Congress, NASA

House appropriators cut deeper at NASA

Late Friday the House Appropriations Committee released its proposed continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government through the rest of FY 2011. As the committee indicated Thursday, it would make deeper cuts than what it released earlier in the week, when it announced $379 million in cuts to NASA relative to the administration FY11 request. Appropriators have tacked on an additional $200 million in cuts to the agency for FY11.

The bill, designated HR 1, makes extensive references to FY 2010 appropriations bills, including specific amounts by exception to 2010 levels. The table below compares the House’s CR for 2011 with the actual FY10 appropriations and the president’s budget request (PBR) for 2011 (all amounts are in millions of dollars):

Account 2010 Actual 2011 PBR 2011 CR
Space Operations $6,146.8 $4,887.8 $5,946.8
Exploration $3,746.3 $4,263.4 $3,746.3
Science $4,469.0 $5,005.6 $4,469.0
Aeronautics $501.0 $1,151.8 $501.0
Education $182.5 $145.8 $182.5
Construction $448.3 $397.3 $408.3
Cross-Agency Support $3,194.0 $3,111.4 $3,131.0
Inspector General $36.4 $37.0 $36.4
TOTAL $18,724.3 $19,000.1 $18,421.3

The table above is also available in Excel format with additional columns showing the differences between the CR and both the FY10 appropriations and FY11 request.

Note that while Space Operations, which includes ISS and shuttle, gets the biggest cut compared to 2010 levels ($200 million), the CR represents an increase of over $1 billion from the budget request, reflecting continued shuttle operations for most of the fiscal year (and, presumably, the shuttle flight added in the authorization act last fall.) That increase comes at the expense of exploration (-$517 million compared to the budget request), science (-$536.6 million) and aeronautics and space technology (-$650.8 million). The last is a special case, since the aeronautics line item in 2011 was expanded in the budget request to include space technology programs, but the CR includes funding only at the 2010 level, when that account was exclusively aeronautics.

The CR does not get more specific about how the funds should be allocated within these accounts, including a proviso that the NASA administrator submit to Congress a spending plan 60 days after the CR’s enactment. The CR does include a section striking the language in the FY2010 appropriations bill that prevents NASA from terminating Constellation projects, no doubt much to the relief of the agency. There is also one specific provision restricting NASA spending: neither NASA or the Office of Science and Technology Policy use any funding in the CR to “develop, design, plan, promulgate, implement, or execute a policy, program, order, or contract of any kind to participate, collaborate, or coordinate in any way with China or any Chinese-owned company” without authorization in a future law. It also prevents NASA from spending any money “to effectuate the hosting of official Chinese visitors at facilities belonging to or utilized by” NASA. That language is most likely the work of Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), chairman of the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over NASA and also a major critic of cooperation with China.

Update: in a statement, Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, was sharply critical of the proposed CR. “The priorities identified in this proposal for some of the largest cuts – environmental protection, healthcare, energy, science and law enforcement – are essential to the current and future well-being of our economy and communities across the country,” he said. That suggests this CR is the latest, but not final, round in the debate about FY11 spending.

104 comments to House appropriators cut deeper at NASA

  • NASA Fan

    If memory serves me, the Presidents proposed 2011 budget plus-ed up Earth Science by nearly $500M. Looks like the 2011 CR rolls that back, though I guess it is up to NASA how to decide to cut $500M from Science.

    Anyone have any insight into how NASA is going to handle $500M cut in Science? Does this push JWST out even further than the proposed slip to 2018?

  • Joe

    “The CR does not get more specific about how the funds should be allocated within these accounts, including a proviso that the NASA administrator submit to Congress a spending plan 60 days after the CR’s enactment.”

    So assumming the CR gets passed by March the first (a big assumption) then Bolden would need to present a “plan” for FY 2011 by June the first (four months before the end of the year).

    Chaos anyone?

  • Yuck,
    The $600M hit to Aeronautics/Space Technology would mean killing all of the new programs under the Office of the Chief Technologist, which were all going to be under that spending category. That would include CRuSR and FAST, the Franklin and Edison SmallSat technology demonstration, NIAC (or was it NAIC? I can never remember that one), Game-Changing technologies, SBIRs, and Centennial Challenges.

    Effectively zeroing out almost all of those for the rest of the year seems retarded.

    ~Jon

  • I find it odd that they only compare to the President’s budget request and FY10, when the NASA Authorization Act was signed last year, completely changing a bunch of programs. It would be interesting to see how the cuts compare to what Congress actually passed and was signed into law…

    ~Jon

  • Jeff, or fellow commenters,

    Someone have the time to pull up the actual authorized amounts, and compare this CR funding with the authorized amounts? My guess is that there’s an actual “winner” in this CR, but I don’t have all the data on hand.

    ~Jon

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Let the sausage making begin,

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 12:52 am (to continue this conversation from another thread…the relation seems clear Robert)

    “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.”

    A noted figure along time ago noted that American elections are 1 part serious policy and politics 1 part glitz and 1 part carny barker. The Tea Party movment was more or less encapsulated into the GOP as a function of getting the party into power (at least in the House)…and now how sad the notion is is clear.

    The Tea Party folks believe that cutting the budget alone will fix our national economic problems..I think that there should be cuts, but they should be cuts that change the direction of federal spending…what the Tea Party seems to think (the less sophisticated members) is that the budget can be cut substantially and NOT affect their lives…thats goofy but so far the GOP has had to tow that line, while trying to actually do some cutting.

    In my view not only do there need to be substantial cuts, but there need to be “revenue enhancers” AND there needs to be a new direction in terms of most federal spending.

    The CR in my view is just “wild cutting”…it has no real direction.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Considering these numbers (both in the CR and from SpaceX)

    I’ve finally sorted through most of the stuff from SpaceX and these are the two entertaining “things”.

    * the company spent less than $600M on Falcon 9/Dragon development and $800M in total, including all 7 launches to date.
    they are moving forward “expeditiously” on Falcon 9 Heavy.

    If it is accurate that SpaceX has less then 800 million “in the game” for all 7 launches that is truly an amazing number and in my view calls into some account the 100-200 million that OSC is trying to oink up to do a “risk reduction” test on its new launcher.

    The Falcon 9H news is interesting as well..

    To borrow an analogy from the Egyptian situation, the old guard at NASA and the old programs at NASA seem to be on the “Hosni plan”…a little dribble of this and that designed to try and get ahead of events but never really getting there…meanwhile the other actors in the effort, Like Boeing, are starting to sense that in the end the only game in town will be LEO/GEO activity…and are moving in that direction as well..

    It is amazing to me politically how badly the “save NASA” folks are playing it…

    enjoy the Revolution

    Robert G. Oler

  • NASA Fan

    It will be very interesting to see how NASA integrates both the CR 2011, should it pass by March 1st, and the Presidents 2012 budget, to be released on Monday.

    I’m with Robert, I see no BEO in NASA’s future, outside of power point studies, etc. for decades to come. And you don’t need all those folks at JSC, MSFC, KSC, etc. to pull together power point slides…..

  • Gary Warburton

    Double Yuck, Last I heard James Webb was going in 2015. It is by far the most important Scientific Project. Are they still finding money for this uneeded HLV? How about Commercial Space are they getting anything?

  • amightywind

    The CR does not represent a change in direction – wild cutting indeed. Good to see Aeronautics get whacked. That science is untouched is a crime. Disheartening to see space operations go unscathed. There is no future until ISS is defunded. NASA is rudderless. Congress does not accept the President’s vision for NASA, but doesn’t have a coherent one of their own.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Given the current budget climate, I wonder if the focus will now shift to trying to defund your rivals instead of directly lobbying for your own funding.

  • Major Tom

    Several points:

    1) If the Senate doesn’t want to play game, as evidenced by Sen. Inouye’s statement, a CR for the remainder of the year may not be in the offing. We may instead be looking at a series of short-term CRs until the FY12 budget is passed.

    2) If a CR for the remainder of the year is passed, the budget pressure from here is all upwards. Special interests in the House will try to amend the bill when it goes to the floor, the Senate appropriators (as evidenced by Inouye) are aiming for higher spending, Senate special interests will also weigh in, and OMB will be sending SAPs throughout the process to protect White House interests. For better or worse, I’d be very surprised if the $100B overall domestic discretionary cut or the ~$300M NASA cut stand.

    3) With no cut to Exploration Systems and the language repealing Shelby’s Constellation earmark, this CR would protect the commercial development programs (COTS/CCDev) and the new exploration technology development programs.

    4) Outside exploration-specific technology, the new Space Technology budget, as pointed out by Mr. Goff, is effectively zeroed. This defers new starts for more radical technology solutions to NASA’s woes. However, given that those programs havn’t been able to start for almost five months under the prior CRs anyway, waiting another seven months for the FY12 budget isn’t necessarily the end of the world, either.

    5) It will be interesting to see where the $200M cut in Space Ops is taken, whether in Shuttle rampdown, future CRS procurements, ISS, or someplace else. Where NASA chooses to take that cut will say a lot about the current leadership’s priorities.

    6) Given that there’s only seven months left in FY11 anyway, the President’s FY12 Budget request being rolled out next Monday will be more important to NASA’s long-term future than this CR proposal. Given that NASA’s programs are dominated by multi-year developments, the direction and priorities set in the President’s annual five-year budget drive the agency’s future more than annual appropriations, and certainly more than shorter CRs.

    FWIW…

  • VirgilSamms

    “The Falcon 9H news is interesting as well..”

    It will be interesting to see 27 engines turn out to be one of those hindsights loudly braying; “how did they ever expect it to work?”

    27 engines a pop- absurd to think any kind of a launch rate is going to happen going through engines like that.

    As for the Budget- de orbit the ISS. Problem solved. That albatross is nothing but a tourist destination and money machine for the commercial crew scammers.

    HLV- nukes- planetary protection. That is the only realistic path to space.

  • Looking at my old notes funding space operations at that would level would include $312M for Commercial Cargo and $500 for Commercial Crew. Bolden and Garver won’t be using those funds for much of anything else. Seems like science has often been the poor step-sister of technology and hardware.

    On the other hand If Wolf is creating a space race with China NASA might get more funding down the road?

  • Joe

    “NASA Fan wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 12:52 pm
    It will be very interesting to see how NASA integrates both the CR 2011, should it pass by March 1st, and the Presidents 2012 budget, to be released on Monday.

    I’m with Robert, I see no BEO in NASA’s future, outside of power point studies, etc. for decades to come. And you don’t need all those folks at JSC, MSFC, KSC, etc. to pull together power point slides”

    What part of NASA is it you are exactly a fan of?

  • Joe

    “Martijn Meijering wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 2:11 pm
    Given the current budget climate, I wonder if the focus will now shift to trying to defund your rivals instead of directly lobbying for your own funding.”

    Based on the comments around here, yes.

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 11:25 am

    SpaceX is a ticket to no place. They have flown nobody. And never will. It’s a bad business investment to bother trying to build a for-profit LEO manned spacecraft that may fly my mid-decade to access a space station slated for splash by the end of the decade. The best they can hope to do is loft cargo flights for a few years to the ISS. But it’s quaint to see them perfecting rockets with performance envelpes similar to missiles perfected half a century ago by government space programs. Love these back to the future guys. How’s that retirement condo on Mars coming, Master Musk?

  • DCSCA

    “House appropriators cut deeper at NASA”

    The Age of Austerity has just begun.

  • Bennett

    Joe wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
    Joe wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 3:03 pm

    Is that it? Don’t you have anything substantial to offer? No? Then why bother?

    @Martijn: I suspect your question is quite valid. ATKs entrance into CCDev with “Le Corndog” is imo, nothing more than a ploy to reduce the funds going to truly worthy recipients – hoping against hope that they (Boeing, SpaceX, Orbital, etc) fail somehow and then things gat get back to the pointless (but oh so profitable!) cost plus 5 seg SRBs to nowhere.

    It’s also a chance for the Utah delegation to once again step up to the govt trough for their masters back home.

  • Bennett

    Please folks, ignore DCSCA’s idiotic comments. He’s just looking for attention.

  • NASA Fan

    @ Joe,

    I’m a fan of BEO exploration. Throw in the moon if you want. However, the American public writ large isn’t a fan of either, neither is the President, or the Congress – no matter what the pontificate. I don’t see anything other than perpetual ISS operations for the remainder of my life. Well, perhaps some space tourism.

    The form of government we have is bankrupt; one need only look at the deficit, the debt, US educational achievment vs. the world, etc. etc. etc. to see that. Too bad democracy is the best of what’s out there.

  • Bennett

    NASA Fan wrote The form of government we have is bankrupt;…Too bad democracy is the best of what’s out there.

    I think with thoughtful regulation (think anti-monopoly laws) democracy works great until the inevitability of the very rich deciding that they want it ALL and proceed to corrupt the system for the sake of personal and familial power and legacy. That’s where we’re at right now, and it’s been building up to this point for 150 years.

    I don’t think there’s a solution, because the system is hopelessly corrupt. So we serfs take our entertainment in sports, or soaps, or gaming, or the space program.

  • Joe

    NASA Fan wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
    “I’m a fan of BEO exploration. Throw in the moon if you want. However, the American public writ large isn’t a fan of either, neither is the President, or the Congress – no matter what the pontificate. I don’t see anything other than perpetual ISS operations for the remainder of my life. Well, perhaps some space tourism.”

    Thanks for the clarification (seriously). For the record (however much it “pains” me – and it does greatly) I am not at all sure you will turn out to be wrong. Hang in there, there are a number of steps left to go; the “game” isn’t over yet.

    “Too bad democracy is the best of what’s out there.”

    From the old Winston Churchill quote. Remember he also said something to the effect: “The Americans will always do the right thing, after they have tried everything else.”

  • NASA Fan

    @ Bennett

    Agreed, the system is hopelessly corrupt. I used to follow it – politics- closely, for the entertainment value. Now its so dysfunctional, and damaging to the republic (for which it stands) , that I have turned away from it.

    Say what you will about Elon Musk, and the other New Space entrepreneurs, they are trying to make something happen, with – mostly – their own money.

    I hope they succeed.

  • VirgilSamms

    “I don’t think there’s a solution, because the system is hopelessly corrupt. So we serfs take our entertainment in sports, or soaps, or gaming, or the space program.”

    You are speaking for yourself Bennet, not me.

    I do not consider the space program entertainment. You might think it is a joke, but others think it is important.

    Stay hopeless but don’t drag others into your serfdom. Thanks.

  • red

    I imaging Mikulski isn’t going to be thrilled with the suggested big cut to Science, especially with the recent talk of cutting Earth observation science in particular.

    It seems to me that the money to drag out the Shuttle should come straight out of SLS/MPCV, not raids on Space Technology and Science.

    For Jon’s question, I think the link I have is an earlier Senate draft, not the final version, but in the end I think it wasn’t all that different from the draft:

    Space Operations – 5,508.5
    Exploration – 3,868
    Science – 5,005.6
    Aeronautics – 929.6 (579.6 Aeronautics, 350 Space Technology)
    Education – 145.8
    Construction – 394.3
    Cross-Agency Support – 3,111.4
    Inspector General – 37

  • mr. mark

    DCSCA, I finally found someone who makes my stomach turn more than amightywind, congratulations. By the way you must be a socialist because you seem to only want government systems. Also you might want to look at ATK’s Liberty proposal. They say that there will be plenty of commercial work in the future for their launch vehicle. Seems that the big boys are starting to catch on. You can’t stop progress you either you get out of the way or get run over.

  • mr. mark

    DCSCA -“SpaceX is a ticket to no place. They have flown nobody. And never will”.

    I have saved this to my documents and will post this in all it’s glory as soon as they fly a manned capsule.

  • Robert G. Oler

    NASA Fan wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    Innovation is the key to the future and the key to beyond GEO is going to be some group at NASA HSF figuring out that the days of “unique” hardware and their cost are over…and people moving to do what the “Nautilus” people did and that is to take “what we have” and make it work.

    This is going to take sometime to sink in at NASA HSF…gone are the days of people sitting around dreaming up every dinky requirement that they can think of…and then impressing that into vehicle ops.

    What we are going to learn in the next 5-10 years is “routine” ops in spaceflight….here is an example. How many man/person/FTE hours is it going to take for the genius at NASA HSF to study to death the “Soyuz” fly around that they want to do…?

    Once we learn routine aviation style ops in hsf then we will venture past GEO…

    Robert G. Oler

  • VirgilSamms

    “Once we learn routine aviation style ops in hsf then we will venture past GEO…”

    Sadly, it is not aviation.

    It is not analogous to anything on earth- because it is not.
    It is space. There is no air- just radiation. There is no gravity- just debilitation. There is wood, coal, oil, or whatever to burn- and no oxygen. In fact, chemical propulsion is worthless when that radiation has to be shielded against. Hundreds of tons of shielding.

    It is not going to be traveled in little thin skinned airplane like machines burning chemicals. Sorry. It will take nuclear energy- which is to the space age what steam was to the industrial age; about the only analogy that is accurate.

    The other analogies used on this site are pretty ridiculous sometimes, but the airline one is downright foolish and stops any meaningful discussion.

  • tu8ca

    Nasa’s prime contractors are glutenous hogs. They have been gorging themselves at the trough of corporate welfare for decades now. Thank you SpaceX, for proving this.

    NASA’s been getting almost twenty billion per year, and yet they utterly failed to replace the Shuttle in a timely manner. They had no problem, however, squandering over 10 Billion on Constellation though. Way to go, boys. The US is now dependent on Russia for human launch services.

  • ULA in asking NASA to fund the costs of human-rating the Delta IV and Atlas V presented this analysis of commercial space demand:

    “There is very high uncertainty over the size of the commercial space passenger travel market…one study from Futron suggests that the market could be as large as $300m/yr. Other private studies suggest it could be larger… the current market served by Soyuz averages less than that by an order of magnitude. By aerospace standards, this is not a large market. … there was a broad consensus that the commercial launch market was (would be) in excess of 40 launches a year. Given this level of uncertainty, it is extremely difficult to justify an investment in the commercial side of the human space flight market. The situation with NASA is different. Assuming the space station continues to remain healthy, there appears to be a clear requirement for 2-4 crew launches a year…how many providers will share this market? All indications are that NASA would like to support two providers. So this reduces the market to 1-2 launches a year for each provider…risk remains that the ISS will not remain healthy, or that an additional provider (perhaps a government provided vehicle) will enter the market as well. Finally, there is the risk that the Commercial Crew Transportation program could be cancelled in future budgets. Given this level of uncertainty, we believe it would be necessary for NASA to provide 100% termination liability for all investments, including the cost of money.”

  • DCSCA

    @mr. mark wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    LOL Tag it along with Master Musk’s housewarming for his retirement condo on Mars. (More likely, in Mars, Pennsylvania.) Look forward to being proved wrong. But don’t hold your breath. Makes little business sense to wary investors to waste resources on constructing a for-profit manned spacecraft to fly by mid-decade at the earliest- to ferry crews to a space station that’s scheduled for splash at the end of the decade– a decade where budget cuts for continuing operations seems all the more likely. Might as well use Soyuz fo crew and Dragons for cargo, which is the most likely scenario. But you go on believing otherwise. February, 2011 is coming to a close– nearly half a century after Gagarin’s orbital flgiht and Shepard’s sub-orbital pop. And SpaceX has flown NOBODY.

  • DCSCA

    mr. mark wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
    Please share with the class the post-flight performance data on Dragon’s ECS. Oh wait, they don’t have one.

  • James T

    VirgilSamms wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    Quit being such a dumb ***.

    When Robert said “aviation style” he wasn’t talking about how the crafts were constructed or what fuel they used, he was talking about a routine flight manifest where customers are frequently buying “seats.” He was talking about a world where there are spaceports used as frequently as airports and where a trip to space is something you could arrange at your local travel agency, or on priceline.com.

    Cut it out with the “straw man” arguments and start articulating some SANE opinions.

  • Bennett

    mr. mark wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    Seriously Mr. Mark, it’s not worth it to respond to the troll. You gave him a little bitty soapbox and he spat out bucketloads of his twisted bitter rhetoric. The world will be a better place when he finally tires of posting comments on Space Politics that no one responds to, and it moves on to another website.

  • Robert G. Oler

    sftommy wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
    ” Assuming the space station continues to remain healthy, there appears to be a clear requirement for 2-4 crew launches a year”

    I am not sure why that is the high end or the “clear requirement” end.

    The “market” seems to be (at least in the US if budgets are to be believed) about 2 billion dollars a year. how that is spent is something else…but that is the cash that is going to be spent to support ISS…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    sftommy wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 8:47 pm

    Thanks for digging that up. A couple of thoughts:

    By aerospace standards, this is not a large market.

    Historically it’s the up-and-coming companies that drive most of the innovation, so it doesn’t surprise me that ULA is thinking in terms of an ISS-only market.

    What SpaceX and Bigelow are thinking about is EXPANDING the market place by classic disruptive innovation, which is described as “innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically by lowering price or designing for a different set of consumers.” So instead of increasing revenues by raising prices (like ULA is threatening), SpaceX has been lowering prices, and Bigelow is creating a new set of customers.

    Finally, there is the risk that the Commercial Crew Transportation program could be cancelled in future budgets.

    Which is why we’ll never expand into space as long as space is a “program”, depending on the largess of Congress. That’s why we need to change space from a “program”, into a place of commerce. We’re already doing that for satellites, and now we need to move into the HSF arena.

    The ISS represents a small but sustainable source of needed service, both cargo & crew. Given the investment we have in it, and the likelihood of expanding use as transportation costs fall, I think the ISS will continue to be used, funded, and likely expanded. That, the Bigelow research space stations, and likely follow-on entrepreneurs, will finally let human space activity expand past the current government funding limits.

    If you want the same result, keep doing things the same way. It’s time for a change…

  • DCSCA

    @Bennett wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
    @Bennett wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
    Stop projecting your own fears. Why should wary investors entering the Age of Austerity entertain sinking millions into a high risk, ‘for-profit’ LEO manned spacecraft on the hopes it might be flying by mid-decade –and for only a few years– to a space station that’s already on the downside of its lifetime in an era of ever constricting operational budgets with looming cuts in discretionary spending that’s slated for splash by the end of the decade. It’s simply not a smart business move in the Age of Austerity. There’s just not enough ROI in it for investors in this era when they can sink their monies into other industries which can deliver a higher ROI faster. Such is the nature of the free market. That’s why governments do space programs in this era. And that’s why the place for commercial space to source funding for LEO projects will be the private sector as more and more discretionary budgets are slashed by Congress. The probable, if not inevitable economic scenario will see SpaceX eventually lofting cargo up to the ISS for a few years and the reliable Soyuz ferry crews for the remainder of the ISS’s lifetime.

  • Aremis Asling

    “And SpaceX has flown NOBODY.”

    Seriously, that’s your argument? That they haven’t flow anyone yet? In a space environment where no new manned system has flown in nearly 30 years? Think about that. There hasn’t been a single new manned spacecraft out of the US for over 60% of our entire manned space history. I suppose every other project out there is doomed to failure because ATK has flown NOBODY. LockMart has flown NOBODY. etc etc.

    Boeing is the one and only American company in existence today that has ever in it’s history had a spacecraft in space, carrying humans. If your standard of feasibility is experience in the field, Boeing’s your only bet, and they don’t have a rocket to get there. Aside from being irrationally cynical, your logic is weaker than American tea.

  • This morning’s Florida Today has a sobering article about the true risk of Shuttle:

    http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110213/NEWS02/102130319/-We-were-lucky-?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home

    On each of the shuttle’s first nine missions, there was a 1 in 9 chance of a catastrophic accident, according to the new risk analysis. On the next 16 flights that led up to and included the January 1986 Challenger disaster, the odds were 1 in 10.

    NASA lost 14 astronauts in two shuttle tragedies, and saw near misses on a dozen other flights.

    How anyone can argue that Shuttle is “safe” is beyond me.

  • Joe

    “sftommy wrote @ February 12th, 2011 at 8:47 pm
    ULA in asking NASA to fund the costs of human-rating the Delta IV and Atlas V presented this analysis of commercial space demand:”

    Got a link to where you got the quote?

  • Joe

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 6:57 am
    This morning’s Florida Today has a sobering article about the true risk of Shuttle:

    On each of the shuttle’s first nine missions, there was a 1 in 9 chance of a catastrophic accident, according to the new risk analysis. On the next 16 flights that led up to and included the January 1986 Challenger disaster, the odds were 1 in 10.

    NASA lost 14 astronauts in two shuttle tragedies, and saw near misses on a dozen other flights.

    How anyone can argue that Shuttle is “safe” is beyond me.”

    Also from the same article:
    “Among the study’s key conclusions:

    •The shuttle now is 10 times safer than it was during the first flight in April 1981. The odds of a catastrophic failure now are 1 in 90.

    •The increase in flight safety was the result of safety improvements, the most significant of which were made after major events such as the Challenger disaster and the 2003 Columbia accident.”

    Real data from a real vehicle, with which the analysist have decades of experience (over 130 flights) to access. A good part of that 1 in 90 risk is assosciated with the Orbiter (possible heat shield damage) and will be eleminated from any SDHLV.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 6:57 am

    really all this is is a collective sigh of relief…the shuttle system was far more dangerous then even this lets on.

    What made the shuttle dangerous was not the technology but the management that was associated with the technology and the notion of “fly at any cost”..

    we will be lucky to get the last two off without a catastrophe.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “‘On each of the shuttle’s first nine missions, there was a 1 in 9 chance of a catastrophic accident, according to the new risk analysis. On the next 16 flights that led up to and included the January 1986 Challenger disaster, the odds were 1 in 10.

    NASA lost 14 astronauts in two shuttle tragedies, and saw near misses on a dozen other flights.'”

    Oy vey… what a damning argument for Shuttle-derived vehicles.

  • Joe

    Joe wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 11:35 am
    Major Tom wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
    “Oy vey… what a damning argument for Shuttle-derived vehicles.”

    From the same article:
    “Among the study’s key conclusions:
    •The shuttle now is 10 times safer than it was during the first flight in April 1981. The odds of a catastrophic failure now are 1 in 90.
    •The increase in flight safety was the result of safety improvements, the most significant of which were made after major events such as the Challenger disaster and the 2003 Columbia accident.”

    Might want to read the whole article before reaching conclusions.

    Addtioanlly a good part of that 1 in 90 risk is assosciated with the Orbiter (possible heat shield damage) and will be eleminated from any SDHLV.

  • Major Tom wrote:

    “Oy vey… what a damning argument for Shuttle-derived vehicles.”

    Yep. Every crewed vehicle in the history of human space flight has been mounted atop the rocket — except for Shuttle. Shuttle killed 14 people in 132 flights, or about one death every 9.4 flights.

    CAIB recommended a return to the traditional design, the Russians have always used the traditional design, so are the Chinese, and so will every other spacefaring nation that decides to start its own HSF program.

    Put a capsule on top, put a spaceplane on top, whatever. But it has to be on top. If they want to have sidemount for a separate cargo vehicle, fine. But don’t put the crew on the side, and don’t put the crew and cargo on the same vehicle. Two fatal Shuttle design flaws.

  • Joe

    “sftommy wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
    Here’s the link to the ULA study;”

    Thanks, looking forward to reading it.

  • Major Tom

    “Might want to read the whole article before reaching conclusions.”

    I did. 1-in-90 is still very damning. If we want NASA to spend billions and billions of dollars carrying a unique ETO launch infrastructure, workforce, and contractor base that no one else (military, commercial) uses, then it needs to do a helluva lot better than 1-in-90. Even without a crew escape system, existing EELVs are substantially better than that, and NASA doesn’t have to pay for their development to use them (the military and commercial world already did that).

    NASA only gets so much for the nation’s civil human space flight program. Why are we blowing $5-10 billion taxpayer dollars every year on legacy Shuttle systems and Apollo infrastructure for a space transportation capability that has subpar reliability and safety compared to existing military and commercial alternatives that NASA can use to satisfy its ETO needs for a fraction of the cost? If we’re going to spend this much on a fourth ETO system for the nation, it needs to perform substantially better, not worse, than the first (Atlas V), second (Delta IV), and third (Falcon 9) systems. Based on the analysis referred to in this article, there’s no evidence that it has been or will be. So we should just use the first, second, and third systems instead.

    I don’t mean to bash Shuttle systems — they are what they are and we can’t change the past. But that doesn’t mean that we should carry their deficiencies into the future. If existing, non-Shuttle-derived systems are as good as or better than Shuttle-derived, then let’s use them for ETO and put NASA’s limited human space flight budget into BEO system development.

    FWIW…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Joe wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 12:56 pm

    ” it was during the first flight in April 1981. The odds of a catastrophic failure now are 1 in 90.”

    those are both goofy conclusions.

    There is for instance no way to calculate how safe or “not safe” it is from a statistical standpoint to fly with the current “fixes” to the ET. The one that had the bad metal put into it.

    There is no real safety professional in the world that would make the statement you quote…NASA yes…everywhere else. No

    Robert G. Oler

  • Joe

    Major Tom wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
    “I did. 1-in-90 is still very damning. If we want NASA to spend billions and billions of dollars carrying a unique ETO launch infrastructure, workforce, and contractor base that no one else (military, commercial) uses, then it needs to do a helluva lot better than 1-in-90. Even without a crew escape system, existing EELVs are substantially better than that, and NASA doesn’t have to pay for their development to use them (the military and commercial world already did that).”

    The 1 in 90 figure is for a complete shuttle mission (including return of the orbiter intact to the runway). 1 in 90 corresponds to a reliability rate of 98.8%. The best I have heard quoted for EELVs (Delta IV/Atlas V) is 98% (1 in 50) and that is only for delivery of payload to orbit (not return). I you have a source for whatever you mean by “substantially better than that” I would really like to see it (no sarcasm intended). Remember to be comparable to shuttle it would have to include payload return.

  • If they want to have sidemount for a separate cargo vehicle, fine. But don’t put the crew on the side, and don’t put the crew and cargo on the same vehicle. Two fatal Shuttle design flaws.

    There is no good reason not to mix crew and cargo. This is one of the false lessons learned from the Shuttle. And there would be no problem with putting crew on the side if the heat shield isn’t exposed and it’s not sitting next to a tank that sheds parts on nominal missions (though it complicates aborts).

  • VirgilSamms

    “If they want to have sidemount for a separate cargo vehicle, fine. But don’t put the crew on the side, and don’t put the crew and cargo on the same vehicle. Two fatal Shuttle design flaws.”

    Well, yes, it is better to have a capsule on top of the stack- but not as wonderful as you make out. There is evidence that some or all of the challenger crew survived the explosion and rode it down. They did not even have parachutes. I am a paraglider pilot and even I have a crummy little parachute. Sad. The sidemount capsule design is pretty well protected- the heat shield is protected and it has an escape system. Those were actually the shuttles fatal flaws. If sidemount is all that could be had then I would fly on it- but you are absolutely right- the shuttle is a deathtrap and should never have been designed without an escape system. The whole space plane concept should have been retired after challenger and the obvious problems with it.

    I am all about heavy lift and using the shuttle derived hardware- it would be an incredible waste not to- but someone with a bit of sense somewhere should just put their foot down and say “that’s it.” It is not worth the risk.

    Cargo and crew should be separated- excellent point. And one that seems to have been ignored by SpaceX. It is not economical to fly cargo in a crew-rated capsule. But Musk can do no wrong so the howls of outrage sound forth at any suggestion of such.

  • DCSCA

    @Aremis Asling wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 2:12 am
    It’s a good one. It’s reality. Seriously.

  • VirgilSamms

    91 metric tons on a Block II cargo sidemount and Liberty to carry the crew to…..somewhere besides LEO.

    Who says constellation is dead?

  • Joe

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
    “” it was during the first flight in April 1981. The odds of a catastrophic failure now are 1 in 90.”
    those are both goofy conclusions.”
    “There is for instance no way to calculate how safe or “not safe” it is from a statistical standpoint to fly with the current “fixes” to the ET. The one that had the bad metal put into it.
    “There is no real safety professional in the world that would make the statement you quote…NASA yes…everywhere else. No”

    If it is impossible to do such analysis based on the limited data available since the Columbia accident then there can be no such analysis for EELVs (which have not all flown that often either) and certainly not for any “commercial space launchers” (Falcon 9 twice, everybody else zero). If so then the whole report (and any other such analysis) must be (in your words, not mine) “goofy”. Yet it is that report that started off this whole line of “conversation”. If the whole conversation is “goofy”, why are you participating in it?

  • VirgilSamms

    “Remember to be comparable to shuttle it would have to include payload return.”

    One of the “False Lessons” of the shuttle; there is nothing to bring back.
    The shuttle was hoping to bring back classified cargo and that was the whole purpose of the huge cargo bay. It was a spyplane first on the direct insistance of the air force- and they needed the air force to sign off or funding would have been withheld. It’s all in the history books.

    There is a good reason not to mix cargo and crew. Crew is more valuable than any cargo and deserves escape systems and every possible safety feature. Cargo deserves a shell that holds as much cargo as possible. Confusing the two for whatever reason (like spaceX not having the money to develop a seperate cargo capsule) takes away from the other.

  • amightywind

    Major Tom wrote:

    NASA lost 14 astronauts in two shuttle tragedies, and saw near misses on a dozen other flights.’”
    Oy vey… what a damning argument for Shuttle-derived vehicles.

    Not really. Most of the near misses were due to debris strikes that could not happen on one of the proposed SLVs. A couple of other near misses were, on pad aborts, an in flight ATO, loss of engine controller redundancy, loss of separation controller redundancy, loss of hold down bolt pyro redundancy, loss of a fuel… In all cases, redundancy saved the day. It is the kind of experience you have when you launch 130 times. We don’t know were Delta IV, Atlas V, and Falcon 9 will be after as many flights. The SLV with Orion (Liberty perhaps!) and its robust, tested launch abort system is a far safer configuration than a side mounted shuttle orbiter.

  • Duncan Young

    It is not economical to fly cargo in a crew-rated capsule.

    It’s not economical to fly crew in a non-cargo capable capsule – otherwise how do you pay for the test flights for man-rating?

  • It is not economical to fly cargo in a crew-rated capsule.

    What a stupid comment (unsurprising, of course, considering the source).

    That’s like saying it’s not economical to fly cargo in a 747F (which also has a crew).

    Crew is more valuable than any cargo and deserves escape systems and every possible safety feature.

    Really? 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.

  • Joe

    VirgilSamms wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
    ““Remember to be comparable to shuttle it would have to include payload return.”

    One of the “False Lessons” of the shuttle; there is nothing to bring back.
    The shuttle was hoping to bring back classified cargo and that was the whole purpose of the huge cargo bay.”

    Was actually talking about the return of a crew capusle (vehicle if you prefer the term) not cargo. Hope that clears up the confusion.

  • amightywind

    We have lots of astronauts (a surplus, in fact), and plenty of people willing and able to replace them. Hardware is much more valuable.

    That policy will get you far in your political lobbying. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but astronaut deaths tend to disrupt the space program a little.

  • Dennis Berube

    With all this talk, doesnt Russia have a plan to upgrade a Soyuz for a lunar mission? Maybe we could buy a ticket to ride, from them?

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    There is evidence that some or all of the challenger crew survived the explosion and rode it down.

    ?????

    Let’s let the Challenger crew lie in peace, and concentrate on how safe we can make future transportation systems.

    The sidemount capsule design is pretty well protected- the heat shield is protected and it has an escape system.

    Solving problems by ADDING MASS is the wrong direction. Every pound of mass that is not needed for the motor or the payload is a waste, and the challenge for designers is to create rockets that are as efficient as possible.

    The Shuttle, called “the most complex machine ever built” at the time, used five motors of two designs (SRB & SSME), and four detachable structures made up of three different designs (2ea SRB, ET & orbiter). And the orbiter was a combination launch vehicle, crew return vehicle, cargo carrier, space station, and glider. That level of complexity ensured it was expensive to operate, and could never be commercialized. It should not be the basis used as the starting point for future launchers.

    It is not economical to fly cargo in a crew-rated capsule.

    Why?

    Boeing makes their airplanes so they can be reconfigured on the inside for cargo or crew (or a combination of the two), so why not capsules?

    Can the crew bring along their luggage in a capsule, or does that have to fly separately? Would you limit the amount of luggage they could bring? What’s the limit?

    This is a weird concept you have – do you have one car for groceries, and another for your family?

    You’re going to have to explain that one.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Joe wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 4:16 pm

    The only “valid” percent “loss of vehicle” statistic is X number of flights flown Y number lost there is the percentage and thats the only one that “real statistics “allow. There are of course the ability to make subset analysis but “loss of the vehicle” only works with loss of a vehicle.

    The rest are fantasy. Particularly when one tries in retrospect to “re sanitize” the safety numbers usually to try (as the shuttle numbers do) to prove that things are much safer now.

    Other then loss of the vehicle stats no one at NASA particularly idiots like Paul Hill have no clue when the “next bang” is coming. These are the people who tolerated a process where “bad metal” got into an ET and now are trying a fix which has never been done before exposing in situ foam application on a scale that has never been done before and the Creator only knows whatelse has snuck by.

    Based on the number of “near misses” mostly from stupid management decisions the only thing that really can be said is that each launch is an excersize in holding ones breath and hoping the next one isnt the last one.

    IE its Russian Roulette with most of the “six” loaded.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bennett

    …astronaut deaths tend to disrupt the space program a little.

    No, having the sole NASA Launch Vehicle explode on lift off or disintegrate during re-entry tends to disrupt the space program. That people were on board when it happened makes little difference when the LV is worth billions.

  • I don’t know if you’ve noticed but astronaut deaths tend to disrupt the space program a little.

    Only if you have a single way of getting to orbit, as you insist on. And it’s only because space isn’t important. We don’t shut down the airline industry when there’s a plane crash, and there’s no reason to quit going to space if we lose astronauts. Unless you think that space isn’t important.

  • Joe

    “Coastal Ron wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
    VirgilSamms wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
    “The sidemount capsule design is pretty well protected- the heat shield is protected and it has an escape system.”
    Solving problems by ADDING MASS is the wrong direction.”

    The “sidemount capsule design” for these purposes is the same as the basic Orion Design (or for that matter any simular capsule design), the heat shield is protected during launch by its interface to the service module and the faring to the launch abort system. That means that no one is (to use your capitalization for emphasis) “ADDING MASS”. Additionally if a more mass efficient design is hypothetically is being proposed that potential advantage would have to be traded off against its increased “fragility” (insert reference to Shuttle Orbiter here).

  • DCSCA

    @Rand Simberg wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 5:57 pm
    “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.”

    Per Simberg’s own words: “What a stupid comment (unsurprising, of course, considering the source).” Shills like this have no place anywhere near the HSF business- commercial or government run.

  • My personal preference is to fly crew and cargo separately, one reason being that if you’re having a problem with one technology the other isn’t held up. During the early years of Shuttle, it was expected that all government satellites would have to launch on Shuttle. The military pulled out of that arrangement shortly before Challenger and started ordering its own rockets. Everything else had to wait until Shuttle started flying again.

    The Russians fly crew to ISS on Soyuz, supplies on Progress. Seems to work for them. Two different technologies serving two different purposes.

    And I wouldn’t have a problem with multiple launch technologies in both categories, e.g. a crew capsule that could fly on Falcon 9 or Atlas V or Delta IV or whatever. We need flexibility as well as redundancy.

    If the day comes when launch technology is as safe and reliable as commercial airlines, fine, mix crew and cargo. But that day is a long way off.

  • DCSCA

    @amightywind wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    Let’em use crew loss, high regard for hardware and low regard for human life as part of their pitch. Brilliant marketing strategy.

  • Joe

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
    “The Russians fly crew to ISS on Soyuz, supplies on Progress. Seems to work for them. Two different technologies serving two different purposes.”

    Actually Soyuz and Progress are in terms of structure/service module/RCS System/etc./ literally identical vehicles launched on identical boosters.

  • My personal preference is to fly crew and cargo separately, one reason being that if you’re having a problem with one technology the other isn’t held up.

    In a rational world (which we are rapidly approaching, despite obdurate idiocy on the Hill) they are the same technology, just as they are for aircraft.

  • Lars

    Stephen C. Smith,
    “The Russians fly crew to ISS on Soyuz, supplies on Progress. Seems to work for them. Two different technologies serving two different purposes.

    And I wouldn’t have a problem with multiple launch technologies in both categories, e.g. a crew capsule that could fly on Falcon 9 or Atlas V or Delta IV or whatever. We need flexibility as well as redundancy.”

    You do realize that both Soyuz and Progress launch on the same launch vehicle, using the same pad, right? And that they are derived from each other and share a lot of systems? (the entire SM, even)

    How will Cargo Dragon and Crew Dragon be any different? They will not be identical. More similar than Soyuz and Progress, sure – But that is just smart planning. Why develop an entirely new spacecraft when you don’t have to?

  • Frank Glover

    “That policy will get you far in your political lobbying. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but astronaut deaths tend to disrupt the space program a little.”

    Correct, but…

    If the Challenger and Columbia crews could’ve somehow made it, would the next flights would’ve gone ahead on the original schedule? (and there’s the post-Apollo 13 investigations and delay).How long will it take India to sort out its recent launcher failure, before someone puts a very expensive satellite (so much so, that for a customer it may be effectively as irreplaceable as a human…’separating crew and cargo’ doesn’t change that) on top of one of them again?

    And as Rand has noted, you’re doubly screwed if there’s no Plan B.

    Catastrophic failures bring aerospace projects to a(n expensive) halt for a significant time, even when everyone safely walks away from them…

  • Major Tom

    “The 1 in 90 figure is for a complete shuttle mission (including return of the orbiter intact to the runway). 1 in 90 corresponds to a reliability rate of 98.8%. The best I have heard quoted for EELVs (Delta IV/Atlas V) is 98% (1 in 50) and that is only for delivery of payload to orbit (not return).”

    I don’t disagree with your numbers as presented, but you’re ignoring crew escape. Shuttle has none, but the addition of even a marginally effective crew escape system to an EELV stack will make that 0.8% difference trivial. That will still hold true for crew capsules trying to manage a narrow escape trajectory from a sidemount SDLV or any SDLV that’s chasing an escaping crew capsule and its parachutes with high thrust SRBs or the heat from their burning propellant debris.

    Moreover, even if crew escape from Shuttle-derived vehicles was no more difficult than crew escape from EELVs, is that 0.8% difference really worth the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the Shuttle to date? Or the tens of billions of dollars that will be spent developing another one?

    I’d rather spend those tens of billions on BEO systems rather than eking out a lousy 0.8% improvement in crew safety over the military/commercial alternatives (or worse, substantially underperforming them).

    “Remember to be comparable to shuttle it would have to include payload return.”

    That’s a red herring. Either system (SDLV or EELV) is going to be launching new capsules (or maybe small spaceplanes) going forward.

    FWIW…

  • James T

    Railgun technology can be matured to deliver small high-g tolerent payloads to orbit. According to NASA’s technology roadmaps this would be a near term cheap development. An example of delivery methods for certain types of cargo that that wouldn’t transport humans. Maybe we can get some larger payloads going with some more time and eventually cargo will be largly railgun delivered and top mounted capsules will send people (commercially I hope).

  • Major Tom

    “A couple of other near misses were, on pad aborts, an in flight ATO, loss of engine controller redundancy, loss of separation controller redundancy, loss of hold down bolt pyro redundancy, loss of a fuel… In all cases, redundancy saved the day.”

    And you don’t think other LVs have similar/equivalent redundancies?

    Not to mention escape systems (unlike Shuttle)?

    “It is the kind of experience you have when you launch 130 times.”

    Our hypothetical SDLV has launched 0 times, not 130 times.

    If you want to use faulty apples-and-oranges logic about LV experience, Atlas has launched over 300 times to orbit (and over 500 times including suborbital launches).

    “We don’t know were Delta IV, Atlas V, and Falcon 9 will be after as many flights.”

    They’ll be scores of flights ahead of any SDLV, which won’t start flying for many years.

    “The SLV with Orion (Liberty perhaps!) and its robust, tested launch abort system is a far safer configuration than a side mounted shuttle orbiter.”

    Not according to the Air Force analysis of what happens to capsule parachutes when trying outrun the radiant heat from burning SRB propellant debris.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “With all this talk, doesnt Russia have a plan to upgrade a Soyuz for a lunar mission?”

    The Russian space program has had circumlunar Soyuz plans (which only require a second prop module, second launch, and boosted comm system) for decades. Space Adventures has been offering such rides commercially for about a half decade now at $100-150M per seat, and they’ve booked a customer for the first seat. (They need to book two seats before committing to the mission.)

    http://www.newspacejournal.com/2011/01/23/space-adventures-and-virgin-galactic-make-a-little-news-in-munich/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    “Maybe we could buy a ticket to ride, from them?”

    I doubt NASA or the USG will, but anyone could and apparently someone is.

    FWIW…

  • Bennett

    Stephen, I’m all for dedicated cargo deliveries, but given the weight/volume requirements of humans, there’s going to be excess lift capacity for any of the Capsules + LV that can get to the ISS.

    So really, what is the big deal? Pack the vehicle up with commodities to the limit of the booster. We have what we have, and we’re not going to build another shuttle, so let’s get the most out of every launch.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 7:36 pm

    interesting comments..

    There is probably “some” cargo which needs the assets of a “near crew carrier” (thinking thermal, keep alive power etc)…but what hangs over me from many decades ago is a “study” that we did in grad school which used the LDEF platform as a baseline for a “unpressed no power” cargo carrier…meaning everything rode up more or less inert with “thermal as it goes”.

    It is amazing how much more cargo one can carry this way…we used the Titan Transtage as a sort of baseline for a propulsion system and mimicked a sort of airplane cargo container system for packing things…

    I still have the 1/32 model we built of the thing…

    Happy Valentines Day (almost) as I type this

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    Joe wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 7:29 pm

    The “sidemount capsule design” for these purposes is the same as the basic Orion Design (or for that matter any simular capsule design), the heat shield is protected during launch by its interface to the service module and the faring to the launch abort system. That means that no one is (to use your capitalization for emphasis) “ADDING MASS”.

    Three years ago I thought Shuttle-derived sidemount was a good idea, and I liked the DIRECT proposal too. Since that time, I’ve come to see them as overly complex designs, based on a combination of vehicle and support needs. Sure we could we make them fly, but I think there are less complicated designs that have a lower TOC (Total Cost of Ownership).

    I’ve also come to believe that all we need for getting to space is basic transportation, whether that’s a capsule or Dream Chaser type vehicle. Once in space, the crew will transfer to dedicated space-only vehicles. Because of that, crew transportation can be taken care of by medium-class launchers like Atlas V and Falcon 9. So putting crew on an HLV goes away, and so does that part of the development cost (and weight). See, I’m making HLV’s less expensive. ;-)

    The really big debate is with cargo, since it boils down to whether there is a need for something bigger than Delta IV Heavy (50,000 lb to LEO), or even Atlas V Heavy (64,000 lb to LEO) and Falcon 9 Heavy (70,000 lb to LEO).

    I favor market based solutions, so I like supply and demand forces influencing things like the sizes of cargo carriers as well as standard cargo sizes. Right now that would mean that NASA should be building spacecraft within the limitations of Delta IV Heavy, which means we can build ISS type space structures.

    But I also think that at some point commerce in space will surpass the needs of NASA, and that is when market forces will start pushing up the up-mass capabilities of the launcher market. Just like aircraft, launchers will get progressively bigger, but it will because there is sustainable demand for it, not because of a temporary government program.

    So the argument about what size launcher, and what type design, NASA should build is missing the point – NASA should not be in the launcher “business”, and any launcher they build will only be used by NASA, so it’s going to be very costly to run.

    Remember, NASA contracts out the majority of work on the Shuttle, and likely they’ll do the same on the SLS, so why not skip the whole “ownership” step and just buy launch services on the open market? If they can’t buy what they need, then it’s probably because they have something too big with too few launches. And what that means is that NASA would have been stuck with a HUGE cost to do some short-term program, and then would have been saddled with a launcher to no-where.

    Anyways, sorry for the long post, but I thought I should throw that out there.

    My $0.02

    Oh, and I agree with Rand, in that cargo and crew don’t have to be exclusive, so that is not part of my reasoning above.

  • Joe

    “Major Tom wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
    “I don’t disagree with your numbers as presented, but you’re ignoring crew escape. Shuttle has none, but the addition of even a marginally effective crew escape system to an EELV stack will make that 0.8% difference trivial. That will still hold true for crew capsules trying to manage a narrow escape trajectory from a sidemount SDLV or any SDLV that’s chasing an escaping crew capsule and its parachutes with high thrust SRBs or the heat from their burning propellant debris.”

    I was not trying to compare Shuttle to an EELV with a capsule. The subject (at least I thought it was) was SDHLV to EELV. Two points here:
    (1) The 1 in 90 figure is for a complete shuttle mission (including return of the orbiter intact to the runway). 3 of the top 5 risks listed in the article were; Micrometeorite or orbital debris strikes orbiter, leading to loss of vehicle in orbit or on re-entry, Launch debris strikes shuttle heat shield components, leading to loss of the vehicle and crew in orbit or during re-entry, Crew error during re-entry. All of those related to Shuttle landing and drive the Shuttle Figure (1 in 90) down to that level. They are not comparable to the EELV figure (1 in 50) which only includes delivery of payload to orbit. Without knowing all of the factors driving the Shuttle number, you cannot say how much higher it would be for an SDHLV (without the Orbiter reentry/landing components), but the increase would obviously be significant. Say (Hypothetically, for the sake of argument) it only went up to 1 in 100 – and I think that a very conservative estimate.
    (2) Abort from either Side Mount or In line SDHLV. This gets to be a touchy subject around here ( I suspect we may here from a certain unnamed individual asserting very vociferously that an abort from Side Mount is “impossible” no matter what the people doing the analysis say). Nevertheless, let’s assume (again hypothetically) that abort from any SDHLV is more difficult than for an EELV. The generally used reliability number for an abort system is 90% (1 in 10). Let’s grant that figure to EELV and only give SDHLV half that 80% (1 in 5).
    Those assumptions which (at least in my opinion) are weighted to give considerable advantage to EELV have the risk of Loss of Crew (LOC) at 1 in 500 for both EELV and SDHLV.

    “Moreover, even if crew escape from Shuttle-derived vehicles was no more difficult than crew escape from EELVs, is that 0.8% difference really worth the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the Shuttle to date?”

    Those are “sunk costs” as is the money already spent developing the EELVs.

    “Or the tens of billions of dollars that will be spent developing another one?”

    The cost estimates for SDHLV are well lower than “tens of billions of dollars” and the cost for fielding crew rated EELVs would not be zero.
    As you say: “FWIW…”.

  • common sense

    @ Joe wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 10:19 am

    “I suspect we may here from a certain unnamed individual asserting very vociferously that an abort from Side Mount is “impossible” no matter what the people doing the analysis say”

    Hey Joe! Can’t live with me, can’t live without me?

    Alternate reality yet again? Did I ever say “impossible”? Where is the analysis you refer to?

    Did you have a good weekend?

  • Joe

    common sense wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 10:58 am
    @ Joe wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 10:19 am

    “Hey Joe! Can’t live with me, can’t live without me? ”

    Actually that is incorrect. I can (and do) live without you very well.

    “Did you have a good weekend?”

    An excellent one, thanks.

  • Das Boese

    Hm. In any case NASA seems set to receive cuts to exploration and science…
    Meanwhile in Hawthorne, California:

    “Astrobotic Technology Annouces Lunar Mission on SpaceX Falcon 9″

    For the cost of Ares I alone you could probably land a dozen of these all over the moon and do more science and exploration than Constellation ever would, sooner.

  • Aremis Asling

    @DCSA Re: SpaceX Manned Dragon said:

    “It’s a good one. It’s reality. Seriously.”

    It’s reality, but it’s not a good argument. There are a lot of true things that don’t really support much. Saying Falcon 9/Dragon hasn’t ever flown people really doesn’t prove anything. What you made was a simple observation of fact that is not, in and of itself, a refutation of anything. It’s essentially saying “if not now, then never,” which is an absurdly unsound conclusion.

    Thus far people have used your argument to say they’d never fly a rocket, that they’d never fly an F9, and that they’d never launch a Dragon and recover it. They’ve done all of that, one of which has never been done by a private company. That, also, doesn’t prove anything in that there’s still no guarantee they’ll complete a manned Dragon. But, from the standpoint of logical proof, it stands on exactly equal footing with your own assertion.

    What I presented was an argument that pointed out that logical fallacy and illustrated its fallacious nature by pointing out that no one else has done so either in the last 30 years. So by pure and simple logical extension, your argument is saying that only Boeing can fly people in space asthey are the only ones that have done it in American history (the other companies who have done HSF have been bought by Boeing over the decades). If that’s really what you chose to believe, that’s up to you, but it isn’t a sound argument. It’s an observation.

  • DCSCA

    @Lars wrote @ February 13th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
    “How will Cargo Dragon and Crew Dragon be any different?” Cargo Dragon might work. Crew Dragon might kill. But then, if you’ve been following the threads, crew survivability isn’t a priority so much as hardware with some of the shills for SpaceX.

  • Aremis Asling

    “Crew Dragon might kill.”

    Again, nice statement, nothing to back it up. Falcon 9/Dragon will have a far longer flight heritage by the time they fly people than whatever big government rocket eventually gets built. We’ll know volumes more about its safety and will have shaken out most of the launch, orbit, and landing issues that could be reasonably foreseen. It certainly doesn’t mean it’ll never have problems, but pointing that out, once again, doesn’t make the case for any other alternative. Even assuming an early flight date of 2014, Falcon 9/Dragon will have logged 12 resupply flights, 2-3 COTS missions, and any DragonLab flights that may fly. Excluding DragonLab, that’s 10-13% of the total flight heritage of STS over 30 years, and that’s before a single person ever boards a Dragon.

    Ares I was set to launch people on it’s second flight. The same is likely true of whatever the new design is. That’s a LOT of faith you have in government rockets over private to take a government craft almost entirely on faith and completely disregard actual flight heritage on the private option.

  • VirgilSamms

    Nothing on earth except soyuz has a longer flight heritage than the ATK and Astrium hardware. That is why it is going to be the next soyuz and the launcher of choice for the next half century.

    Falcon was lucky twice but I expect that cluster to blow up on the pad next time. I will keep my fingers crossed.

  • Das Boese

    DCSCA wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    “Cargo Dragon might work. Crew Dragon might kill. But then, if you’ve been following the threads, crew survivability isn’t a priority so much as hardware with some of the shills for SpaceX.”

    There’s a distinct lack of logical soundness to that statement, can you spot it?
    Seriously, it’s like playing fallacy bingo!

  • Falcon was lucky twice but I expect that cluster to blow up on the pad next time.

    No one cares what illogical ignorami expect.

  • Aremis Asling

    “Nothing on earth except soyuz has a longer flight heritage than the ATK and Astrium hardware”

    Than ATK and Astrium hardware? Sure. But not in the configuration they plan. A 5 segment SRB has never flown, and the Astrium hardware has never played the role it’s playing in this new design. I’m sure it will fly. At least I very much hope it does. But to say this brand new rocket can ride in on the flight heritage of its components is simply incorrect. It certainly helps, but a lot of reliable components do not constitute a reliable rocket.

    F9/Dragon will have been flying successfully in substantially the same configuration, save for improvements from lessons learned, for that entire period.

  • Aremis Asling

    “But then, if you’ve been following the threads, crew survivability isn’t a priority so much as hardware with some of the shills for SpaceX.”

    Yes, I’m a SpaceX fan. But considering what they’ve accomplished thus far and the track record of every company before it that has tried it, I’d say there’s good reason to be one. That said, I’m really more of a commercial space fan, andI’m excited to see the other players in the field. But for one, no one else has yet launched anything, so it’s just hard to get enthused about them. Also discouraging for those of us that are commercial fans, the rest of the players in the field are far more tight-lipped about progress. It’s business prudence, I understand, and I don’t blame them. But it’s hard to get excited about news you never get.

    My issue is not that I feel SpaceX is the one-and-only option, I don’t. Heck, they may not even be the best option. My issue is that people pan them as an inevitable failure (why? I don’t know, perhaps because it’s a day that ends in ‘y’), or tout another system as a shoe-in over some perceived inferiority SpaceX has that I’ve never seen anyone actually prove. That annoys me. So I respond to it.

  • Das Boese

    VirgilSamms wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    Nothing on earth except soyuz has a longer flight heritage than the ATK and Astrium hardware.

    None of the components have ever flown in the proposed configuration, so I’m not sure where you see “flight heritage”.

    That is why it is going to be the next soyuz and the launcher of choice for the next half century.

    I find that hard to believe as it has none of the economic advantages or versatility that Soyuz offers.
    The “next Soyuz” will be Soyuz with some upgrades, competing in a diversified market.

    Falcon was lucky twice but I expect that cluster to blow up on the pad next time. I will keep my fingers crossed.

    I think you will find your expectation unfounded.
    Engineers don’t believe in luck, at SpaceX or anywhere.
    Well okay, maybe at NASA and whoever builds the external tank for them (Lockheed, was it?).

  • common sense

    @ Joe wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 11:17 am

    “Actually that is incorrect. I can (and do) live without you very well.”

    It does not look like it since you keep coming at me. And beside my unfathomable charm I wonder what makes you think of me so much. Could I be right?

    Now as your usual self, you state things without reference: Such as I said it was “impossible” to abort from side-mount or that there is some analysis showing you can actually safely abort… Anyway.

    You know what might work is to find someone, an expert, – not me of course – that could actually explain to you what needs to be done for a rigorous abort analysis. An analysis that would include proximity aero and 6-DOF at various point on ascent at different angles of attack that include on-pad, max-Q, max-alpha-Q, max-alpha, max-Mach, max-heating to name a few. With such a configuration you may need max side slip as well since the vehicle is not symmetric. LAS release analysis and re-contact. Re-contact with burning solids. Etc etc. Aerothermal analysis of plume impingement would have to be done with the actual vehicle with all systems and TPS. The LAS would have to be sized for the associated ascent trajectory. I’ll grant you that it may have been done already and that I am just ignorant. But until I see the analysis and that it shows it can be done I’ll say that there is a high risk of killing the crew… on abort from side-mount.

    And the preliminary analysis you linked to just does not cut it.

    Oh well…

  • “Falcon was lucky twice but I expect that cluster to blow up on the pad next time. I will keep my fingers crossed.”

    Based on their past tendency to be a money sponge, I’m no big ATK fan. But if they had a viable economically competitive rocket sitting on the pad ready to launch right now, I would be glued to the video coverage and rooting for their success because it would be to the advantage of the USA’s future in space. Whether you like them or not, if your priorities weren’t so screwed up, you would have that same attitude about SpaceX’s next launch instead of keeping your fingers crossed for their failure. What is in the best interests of your country should come before petty puerile fanboism. You are truly warped.

  • Major Tom

    “I was not trying to compare Shuttle to an EELV with a capsule. The subject (at least I thought it was) was SDHLV to EELV.”

    Regardless, it’s manned space flight and astronaut risks that we’re talking about, not satellites. That means we have to include aborts in our consideration.

    “Micrometeorite or orbital debris strikes orbiter, leading to loss of vehicle in orbit or on re-entry… Crew error during re-entry.”

    These are risks on any manned mission. They’re not unique to Shuttle.

    “Without knowing all of the factors driving the Shuttle number, you cannot say how much higher it would be for an SDHLV (without the Orbiter reentry/landing components)”

    It’s not going to be much different from Shuttle, since whatever capsule the SDHLV is throwing is still subject to those debris and crew error risks.

    “Nevertheless, let’s assume (again hypothetically) that abort from any SDHLV is more difficult than for an EELV. The generally used reliability number for an abort system is 90% (1 in 10). Let’s grant that figure to EELV and only give SDHLV half that 80% (1 in 5).”

    It’s much worse than that for SDHLV. Even assuming an inline design (and setting aside the engineering nightmare of trying to get off a sidemount stack safely), per the Air Force analysis, there are whole minutes during the ascent when there is practically zero chance of a survivable abort. On top of that, to have a shot at getting away from the SRBs during the rest of the ascent profile, the LES on an SDHLV has to be much bigger and more complex — and thus less reliable — than the LES for an all-liquid stack.

    As a result of the above, the Ares I/Orion LES was looking at about 50% (1-in-2). At that point, it begs the question of why even have an LES. If it’s a coin toss as to whether the LES is going to save or kill the crew, then you’re better off without it.

    “Those are ‘sunk costs’ as is the money already spent developing the EELVs.

    Fair enough. We can’t revisit history, but I sure wish we could in the case of Shuttle.

    “The cost estimates for SDHLV are well lower than ‘tens of billions of dollars'”

    Not so far according to NASA:

    “The authorization act gives NASA until 2016 to field the heavy-lift rocket and crew vehicle, and authorizes Congress to spend more than $10 billion on the two projects over the next three years” but “NASA’s Jan. 10 interim report states that ‘neither Reference Vehicle Design currently fits the projected budget profiles nor schedule goals outlined’ in the law”.

    http://spacenews.com/civil/110111-nasa-heavy-lift-proposal.html

    And Ares I/Orion alone was pushing $35-40 billion before termination.

    Even if SDHLV cost the same as EELVs or Falcon 9, why spend taxpayer money duplicating a capability? Especially when crews will be safer on those existing vehicles?

    “and the cost for fielding crew rated EELVs would not be zero.

    No, but they’re measured in the hundreds of millions to low billions of dollars, not $10-20 billion plus.

    FWIW…

  • Joe

    “Major Tom wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 11:16 am
    “I was not trying to compare Shuttle to an EELV with a capsule. The subject (at least I thought it was) was SDHLV to EELV.”
    Regardless, it’s manned space flight and astronaut risks that we’re talking about, not satellites. That means we have to include aborts in our consideration.
    “Micrometeorite or orbital debris strikes orbiter, leading to loss of vehicle in orbit or on re-entry… Crew error during re-entry.”
    These are risks on any manned mission. They’re not unique to Shuttle.
    “Without knowing all of the factors driving the Shuttle number, you cannot say how much higher it would be for an SDHLV (without the Orbiter reentry/landing components)”
    It’s not going to be much different from Shuttle, since whatever capsule the SDHLV is throwing is still subject to those debris and crew error risks.”

    The point I think you are missing is that the same is true for any crew vehicle design whether it is launched on an SDHLV or an EELV. The Shuttle (1 in 90) number already covers that for the Orbiter (which is bigger and more fragile than any capsule design will be – and thus is a “bigger target”); the EELV (1 in 50) number does not cover such exposure at all (it covers only payload delivery to orbit). Therefore to have an “apples to apples” comparison you would have to set the end point of the risk analysis at the same point. If that endpoint is delivery of payload to orbit, then I still say a (1 in 100) number is extremely conservative for an SDHLV.

    “Nevertheless, let’s assume (again hypothetically) that abort from any SDHLV is more difficult than for an EELV. The generally used reliability number for an abort system is 90% (1 in 10). Let’s grant that figure to EELV and only give SDHLV half that 80% (1 in 5).”
    “It’s much worse than that for SDHLV. Even assuming an inline design (and setting aside the engineering nightmare of trying to get off a sidemount stack safely), per the Air Force analysis, there are whole minutes during the ascent when there is practically zero chance of a survivable abort. On top of that, to have a shot at getting away from the SRBs during the rest of the ascent profile, the LES on an SDHLV has to be much bigger and more complex — and thus less reliable — than the LES for an all-liquid stack.
    As a result of the above, the Ares I/Orion LES was looking at about 50% (1-in-2). At that point, it begs the question of why even have an LES. If it’s a coin toss as to whether the LES is going to save or kill the crew, then you’re better off without it.”

    I am not familiar with “the Air Force Analysis” you refer to, but if it was done for the Ares I that is a very different stack than either an In Line or Side Mount SDHLV and would not be applicable to this discussion

    ““Those are ‘sunk costs’ as is the money already spent developing the EELVs.
    Fair enough. We can’t revisit history, but I sure wish we could in the case of Shuttle.”

    So do I, give me a time machine and the ability to run the circa 1970 United States and the Apollo/Saturn hardware would have been “incrementally evolved” to support space operations. Instead we “threw it away” and went chasing the “bold, innovative, game hanging, paradigm shifting” technology of its day (the Space Shuttle). Now that the SD hardware is available to be similarly “incrementally evolved” we are in the process of making the same mistake again

    ““The cost estimates for SDHLV are well lower than ‘tens of billions of dollars’”
    Not so far according to NASA:
    “The authorization act gives NASA until 2016 to field the heavy-lift rocket and crew vehicle, and authorizes Congress to spend more than $10 billion on the two projects over the next three years” but “NASA’s Jan. 10 interim report states that ‘neither Reference Vehicle Design currently fits the projected budget profiles nor schedule goals outlined’ in the law”.”

    That is according to NASA Headquarters. One of the discussions, likely to be “interesting” in the coming congressional hearings is why NASA HQ failed to provide the “supporting data” (the field center technical work that was input to the NASA HQ generated report) Congress had requested. I really wish that fight did not have to happen because I fear the outcome is going to very damaging for everyone (except those who want there to be no American based Space Program at all).

    “Even if SDHLV cost the same as EELVs or Falcon 9, why spend taxpayer money duplicating a capability? Especially when crews will be safer on those existing vehicles?”

    Per the above I simply so not accept your assertion that “crews will be safer on those existing vehicles”. For one thing a crew rated EELV is not an “existing vehicle”.

    At any rate, as you say: “FWIW…”

  • common sense

    @ Major Tom wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 11:16 am

    “er the Air Force analysis, there are whole minutes during the ascent when there is practically zero chance of a survivable abort.”

    You would also have to consider a pad abort as really non trivial. You have several mode of failures with SRBs AND LH2-LOX. A burning SRB might detonate the main tank which in turn might – I don’t know for sure – detonate the other SRB. A detonation would most likely annihilate the capsule. Unless you know ahead of time it is going to happen there is no way to escape it. In any case it does indeed beg the question for the necessity of an actual LAS for such vehicle. I strongly believe that a LAS actually increases risk in that case for several reasons that I said above and those you state as well.

    An SDLV with a LAS inline (a la Ares V) would be very difficult to make work properly with even greater difficulty than an Ares I vehicle.

    A sidemount SDLV with a LAS might be even worse on the whole range of flight from pad to LAS jettison if the purpose is to recover the crew well… alive.

    We do not need a SD anything. We will not get a SD anything. Because on top of the technical difficulty they are well… too expensive!

  • common sense

    @ Joe wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    “I am not familiar with “the Air Force Analysis” you refer to, but if it was done for the Ares I that is a very different stack than either an In Line or Side Mount SDHLV and would not be applicable to this discussion”

    Oh well, you are not familiar with the AF analysis yet you know for sure it is not applicable?

    I wonder what it is you actually do in this business.

  • Major Tom

    “I am not familiar with ‘the Air Force Analysis’ you refer to”

    Here’s a summary and link to the presentation.

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=31792

    “but if it was done for the Ares I that is a very different stack than either an In Line or Side Mount SDHLV and would not be applicable to this discussion”

    Those are all different stacks, but the fundamental problem — that solid rocket propellant continues to burn after deflagration and poses a radiant heating danger to capsule parachutes — is the same as long as those stacks use SRBs.

    “… the Apollo/Saturn hardware would have been ‘incrementally evolved’ to support space operations.”

    I’m all for incremental evolution when the technical base is affordable, sustainable, and reliable. The Apollo systems didn’t meet the first two criteria once the Soviet N-1 effort collapsed, and probably wouldn’t have met the third criterion given a handful more flights.

    “Now that the SD hardware is available to be similarly ‘incrementally evolved'”

    The Shuttle technical base doesn’t meet these criteria, either.

    Shuttle has wasted NASA’s human space flight budget on ETO transport for decades now, leaving practically nothing for BEO activities and limiting the LEO destination (ISS) to a budget that’s half that its transportation (STS). It’s like spending double your mortgage or rent each year on gas for your commute.

    Ares I/Orion was going to be a $35-40 billion development effort, vice the two EELV families, which the taxpayer got for $1 billion development investment, or Falcon 9/Dragon (unmanned), which the taxpayer received for $278 million.

    Now we’re being sold a congressionally designed SDHLV that NASA prices somewhere north of $16 billion, when we could put fault detection and gantries on Delta IVs to loft Orion for hundreds of millions of dollars.

    When is this insanity going to end? We’re spending billions more on transportation vice destination and tens of billions more than what other space sectors spend for equivalent capabilities. And for what? A system crippled by safety concerns because it has no LES (STS) or will kill crews regardless of the LES (see USAF analysis above)?

    “That is according to NASA Headquarters.”

    Not to be snide, but what higher technical authority do you want to appeal to?

    God?

    “I really wish that fight did not have to happen because I fear the outcome is going to very damaging for everyone (except those who want there to be no American based Space Program at all).”

    We can have an “American-based”, even a “NASA-based”, human space flight program without Shuttle or Constellation vehicles.

    “Per the above I simply so not accept your assertion that ‘crews will be safer on those existing vehicles’. For one thing a crew rated EELV is not an ‘existing vehicle’.”

    You’re right that there is no crew-rated EELV today. But adding a fault detection system, some pad gantries, and an LES to an existing ELV/capsule is a much simpler and much less expensive development than creating an entirely new LV stack (Ares I, sidemount, inline, etc.) out of Shuttle components that were not originally designed to fly in such a configuration. That’s even more true when the ELVs will have (or already do have) dozens of flights behind them before the first flight of that new Shuttle-derived LV stack.

    FWIW…

Leave a Reply to amightywind Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

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