In a letter released Tuesday, a group of 56 “space leaders”, ranging from former astronauts and NASA officials to industry executives, called on Congress to fully fund NASA’s commercial crew development program, claiming it is “critical to the health of the Nation’s human spaceflight efforts.” Funding for that program is 2011 is still pending a final appropriations bill, and the 2012 budget debate kicks into gear this week with hearings on the NASA budget today in the House Science Committee and tomorrow in a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee.
In the letter, the authors argue that funding commercial crew can reduce the agency’s costs and thus free up funding to carry out other elements of the agency’s plans as specified in the 2010 authorization act. “Funding NASA’s Commercial Crew program would lower the cost of access to low Earth orbit, thus enabling more of NASA’s budget to be applied to its focus on exploration beyond low Earth orbit, and better enabling the kind of program laid out in NASA’s authorization bill,” the letter states, underlined for emphasis. It adds that commercial crew “represents one of the best means to prevent damage to NASA’s human spaceflight capabilities in the face of across the board spending cuts being discussed by Congress.”
Space leaders? No. Just the same tired cabal of activists, insiders, and assorted hucksters out to grab a gubment dolla? Definitely. Virtually all of the folks listed would be guaranteed a payout. I hope congress deposits this letter in the circular file and starts rebuilding the nation’s space program along traditional lines.
So who exactly are 56 space leaders you have faith in wind?
Ex astronauts? hucksters
Ex assistant and other ex NASA managers? hucksters
People currently building rockets? hucksters
just who isn’t a hucksters in your mind and is a space leader?
The letter does not seem to specify what is meant by “fully fund”.
Is it the $500 Million in the Authorization Act? Or is it the $850 Million in the 2012 Budget Request (a 70% increase over what the Administration agreed to in the Authorization Act)?
The issue is that most on the list are people who stand to gain financially (SpaceX, Space Adventures, …) from turning NASA into a charity to benifit what amounts to, literally, a handful billionare tourists.
Setting aside all the petty bickering for a moment, the real question is if there is a “commercial” market for passengers to LEO. At a low enough cost, for certain, there would be. But at current costs, and even the most optimistic promises of Elon Musk, LEO is will remain out of financial reach of just about everyone except for 2 NASA ISS flights per year, plus maybe a FEW additional token astronauts and ultra-wealth tourists. That doesn’t sound like enough to sustain the multi-billion-dollar costs per year for facilities, personnel, infrastructure, etc.
We would ALL love to see the commercial space promise take off, but for many of is it does not appear much more than an empty promise. We would love to be proven wrong.
@Vladislaw wrote @ March 2nd, 2011 at 9:23 am
“just who isn’t a hucksters in your mind and is a space leader?”
Sen. Shelby for one and Mike Griffin! Duh!
Of course there is no real space market. Yet.
NASA would be the only commercial crew customer. At first.
But even if there is no other customers, NASA would save a LOT of money by purchasing LEO spaceflight services by doing it through this new contracting mechanism. (instead of the enormous cost plus contracts currently in place for Orion and SLS)
So EVEN if there is no other customer than NASA – if it saves NASA money (which it can use on more BEO exploration – manned or unmanned) – isn’t it worth it?
But if you call commercial crew funding “hand-outs” or “subsidies” – Isn’t it far less of “hand-outs” or “subsidies” than what is currently being paid for Orion and/or SLS (or whatever it will be called)???
The issue is that most on the list are people who stand to gain financially (SpaceX, Space Adventures, …) from turning NASA into a charity to benifit what amounts to, literally, a handful billionare tourists.
Nonsense. We can all read the list. How does Bob Poole gain financially from this? How does the head of the Space Studies Institute?
“rebuilding the nation’s space program along traditional lines.”
Why? What purpose does this serve?
Any US national space program build along traditional lines would be socialistic, plain and simple.
So windy is backing a Bolshevik type program. Just because you like spaceflight it is ok to be socialist? If you want a gov’t run and operated space program, you can’t be against govt run health insurance or other program.
You can’t pick and choose. You are either a socialist and want gov’t programs or you want industry to provide the services.
And It would be the standard assorted hucksters out to grab a gubment dolla. Who says ATK has more right to gubment dolla vs Spacex?
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ March 2nd, 2011 at 11:47 am
wrote:
“Setting aside all the petty bickering for a moment, the real question is if there is a “commercial†market for passengers to LEO.”
oh why bother as DATA on Trek the next observed “petty pickering is entertaining”. yes
Wrong question.
The real question is if there is a market for anything to LEO concerning humans outside of government funded government done projects.
I dont know if there is and you dont know if there is not…but the irony is that people like me who are betting that there is, are the folks who believe the most in the free enterprise system…and people like you who believe that there is not are the ones who believe in a government run space program that exist to provide some jobs that otherwise would not exist and a few thrills for some lucky government employees who get to ride into space.
What we have never seen is if access to space at a cost equal to or below that of the Russians and Soyuz and done by private enterprise for private enterprise can produce something that pays its own freight.
I never tire of the reality that people like you and Whittington, who spends his days arguing to recreate Apollo…refuse to bet on the free enterprise system and are stuck supporting a big government program, that you cannot explain the reason for.
back to the petty bickering
Greetings from Germany…after a few days on the ground in various parts of North Africa…good to be back
Robert G. Oler
byeman wrote @ March 2nd, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Wind wrote:
“rebuilding the nation’s space program along traditional lines.â€
You replied:
Why? What purpose does this serve?
………………………………
Whittington on his web site constantly shrills for an “Apollo for this generation”.
It is a goofy statement that implies that this generaion is actually interested in an Apollo like space program …which for the most part, they are not.
Robert G. Oler
Rand:
If you look down the list, a lot of people stand to gain $$$.
Respected people like Peter Diamandis, Mr X Prize, gets a cut from Space Adventures flights of ultra-rich space tourists.
Respected people like ex-shuttle astronaut Leroy Chiao, who gets a $$$ cut from Almiz business with their ex-Soviet espionage space capsule.
Respected people like ex-astronaut Ken Bowersox, who gets his paychecks and bonuses from his new boss, Elon Musk.
Which is not to say that people who are trying to make commercial space should not be heard. Just that what would be most convenient for them might not necessarily be optimal for NASA’s manned space exploration missoin.
And then there are people like Lou Friedman from the Planetary Society, who has been a loyal ObamaSpace backer, even thogh it provided no increases in the NASA science budget. I can’t figure him out. I am guessing that could be global-warming-related or purely political.
And then there are people who are simply no-holds-barred anti-NASA, like the Space Frontier Foundation. Look at their website, and you can read them braging about their attempts at insider sabotage of the Constellation program.
@ byeman wrote @ March 2nd, 2011 at 12:21 pm
“You can’t pick and choose. You are either a socialist and want gov’t programs or you want industry to provide the services.”
I don’t agree with this statement. You can actually pick and choose the smartest and most appropriate way to deal with a problem at any given time. One day it can be using the government and another day it could be the private sector. They are NOT mutually exclusive. For exmaple: Private space and government health care are among things we need TODAY. Tomorrow??? We’ll see on time. That is supposed to be the strength of the US: Pragmatism.
Just in case: It does not mean that I agree with amightywind! Of course not.
RO:
Yes, petty bickering can be entertaining, especiall if delivered by talents like Shakespeare (“Much Ado about Nothing”). (Opps, did I mention that banned author?)
However, it can also be rather hollow after awhile. It helps to have the occasional lapse of sanity where issues can be honestly discussed. There are always valid points to be made on any two sides. One should not be totally afraid to actually listen and understand.
Nelson
P.S. Apologies for the far too-frequent typos! Small fonts, large screen, old eyes…
Russia is once again claiming it will be making lunar flights within ten years. They could do it now with a beefed up Soyuz. China is making claims about lunar programs as well. If this comes to pass, will commercial be able to compete with deep space missions by other countries? How much talk is there of building perhaps, CST-100 or Dragon as a deep space vehicle in the future?`
“Free Enterprize”… if it were really, we wouldn’t have to
pay out the nose for it.
I think Bolden said it best in the CNN interview the other day…
We find ourselves in”an unacceptable position”
Correct Mr. Director… NASA and the current administration have
failed the people of this nation… we do not have a replacement
for the shuttle.
Exactly what would you attribute this failure to?
Did you learn any lessons from this failure?
“If you look down the list, a lot of people stand to gain $$$”
No, there are more with less skin in the game than those who do stand to gain.
Likewise any comparable pro CxP letter would have similar types of people who would gain.
If you look down the list, a lot of people stand to gain $$$.
And many don’t. Maybe they just want to see us advance into space as quickly as possible with the available funds.
Actually. commercial space research is starting to take hold. This weeks contracts to Virgin Galactic and XCOR demonstrate the fact that it is possible to run science programs independent of NASA. One company stated that their suborbital contract is a predecessor to a full orbital contract for Spacex’s Dragon Lab.
Regarding the recent SWRI contract with XCOR and Virgin Galactic:
(1) SWRI is funded primarily from taxpayers via government research contracts. Yes, there are a few commercial contracts, but there really isn’t much in the way of commercial interest in space research. Certainly nothing like the promised medical and material sciences breakthroughs promised from the ISS.
(2) If you look at what XCOR and Virgin Galactic have to offer, technically, it is a step backwards of 50 years. We are talking about capabilities that were already demonstrated in 1959 with the X-15. A majority of the commercial “space” companies are struggling with sounding rocket capabilities that were pioneered by the German V2 in WWII.
Which does not mean that this capability will not be useful. No doubt, Alan Stern is looking forward to his personal “joyride”, but a $200,000 VG flight is clearly cheaper than a million dollar expendable sounding rocket…
But for the NASA manned spaceflight program, these firms represent a dumbing-down, a net loss of technical competence and capability. In a way, this is a regression for NASA … back to kindergarden..
That doesn’t sound like enough to sustain the multi-billion-dollar costs per year for facilities, personnel, infrastructure, etc.
We would ALL love to see the commercial space promise take off, but for many of is it does not appear much more than an empty promise.
So what? If NASA needs transport to LEO, why not develop it in a way that make the hardware available to commercial clients (or foreign governments) too? It would drive down launch prices too, since they are currently dominated by fixed costs. And if you really want to see prices come down, why not make sure there is competition? For the past thirty years we’ve seen what happens if you have a single supplier: costs remain high. Now we finally have an opportunity to introduce market forces.
There is no downside, unless you were secretly shilling for the USA/ATK/MSFC alliance.
Rand:
I agree, there are certainly some who signed the letter who genuinely feel that commercial space should allow us to be able accomplish more, unbianed by any personal gain…
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ March 2nd, 2011 at 1:12 pm
“If you look down the list, a lot of people stand to gain $$$.”
Oh, and Lockheed Martin promoting Orion and ATK promoting Ares I was all in the spirit of advancing mankind?
Thinking ill of others motives doesn’t make your motives pure as the driven snow.
“And then there are people who are simply no-holds-barred anti-NASA, like the Space Frontier Foundation. Look at their website, and you can read them braging about their attempts at insider sabotage of the Constellation program.”
Being against Constellation does not equate to being against NASA. Constellation (aka Apollo on Steroids) was cancelled because it was a poorly run program that was going to cost far more than promised. If Griffin would have kept it on schedule and within budget, regardless of it’s dubious scientific merits, no one would have voted to cancel it. Get over it.
Dennis Berube wrote @ March 2nd, 2011 at 1:50 pm
“If this comes to pass, will commercial be able to compete with deep space missions by other countries?”
Dennis, Dennis. NASA is not going away, and commercial space is not advocating to take over the role of exploration away from them. Commercial space IS advocating to take over the routine work that NASA does, like resupplying the ISS with cargo and crew, which frees up NASA money and time so they can spend MORE time doing cutting edge exploration.
“How much talk is there of building perhaps, CST-100 or Dragon as a deep space vehicle in the future?”
Lots of people have fantasies, but all that matters is what people are willing to pay for. Right now the only market for commercial crew is to support the ISS, which is what CST-100 and Dragon are built to support. Once that gets going, Bigelow has said that he will use that crew system to support his commercial stations. All of that is in LEO.
Anything beyond that scope of work is dreaming, since there are no funded programs anywhere on the planet to go beyond LEO with humans. Now, if Congress decides to fund a BEO program, commercial space may go along with NASA in a support role (like they always have), but how much or what shape it takes is all TBD for now. Ask that question again when Congress ponies up the money.
This morning’s Florida Today had this editorial about the emerging commercial space market at the Space Coast:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20110302/OPINION/110301033/Our-views-An-emerging-market-March-2
Particularly telling is the conclusion, which notes that people here generally failed to get it in gear for many years but have finally accepted that commercial space is here.
Dennis Berube wrote:
Russia is once again claiming it will be making lunar flights within ten years. They could do it now with a beefed up Soyuz.
Source? Link please.
China is making claims about lunar programs as well.
Source? Link please.
And many don’t…
You simply cannot shrug off such blatant, brazen conflicts of interest. This administration reeks of crony capitalism.
Why? What purpose does this serve?
You don’t argue for any purpose, you merely argue.
I can’t figure him out. I am guessing that could be global-warming-related or purely political.
It is that, for the vast majority of them, and they would prefer if you didn’t notice.
“Who says ATK has more right to gubment dolla vs Spacex?”
3.6 million pounds of thrust and over 200 flawless SRB firings say they do.
Liberty is most likely going to put SpaceX out of business- if the competition is fair.
Ron:
If the letter was from only Lockheed, ATK, and other Constellation contractors then the recommendations should be similarly questioned. Blind faith is not aways rewarded with truth.
To openly lobby NASA and Congress is one thing. But to organize subversive anti-ARES “SWAT” teams is not operating in the intersts of NASA or the nation. Such conduct is destructive, dishonest, counterproductive, and of a treasonous spirit.
I am sorry to hear that you personally think that Constellation was overbudget, but you are wrong. Even Norm Augustine stated that it was a well-managed program with no insurmountable hurdles. It’s only fault was that it was a routinely expensive NASA undertaking, was less imaginative than our SciFi-soaked brains would wish, was underfunded because of ISS/shuttle cost overruns, and was an easy target for the “change” mantra of the most recent WH occupants.
I’m pretty excited about the new space future both for commercial and NASA.
In particular, the recently contracted sub-orbital flights for science missions, the development of several serious crew transport systems for leo and a new U.S. booster, NASA recognising it’s need for commercial and slowly Congress recognising that as well.
That coupled with the U.S. debt issue and it all adds up to a very interesting mix.
Good luck to those who wish to live in the past and on past glories. They will be the losers in failing to recognise the benefits of change and evolution. No doubt they get along well with the Flat Earth Society.
For those of us who have been waiting over 40 years since Apollo days for NASA to engage with commercial in a non-handout fashion and evolve such that progress in space beyond leo can take place, it’s very exciting and there are definite positive signs that this may actually happen.
VirgilSamms wrote @ March 2nd, 2011 at 6:42 pm
“Who says ATK has more right to gubment dolla vs Spacex?â€
3.6 million pounds of thrust and over 200 flawless SRB firings say they do.
Liberty is most likely going to put SpaceX out of business- if the competition is fair.
Ah ha ha ha ha. Your jokes are as good as puffofwinds. Keep it up, we all need a laugh these days.
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ March 2nd, 2011 at 1:21 pm
wrote:
“However, it can also be rather hollow after awhile. It helps to have the occasional lapse of sanity where issues can be honestly discussed. There are always valid points to be made on any two sides. One should not be totally afraid to actually listen and understand.”
I am never afraid to listen to other people’s ideas and concepts. My evolution in space politics and policy illustrates that. It doesnt take to many key strokes to follow that evolution over three decades or so a lot of it is on line…I use to advocate heavily for Shuttle C and was pro space station even did some serious lobbying for it with a friend who was the Chief of Staff to a US senator…until time and events evolved and I listened to some others who had other ideas…and saw that they most closely fit where things were going.
Ed Wright, wherever he is is a good example of that. Ed and I but heads on almost everything but as events have turned out regarding the EELV’s and other booster development, he was correct or more correct in the policy he advocated then I was.
Even Simberg who seems to have some sort of hangup on a lot of things…has illustrated some thoughts for me on space politics and policy that I had previously rejected.
The test however is are the “alternate viewpoints” coherent. Because in politics one can have opposing viewpoints which are just as coherent as “yours” but just different and events can shape out to be successful at least if those policies are carried out. I dont much agree with Obama’s economic policies or politics but they are ONE way to go forward and so far they have had the advantage of at least stopping the Bush slide.
At the time I thought Ronaldus the Great leaving Lebanon after the bombing was wrong…but he was dead right on that…and we are better off for having left.
The trick is coherency. You cannot be for “privatizing medicare” Or privatizing this or that…and not be for the Obama space policy. You cannot support Roe V Wade and as much as it sucked not support Bush V Gore…
It is incoherent to beat up on the modesnt spending the federal government is doing to “anchor” the COTS CCD program…and then say “we shold spend money on Cx”. Cx is crony capitalism.
I’ve been out of the Republic for most of this year (Africa/Northern Africa and am now in some coferences in Europe before heading home)…but when I had a small break I had the pleasure of beating up on y representative in TX-22 at a town meeting. He is all for cutting spending and boasted pretty hard about voting against planned parenthood but didnt like being reminded that he voted for the laternate engine on the F-35…oddly enough when the CNO and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force had said it was not needed. He was not happy to defend that vote
There is no excuse for Cx or the spending that went on with it…or the management that drove the cost of a lunar return out of the roof.
If the people who are angry that Cx is gone want to be angry be that was at turds who cranked up a solid first stage or Jeff Hanley whose cost estimates were made in sand (he admits he doesnt even know which was cheaper dumping the Ares first stage or recovering it).
Thats goofy
Robert G. Oler
Bogus headline. These are not ‘space leaders’ but individuals eager, with varying degrees of professional and personal motives and interests, to feed at the trough of government subsidies in an era when that same government has to borrow 42 cents of every dollar it spends. Of more interest are the TRUE leaders of America’s HSF program– the ones who achieved the historic goals — who have NOT signed this.
You know who they are.
But notice SpaceX’s Elon Musk has signed this pitch letter which further nullifies his bombastic claims to be runnig a ‘private enterprised’ space company. Rather than wasting time begging for government funding (along with pseudo-capitalist Elon Musk as a signator, extreme right wing lobbyist Bob Walker, who backed Newt Gingrich then Fred Thompson’s presidential aspirations, has signed as well) the place to go is Wall Street and the global capital investment arena in the private sector and raise funding like true capitalists do– if they can. But then, it’s clear they can’t. So they try to sucker the citizenry and saddle the risk on to the American taxpayers. Won’t wash in the Age of Austerity. So that retirement condo on Mars must wait, Master Musk. Maybe you meant Mars, Pennsylvania. That’s closer to Walker’s line of country, isn’t it.
@Stephen C. Smith wrote @ March 2nd, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Best you bone-up on Soyuz. Back in the day, its base design was for lunar flight capability.
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ March 2nd, 2011 at 8:12 pm
“If the letter was from only Lockheed, ATK, and other Constellation contractors then the recommendations should be similarly questioned.”
If the bar you set is that only those that have no hint of involvement or likelihood of potential gain from the space program are allowed to offer considered opinions, then that’s going to be a very short list. You wouldn’t make the list, but by some cruel fate of irony, I would.
In that case, I concur with the letter released by the commercial space advocates, and per your implied logic, my opinion carries significant gravitas. Thanks.
“I am sorry to hear that you personally think that Constellation was overbudget, but you are wrong. Even Norm Augustine stated that it was a well-managed program with no insurmountable hurdles.”
Oh? Page 60 of the Augustine final report says of the Ares I program:
“Its ultimate utility is diminished by schedule delays, which cause a mismatch with the programs it is intended to serve.”
Schedule delays cost money. Because Ares I and Orion were significantly behind schedule, they were also significantly over budget.
Or on page 59, where they discuss the technical challenges Ares I faced:
“For example, as the Ares I design has matured, the rocket has grown in weight and various technical issues have emerged. Among these is the high level of vibrations induced by thrust oscillation in the first-stage motor. While significant, these can be considered to be engineering problems, and the Committee expects that they will be solved, just as the developers of Apollo successfully faced challenges such as a capsule fire and an unknown and potentially hazardous landing environment. But finding the solutions to Constellation’s technical problems will likely have further impact on the program’s cost and schedule.”
Finally, you said:
“[Constellation] was an easy target for the “change†mantra of the most recent WH occupants.”
Careful, you political skirt is showing…
Remember that the President proposes, but the Congress disposes. In this case, a bipartisan Congress disposed of Constellation.
And how many of the government-serviced signators of this ‘pitch letter’ would be willing to forfeit all their government pensions and benefits packages for the rest of their lives and return what has already been paid to them out of the Treasury to fund this…
=crickets=
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ March 2nd, 2011 at 3:10 pm
“If you look at what XCOR and Virgin Galactic have to offer, technically, it is a step backwards of 50 years.”
You have a weird perspective. But hey, how goes it driving your 1800’s technology vehicle around town, or flying in 1900’s era aircraft? How come you’re not using something more modern?
Do you see how silly your argument is?
What matters most is that not that these companies have duplicated achievements of the past, but that they have done so for far less cost, and that they have business models to profit from them.
VirgilSamms wrote @ March 2nd, 2011 at 6:42 pm
“Liberty is most likely going to put SpaceX out of business…”
You’re going to have to explain that one. Which of the customers that SpaceX has will want to pay significantly more for Liberty?
You do remember that Falcon 9 costs $56M, Falcon 9 Heavy costs $95M, and Liberty costs $180M?
You also realize that there are few customers for Liberty-sized payloads out of KSC, which is where they have to launch to use existing Shuttle assets?
If they want to go after DoD/NRO business (the only big U.S. market for their size payloads), they have to build a launch facility on the West Coast, which will take years just to get the environmental impact study done (SpaceX just go theirs approved). Then they have to recreate that massive amount of infrastructure it takes to build a Liberty. Years before they are ready on the West Coast. Oh, and SpaceX launches a Falcon 9 Heavy demo flight next year from Vandenberg. They’ll have a good head start on proving out their launcher, and they cost 50% of Liberty.
And then there is that vibration issue that you always avoid, which would force existing Delta IV Heavy customers to spend more money to strengthen their payloads. Good luck with that.
In short, who are the customers for Liberty? Specifically, who, and why would they choose Liberty over Atlas, Delta, Ariane, or Falcon 9?
Robert:
It is interesting, your choice of the word Coherent.
I considered that one of the key selling points of Constellation and the Vision for Space Exploration. For once in 40 years, NASA had defined a meaningful set of goals, and a practical (but perhaps not overly flashy) means to get us there.
As far as the cost argument, Constellation would have cost far less than the ISS, and provided us with considerably more capability. I suspect that any dollar amount that is measured in billions comes across to us peasants like an insane, and presumably criminal, quantity.
I would be the last person to assume that what NASA does could not be done competently for half the amount. My concern is that most of those firms that propose to do what NASA does for less are comparative novices with no orbital spaceflight, let alone human spaceflight, experience. I suspect that the tragic truth well could be that you have to loose a few of your people before it genuinely sinks in how dangerous and unforgiving this “undertaking” can be.
Mr. Smith, just flip over to Spacetoday and go through yesterdays list and todays also has an article, and you will see what both Russia and China have plans for the 2020 time frame. Im not making anything up, but just passing on what certain article claim. Maybe they are wrong, but I doubt it.
Nelson Bridwell
Sorry, but thats not accurate.
If you look just at companies producing rockets, which is ULA, OSC, and SpaceX, the majority have orbital spaceflight experience
If you look at companies producing (or proposing) capsuless, they included
1. Boeing
2. OSC
3. Sierra Nevada Corp
4. SpaceX
5. Blue Origin
Now, I will grant that only Boeing has fully developed human spaceflight hardware. But most of them have developed or worked as subsystem providers for human spaceflight hardware.
In short, viewing them as comparative novices, particularly when you have companies like ULA and Boeing in the mix, is disingenuous.
Your cost argument is not true, Nelson. Colleagues at HQS told me that Constellation was on track to exceed Shuttle and ISS by every measure.
Something I am wondering about? Not so very long ago, a person could board Concorde and fly to 60,000 feet at the speed of a bullet. The price tag in the end was 10,000 a wack. Now the airways couldnt get enough people to support Concorde, how does the commercial space ventures think 200,000, or more will attract people? It certainly wont be the average man who gets to go, but perhaps the rich and famous! Of course that too is only for sub-orbital hops. More for orbital rides. I remember Concorde being advertised as flying with the only thing higher was the astronauts. If anything bring back Concorde if you really want to go sub-orbital! 10,000 dollars at 60,000 feet, is better than 200,000 no matter how you look at it!
@ Dennis Berube wrote @ March 3rd, 2011 at 11:05 am
Ah Concorde. A magnificent piece of engineering. Remember this thing was designed and built a long time ago. Nowadays you can beat Concorde with… Skype. So it ended up being a mega business jet. Unfortunately after the accident it lost a lot of its clients. People who will “initially” fly say with VG are a small subset of those flying even Concorde. People flying Concorde might have thought it was not that safe after all. And the market for the airlines was in limbo after 9/11. So all in all it became obvious that it would take a long time to make money again with them.
So I don’t know if you can draw a direct parallel. Remember people are still flying business jets at a vastly greater cost.
Depends on what the operational costs are. In the case of the concord, it could not carry enough people to cover them. Concorde was built for a wolrd of low fuel prices and concorde was restricted to operating over water due to its sonic boom and it lacked the range for say an LA to Tokyo flight. This made it a not so useful an air plane.
Concorde, I understand did make some money over its flight lifetime. As to the crash, it was not even the planes fault for the incident. If an L1011 hadnt lost a part, Concordes wheel would have not hit it and projected it up into the fuel tanks. I understand the crew on the ground responsible for making sure the runway safe from obstacles, lost many a job. Anyway, I do also understand it was partially sponsored by government. Concorde was way ahead of its time, and with time Im sure she could have been readapted for better fuel usage and quiet operation. Sadly she was never given that chance. If projections for fuel stay their course, it is only going to get worse, so are these companies promising lower rates to space, going to absorb that? I doubt it! In the original plans a Concorde Mark IV was to have been built which could have made the Pacific run! Sadly again never happened. I remember flying from Japan to the state of Washinton, a total of 10 hours in the air. A Concorde like jet could have made it in a third of the time.
@ Dennis Berube wrote @ March 3rd, 2011 at 4:11 pm
“Concorde, I understand did make some money over its flight lifetime.”
It did. Some.
“Concorde was way ahead of its time, and with time Im sure she could have been readapted for better fuel usage and quiet operation. Sadly she was never given that chance.”
No it would not have been possible. Not at a decent cost. There were several follow-up studies in Europe though. You may even remember this in the US http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-062-DFRC.html
“As far as the cost argument, Constellation would have cost far less than the ISS”
Simply not true. It was already costing more per year than the ISS.
“let alone human spaceflight,”
LM had no human spaceflight experience and it was designing Orion.
“I suspect that the tragic truth well could be that you have to loose a few of your people”
So NASA and its contractors get a pass on losing 14 people.
Bridwell et al, all your points are baseless. NASA is no better to manage human spaceflight and than any contractor. The contractors can buy the experience of NASA and its contractors.
Concorde, I understand did make some money over its flight lifetime.
Not as much as it lost.
Concorde was way ahead of its time, and with time Im sure she could have been readapted for better fuel usage and quiet operation.
Yes, you’re sure of many things that are nonsensical.
If projections for fuel stay their course, it is only going to get worse, so are these companies promising lower rates to space, going to absorb that?
Fuel is a trivial part of the cost of current launch systems. You could increase its cost by an order of magnitude and it would barely be noticeable in launch prices.
Ferris:
NewSpace is defined by HobbySpace.com as covering “approaches to space development that differ significantly from that taken by NASA and the mainstream aerospace industry. Boeing, Lockheed, and ATK are about as OldSpace as you can get. Orbital Sciences is also not NewSpace.
Going down the list, thus far:
Armadillo Aerospace: non-orbital, no human spaceflight experience
Bigelow Aerospace: no human spaceflight experience
Blue Origin: non-orbital, no human spaceflight experience
Copenhagen Suborbitals: non-orbital, no human spaceflight experience
Masten Space Systems: non-orbital, no human spaceflight experience
Scaled Composites: non-orbital
SpaceDev: non-orbital, no human spaceflight experience
SpaceX: no human spaceflight experience
UP Aerospace: non-orbital, no human spaceflight experience
XCOR Aerospace: non-orbital
So 80% do not have any actual orbital spaceflight experience. In fact, most have never reached space, and several have barely left the ground.
90% have never carried humans, and none of them has ever placed a human in space.
NASA, on the other hand, had operated manned spacecraft in Earth and Lunar orbit, and unmanned spacecraft all the way out to interplanetary space. It has in excess of 150,000 man-hours of human spaceflight experience.
Cost:
I have heard total program cost estimates for the ISS (which include a large number of shuttle flights) that come to something like 100 billion.
The total Constellation estimates (with Ares V, Ares I, and Altair) came to about 50 billion.
The ISS provides us with lots of man-hours of experience with exposure to zero gravity, as well as expsoure to zero-g assembly/maintenance situations. Beyond that, it’s exploration value is marginal. It’s orbit really isn’t useful for beyond-LEO missions.
Constellation would provide us with access to the entire surface of the Moon, as well as a significnt component of needed hardware for manned missions to Mars.
If we were to start all over again, 25 years ago, I would have said forget the ISS and build Constellation. As it is, we have already poorly invested so many billions on the ISS.
http://historical.whatitcosts.com/facts-space-station-pg2.htm
“In the United States, NASA reports only the costs relating to the mission, mission integration, and launch facility processing as expenses for the ICC. Despite the fact that the Space Shuttle was and will be used in the future almost exclusively for ICC missions (35 of 41 missions), NASA considers the Space Shuttle Program an independent project from the ISS. For this reason, it does not include the cost of the Space Shuttle Program in their ISS costs.
Total esimated cost:
US: 100 billion = 56 billion ISS + 38 billion Shuttle
ESA: 14 billion
Japan: 10 billion
Russia: Unknown
Canada: 2 billion
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ March 3rd, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Bravo! Well said, sir.
So 80% do not have any actual orbital spaceflight experience.
Actually almost all of those companies have human spaceflight experience. Because companies don’t have experience — people do. And they mostly have people with such experience. If you don’t understand this, it’s just a demonstration of how profoundly ignorant you are of how this industry works.
The total Constellation estimates (with Ares V, Ares I, and Altair) came to about 50 billion.
These are fantasy numbers. I have no idea where you came up with them, but it’s just another demonstration that you didn’t read the Augustine report, instead preferring to take the easy Cliff-notes route of listening to what he was issuing as stated pablum to congressmen and other fools with sensitive feelings. Like you.
Ares 1/Orion by themselves were going to cost at least fifty billion. Altair tens of billions more. And that doesn’t include the earth departure stage.
Bridwell, get your facts straight
“I have heard total program cost ”
Heard doesn’t mean it is true. Also, those costs include operations costs
“The total Constellation estimates (with Ares V, Ares I, and Altair) came to about 50 billion.”
You are way off. Ares I and Orion were at 32 billion. Ares and Altair were much more. Also you have to include operations cost
You don’t have the knowledge or experience to past judgment on the ISS. At any rate, CxP was a worse investment than ISS
OSC was the first nuspace company.
“It’s orbit really isn’t useful for beyond-LEO missions.”
Wrong, it is only a 6% payload hit for ELV’s. It is useful because it can be used for international BEO missions.
Boeing, Lockheed, and ULA are part of the commercial space providers. They are the fallback in case nuspace fails. There is no need for a NASA back up
“NASA, on the other hand, had operated manned spacecraft in Earth and Lunar orbit, and unmanned spacecraft all the way out to interplanetary space. It has in excess of 150,000 man-hours of human spaceflight experience”
Commercial contractors have done most of this work. Boeing, LM, OSC, etc the same ones that are proposing commercial crew services
You can’t claim 150,000 man-hours of human spaceflight experience as a positive and the rail against the ISS. either the experience that the ISS provides is worth it or it is not applicable to your argument.
My nonsensical views, as you call them, are not so nonsensical, when presently they may fly a Concorde in a 2012 airshow. She could still fly faster and carry more people than anything else flying out there. Cockpit upgrades could certainly have been made if the money were put up. Name another present today that could carry 100 passengers, plus crew at SS speeds! Im sorry you view past history as nonsensical. The point here too, is that technologies have not kept pace, if past events can stillproduce more than present. In fact, I dont think even Dragon nor the CST-100 could do what our OLD Apollo could do! Now is that advancement?
My point anyway about Concorde, was that it cost far less to fly on then commercial is advertising for, yet did not have the customers to make her worthwhile. Now who really believes people will spend 200,000 for a sub orbital lob? I wouldnt, if I had it. There is a jet service already that will take passengers on a vomit comit ride for a price. I dont think its anything like commercial wants either. Ahhh, weightlessness for less, good advertisement slogan.
My point anyway about Concorde, was that it cost far less to fly on then commercial is advertising for, yet did not have the customers to make her worthwhile.
Which is completely meaningless, since the service it offers bears no relationship to spaceflight. It makes as much sense (that is to say, as little sense) as saying that it’s a lot cheaper to buy oranges, so there’s no market for suborbital flight.
@ Dennis Berube wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 7:08 am
“My nonsensical views, as you call them, are not so nonsensical, when presently they may fly a Concorde in a 2012 airshow. She could still fly faster and carry more people than anything else flying out there. ”
Come on Dennis. Make an effort. Your views seem to be those of a child, passionate indeed but a child nonetheless. Concorde cannot fly OR they would let it fly.
” In fact, I dont think even Dragon nor the CST-100 could do what our OLD Apollo could do! Now is that advancement?”
How do you know that? Are you trying to understand how these vehicles actually work or you are just repeating some nonsense gleaned elsewhere? Dragon and CST-100 built for LEO may not. But the leap to a lunar version is small. It does not require a major investment. But as with any good company these will not invest UNLESS they have a business case. So at this time the vehicles you will see fly are those that have a business. Dragon does not have yet a fully functioning ECLSS because they don’t have a contract for crew, yet. And they have to satisfy their first customers for cargo first.
I wish you’d try to understand all those things. It has nothing to do whether you like commercial or Constellation. But what you spout here often is baseless.
Oh well…
Rand:
There is a world of difference between hiring a few token astronauts and having successfully placed men into space. You could hire Steven Hawking as a consultant for an hour, but that does not necessarily make you an expert on quantum gravity.
But then again, I forgot, you already know everything…
OK…Correction after further research…
Ares + Orion would come to 50 billion. Ares V and Altair would add another 50 billion. These NASA estimates included a multiplier, based upon historical cost trends at NASA.
Norm Augustine, in an effort to please his boss, applied a surplus multipler (25% is my recollection) above and beyond historical trends to try to make Constellation appear financially unappealing, in addition to sham arguments (not ready by 2015 when the ISS is splashed, but at the same time recommending that the ISS be extended 5 years, invalidating that argument).
not ready by 2015 when the ISS is splashed, but at the same time recommending that the ISS be extended 5 years, invalidating that argument
Not invalidating it, since money spent on running the ISS is money that can’t be spent on Ares/SLS. ISS costs >$3B a year to run.
“ISS costs >$3B a year to run.”
Would that be the case when the shuttle is retired? 2 seats on 2 Soyuz flights per year amounts to only 50x2x2 = $200 million per year.
Add to that a few COTs launches at maybe 200 million each.
And if Musk’s promises of $20 million per seat hold true, the cost would be reduced even further.
There is a world of difference between hiring a few token astronauts and having successfully placed men into space.
No one said anything about “hiring a few token astronauts.” Why do you insist on making things up?
Oh, I know. It’s because our actual arguments are irrefutable.
Norm Augustine, in an effort to please his boss, applied a surplus multipler (25% is my recollection) above and beyond historical trends to try to make Constellation appear financially unappealing
Norm Augustine doesn’t have a boss at all, let alone one “to please.”
Don’t be an idiot. Again, you’re just making things up.
Would that be the case when the shuttle is retired?
I believe so. That’s why some wanted to scuttle the ISS as soon as possible to help pay for development of an SDHLV.
Dennis Berube wrote @ March 4th, 2011 at 7:08 am
“Name another present today that could carry 100 passengers, plus crew at SS speeds!”
Concorde competed for customers with other modes of transportation, and because they were really only a luxury offering, they had to compete against increasingly more luxurious and less expensive competitors. This is what ultimately lead to Concorde’s demise, because it was never a real money maker for it’s operators, and had to be supported by government subsidies.
But again the issue is not flying from New York to London at mach 2 and 56,000 ft, but flying to 360,000 ft and being weightless for minutes. They are two completely different experiences, and not comparable.
“I dont think even Dragon nor the CST-100 could do what our OLD Apollo could do! Now is that advancement?”
No, but they were never intended to, so that’s really a false argument.
The Apollo CM was built to carry 3 people on a Moon mission, and CST-100 and Dragon are being built to fly 7 people to LEO destinations.
Could CST-100 and Dragon be evolved to support a Moon mission? Maybe, but until the needs of such a mission are defined, there is no way to know for sure.
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ March 3rd, 2011 at 7:16 pm
“So 80% do not have any actual orbital spaceflight experience.”
The implication you’re trying to make is that unless you’ve had actual orbital spaceflight experience, you can never do it. Which is circular logic.
As others have pointed out, the living knowledge base in the industry (i.e. people) move from company to company depending on what programs are going on. As one example, SpaceX has attracted a number of launch, mission and spaceflight professionals that were eager to work for a company that is making real progress on putting real hardware into space.
It’s not like the 60’s, where every aspect of spaceflight and space hardware had to be invented and proved out. A lot of the technology nowadays is literally out of a catalog, and the knowledge is common knowledge after 40 years of taxpayer-funded spaceflight. Our tax dollars have done the best of all possible things, and that is make the technology within reach of the private sector, and we should all be celebrating that.
I know commercial space doesn’t fit into your government-run lunar program narrative, so that’s OK. Keep saying “it will never work” instead of providing real constructive feedback. Keep rooting for government-is-the-answer super launchers that won’t see the orbit for decades, or uber-expensive capsules that are not unlike gold-plated toilets. I’m sure your way is better… NOT!
The reality is that “NewSpace” lacks the breadth and depth of experience that is posessed by NASA and “OldSpace”.
Does that mean that they are doomed to failure? No. Look at Scaled Composites. What that do is very limited, but what they do, they do very well.
NewSpace is not now, and will probably never be a substitute for the capabilities of NASA. I can understand that some of you want to believe that they could. I just don’t see that happening. I suspect that becoming competent is a very expensive process, which is why the likes of Boeing does not come cheap. When is the last time that you went out and bought a 777…Last I heard, it was about a quarter billion…
(And I will try to refrain from sniping back and forth, if I can help it. Some of you guys make tempting targets, though…)
The reality is that “NewSpace†lacks the breadth and depth of experience that is posessed by NASA and “OldSpaceâ€.
And Old Space lacks the entrepreneurial spirit of New Space. Both could change very rapidly if NASA decided on fair, competitive and redundant procurement as it should absent strong reasons to do otherwise.
NewSpace is not now, and will probably never be a substitute for the capabilities of NASA.
What capabilities? The alternative to New Space isn’t NASA but Old Space. And the two can coexist. Are you really this badly informed or are you deliberately trying to spread disinformation?
“What capabilities?”
In case you never noticed, NASA has an experienced engineering workforce. Quite a few. Considerably more than SpaceX. A LOT more than Blue Origin or Armadillo.
Almost anything that you want to do, NASA has already seriously studied, and has also probably done, to at least a limited extent, in the past.
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ March 7th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
“NewSpace is not now, and will probably never be a substitute for the capabilities of NASA.”
This is a canard. NewSpace and their advocates want NASA to turn over it’s routine tasks to the commercial marketplace, so NASA can focus on the things they do best – research, technology and exploration. Congress wants NASA to be a delivery service, and that’s not what they do best – all they do is outsource the work anyways, so why not cut out government middleman?
“I suspect that becoming competent is a very expensive process…”
The term “very expensive” is not very descriptive. Is $1M very expensive? Is 10% of revenue “very expensive”? For Boeing, $1M would be a rounding error, but 10% of revenue would be “very expensive”.
I suspect that your statement is a meaningless…
“When is the last time that you went out and bought a 777…”
This is a silly comparison, since no new company reasonably expects to propose such a large capital investment product, and get enough customers to get to product launch.
Instead companies build smaller products and build up their competency. Bombardier is a good example, since they have been slowly building up their competency in jets so that they are now starting to compete with Boeing and Airbus with their CSeries.
I guess the bottom line is that it seems like people like you don’t think that new aerospace entrants can be successful, and people like me do. I don’t do it blindly though, as I look for certain characteristics:
– A product or service that addresses a market need
– Early customer validation (i.e. orders)
– Enough funding or revenue to see them through early setbacks
– A spark of excitement that attracts top talent to help them grow
Not all will succeed, as not all established aerospace companies will succeed with their plans (remember the Sonic Cruiser?). But depending on NASA for all of our activities in space is no longer viable – we have outgrown them, and the budget that Congress gives them.
In case you never noticed, NASA has an experienced engineering workforce.
Which consists mainly of the United Space Alliance and its subcontractors, in other words, Old Space. The future will be made by both Old and New Space, not by NASA. NASA has nothing that justifies letting MSFC develop a new and unneeded launch vehicle and only a very weak case for Orion. There would be a stronger case for some other spacecraft, especially if they chose a very incremental path to work their way towards Nautilus.