellent post, Coastal Ron. Certainly a lot more concise than my own.
“Granted, Liberty would be capable of launching more cargo on a single launch than Falcon 9, but I see that as a liability as much as an asset.”
I am sure you do.
Moreover, the five-segment flies in completely different vehicle configuration (single stick) than the four-segment (Shuttle stack), where it does not have the benefits of the Shuttle stack providing dampening and attitude control during flight.
Have to call BS here. The idea the coordinating 5 thrust chambers, aerosurfaces, and maneuvering thrusters on the shuttle stack is simpler in any sense to controlling a single SRB thrust chamber is completely laughable. Ares-IX flew straight and true.
It’s like comparing a diesel engine on a tractor trailer to the four cylinder gas engine in my wife’s car.
Your desperate exaggeration weakens your analogy. The the increase of thrust from a 4 segment SRB to a 5 is like upgrading from a V6 engine to a V8. Your wife would probably appreciate the performance improvement. Let’s face it. The 5 segment SRB is ready to go. I have more reservations about the anachronistic gas generator cycle design of the Merlin engine, and the bizarre thrust structure of the F9.
“All I know is that Ares I-X flew successfully at the end of 2009″
Since when do buckled motor casings and parachute failures represent a successful flight of anything?
Since when is a suborbital flight a substitute for orbital flight testing?
Since when is a dummy upper-stage a substitute for full system testing?
Since when is a four-segment SRB with different propellant chemistry, propellant geometry, burn duration, acoustics, and more a substitute for a five-segment SRB test?
Don’t make stuff up.
“and the US was tracking for a return to the moon.”
Since when do tens of billions of dollars in cost growth and multi-year schedule slips “track” for anything?
Since when do you “track for a return to the moon” by terminating your lander to pay for your crew capsule and launcher?
Since when do you “track for a return to the moon” by pushing out your HLV development to the 2030s, leaving nothing in the budget for systems to put on top of that HLV?
Put the Dixie cup down and step away from the Kool-Aid.
“Heck, it was voted as the best invention of 2009.”
Since when do the English majors editing a general public rag written at the 8th grade level know anything about innovation?
This is the technical expertise you’re relying on?
Really?
Cripes…
“My criticism of Holdren, Garver, Bolden, and Obama is that they trashed the program of record”
The PoR didn’t need any help from the White House or NASA leadership to be trashed. It did that all on its own long before the Obama Administration came to power. A number of independent GAO and CBO reports during the Bush Administration pointed out numerous fatal flaws with Ares I, Orion, and Constellation generally.
“a full year into Obama’s term without creating any consensus about what comes next.”
You do realize that Congress pass (by a large, bipartisan margin) and the President has signed a 2010 NASA Authorization Act that lays out the political consensus (good or bad) in great detail, right?
C’mon, read, comprehend, and think before you post.
“It was packed, both times, with democrat operatives.”
Please, enlighten us. Show us the voting record, party registration, lobbyist registration, and/or donations for each member of the Augustine Committee. You have the links, right?
I mean, you must have looked up that information before you threw around the term “democrat [sic] operatives”, right?
Surely, you, of all people, would never make a stupid statement out of ignorance, right?
Geez, Louise…
“Your Falcon heavy is a monstrosity and will never fly. Your arguments are full of holes- as usual.”
Really? You’re the first person I’ve ever heard make that claim. Your evidence is? I would say your argument is full of holes, but you haven’t supported your statement, so it’s actually not an argument.
The basic design of F9 is similar to several other EELV systems past and current. The only tick against it is the additional engines, and two engines per rocket are there for rundundant engine-out capability, something Liberty and the rest don’t have. Theoretically an F9 Heavy could have 6 engine failures and still reach nominal orbit. And, since Falcon 1 Flight 1, not one of those engines has failed.
“And the New York Times said “less than 180 millionâ€; pay attention to other sources.”
At $120 million for two F9 launches necessary to lift the same weight, it would have to be 33% cheaper. Considering nearly every rocket that has ever flown costs more, not less, than initial estimates, I’d say you’d have as much chance flying to orbit on Jules Verne’s hot air balloon as you would of getting Liberty to fly on 2/3 it’s initial cost estimates.
““Granted, Liberty would be capable of launching more cargo on a single launch than Falcon 9, but I see that as a liability as much as an asset.â€
I am sure you do.”
Ahh yes, taking out the critical next statement to make me look foolish. Nice trick, but it doesn’t actually refute anything. One of the strongest criticisms against Ares 1 was that it was too underpowered for BEO and way too overpowered for LEO. It’s a valid argument and I stand by it.
“The idea the coordinating 5 thrust chambers, aerosurfaces, and maneuvering thrusters on the shuttle stack is simpler in any sense to controlling a single SRB thrust chamber is completely laughable.”
Complexity isn’t the issue. Controllability is. If you don’t understand the difference, then you need to take a introductory aerospace engineering course before posting.
And that says nothing of the acoustics…
“The the increase of thrust from a 4 segment SRB to a 5 is like upgrading from a V6 engine to a V8.”
No, it’s not. The four- and five-segment SRBs use different propellant grains and different propellant geometry. As I stated, it’s like the difference between a diesel engine and gas engine.
Think before you post.
“The 5 segment SRB is ready to go. I have more reservations about the anachronistic gas generator cycle design of the Merlin engine, and the bizarre thrust structure of the F9.”
You’re arguing that a first-stage that has never flown before is “ready to go” but a complete vehicle than has succesfully flown twice is not?
Really?
Holy hypocrisy, Batman.
“The 5 segment SRB is ready to go.”
It’s ready to go for a first test flight in 2014. Falcon 9 is already flying, as is Delta IV. Throw in that they have a lot more to do than strap one more segment to the top and I’d say it’s a long way from ready to go.
“I have more reservations about the anachronistic gas generator cycle design of the Merlin engine, and the bizarre thrust structure of the F9.”
It’s the same basic design ont he Merlin as every other liquid system out there. And there have now been 23 Merlins that have flown with only one issue on the maiden flight. It’s reasonable to have reservations on any new rocket or motor, but it’s a bit paranoid this far along to have any more reservations than any other design.
The thrust structure is similarly not particularly odd. It’s more engines than similar rockets in its class, but it’s not some radical departure. And again, two have flown with minimal issues, exceeding the expectations of even some of SpaceX’s most vocal cheerleaders. For brand new engines on a brand new rocket, that’s actually pretty remarkable.
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/about/planetarydefense_taskforce.html
This is the ad hoc panel from last year. Unfortunately the co-chair is Mr. Rusty Schweickart who the last time I talked to his organization does not believe in anything Nuclear going into space. Which basically makes him a Luddite concerning BEO-HSF.
If NASA wants money the money is in planetary defense. And not any chemically propelled “gravity tug.”
Anybody have any contacts in the nuclear industry?
As for 27 engines on the “heavy”, that is so absurd even SpaceX has been hinting about it not being practical and waiting for a one million pound thrust engine. Do I have to dig up the press release? It is just pathetic to see this junker posted everywhere as if it really exists. It never will. The Russians tried going to the moon with a lot of little engines. Did not work then and will not now.
Even though we diverted quite a bit in our conversation here – again what’s new? – I would like to come back to Rep. Hall’s comments.
So he’s a TX representative and I feel like he is going somewhat against the general thrust from JSC (?). However, could he represent the famous light at the end of the notorious tunnel? I do not know, or remember, his previous comments but it could be interpreted as a support to CCDev, or commercial fixed-cost opportunities. A lot of people tend to forget but COTS originated at, or at least was located at JSC. In “direct competition” with the Ares/Orion program.
Maybe Robert could tell us a little more, being from TX?
VirgilSamms wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 3:13 pm
“And how much does that cost per launch? And how much more will it cost to human rate it?”
If you kept up on space matters, you would know that ULA answered that question back in 2009. ULA stated that it would cost $1.3B to add crew capabilities to Delta IV Heavy, of which $800M would be for the facilities and $500M for human rating, and it would cost $300M/flight after that.
Delta IV Heavy is already trusted by the DoD & NRO, and the liquid-fueled engines it uses provide a much smoother ride than the SRM-powered Liberty. Add in the fact that ATK would have to build a launch facility at Vandenberg to get significant DoD & NRO business, and it’s a tough road ahead for ATK/Astrium.
“Your Falcon heavy is a monstrosity and will never fly.”
Why? Every major rocket manufacturer in the world is either using or planning to use multi-core liquid-fueled launchers, which is what Falcon 9 Heavy is. What do you know that they don’t?
The anomaly is the SRM 1st stage Liberty. No one has ever launched humans on an SRM-only 1st stage, and it remains to be seen if anyone will WANT to. They shake like the dickens, and if something goes wrong, the LAS will likely cripple you with it’s 14G acceleration as it tries to outrun the SRM.
The burden of proof is on you and ATK to show that this concept works, is safe, and is competitive in the marketplace. So far none of those metrics have been shown in real life.
You’re great at using adjectives, but greatly short on facts. Try to change that.
@ablastofhotair
“Have to call BS here. The idea the coordinating 5 thrust chambers, aerosurfaces, and maneuvering thrusters on the shuttle stack is simpler in any sense to controlling a single SRB thrust chamber is completely laughable. Ares-IX flew straight and true.”
And you just inadvertently made his point. The two are sufficiently different from each other that man-rating of one does not imply automatic man-rating of the other. Also, as I have already pointed out to you, Ares I-X was not even close to being the proposed final Ares I and the so called Liberty is even more radically different. In your case charging someone else of B.S. is the ultimate hypocrisy.
But hey, you are our resident nutball paranoid conspiracy theorist who imagines “Democrat operatives” everywhere. We love you for it!
tps wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Aremis Asling wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
Lots of good perspectives, and I think the volume of responses showed that we didn’t want such a huge amount of false statements to confuse anyone.
Nice to be in good company.
It’s the same basic design ont he Merlin as every other liquid system out there.
As perceived by the ignorant, perhaps. The AJ26-58 (NK-33), on which the Taurus II is based, is a kerolox engine that uses modern staged combustion. It is both higher in thrust and ISP (297sSL) than the Merlin (275sSL).. (Gads, SpaceX chucks a lot of hardware into the Atlantic!) The Merlin uses the more primitive gas generator cycle.
:The AJ26-58 (NK-33), on which the Taurus II is based, is a kerolox engine that uses modern staged combustion. It is both higher in thrust and ISP (297sSL) than the Merlin (275sSL)..”
All of those points miss the real issue. It’s the final cost of $ per kg to orbit that counts. The Russians have always traded some ISP and overall efficiency to get economic returns from simplicity. Thus, their very successful strategy that is often referred to as the BDB (Big Dumb Booster). The rocket ends up being bigger and somewhat more massive than another that would lift the same sized payload from having to carry more propellant, but propellant costs are less than 1% of overall launch costs since a gallon of propellant costs less than a gallon of milk.
You can’t see the forest for the trees.
FWIW, posters on NSF who work for Astrum and know the Ariane-5 core and the Vulcain engine repeatedly say that Ariane-5 is not crew-rated and that modifying the core for use on Liberty would be enormously difficult and expensive. I’ve said so before, I’ll say it again. ATK is playing the “optimism isn’t a crime” card and is low-balling its figures.
common sense wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Hall is from TX-4 which is in the part of Texas (the east) that could have been a true “Southern state” ..TX-4 is up in the northern part of the eastern part of Texas…in a district that McCain carried by a really large amount (over 60 percent if I recall correctly)..it was only those large margins in the rural part that stopped Texas from going blue, the cities went for Obama.
Hall and the Texas GOP congressional delegation are between a rock and Debra Medina… or the tea party.
What the “less sophisticated” members of the tea party have been sold (or bought take your pick) is that 1) the cure to the economic ills are to fix deficit spending and 2) that spending can be cut by eliminating all those “liberal” programs that wont affect the good folks at all. So Hall and no other member of the Texas delegation will even think about engaging oh say Ag subsidies…but sadly for folks like Wind and Whittington and all the other “big space” folks…the notion of a multi hundred billion dollar program to go to the Moon or Mars or anywhere isnt a real big starter for most of the tea party groups AND the consequences of the end of the HSF program as it is currently practiced are really only felt in a tiny tiny part of District 22 TX. The rest of TX-22 where the district is really won or lost care more about well Ag subsidies.
Even Pete from TX-22 is feeling the heat. Pete needs the good folks in the JSC districts but he really has them, there is no one else to vote for…and someone could mount either a primary or a DEM challenge to Pete if he were to PO the folks in the “non JSC” part of the district. Outside of the townhall meetings in the JSC districts there really is no big support for a massive hundred billion program to send some NASA folks back to the moon or go to Mars…and Pete has figured that out.
What is going to be interesting to watch is two things…
The first is where we are about a year from nowin terms of where HSF policy is going. SpaceX and Boeing (and even ATK) have figured it out, there is no real heavy lift program coming…so they are all piling on the only game in town which is lift to the Space Station…
The second thing is to see where the Tea Party is when the deficit cutting either 1) doesnt happen (which is what I suspect occurs) or 2) doesnt fix the economy in any real way.
My theory is that the political parties are in the process of imploding…did you hear Trump talk about being POTUS?
Robert G. Oler
“The burden of proof is on you and ATK to show that this concept works,”
Well, a spotless flight record over the last 23 years (214 flawless firings) for the ATK booster. If you think the 5 segment is not a development of the 4 segment then……you must think the shuttle is not a heavy lift vehicle either.
The Ariane 5 rocket is the world’s leading commercial satellite launcher, having flown 41 straight successful missions. Half the sats in orbit over our heads were put up by Ariane. As for the “posters” who “repeatedly” say that Ariane-5 is not crew-rated and that modifying the core for use on Liberty would be enormously difficult and expensive; I guess they are the reliable source and not Ariane- who designed it from the start to loft the Hermes space plane.
The burden of proof in this case is very light. YOURS, on the other hand, is not. Your hobby rocket and cargo carriers are far less impressive, either being cheap and nasty technology or never human rated- or more expensive in the case of the Delta IV.
In plain terms, you don’t know what you are talking about.
All those numbers you like to quote so much have now come back to bite you my friend. The numbers are now not on your side. There is no reason to believe that ATK and Ariane cannot meet their quoted price- and every reason to believe their competitors, especially SpaceX, will never fly as cheaply as they say. It has suddenly turned around and you commercial crew savants are not even aware of it….yet.
You are in for a big surprise.
The Russians have always traded some ISP and overall efficiency to get economic returns from simplicity.Thus, their very successful strategy that is often referred to as the BDB (Big Dumb Booster)
The Zenit is Ukrainian and was developed through a different heritage than the Souz/Proton, although I am sure to you ‘they all look the same’. The Ukrainian tradition is to achieve the highest ISP for kerolox. The US should be thankful that we benefit from that technology through the Taurus II.
I was at a major project management conference this week. FWIW, none of my colleagues in space operations that I talked to thought Liberty makes any sense. The aforementioned issues with sizing, economies of scale, and integrating the Ariane-based second stage all came up in discussion.
I also spent the afternoon at SpaceX’s Hawthorne facility today. I am extremely impressed with the way they work and communicate. Their vertical technical integration is complemented by a horizontal communications structure, such that the various disciplines can talk to each other easily and quickly. Their internal QA is also built so that it doesn’t prevent work from proceeding unless an issue is found, at which time the problem is directly addressed.
They’re the real deal, folks. I saw it with my own eyes. General Bolden is right to say that public-private partnerships are key to NASA’s success. We can’t go it alone, nor should we.
“Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
FWIW, posters on NSF who work for Astrum and know the Ariane-5 core and the Vulcain engine repeatedly say that Ariane-5 is not crew-rated and that modifying the core for use on Liberty would be enormously difficult and expensive. I’ve said so before, I’ll say it again. ATK is playing the “optimism isn’t a crime†card and is low-balling its figures.”
Without knowing any of the details I’d say modifying the Vulcain for air start is probably about the same as doing it for the SSME. That is, possible but will take time and a lot of money.
I have no objection in principle to ATK putting its money into the Liberty concept. From my standpoint, the more competition the merrier. However, I have plenty of reasons to be skeptical that this will ever proceed beyond an artist’s concept.
First, ATK has been floating various commercial launch vehicles for a couple of decades and they never follow through. I see no reason to expect this time will be different.
Second, I don’t see where this is going to fit in the commercial market, especially the non-US and non-HSF market. This vehicle has less payload to LEO than an Ariane 5 ES (20,000 kg vs. 21,000 kg) for a 50% higher cost ($180M vs. $120M). The US would be better off cutting out ATK as the middle man and just importing whole Ariane 5s. Everyone else with a payload in this class will just go directly to Arianespace or one of their existing competitors.
I should add, the fact that a straight Ariane 5 outperforms the combination of an Ariane 5 core plus 5 segment SRB, and at lower cost, should give you an idea of how nonsensical this configuration has been all along.
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
“The second thing is to see where the Tea Party is when the deficit cutting either 1) doesnt happen (which is what I suspect occurs) or 2) doesnt fix the economy in any real way.”
Considering the ludicrous, so far, cut of say $100B over a $1.3T deficit I say these people are very naive or the people in Congress are in for yet another ousting. $100B cut is not deficit cutting it is a (tear) drop in the ocean. Cutting without reforming our overall system of procurement (the political-military-industrial complex) will change very little to nothing. Only short term. But I suppose no one really wants to reform it, neither the Dems nor the GOPers, since they all benefit from it.
“My theory is that the political parties are in the process of imploding…did you hear Trump talk about being POTUS?”
No I did not hear about Trump. I don’t think I like this much though. I am starting to believe that a real reform will come about either if the “Ron Pauls” win something or if the “Kucinichs” win something. And even that is not all that clear if Congress is not changed somehow as well. Now and then, there is still a chance that a 2nd term Obama might just become the leader we need. He had the potential, does he still have it in him? I don’t know.
Sorry, but… If JWST and MSL get cut/starved to death to fund an unnecessary additional Shuttle flight, the HLV-without-a-mission or even just Orion… I’ll first laugh my ass off and then start crying.
Priorities, America, priorities!
Hi Robert.
Just a minor disagreement with your usually exceptional posts in that I don’t see the ISS as the only game in town with respect to crew. Bigelow will have his Sundancer module in orbit plus others when there is a crew transport system available. He’s referred to his competition as ‘none’. I’d agree with him.
@ablastofhotair
The Zenit is Ukrainian and was developed through a different heritage than the Souz/Proton, although I am sure to you ‘they all look the same’. The Ukrainian tradition is to achieve the highest ISP for kerolox. The US should be thankful that we benefit from that technology through the Taurus II.
All you are doing is relating history. It has nothing to do with the validity of my point. I didn’t say that they NEVER strove for efficiency. You really can’t help twisting things can you? Again, its $ per kg to orbit that matters.
BeancounterFromDownunder wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 3:09 am
Hi Robert.
Just a minor disagreement with your usually exceptional posts in that I don’t see the ISS as the only game in town with respect to crew…………………………………….
Hello…thank you and I did leave out Bigelow and that was just an editorial error.
I think that there is not only room for both ISS and Bigelow, but I suspect that the future is already pointing its way toward such an event.
(Does anyone know what inclination Bigelow is thinking about putting his station in?)
One of the most encouraging signs in my view of a “new breed” at NASA is the folks there who are knocking on the door of expanding ISS…to include a Bigelow module…in my theory that sets the foundation for a Bigelow space station…I see ISS as a very governmental affair and Bigelows effort as a private station…where mostly business oriented things are done.
To me this is a very exciting time.
Robert G. Oler
“The Ukrainian tradition is to achieve the highest ISP for kerolox. The US should be thankful that we benefit from that technology through the Taurus II.”
Huh?
a. Zenit uses RD-170 engines
b. Taurus uses NK engines
c. Both engines types are built in Russian
Again, you don’t know what you are talking about.
VirgilSamms wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
“There is no reason to believe that ATK and Ariane cannot meet their quoted price…”
There you go with your absolutes again. Could they build it? Sure. Will they build it? That depends on a lot of factors, and as most people have been pointing out, the Liberty launcher doesn’t have any clear advantages, and it has a lot of disadvantages. It can’t even compete with the Ariane 5 on price and capacity, and Ariane 5 (as you pointed out) is the most popular launcher for commercial satellites. Keep in mind though, that even ESA sees SpaceX as a threat to their future business. So the question still stands – who will use Liberty?
I know you and Windy love the big stick, and will idolize any use of it, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree. That should free up your time to put more effort into building your 1,000 ton nuclear-powered spaceship. Cheers.
“the Liberty launcher doesn’t have any clear advantages, and it has a lot of disadvantages. It can’t even compete with the Ariane 5 on price and capacity,”
More propaganda, you regulars are really running scared.
I believe if you check you will find Ariane does not lift more from Florida- the extra payload is due to their equatorial launch site- which has alot of disadvantages for HSF.
ESA is not in the HSF business- and that is what Liberty is about.
Liberty has ALL the advantages, which is why they have spent the money on the intitiative and are going to do it with or without CCdev money. ATK and Astrium have done what all of you so admire- competed in the marketplace. And now there is weeping and gnashing of teeth because “the real deal” Musk is now effectively out of the competition with his hobby rocket.
I am laughing at the superior intellect.
Major Tom wrote @ February 11th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
“All I know is that Ares I-X flew successfully at the end of 2009″
“Since when do buckled motor casings and parachute failures represent a successful flight of anything?” LOLOLOLOL 1. If this was a SpaceX launch, you’d not even know that; 2. And if you we did know it through a vague Musk presser, they’d still label it a success only because it got off the pad.
“Silvio Sandrone, vice president of business development at Les Mureaux, France-based Astrium Space Transportation, said the first step in the collaboration will be a detailed study of the feasibility of placing the Ariane 5 main stage atop the ATK stage”
They don’t even know if this is feasible. They haven’t spent any money on this initiative. This thing is nothing but propaganda.
Only idiots are jumped on this bandwagon.
I am laughing at virgil’s complete of intellect.
VirgilSamms wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
“Liberty has ALL the advantages”
It’s only HSF use would be for MPCV, and that’s a pretty small market if it ever gets built. Besides, the builder of the MPCV (Lockheed Martin) is already planning on launching it on Delta IV Heavy, which has no black-out zones and plenty of extra performance for weight growth. It’s going to be hard for ATK to wrest that business away from ULA once Congress sees that Delta IV Heavy, which launches the largest & most expensive satellites in the U.S., is a safer alternative.
“Liberty has ALL the advantages”
There you go again…
Maybe if you need something bigger than 10,000 kg you’d consider Liberty, but that’s not “ALL”, and you still have to compete with ULA (proven reliability) and SpaceX (far lower cost).
Who is going to buy it?
You keep avoiding this question. Show us an example of what the potential market is.
“ATK and Astrium have done what all of you so admire- competed in the marketplace.”
Really? What orders to they have? What customers have already put down a deposit?
Paper rockets are more believable when they have actual customers, because customers know more than you or I.
Once Liberty’s backlog exceeds the one SpaceX has, either in dollar value or number of launches, then you’ll have something to crow about. Until then, be careful, otherwise you might end up eating that crow…
“What customers have already put down a deposit?”
Just as many as have put down deposits on Falcon 9H.
“Obviously, there are modifications we will need to make. The Vulcain engine as you know is ignited on the ground, but on Liberty it would need to ignite in the vacuum of space. This is something Europe can do. Ariane’s upper-stage has a cryogenic engine that can ignite in a vacuum,” Mr Sandrone told BBC News.”
“For Astrium, also, it means accessing a market which has been barred to us up until now.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12394991
Byeman, the BBC news does not print propaganda.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11143355
Take another look at the future boys. It is going to be on the bottom of a 300 ft stack and put out 3.6 million pounds of thrust. Look way up there and you will see a capsule- and it does not say SpaceX on it.
VirgilSamms wrote @ February 12th, 2011
““What customers have already put down a deposit?â€
Just as many as have put down deposits on Falcon 9H.”
Is that your best response? You’re going to be sorely disappointed when they start taking in orders, and they already have reliability data to point to from Falcon 9.
Liberty has no direct reliability data to point to, only reliability by similarity, which is kind of like saying “it should work”.
So again, you have no idea who would really want to use Liberty, but you still think everyone will. Right.
“Take another look at the future boys. It is going to be on the bottom of a 300 ft stack and put out 3.6 million pounds of thrust.”
LOL – you’re easily impressed. You also fall into the trap that only single engine launchers are reliable. With people like you, we never would have made it to the Moon, and the Shuttle never would have launched.
“Look way up there and you will see a capsule- and it does not say SpaceX on it.”
Uh, you’re too late. SpaceX has already made it to space (maybe you missed it), and by the earliest possible date that ATK can launch a TEST flight, SpaceX and Orbital will have sent more than 10 capsules to the ISS for real revenue.
If Liberty is able to join this crowded field, all the better. The more providers we have servicing the ISS and private destinations in space, the better.
However the question still stands – who is going to buy it? Any guesses, educated or otherwise?
And besides the possible use as a launcher for the MPCV, who else would want to use it? Educate us, because so far all you sound like is a fanboi. Try to use facts to elucidate us.
Byeman, the BBC news does not print propaganda.
Hilarious.
The Israelis would beg to differ.
“If Liberty is able to join this crowded field, all the better. The more providers we have servicing the ISS and private destinations in space, the better.”
Thanks.
-Just as many as have put down deposits on Falcon 9H.
“Is that your best response? ”
It’s the only response needed and makes the rest of your argument worthless.
VirgilSamms wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
“It’s the only response needed and makes the rest of your argument worthless.”
I don’t think you understand the issue here.
If SpaceX never sells a Falcon 9 Heavy, they still continue on as a business, since Falcon 9 Heavy is essentially a Falcon 9 with two Falcon 9 cores acting as boosters (just like the Delta IV family), and they have lots of orders for Falcon 9.
If Liberty never sells a flight, their business is a failure. Heck, even if they sell a few it may not be enough to sustain the business.
And that’s why it’s important to understand WHO IS GOING TO USE IT?
You keep dodging the question, so I’m starting to think that you’ve drank the ATK PR koolaid, and you have no clue if anybody needs what they’re pushing.
So what satellites, vehicles, companies or governments are going to want Liberty over the competition, and why?
Basically, Liberty is over-powered for the ISS crew mission (20t IMLEO when the average commercial crew vehicle is about 10t in mass). It is also unsuited for any kind of BEO application without a third stage of some kind. Even if it had such a thing, it isn’t powerful enough to launch a crew BEO. So, ultimately, it is nothing but a massively over-powered (maybe 2x what is necessary) crew launcher for the ISS.
Couldn’t it delivery cargo? Well… No. It can shoot a cargo hopper into LEO but has no ability to rendezvous. It’s too small for ATV and over-powered for Dragon and Cygnus. In any case, both those vehicles have their own in-house LVs and would only use a third-party LV in the event of a failure and stand-down of these.
Ultimately, ATK and Astrum are taking a very risky gamble by throwing their metaphorical hat into what is an already extremely crowded ~10t IMLEO market. If they run into any serious technical issues (and the skepticism that ESA posters have expressed about the suitability of the Ariane-5 core for the Liberty US suggests that those issues await), then it could turn into an expensive R&D dead end with no salable product.
“So what satellites, vehicles, companies or governments are going to want Liberty over the competition, and why?”
Gee whiz, Ron, read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/business/global/08rocket.html?_r=4&src=busln
It has already been spelled out for you. Do I have to keep going over it again and again so you have more opportunities to make false arguments against it? Your “it shakes like the dickens” arguments are pathetic.
And then there is this really funny angle; it is too powerful. C’mon. Puh-lease. The only reason it is “too powerful” is because it is more powerful than that person’s favorite competitor.
The competition is over. Liberty
VirgilSamms wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
“It has already been spelled out for you.”
You base your whole support for Liberty on a New York Times article that quotes the marketing handout? Truly deep thinking on your part, especially because the NYT quotes ATK as saying “ATK hopes…”
Let me give you an example of what you’re missing. When Falcon 9 was announced, everyone could see that it was going to compete with Atlas 401, and that it was going to be significantly less expensive than Atlas. It was also going to be less expensive than using Ariane 5 when it launches dual payloads, so it’s easy to understand where it fits in the market, and what it’s advantages are.
For Liberty, payload-wise it competes with Delta IV Heavy, but the DoD/NRO (the only DIV-H customer) are very conservative with their Billion $ satellites, and as orders for Falcon 9 Heavy from them have shown (none announced), they don’t look exclusively at cost when they choose a launcher. So in the med-heavy market, Liberty will likely have to prove itself over some period of time before the DoD/NRO will consider using for some of their needs – but that could be years. In the meantime, Falcon 9 Heavy, which costs 1/2 the price of Liberty, and carries 50% more, will be in a better position to take away business from Liberty before it even launches. So that’s the med-heavy launcher market.
For the medium launcher market, now Liberty is competing against launchers that already exist, and cost FAR LESS for 10,000 kg payloads. Falcon 9 is $56M and Atlas V is around $100M, so compared to Liberty’s $180M price, why would anyone use it?
So again, using your own brain power, who specifically is going to be buying lots of Liberty flights, outside of the mythical MPCV? What market niche will it dominate, and why?
And I think the more important fact that you’re overlooking is that Liberty depends on government facilities, so there is no way they could “extend their brand” to the west coast or somewhere along the equator without significantly raising prices. The VAB, crawler and tower needed for the Liberty are all huge expenses, especially when compared to much smaller facilities needed for it’s competitors. It’s an anachronism whose time was last decade, and it will soon fade from the spotlight.
Liberty who?
Looks like the Obama/Bolden/Garver vision is all but done for if this report is at all on target and Musk will need to go back to his private financial buddies to accomplish manned space flight (as he should be doing in the first place). So much also for technology with no mission and a NASA with no vision. Game-Change is now Game-Over.
My sources at NASA HQ indicate Bolden and Garver are being slowly but surely pushed out of the loop and Scolese is the man really running NASA right now. If correct, it signals a return to the usual NASA model. Too bad. While I was no supporter of the Obama approach, the “old” NASA was/is dysfunctional and Scolese hasn’t shown any indication he is willing/able to challenge NASA to demonstrate cost/schedule/technical excellence.
Time to wipe the slate clean and start over. The best thing that can be done is to focus on developing a sustainable, stable National Space Policy that spans decades and which the WH, Congress, and the US Taxpayer can agree on. A Decadal Study approach similar to the Science Community may be a good place to start but by itself is insufficient as there also needs to be some economical return (directly or indirectly) to justify the investment. Otherwise, HSF in the US is done for.
Just my $0.02.
Meant to add this link:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703515504576142391287397056.html
NASA is not going to use Liberty for unmanned missions, period. It can’t compete. It is less than 50 percent American made.
“false arguments”
That applies to the following:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/business/global/08rocket.html?_r=4&src=busln
Only the unwashed masses would believe such marketing BS.
Competition ? Liberty won’t even make it to the starting line.
VirgilSamms, you keep painting yourself into corner. You are no better than a Barling or Tarrant Tabor Bomber supporter.
For Liberty, payload-wise it competes with Delta IV Heavy, but the DoD/NRO (the only DIV-H customer) are very conservative with their Billion $ satellites, and as orders for Falcon 9 Heavy from them have shown (none announced), they don’t look exclusively at cost when they choose a launcher.
In particular, they’re not going to be thrilled about putting their billion-dollar satellites on God’s own paint shaker.
GuessWho wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 10:31 pm
“ The best thing that can be done is to focus on developing a sustainable, stable National Space Policy that spans decades and which the WH, Congress, and the US Taxpayer can agree on.”
That would be nice, but it won’t happen with our system of government. Besides, if you think about it, it sounds like the old Soviet-style central government planning system, and we all know how that turned out.
Instead, why not use commerce, which is what the U.S. has the most experience with? That’s why many of us advocate for Congress to back commercial crew for the ISS (it’s already law, but not fully funded), because once established, it can be used for Bigelow-type stations, or whoever wants to hire them.
The quicker we change space from being a “space program”, the faster we’ll expand into space. NASA can’t do it all by itself.