Congress, NASA

As budget debate continues, Bolden says space technology spending safe

Earlier this week the Senate rejected dueling FY11 spending bills, including both HR 1, which the House passed last month, as well as an alternative from Senate appropriators. Now it appears that the next step will be another short-term continuing resolution (CR), as the current CR expires next Friday. This CR would run for three weeks and include $6 billion in spending cuts, at least as proposed by House Republicans, who will release more details about their plans today.

One ongoing concern regarding the budget deliberations has been the lack of funding for the agency’s revamped space technology program. The FY11 budget proposal included over $570 million for space technology, but neither the recent House or Senate bills included any explicit funding for the program. The statement from Senate appropriators when they rolled out their budget plan last week noted, almost apologetically, that “NASA will not be provided any funds for requested but new long-range space technology research activities.”

However, NASA administrator Charles Bolden said yesterday that claims about the demise of the space technology program are unfounded. “Our understanding is that we have the flexibility to conduct, for the most part, the space technology initiatives we want to do as long as we can go in and communicate with our stakeholders in the Congress and help them understand why we’re putting a priority on this,” he said in response to a question after a speech about innovation at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. That is based, he explained, on the fact that the language in the proposed full-year CRs gives NASA the flexibility to allocate funding within its various accounts, so long as it communicates those plans with Congress.

“So the space technology was not zeroed out in the continuing resolution. They didn’t plus it up and they didn’t take anything off,” Bolden said. “As long as we satisfied their concerns that we not waste the money, I have the flexibility to move the money around.”

Separately, Bolden said he was trying to convince Congress that it’s not feasible for NASA to move ahead directly to a 130-metric-ton launch vehicle for the Space Launch System authorized by Congress. “We’re not going to build a 130-metric-ton heavy-lift vehicle. We can’t,” he said. “We continue to negotiate and discuss with the Congress why that is not necessary.” The 2010 authorization act requires the initial development of a vehicle capable of carrying 70 to 100 tons into LEO, with later enhancement to 130 tons. The Senate full-year CR, though, suggested that the heavy-lift vehicle “shall have a lift capability not less than 130 tons”.

Bolden also strongly endorsed plans for commercial crew development, stating that by doing so, “we not only create multiple means for accessing low Earth orbit, we also spark an engine for long-term job growth.” He cited in particular two companies with first-round CCDev awards, Blue Origin and Sierra Nevada, as examples of the types of innovation he’s seeking. “We have to embrace the innovators who may be able to do things more cheaply and effectively than we can,” he said, referring to NASA. “New capabilities in commercial space for crew and cargo must, must succeed, and I have every confidence they will.”

74 comments to As budget debate continues, Bolden says space technology spending safe

  • That NASA Engineer@KSC

    With reference to the older FY 11 Senate Authorization, the 130 ton “SLS” – Senate…uhh…Shelby…uhhh “Space” Launch System part, it’s ironic and wholly inconsistent, even looking at that document standing alone, that the Commercial Crew effort is funded at a relatively paltry sum of $500M a year, while pretending that the SLS might otherwise do the job as “backup”. The SLS lingo says “The capability to serve as a backup system for supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew delivery requirements not otherwise met by available commercial or partner-supplied vehicles” and a “goal for operational capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016.”

    So in a way the older Senate FY 11 version of a bill never really recognizes any urgency to getting a US crew capability to the ISS sooner rather than later. And herein we have the crux of the matter, those who wish to fund that capability (as commercial) at least at about $1B a year in development, and who see an urgency to re-establishing that capability post Shuttle, and those who realizing that comes out of the same dollars, don’t want to recognize this.

    That split continues to this day in the FY 12 debate, with apparently R&D to some being a way to compromise. We’ll take it from the 3rd group in this conversation!

  • Scott Bass

    There’s that can’t word again, he should make it his middle name

  • amightywind

    “We’re not going to build a 130-metric-ton heavy-lift vehicle. We can’t,”

    These words alone from this miscreant are a firing offense. This is sure to infuriate congress even more. With a $16 billion you can build just about anything. Bolden is simply not willing to prioritize. It seems to me that a nation that built the space shuttle 30 years ago can build the Jupiter 130. The parts are all there, the spacecraft, the suppliers, the operational workforce, the facilities. What is the problem?

    “we not only create multiple means for accessing low Earth orbit, we also spark an engine for long-term job growth.

    Someone needs to remind this government entrepreneur that his focus is the mission of NASA. Congress has stated unequivocally that the mission is a 130 ton launcher. Let Bernanke worry about full employment. Bolden cannot survive for much longer.

  • Nasand Beyond

    “It seems to me that a nation that built the space shuttle 30 years ago can build the Jupiter 130″.

    Keep in mind, the Jupiter 130 has a 70T capacity. You and he are both right. THAT we can indeed build.

  • Justin Kugler

    Someone needs to remind you to read both the Space Act and the Commercial Space Act, windy.

  • Bennett

    “With a $16 billion you can build just about anything.”

    YES! That is exactly the lesson Constellation taught us!

  • Martijn Meijering

    Someone needs to remind you to read both the Space Act and the Commercial Space Act, windy.

    Someone needs to read him the riot act too…

  • Martijn Meijering

    With a $16 billion you can build just about anything.

    So let’s choose to have an unproven (disproven even) team build an unneeded launch vehicle instead of an indispensable spacecraft…

  • amightywind

    So let’s choose to have an unproven (disproven even) team build an unneeded launch vehicle

    Newspace has never made a delivery to ISS. NASA built the space shuttle and ISS. NASA credibility is undeniable. A large launch vehicle is unneeded if you consider ISS to be the only mission. Newspace proponents like you and Obama’s Bolsheviks at NASA think like this. Congress and the public do not.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Newspace has never made a delivery to ISS.

    New Space is a red herring and you know it. It is not the only alternative to USA. ULA and Boeing have excellent track records. And note that SpaceX is close to delivering its first payload to the ISS and probably closer to fielding Falcon 9H than MSFC is to fielding an SDLV, be it SLS or Ares I.

    NASA built the space shuttle and ISS.

    Rockwell built the Shuttle and hardly anyone (if anyone at all) who was involved with it at NASA still works there. As for the ISS, advocates of commercial spaceflight are not calling for the end of the ISS before Bigelow has demonstrated a working station. You would be the person doing that.

    NASA credibility is undeniable.

    Today’s NASA has no credibility as a developer of launch vehicles in the eyes of knowledgeable people. The achievements of a generation or more ago do not count. Yes, von Braun knew what he was talking about, but he has been dead almost as long as I’ve been alive.

  • Martijn Meijering

    A large launch vehicle is unneeded if you consider ISS to be the only mission.

    It is not needed for destinations beyond LEO either. Propellant transfer is indispensable for meaningful exploration. HLVs are not.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Newspace proponents like you

    I’m not a New Space proponent, I’m a proponent of fair, competitive and redundant procurement. That’s something very different.

  • mr. mark

    “Newspace has never made a delivery to ISS”
    I’m keeping this nugget to repost for later this year….I can’t wait.

  • Vladislaw

    “These words alone from this miscreant are a firing offense”

    The only miscreant is you blast of hot air.

    “Newspace proponents like you and Obama’s Bolsheviks at NASA think like this. Congress and the public do not.”

    I always like how you are so unafraid to show off your stupidity at times windy. You should buy a dictionary.

    bolshevik means MAJORITY. So you are saying the majority of people at NASA disagree with the point you are trying to make.

    Show me ANY public polling data that supports what you are saying. Congress voted in the majority for President Obama’s budget for NASA on the first round.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi AW

    “What is the problem?”

    As always, ATK’s 5 segs and desire to enter the medium heavy lift market.

    As far as Bolden goes, the job of NASA Administrator is in the prune book, not the plum book. Given the competing fantasies he has to deal with, and the attack politics environment in DC, he’s done a good job of being diplomatic in his dealings with the Congress.

    But he does need to “relieve” Ed Weiler.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ March 11th, 2011 at 8:52 am

    With a $16 billion you can build just about anything.

    You couldn’t build Ares I for $16B, and that only had a 25mt capacity. In fact, the GAO says that the MPCV will cost $20-29B (that’s BILLION) more just to finish the first flight unit. And you think the largest rocket in the world can be built by NASA for $16B? Ignorance is bliss for you…

    Bolden is simply not willing to prioritize.

    If anything Bolden has been extremely clear about prioritizing the development of commercial crew, which is allowed within his budget. Get used to disappointment.

    Congress has stated unequivocally that the mission is a 130 ton launcher.

    The House never stated building the 130mt launcher first, and in fact the NASA Authorization Act states building a launcher that can be grown to 130mt, but starting with 70-100mt. It was the Senate Authorization committee members that stated that they want NASA to skip what the law states (70-100mt first), and build a 130mt launcher first.

    So far Congress hasn’t provided the money for the 130mt launcher, and in fact they haven’t provided full funding for a 70-100mt launcher. And that is what Bolden is telling them, which is that he can’t build what they want without the proper funding. Congress needs to man-up and fully fund what they want done – if they want pork, they have to fund it.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    In other words, we’re going to do what the hell we want, no matter what Congress thinks.

  • amightywind

    As always, ATK’s 5 segs and desire to enter the medium heavy lift market.

    Oiy. If that were the problem I would concede and build the baseline Jupiter 130 with standard 4 segment SRBs. The options are quite modular. What sense does it make to keep the 5 segment SRB on the ground if the mission demands it? The SRB is an essential element of the stage-and-a-half shuttle architecture. I have seen a Boeing proposal for an RS-68/ET based launcher without an SRB. That might be useful. It is appealingly simple. The debate should be about issues like this, not about the corrupt NASA leadership passing cash to their cronies in Newspace.

  • common sense

    I wonder if amightywind would say these words to Bolden’s face. A veteran Marine General is a miscreant? Swiftboating a little here? I guess when someone supports Ares and then says Jupiter is the solution would support anything that is not coming from this WH. So what is it? Ares I/V? Jupiter? Or maybe we can just strap people to an SRB and call it a day?

  • Martijn Meijering

    Congress needs to man-up and fully fund what they want done – if they want pork, they have to fund it.

    If all they want is pork, then they don’t have to fully fund it. That would only be necessary if they really wanted a 130mt launcher.

  • Martijn Meijering

    The debate should be about issues like this, not about the corrupt NASA leadership passing cash to their cronies in Newspace.

    There’s nothing corrupt about fair, competitive and redundant procurement. What’s corrupt is insisting on a solution that preserves most of the funding for the Shuttle political industrial complex.

  • In other words, we’re going to do what the hell we want, no matter what Congress thinks.

    So, Mark, if Congress thinks that NASA should design their vehicles using 3.0 as the value of pi, NASA should just salute and do it? If Congress thinks that gravity should be half its value to make the vehicles smaller, NASA should design to that specification?

    Just because Congress “thinks” something (whatever the hell that means — Congress is not a thinking entity), it magically becomes possible, and NASA is a failure if it can’t do it?

  • amightywind

    A veteran Marine General is a miscreant? Swiftboating a little here?

    Umm…It was a successful strategy in 2004, so why not? Did the left not refer to our esteemed Iraq Commander as General Betray Us in 2007?

    So what is it? Ares I/V? Jupiter?

    Its Ares I/V for sure. But the budget compromise calls for Jupiter. Someone successfully talked congress out of ‘the stick’ and a 10m tank. That’s the reality. So if it is Jupiter, and it is on paper, why the dithering? Despite his credentials, I don’t think Bolden is a man of action. He’s an idler. Not really a ‘storm the beaches’ type. A poltroon as Mark Whittington puts it.

    Just because Congress “thinks” something (whatever the hell that means — Congress is not a thinking entity)…

    A paid industry lobbyist should not encourage contempt of congress. Congress’ response to Bolden’s obstructions tells us something about what they think of his commitment to the mission.

  • common sense

    @ amightywind wrote @ March 11th, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    “A poltroon as Mark Whittington puts it.”

    I would love to see you and Whittington say that to his face, really would love it. I wonder how many combat missions you both went to in your lives… I have a hunch about that though.

    “Congress’ response to Bolden’s obstructions tells us something about what they think of his commitment to the mission.”

    We’ll see how it ends and who was right and stronger… Congress morons or a veteran Marine General, an astronaut. We’ll see.

  • Reality has arrived.

    If Congress wants a heavy lift they need to put the money where their mouth is instead of browbeating the people that tell them they have no clothes on.

    NASA’s funding problem is entitlements not any NASA planned expenditures.
    The sooner Congress deals with entitlements the sooner NASA funding will increase to meet the demands Congress and the American people are making.

  • @Whittington
    “In other words, we’re going to do what the hell we want, no matter what Congress thinks.”

    Rephrasing the above into something more closely representing the facts…
    “In other words, we’re not going to necessarily do what we would like to do under better circumstances, but what external reality dictates that we need to do, no matter what Congress thinks.”

    Doing something out of necessity to ensure that the U.S. continues prominence in crewed spaceflight and doing what we wish we could do, are two entirely different things.

  • Curious

    One needs to think beyond the specific launch vehicle debate to ask “for what use and how often?” Recall that the Saturn V was discontinued when it became obvious that the cost (among other reasons) was prohibitive and that one could not afford the payloads on any sensible schedule. For a next HLLV, ask yourself: what is the proposed launch rate, where is the funding for utilization and what is the demonstrable need for the 100 T or so payloads? Other than ‘cheap’ payloads (propellant, food, water, etc.), the payload costs run in the order of $100,000 per pound. Simple arithmetic brings the real issue to the fore.

  • Major Tom

    “These words alone from this miscreant are a firing offense.”

    No, they’re not. The NASA Administrator, and practically all other Executive Branch political appointees, serve at the pleasure of the President, not the Congress.

    If you’re going to comment on the workings of the US federal government, then learn how it works. Read a middle school civics textbook.

    “This is sure to infuriate congress even more.”

    Per Mr. Foust’s original post, which Congress are you talking about?

    The one demanding a 70-100T payload capability by 2016?

    Or the one demanding a 130T payload capability by 2016?

    Or the one that demanded a 130T payload capability by 2016 using Shuttle heritage but didn’t authorize enough funding (and has yet to appropriate any funding) to make it happen?

    Or the one that still hasn’t rescinded the old appropriations language that prevents NASA from stopping spending on Constellation systems, including Ares V, so that funding could be freed up to go to the new SLS?

    Congress has yet to speak with one mind about what SLS it’s designing. Don’t blame Bolden or the Executive Branch for taking advantage of that. Talk to your congressman about Legislative Branch overreach and incoherence.

    “With a $16 billion you can build just about anything…”

    Constellation spent more than $10 billion over 6-7 years and couldn’t get a new, medium-lift launch capability (Ares I) developed using Shuttle heritage systems, infrastructure, and workforce. Constellation managers admitted that Ares I/Orion would cost $35-40 billion to develop, indicating a cost of around $20 billion for Ares I alone. Given this track record, why would anyone think that NASA could develop a more capable, heavy-lift SLS using Shuttle heritage for smaller amounts ($16 billion) and less time (five years)?

    “It seems to me that a nation that built the space shuttle 30 years ago…”

    In 1971, the Space Shuttle was estimated to cost $8.1 billion to develop (and that included five orbiters, two launch sites, and reusable in-space tugs) and another $8.1 billion to operate through 1990. Instead, the program cost about $70 billion to develop and operate through 1990 (including the reduced scope).

    Given this nearly tenfold increase in costs on Shuttle development and operations and Ares I/Orion cost growth to near $40 billion, there’s no reason to believe that NASA could develop and operate an SLS based on Shuttle heritage without similar, multi-ten billion dollar budget increases.

    “… can build the Jupiter 130.”

    Jupiter 130 only has a 60-70t capability. It doesn’t meet the 130t (or 100t) goal. The term “Jupiter 130″ refers to one stage, three main engines, and zero upper-stage engines, not the vehicle’s payload capability.

    “The parts are all there, the spacecraft, the suppliers, the operational workforce, the facilities.”

    The 130t capability requires the Jupiter 246, which involves a new upper stage design, development, and demonstration.

    Even Jupiter 130 would require a redesign of the SSME for affordability. Current SSME production is too costly to throw away several on every launch.

    And all that’s on top of the new thrust structure at the base of the ET stack and a new payload faring, which are required for either the Jupiter 130 or the 246.

    It’s a better situation than Ares I, but you’re fooling yourself if you think that the parts and spacecraft are “all there”. Far from it.

    “Bolden is simply not willing to prioritize.”

    Bolden is prioritizing. His priorities just don’t match yours.

    After the Ares I/Orion implosion, Bolden and the Administration have prioritized getting a domestic human space flight capability fielded ASAP so that US human access to space is not reliant on the Soyuz single-string and Russian goodwill. Bolden and the Administration have also prioritized the development and demonstration of long-lead technologies that are on the critical path to opening up new human space flight destinations and capabilities beyond LEO space stations and short lunar visits.

    Bolden and the Administration have not prioritized the development of a heavy lift capability, which based on history will cost tens of billions of dollars to develop and maintain and for which there is no payload or mission for the remainder of this decade.

    If you’re not driven by political concerns about preserving Shuttle workforce votes, the choice is simple. We either get the US back into the human space flight game ASAP with greater capabilities than anyone has had before or we reshuffle 30-year old Shuttle elements to build a really big rocket that’s going to sit around with nothing to do and nowhere to go (at least nothing commensurate with its costs) for 10+ years.

    “Someone needs to remind this government entrepreneur that his focus is the mission of NASA. ”

    If you think human space flight is the “mission of NASA”, then Bolden is focused on that. He’s trying to get NASA back in that game ASAP after Shuttle retirement. An HLV is not the shortest path to doing so, not by a long shot.

    “Newspace has never made a delivery to ISS.”

    Whether by political hamstringing or inexperience (or both), NASA hasn’t successfully developed a new launch capability in over 30 years — Shuttle-C, NASP, ALS, NLS, X-33/VentureStar, SLI, OSP, etc. Ares I itself never got beyond the non-applicable suborbital first-stage with dummy upper stage and multiple parachute failures stunt phase and wasn’t scheduled to go live for another 7-9 years and $10 billion plus down the drain.

    “Newspace” may not have docked with a space station yet, but they’ve gotten to orbit and back for less than $300 million to the taxpayer and years earlier than Ares I/Orion. None of the programs above achieved that, at any cost or timeline. And even “oldspace” has developed two entire new families of modern launch vehicles for around $500 million in taxpayer funding each.

    “NASA built the space shuttle and ISS. NASA credibility is undeniable.”

    NASA built the Space Shuttle with cost growth approaching an order of magnitude. (See above.)

    You yourself rail repeatedly about how oversized and overpriced ISS compared to its output. And its $100 billion-odd cost is more than an order of magnitude greater than its original, $8 billion advertised pricetag.

    NASA’s not totally to blame — NASA works under political constraints that commercial and military programs don’t. But outside Apollo, NASA has practically no credibility when it comes to building human space flight vehicles with any efficacy or efficiency.

    NASA is great at first-offs, especially ones with unlimited budgets. But NASA is not a lean, mean commercial or military organization. History shows that we can’t expect NASA to do better the second time around on the same task or to be more efficient than the private or military space sectors at routine tasks.

    “A large launch vehicle is unneeded if you consider ISS to be the only mission.”

    Heavy lift is unneeded unless you’re trying to preserve Shuttle workforce votes. Even in the oversized and overpriced HEFT study, there are no architecture elements that couldn’t be lifted on existing Delta IV Heavy vehicles.

    And if we really do need heavy lift for some unforeseen reason, we’re better off starting with a $3 billion or less option like this, instead of a $16 billion-plus option like the congressionally designed (and continually redesigned) SLS:

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/awst/2010/11/29/AW_11_29_2010_p28-271784.xml

    “Newspace proponents like you and Obama’s Bolsheviks at NASA think like this. Congress and the public do not.”

    Congress has provided public funding for commercial crew in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act. You are surrounded by “Bolsheviks”.

    “Oiy. If that were the problem I would concede and build the baseline Jupiter 130 with standard 4 segment SRBs. The options are quite modular. What sense does it make to keep the 5 segment SRB on the ground if the mission demands it? The SRB is an essential element of the stage-and-a-half shuttle architecture. I have seen a Boeing proposal for an RS-68/ET based launcher without an SRB. That might be useful. It is appealingly simple. The debate should be about issues like this,”

    That’s not a policy debate. That’s a design choice that should be driven by an open NASA competition between competent contractors, not written into contradictory legislation by multiple different congressional staffers with no aerospace vehicle development experience or education.

    The policy debate is about what our goals are in civil human space flight, whether we need heavy lift at all to meet them, and what its status and timing should be relative to other, more urgent priorities.

    “not about the corrupt NASA leadership passing cash to their cronies in Newspace.”

    You want to talk about corruption and cronyism? How about multiple, multi-billion dollar sole-source Constellation contracts awarded under the prior Administrator who now has a posh academic job in Alabama, none of which produced an operational orbital launch vehicle or capsule? How about an ESMD AA who came from ATK, whose name became synonymous with Ares I, and who returned to ATK after leaving ESMD? How about an earmark snuck into an omnibus appropriations bill at the last minute by a certain Alabama Senator to ensure that Constellion spending would continue regardless of the outcome of an independent, blue-ribbon panel — an earmark that still stands to this day even though the program has been officially terminated by both the White House and in legislation? This is the very definition of cronyism and corruption.

    Open competitions for awards measured in the tens or low hundreds of millions of dollars that have produced operational orbital launch vehicles and capsules without revolving door AAs and earmarks are the antithesis of cronyism and corruption.

    “But the budget compromise calls for Jupiter. Someone successfully talked congress out of ‘the stick’ and a 10m tank. That’s the reality.”

    Wow, it only took you what, two years to come to that realization?

    Cripes…

    “So if it is Jupiter, and it is on paper, why the dithering?”

    Because Congress hasn’t providing any appropriations to build it yet (duh…). Because Congress didn’t authorize enough funding to build it on the schedule and to the (varying) capabilities and with the Shuttle workforce votes that Congress demands. And because Congress still hasn’t taken Constellation off the appropriations books (double duh…).

    C’mon, think, just a little, before you post. I know you can do it.

    “Congress’ response to Bolden’s obstructions…”

    The White House submitting a budget that changes funding levels for government agencies and programs in light of economic conditions or priorities that have changed over the past year is not an “obstruction”. We live in a representative democracy where the powers of governance are separated into three federal branches. The Executive Branch proposes and the Legislative Branch disposes. Again, read a middle school civics textbook.

    “I don’t think Bolden is a man of action. He’s an idler. Not really a ‘storm the beaches’ type. A poltroon as Mark Whittington puts it.”

    Bolden wasn’t my choice for Administrator either, but that’s no reason for namecalling about public figures. If you and the other poster can’t make your case without resorting to ad hominem attacks, then you also need to take a debate class or two while you’re revisiting middle school for civics lessons. Your juvenile namecalling certainly fits that environment.

    Ugh…

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “So, Mark, if Congress thinks that NASA should design their vehicles using 3.0 as the value of pi, NASA should just salute and do it? If Congress thinks that gravity should be half its value to make the vehicles smaller, NASA should design to that specification?”

    That of course is a silly, straw man analogy if I have ever seen one. Bolden is saying that NASA “can’t” build a 130 mt heavy tosser when he really means that NASA “won’t.”

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “I would love to see you and Whittington say that to his face,”

    I’ve done better than that. I have put it in writing. Bolden may have been a fine Marine and a good astronaut, but as NASA administrator he has fallen short.

  • Martijn Meijering

    build a 130 mt heavy tosser

    You’re not British are you? ;-)

  • Major Tom

    “Bolden is saying that NASA ‘can’t’ build a 130 mt heavy tosser when he really means that NASA ‘won’t.’”

    No, Bolden is saying that NASA can’t build a 130t SLS on the schedule and with the Shuttle workforce votes Congress demands given the budget that Congress authorized (and has yet to appropriate or redirect from Constellation). Here’s the formal report to Congress:

    http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/Sec.309.Report.pdf

    Read it, think and comprehend before you post.

    Lawdy…

  • common sense

    @ Mark R. Whittington wrote @ March 11th, 2011 at 4:38 pm

    “I’ve done better than that. I have put it in writing. Bolden may have been a fine Marine and a good astronaut, but as NASA administrator he has fallen short.”

    In writing? I said face to face. Tell him face to face he is a poltroon. See if the sheet of paper can protect you. But since he obviously, unlike you, is a steely-eyed missile man he would most likely ignore you.

    When actual poltroons tell people who have put their lives at stake to protect them it makes me sick to my stomach. Ever gone to combat? Do you know what a poltroon is?

    http://contributor.yahoo.com/user/1659/mark_whittington.html

  • @Whittington
    “That of course is a silly, straw man analogy if I have ever seen one. Bolden is saying that NASA “can’t” build a 130 mt heavy tosser when he really means that NASA “won’t.””

    He’s saying NASA can’t build it with the money that Congress will appropriate. Not that they couldn’t build it if there was an Apollo sized commitment. But then, you know that. You’re not that stupid. Talk about “silly”.

    They could start building it with the funds available, but even if Commercial Crew was removed from the mix, they would only be putting people to work on something with no useful end other than putting the people to work.

  • Bolden is saying that NASA “can’t” build a 130 mt heavy tosser when he really means that NASA “won’t.”

    No, he’s saying that he can’t do it the way that Congress insists, on Congress’s schedule, on Congress’s budget. It can’t be done any more than the law of gravity can be suspended.

  • DCSCA

    “Separately, Bolden said he was trying to convince Congress that it’s not feasible for NASA to move ahead directly to a 130-metric-ton launch vehicle for the Space Launch System authorized by Congress. “We’re not going to build a 130-metric-ton heavy-lift vehicle. We can’t,” he said.”

    Can’t? From the administrator of America’s ‘can-do’ space agency?? There may be a Trump-esque line in your future, Charlie: ‘You’re fired.’ What ‘Bolden says’ is increasinglt irrelevant. His job is to implement policy directives- not make them. He’ll turn 65 in August and if he has any sense, he’ll retire by the end of the year– not unlike America’s space shuttle program. Best to push this kind of weak leadership out to pasture. Grab those government pensions and government healthcare bennies while you can, Charlie– after all, according to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, “We’re broke.”

  • Louis

    why can’t we get rid of this Bolden guy?

    Congress: ” shall have no less than 130 tons”. that means 130 tons or more capability.
    what language is this Bolden guy speaking?
    this administration is just saying “No we don’t want to, why don’t you make us”.
    there goes more time waisted having to argue about the wording in the CR.
    Get this guy out!!

  • Coastal Ron

    Louis wrote @ March 11th, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    Congress: ” shall have no less than 130 tons”. that means 130 tons or more capability.

    Keep in mind that the Senate said that, not the House. The NASA Authorization Act states NASA is to build a 70-100mt launcher that can be evolved to 130mt. Administrator Bolden is saying they have not been provided enough funding to meet the mandated design, and mandated due date (2016).

    Why would anyone start building something that isn’t fully funded?

    Congress can’t even lift the Constellation restrictions put in place by Senator Shelby last year that could potentially waste $200M or more, and you’re blaming NASA for Congresses indecisiveness? Truly weird.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ March 11th, 2011 at 11:56 am

    “In other words, we’re going to do what the hell we want, no matter what Congress thinks.”

    I am not sure that General Bolden has said that…but if he had said that, this would be of course in the finest tradition of the US Executive.

    When TR wanted to send the US Navy on what became the cruise of the Great White Fleet, the Congress was pretty loathe to do that When Congress would not pony up the money it didnt matter…TR sent the fleet as far as the dollars could take it…and noted that Congress could either leave the fleet there or bring it home..

    And that is of course almost the situation that Charlie is in…Congress wants a heavy lift to keep the shuttle work force (you’re big government program) employed but 1) the workforce is going away, 2) Charlie cannot build a HLV for the price Congress wants they way Congress wants and 3) Congress has never been all that clear about forcing Bolden to do just that.

    Congress is in effect babbling…they want to pander to various constituencies but really dont want to fund the dollars to do what they say…and hence Charlie is well sending the fleet where he wants it.

    Sorry Mark…your side is losing Big government just wont survive.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mark S

    More obstructionism from the Obama administration. The SLS law does not mandate metric tons, that is an misinterpretation on Bolden’s part, probably designed to make SLS even more difficult that it should be. When has Congress (or NASA for that matter) ever used metric units in an official capacity?

    NASA could easily implement SLS with Shuttle heritage components, if they wanted to. They don’t. The Obama administration is now the official party of “No, we can’t!”.

    SLS block 0: Shuttle-sized tanks, 4-segment boosters, 3 SSME core = 85 tons (77mt) to LEO. Due by 12/31/2016.

    SLS block 1: Shuttle-sized tanks, 4-segment boosters, 4 SSME core, 1 J2x upper stage = 107 tons (97mt) to LEO. No due date specified.

    SLS block 2: Shuttle-sized tanks, 5-segment boosters, 4 SSME core, 1 J2x upper stage = 130 tons (118mt) to LEO. No due date specified.

    That is an evolveable SLS that doesn’t require any engine development other that finishing the J2X and 5-segment booster. It meets the authorization law’s intent as well as the letter of the law. It does not require weasel words and evasiveness from its supporters. It maximizes re-use of Constellation components to the maximum extent practicable. And it can be done on time and on budget, BUT it requires that Bolden be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Is he an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCANT?

    Let’s roll!

  • red

    I’d rather see the Solar Electric Propulsion technology demonstration mission to be led by GRC described on page 19 of this presentation:

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/524779main_GAZARIK.pdf

    than the SLS. The SEP demo looks much more affordable to implement, achievable on a reasonable schedule, useful, and affordable to operate when made operational.

    It’s an even easier decision when you consider that for the cost of the SLS you could do a boatload of technology demonstrations like this, and have plenty of funding left over to make commercial crew viable and launch a bunch of robotic precursor missions like LRO and LCROSS.

    Hopefully the Ohio Congressional delegation takes this sort of thing into consideration.

  • richard schumacher

    Finally! an Administrator with the fortitude to speak truth to power. At last we will stop throwing good money after bad to ATK and their overgrown Roman candles.

  • Martijn Meijering

    other that finishing the J2X and 5-segment booster.

    And a new SSME. In other words, it requires major engine development.

  • Joe

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ March 12th, 2011 at 4:54 am
    “And a new SSME. In other words, it requires major engine development.”

    If you are talking about the RS-25E (expendable SSME) it is a modification (and actually a simplification) of an existing design

  • Martijn Meijering

    If you are talking about the RS-25E (expendable SSME) it is a modification (and actually a simplification) of an existing design

    Still costs money. It is the opposite of the truth to say the proposed path requires very limited engine development.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark S wrote @ March 11th, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    “NASA could easily implement SLS with Shuttle heritage components,”

    that statement seems strange considering the entire development history of Ares which is really shuttle “heritage components”.

    Everytime someone comes up with “shuttle stuff” that is cheaper it is only by doing a lot of things that NASA HSF is very very uncomfortable doing.

    What makes you think that a SDV can be developed cheaply?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Joe

    “Martijn Meijering wrote @ March 12th, 2011 at 10:05 am
    Still costs money.”

    Its a good thing development of orbital refueling capabilty will be “free”.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Its a good thing development of orbital refueling capabilty will be “free”.

    No bucks, no Buck Rogers. But it’s simply not true that the proposed development sequence doesn’t require major engine development, it requires massive engine development, i.e. exactly the opposite of what was claimed. All stages will need upgrades, unlike say a J-120 with 4 seg boosters. But that doesn’t give you anything in excess of an EELV Phase 2 – so much for the cost effectiveness of Shuttle legacy hardware.

    As for orbital refueling capability: it already exists. Sure, it would have to be scaled up, and that would cost some money. But that’s more systems development and not a fundamental technological breakthrough. Cryogenic capability would also be nice and yes, that would probably cost a bit more. Fortunately none of that is critical and infrastructure work like that is in better hands in the private sector.

  • Coastal Ron

    Mark S wrote @ March 11th, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    SLS block 2: Shuttle-sized tanks, 5-segment boosters, 4 SSME core, 1 J2x upper stage = 130 tons (118mt) to LEO. No due date specified.

    You’re wrong on that one. Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee told Bolden that they wanted NASA to build the largest HLV first, and not start smaller. THAT is why NASA says the projected funding does not support the desired 2016 due date, since NASA was struggling to get even Ares I (a much more simple launcher) ready by that year.

    Why is your SLS block2 as easy to build as Ares I?

  • Joe

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ March 12th, 2011 at 10:34 am
    “No bucks, no Buck Rogers.”

    So spending money on your preferred option is good, but on somebody else’s is bad (please remember, since we have had these discussions before, I am an advocate – eventually at least – of both).

    “As for orbital refueling capability: it already exists. Sure, it would have to be scaled up, and that would cost some money. But that’s more systems development and not a fundamental technological breakthrough. Cryogenic capability would also be nice and yes, that would probably cost a bit more. Fortunately none of that is critical and infrastructure work like that is in better hands in the private sector.”

    I am curious, what kind of non-cryogenic propellants are you suggesting be used for an extensive BEO program? You are asserting that demonstrating and fielding an entirely new operational capability (only a few – at most – tests have been run in orbit for hypergolic refueling) is “cheaper” in terms of cost, time and technical risk; than modifying a set of well understood existing engines (in the case of the SSME’s) and continuing work on others (J2X and 5 segment SRBs), none of that qualifies as a “technical breakthrough”. Additionally note that I am not convinced that anything bigger than what Mark S described as a “Block 1” will be required.

    Anyway to continue the assumption that SDHLV “cost money”, while development of orbital refueling capability is free (or to try and dismiss it with something as shallow a “no bucks, no Buck Rogers”) is – to use your own unusual phrasing “the opposite of the truth”.

  • GuessWho

    Martijn – “As for orbital refueling capability: it already exists. Sure, it would have to be scaled up, and that would cost some money. But that’s more systems development and not a fundamental technological breakthrough. Cryogenic capability would also be nice and yes, that would probably cost a bit more. Fortunately none of that is critical and infrastructure work like that is in better hands in the private sector.”

    If the capability already exists and it is just a matter of scaling, then NASA should procure this capability via a commercial delivery service agreement similar to ISS resupply. As it stands, NASA is pursuing this through both a BAA out of the OCT (i.e., technology development) and through the Mikulski pork machine to GSFC (i.e., the SEISS activity). Cryogenic refueling would be specific to BEO (which NASA has no near-term plans for) and would seem to be a technology wanting for a mission. Numerous commercial organizations have already announced similar space servicing/refueling business plans for typical storables. Yet I have not seen any of the usual pro-commercial, anti-NASA folks that visit this site call NASA (or the administration) to task on this topic. Why is that?

  • Martijn Meijering

    So spending money on your preferred option is good, but on somebody else’s is bad (please remember, since we have had these discussions before, I am an advocate – eventually at least – of both).

    Well, spending money on good things would be good, while spending money on bad things would be bad. It would be refreshing if we could have an open discussion on what is good and what is bad and the reasons why.

    I am curious, what kind of non-cryogenic propellants are you suggesting be used for an extensive BEO program?

    First of all, I’m only suggesting use of storable propellant is of crucial value to commercial development of space, not that it is the ideal propellant for exploration. This applies only in the short term (but time is of the essence, hence the crucial role of storable propellants in my view) and even then only for L1/L2 and beyond, LEO to L1/L2 being left (probably, the market could decide) to LOX/LH2 upper stages. The reason for that being that EELV Heavies can lift fully fueled Centaurs to LEO, which could then rendez-vous with pre-launched payloads for transfer to L1/L2, which is close enough to anywhere interesting to make do with storable propellant.

    The obvious choice would be traditional hypergolics because of the track record and availability of AJ-10, but in the longer term methanol, ethanol, kerosene, peroxide etc could all be considered if there were lasting difficulties with transfer and storage of cryogenic propellants. In that case metal-loaded gel propellants could also be of interest. They could also conveniently keep some propulsion people at MSFC semi-gainfully employed if necessary.

    You are asserting that demonstrating and fielding an entirely new operational capability (only a few – at most – tests have been run in orbit for hypergolic refueling) is “cheaper” in terms of cost, time and technical risk; than modifying a set of well understood existing engines (in the case of the SSME’s) and continuing work on others (J2X and 5 segment SRBs), none of that qualifies as a “technical breakthrough”.

    That’s not what I was suggesting, although it may well be true. I was suggesting it would be of greater value, which is not the same thing at all. Also note that hypergolic propellant transfer has seen much more than just a few tests. That may be true for the US side of things, but the Soviets and Russians (and now ESA too) have been using it operationally ever since Salyut 6 in 1978. It is used on the ISS today with Progress and ATV, as you are no doubt aware.

    Scaling up storable propellant transfer is both very useful and reasonably straightforward, whereas new engine development is costly and not very useful. Hence my preference. Here too I would want to avoid unnecessary engine development, which is another argument in favour of using LOX/LH2 for LEO->L1/L2, instead of developing an Aestus 2 / RS-72 first, although that could be both an interesting upgrade and a useful expedient to keep people at MSFC semi-gainfully employed as long as it is kept off the critical path.

    Anyway to continue the assumption that SDHLV “cost money”, while development of orbital refueling capability is free

    I didn’t. I objected to Mark’s claim and it was you who brought in the propellant transfer, which I’m happy to talk about of course.

  • Martijn Meijering

    If the capability already exists and it is just a matter of scaling, then NASA should procure this capability via a commercial delivery service agreement similar to ISS resupply.

    Yes, that would be my goal. The reason I’m interested in this is that it could provide a large and fiercely competitive commercial launch market. It’s not difficult to justify NASA doing exploration as long as you accept there is a NASA. Exploration needs lots of propellant which makes an ideal payload. Having NASA buy water, sand or even horse piss in orbit would be just as useful to commercial development of space, but much harder to justify.

    Since it is the market I’m after I don’t care too much who gets to develop the refueling system, as long as they make damn sure they get the job done ASAP. If this needs to be an in-house NASA system, fine, as long as it leads to major demand for propellant in orbit. If they contract out redundant implementations – even better. If NASA develops its own system, then that is an additional argument for having them stick with storable propellant.

    Cryogenic refueling would be specific to BEO (which NASA has no near-term plans for) and would seem to be a technology wanting for a mission.

    A bit like an HLV… Note that I wasn’t calling for NASA funding for cryogenic depot development, although that wouldn’t be a bad thing. An even better thing would be to provide a large launch market and leave matters to the market.

    Yet I have not seen any of the usual pro-commercial, anti-NASA folks that visit this site call NASA (or the administration) to task on this topic. Why is that?

    I think it is because they have bigger fish to fry. Getting NASA out of the launch business is crucial (because cheap lift is crucial to all manned spaceflight), getting them out of the crew return business is important (because crew transport is crucial to commercial manned spaceflight), while getting them out of R&D is only nice to have. That at least is my reason.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Interestingly, someone in the know over on NSF has specifically accused Administrator Bolden of interpreting the Authorisation Act in the most expensive and impractical way so that it cannot be done on budget. Indeed, he has, by silence, refused to admit that there is any other way to interpret it. This naturally suggests that he is remaining true to his CIC’s agenda for space and is fighting a rear-guard to keep there from being any progress on SLS until it is too late. It is a battle in which the various vested interests in Congress are his unwitting allies.

    I believe Leon Trotsky once made a comment about “useful idiots”…

  • pathfinder_01

    There are three kinds of depots.

    Hypergolic: Easiest technology but poor performance. However can be enough for some missions.

    Lox/Methane: Better performance than hypergolic and better storage than hydrogen but few rocket engines use this combo. This combo is interesting from a mars ISRU stand point (and methane can be made at the lunar poles).

    Lox/hydrogen: Best performance. However hydrogen is the part that is hard to store.

    Prop depots don’t eliminate heavy lift per see but allow the companies to figure out the best way to deliver the propellant to Orbit. It could be heavy lift or it could be a fleet of small reusable spacecraft that say carry ten tons each but do so daily.HLV locks you into certain costs. Prop depots can take advantage of any technology that lowers the price to space.
    Cryogenic refueling could have applications outside of just BEO. If for instance it is cheaper to get a few tons of propellant on orbit and use a smaller rocket for your payload than say use a larger one.

    Anyway what is really powerful is if you combine this technology with electric propulsion. For instance you could move all the propellant for latter phases of the mission ahead via more efficient electric propulsion and this could allow you to do the same mission with smaller rockets or allow you to do things like reuse a lander.

    I also do not see going to mars happing without a depot of some kind. The only BEO mission that fits nicely without a depot or refueling is a lunar sortie.

    The reason why people want NASA to develop it is because we understand how to build big but uneconomical rockets very wel l(Saturn, Shuttle). If you have the capacity to refuel many things open up. For instance you could design a lunar lander that did not need to carry both accent and decent propellant down with it. Accent propellant could be supplied by ISRU or prepositioned. This would greatly increase the amount of cargo that could be landed at a time. For mars you may very well be forced to build a lander that only can descend or ascend (not both) just due to mass issues.

    One of the big problems with HLV (of any kind) is getting enough missions for it. The Saturn V usually just launched 2 missions a year (and only once did they do 3). CXP was thinking likewise. HEFT about once every other year sometimes.

    This low launch rate makes the fixed costs of the HLV look very uneconomical esp. a monolith one that shares almost nothing with other rockets like shuttle derived. If you could do BEO missions with say a 40-60 ton rocket you could have a reasonable flight rate and building a 40-60 ton rocket that has something in common with its 20-30MT brethren could be easier than building a 130 ton monster. With the high fixed costs of spaceflight launching three 60 ton rockets could be more economical than launching one 130 ton. Heck just using a Cryogenic service module on Orion would have allowed a much smaller rocket to throw Orion to EML1 in one launch.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Hypergolic: Easiest technology but poor performance. However can be enough for some missions.

    But combined with LOX/LH2 (even unrefueled) for LEO -> L1/L2, based on the calculations I’ve done, it looks good enough for most or even all missions, especially if augmented by electrical propulsion for prepositioning propellant, even if that is initially only used beyond the van Allens. And a refuelable spacecraft can do double duty as a depot initially, which helps with the funding requirements. More than good enough is good enough, funds are tight and time is of the essence.

  • GuessWho

    Martijn – “The reason I’m interested in this is that it could provide a large and fiercely competitive commercial launch market. …

    Since it is the market I’m after I don’t care too much who gets to develop the refueling system, as long as they make damn sure they get the job done ASAP.”

    The presence (or lack of) a fuel depot located somewhere between LEO and L1 will not create a competitive launch market. There needs to be a reason to go there in the first place. Fuel depots are support services, not a market driver. Once the driving need to be there is established and flight rates are high enough, cost and schedule efficiencies will dictate whether a depot is needed or not. And why ASAP? There are no planned missions (from a NASA perspective) that are dependent upon having a depot, the current budget environment doesn’t support initiation of any missions, and the is no overarching national space policy (that is sustainable over the many decades necessary) that would alter the landscape for either limitation.

    “Getting NASA out of the launch business is crucial (because cheap lift is crucial to all manned spaceflight), …”

    What you haven’t demonstrated is that manned spaceflight is crucial.

    “…getting them out of the crew return business is important (because crew transport is crucial to commercial manned spaceflight),”

    So what you are admitting to is that the current “commercial manned spaceflight” business is critically dependent upon transporting NASA crew to ISS and not space tourism, space manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, etc. Thus it is dependent upon a Govt. funded activity that has shown little return value to the US taxpayer although it consumes a fairly large number of taxpayer dollars. In other words, Govt. pork. How then are you any different than ATK?

    “… funds are tight and time is of the essence.”

    Why? There is no crisis in space that demands human attention. There is no crisis on earth than manned spaceflight will resolve.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Yet I have not seen any of the usual pro-commercial, anti-NASA folks that visit this site call NASA (or the administration) to task on this topic.

    As an aside, those people aren’t anti-NASA, they are against the Shuttle political industrial complex, more specifically against continued special treatment of the existing Shuttle workforce and supply chain. NASA is not synonymous with the Shuttle political industrial complex, though the latter would dearly want people to continue to believe it is.

  • There are no planned missions (from a NASA perspective) that are dependent upon having a depot, the current budget environment doesn’t support initiation of any missions, and the is no overarching national space policy (that is sustainable over the many decades necessary) that would alter the landscape for either limitation.

    To the degree that is true of depots, it is all true of HLV even more so. If NASA wants to do serious human spaceflight missions beyond LEO, anywhere beyond LEO, depots are on the critical path. HLVs are not.

  • Martijn Meijering

    If NASA wants to do serious human spaceflight missions beyond LEO, anywhere beyond LEO, depots are on the critical path.

    No they’re not. Propellant transfer is, but depots aren’t. It’s quite easy to see they’re not. Your larger point stands of course.

  • john m

    Since when does something called “commercial crew development” actually exist if they need so much government money to start up, and their only customer appears to be the US Government? Smoke and mirrors is all. If they are truly commercial why do they need so much money from us?

  • Martijn Meijering

    If they are truly commercial why do they need so much money from us?

    If NASA uses fair, competitive and redundant procurement, why would you care?

  • Since when does something called “commercial crew development” actually exist if they need so much government money to start up, and their only customer appears to be the US Government?

    It only appears to be that way to people who are paying no attention.

  • GuessWho

    Simberg – “To the degree that is true of depots, it is all true of HLV even more so.”

    I would agree with this 100%. HLV is a “keep NASA employees employed” program. Unfortunately, this statement applies to 90% of NASA as a whole.

    “If NASA wants to do serious human spaceflight missions beyond LEO, anywhere beyond LEO, depots are on the critical path. HLVs are not.”

    I would have to parse this a bit more to agree. Lunar missions don’t require depots. On-obit integration of multiple flight elements, yes. Can current launchers support this, yes. Similar arguments could be made for Mars missions. A fairly robust manned Mars transfer vehicle, with a parallel supply ship, could be constructed using existing launchers with on-obit integration of those elements. No refueling required, no depots required. If and when the flight rate becomes high enough that you need to separate the logistics supply from the crewed operations, and you have multiple vehicles operational at any given time, then a depot might make sense.

    More important is the opening line to that statement:

    “If NASA (and really that should be the U.S.) wants to do serious human spaceflight missions …”.

    This sentiment doesn’t exist within the U.S. public arena and current/past administrations have not provided leadership/vision to change that sentiment.

  • Martijn Meijering

    The presence (or lack of) a fuel depot located somewhere between LEO and L1 will not create a competitive launch market.

    You’re right, it won’t, a depot that’s sitting pretty doesn’t help very much, just as a technology demonstrator wouldn’t help much. That’s why I don’t care about the depots themselves, but about the spacecraft that would use them and the missions they would perform. And why I would not want to have dedicated depots initially. A refuelable spacecraft could serve as its own “depot”.

    Once the driving need to be there is established and flight rates are high enough, cost and schedule efficiencies will dictate whether a depot is needed or not.

    Exactly. It will also dictate what propellant would be needed, as well as what kinds of propulsion between the various nodes of the network. All that could be and should be left to and owned by the market.

    And why ASAP?

    Because the absence of cheap lift is the one and only obstacle that stands between us and both large scale government funded exploration and commercial development of space and because development of cheap lift will require a lot of time and a lot of money. As long as NASA is spending money on manned spaceflight at all, it should be spent in a way that removes the number one obstacle to large scale manned spaceflight. The sooner we start, the sooner we’ll have results. BTW I thought one of the main complaints of advocates of the status quo was that going beyond LEO was urgent. Going in circles in LEO and all that.

    What you haven’t demonstrated is that manned spaceflight is crucial.

    It isn’t. My argument is only conditional, to the degree that NASA spends money on spaceflight, manned or unmanned, at all.

    So what you are admitting to is that the current “commercial manned spaceflight” business is critically dependent upon transporting NASA crew to ISS and not space tourism, space manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, etc.

    I’m arguing (not ‘admitting’) that future commercial manned spaceflight in the other areas you mention would be enormously accelerated by fair, competitive and redundant procurement of launch services for both crew and propellant, especially the latter. And such procurement should be the norm anyway. In fact it is, although those who make the law are not above making exceptions for preferred constituencies.

    Thus it is dependent upon a Govt. funded activity that has shown little return value to the US taxpayer although it consumes a fairly large number of taxpayer dollars. In other words, Govt. pork. How then are you any different than ATK?

    It is the same in the sense that government spending on manned spaceflight probably cannot be justified. It is different in the fact that it would be done by fair, competitive and redundant procurement and in the fact that it has the potential to “seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space”. What justification could there be for awarding a contract to ATK in a way different from free and open competition?

  • Coastal Ron

    GuessWho wrote @ March 13th, 2011 at 9:49 am

    So what you are admitting to is that the current “commercial manned spaceflight” business is critically dependent upon transporting NASA crew to ISS and not space tourism, space manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, etc.

    I think you’re missing the forest for the trees.There are two related efforts here – 1.) NASA has a need for a crew system to support the ISS, and 2.) Some in the aerospace community have a desire to expand into providing crew transportation systems to LEO. Let’s look at these individually:

    1.) For the life of the ISS, NASA has relied on the Russian Soyuz for crew transportation and lifeboat services, and without them we would only have been visiting the ISS for two week periods using the Shuttle. IF the U.S. would like to stop sending dollars overseas, then it is in the interests of the U.S. to develop a commercial crew transportation market. Congress has already put this statement into law, so the big question is how does this happen. Until then, we continue to send money (and astronauts) out of the country.

    2.) The aerospace community has a desire to create crew transportation systems to LEO, but they don’t have an imperative to do it for their businesses. It’s a market extension, and maybe an exciting desire on the part of some of the aerospace leaders, but theirs is an overall goal, not a specific one. They see the ISS market (lasting through at least 2020) as the first customer, but not the only customer – remember they have marketing skills that NASA lacks, so just like Virgin Galactic has been able to attract customers for sub-orbital joyrides, LEO transportation systems plan to attract customers that want to create their own LEO destinations (like Bigelow), expanding the market beyond the ISS.

    So for the ISS, here are the three scenarios:

    A. Continue using the Russian Soyuz for ISS crew support (~$50M/seat)

    B. Use the planned MPCV to replace Soyuz ($20B R&D + $1B/flight)

    C. Hold an open competition, and if the overall costs are less than what using the MPCV would cost, then award contracts to the top two crew transportation provider winners.

    I suspect “C” will win out, and once the two winners are operational, they will expand their flights beyond just supporting the ISS, and that will allow businesses and non-NASA agencies (as well as other governments) the opportunity to test out possible business models in LEO. They all won’t work, but that testing is what will support the non-NASA business for the two crew transportation providers, and possible spur more providers to enter the market. If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s Capitalism 101.

    My $0.02

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Ok CR. I like your Option C but how does this fit in with CCDev Rd2? Is it the outcome like CRS was for COTS?

  • Carl

    Please fire this man!! He is, and has been, a joke from the start. He and Lori are the worst things that could have happened to the agency at the worst time for us all. Get a old space cowboy off the bench to run the show, and lets light some candles. I do not want to hear we can’t! I want to here how we will!!

    NUFF SAID!!!

    Carl, (Surfduke), Hewlett

  • Coastal Ron

    Beancounter from Downunder wrote @ March 14th, 2011 at 3:23 am

    I like your Option C but how does this fit in with CCDev Rd2? Is it the outcome like CRS was for COTS?

    Good observation, and one would hope so, but so far Congress hasn’t freed up enough money to see it all the way through.

    CCDev round 1 took us maybe 5-10% of the way there, and CCDev round 2 will take us another 5-10%, but the big money issues (LES and lots of flight tests) have not been funded.

    I’m all for spreading the wealth for space technology innovations, but at some point Congress needs to provide enough funding so NASA can hold a competition to determine who will succeed Soyuz after their contract is up in 2016.

    And as I’ve mentioned before, there should be at least two crew transportation winners. I think Boeing and SpaceX will win the first two spots with their capsules, but once the commercial crew market gets going I expect capsules to start be supplanted by horizontal landers within 10 years or so.

    In the startup world the point we’re at is known as “crossing the chasm”, and once we can bridge this point (getting two or more crew providers going), the market should expand beyond the ISS needs of today. We have about two years for Congress to decide to follow their own law (commercial crew is primary support for ISS) before it will impact the ability of commercial providers to take over from Soyuz by the end of 2016. Interesting times.

  • Coastal Ron

    Carl wrote @ March 14th, 2011 at 10:16 am

    I do not want to hear we can’t!

    And people wonder if another Constellation-like fiscal disaster can happen again….

    I think Carl is emblematic of the “see no financial overruns, hear no financial overruns, say NOTHING about financial overruns culture that has caused NASA to not hit any schedule or financial goals for any major programs.

  • richard schumacher

    We poured $9 billion into the hole called Ares/Orion, and you want to pour in another $16 billion? How’s the weather on the Porkbarrel Planet?

  • Martijn Meijering

    How’s the weather on the Porkbarrel Planet?

    Sadly, we live on the Porkbarrel Planet. :-(

Leave a 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>