Congress, NASA

Rubio worries about “full retreat” from human spaceflight

In an op-ed published today in the Orlando Sentinel, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) worries about the future of NASA’s human spaceflight efforts under the current administration. “The president’s space policy is jeopardizing America’s longstanding commitment to manned space exploration,” he claims, citing the administration’s efforts to cancel Constellation (which was “our most reliable path to low-earth orbit,” he argues). In addition, he is not convinced the administration is serious about supporting the Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle included in last year’s NASA authorization act, noting that the administration requested $1.2 billion less for them in its 2012 budget proposal than what was authorized last year.

“[B]y not having our own capabilities to transport Americans into space, our reliance on foreign countries for manned space exploration will jeopardize many of the national security functions that have made NASA’s work so vital,” he adds, although what exactly those “national security functions” that NASA performs are not specified. But what about the role of US-based commercial providers to ferry astronauts to and from LEO? Rubio is silent on the subject, curiously: he makes no mention of NASA’s commercial crew efforts, either positive or negative, even though they have the potential to end NASA’s reliance on Russia for crew transport sooner than the SLS and MPCV.

36 comments to Rubio worries about “full retreat” from human spaceflight

  • Joe

    But, Rubio is supposed to be a Tea Party favorite and the Tea Party is supposed to be anti “government”, “old” space (whatever you want to call it).

    How can this be?

    OK everybody togehter now ‘PORK/OINK, PORK/OINK, PORK/OINK.’

  • DCSCA

    “The president’s space policy is jeopardizing America’s longstanding commitment to manned space exploration,” he claims…”

    No. America has not had a long standing commitment to manned space exploration since the termination of the Apollo program; and even that program placed ‘exploration’ on a low tier.

    Tea Partier Rubio best read the CAIB and absorb why administration after administration for four decades either cut or left flat adequate funding for NASA and why the attempted infusion of absurd notions (chiefly the stink of the Reagan days) like ‘privatization’ of HSF programs, with its cost-cutting formulae at the price of personnel and safety, has brought America’s HSF program to the bleak point it is at today. Constellation was underfunded from the get-go, thanks to the failure of the Bush Administration to secure adequate funding for VSE projects; but the project itself had weak links in it- (Ares was a lousy rocket design).

    If Rubio wants a robust, HSF program, he best present a plan to clense NASA of the simplistic poisons of privatization, the demonstratively poor shuttle era management culture at the bureaucratic NASA of today, staff up with a redundancy of engineers and reestablish a cross-checking system between the agency and contractors, which is expensive, to assure quality control on space projects of scale. It is an expensive proposition now given the USA which has to borrow 42 cents of every dollar the government spends. President Obama has been forced to face the harsh realities NASA and previous administrations avoided. As the CAIB states:

    “Space flight is an inherently dangerous undertaking, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. While all efforts must be taken to minimize its risks, the White House, Congress, and the American public must acknowledge these dangers and be prepared to accept their consequences.” You get what you pay for- and it appears the ‘leaders’ in our government have not wanted to pay for it for for decades in the past– and decades to come.

  • Coastal Ron

    Joe wrote @ April 26th, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    OK everybody togehter now ‘PORK/OINK, PORK/OINK, PORK/OINK.’

    You could be right Joe.

    Or

    Being a darling of the Tea Party, do you expect Rubio to support ANYTHING the President does, regardless the merit?

    He’s been keeping his head down until now, and it looks like he’s taking small steps towards being a visible force during the election cycle next year, where being AGAINST the President during an election year is a given.

    It really doesn’t matter what he says however, it’s what he does, and it remains to be seen if he does anything to influence the space arena.

  • Ron

    Joe wrote @ April 26th, 2011 at 8:37 pm

    But, Rubio is supposed to be a Tea Party favorite and the Tea Party is supposed to be anti “government”, “old” space (whatever you want to call it).

    How can this be?

    No. “Old” space IS Big Government. And the Tea Party is not “anti-government.” They are anti “big government” and Pro small government.

    But like you said: “OINK, OINK, OINK!”

  • Joe

    Coastal Ron wrote @ April 26th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
    Ron wrote @ April 26th, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    Not a suprise, but of course irony is lost around here.

    Good Night.

  • Robert G. Oler

    The right wing and the tea party in general never cease to amaze me about the dumb dullards that lead them…really fascinating

    Robert G. Oler

  • nom de plume

    Rubio’s article in the Orlando Sentinel was insightful because he’s the new Republican Senator from West Miami and I didn’t know where he stood on the space program. Some of his comments recognize NASA’s historical accomplishments and the value of its “central mission.” But why bring up “national security” and support of “our military’s reconnaissance efforts” as reasons to praise or support NASA?

    Sen. Rubio comments about the federal budget seem to conflict: “tough choices” versus “Some doubt the necessity of funding manned space exploration …” So, is he in favor of funding NASA adequately and balancing the federal budget?

    I thought that this might be Rubio’s first attempt at dabbling with a space policy, but there is so much of the usual right-wing rhetoric sprinkled throughout the article. He blames the “Obama administration’s 2012 budget cuts” ($1.2 billion) for preventing “NASA from meeting its congressional goal of fielding an operational heavy-lift rocket and capsule by 2016” and relying on foreign governments. I suspect he is just getting ready for 2012 by insinuating that the Obama administration is wrong about everything. If Rubio is defining his stance on HSF, time will tell if he is capable of rising above the political nonsense and keep an open mind about the options.

  • Robert G. Oler

    nom de plume wrote @ April 27th, 2011 at 12:07 am
    ” But why bring up “national security” and support of “our military’s reconnaissance efforts” as reasons to praise or support NASA? ”

    because this is standard right wing rhetoric and the “keen minds” of the right wing eat it up.

    In the end there is no way to justify NASA HSF right now. there are no results which really justify the 200 billion price tag of the shuttle (to put that in perspective it is more then the USN spent on building its nuclear carriers of the same era. But in the right wing world nothing can be spared when it comes to national defense…we have to spend money on everything that has a ND tag…so well lump NASA into that…it sounds good to them and so they do it.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    Oh great another clown. So what is it? The WH should ask more money for NASA? And then Congress will cut it. Hmmm funny see because it is exactly what happened in the FY11 debate. The WH asked for more NASA budget and the CRs supposedly influenced by the Tea party cut the NASA budget.

    Once again. It is not about controlling government spending, it is about controlling where the spending goes to, i.e. making sure it goes to the usual suspects.

    Let’s see in a couple of years when the NewSpace league will hire more and more people in FL what he will have to say. “Oh no don’t get a job with these people!”…

    Consistency my friends, consistency.

  • common sense

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ April 26th, 2011 at 9:51 pm

    “The right wing and the tea party in general never cease to amaze me about the
    dumb dullards that lead them…really fascinating”

    You mean scary right? Can you imagine one of them “leading” the country??? Then again it might be Trump. I wonder when the GOP will be serious again about its leaders. Or could it be that they have so little idea about what to actually do that their only approach is sensationalism and national security re-hashed mumbo-jumbo? Who will be our next enemy???? I wonder. I hope they don’t focus on South Pacific nations where I might want to retire… Or the Caribbean??? Argh tough choice for an invasion.

  • ok then

    I guess nobody told him about de-orbiting ISS in 2015. Will we have more astronauts in space through 2030 with ISS or without?

    One day the Senate will learn make sense. I may never see it but one day..

  • adastramike

    I’m glad that Rubio, being a newcomer to the Senate, is making a stance on space issues in Florida. We need more supporters of NASA who want to see the agency execute beyond LEO missions sooner rather than later. He SHOULD speak up about space issues, if he wants to prove himself a visionary leader. Space IS the future after all. What we need are leaders in Congress who understand the value of engineering, science and most importantly of human spaceflight.

    I believe what Rubio is really getting at when he says NASA has “national security” functions is the technical capability to send humans to LEO and beyond. It is NOT good from a technology standpoint for the US not to have it’s own capability to send government astronauts to space, while other nations, with social problems of their own, see the benefit of building their manned space programs. It’s good that he recognizes what the Constellation program was, in my view, trying to achieve: a permanent presence on the Moon and eventually Mars. The implementation was not funded as it should have been, regardless of what the NASA-rocket haters think. I shudder to think what happens to the US human space program should this commercial crew initiative fail, or even be canceled, without a backup program of some kind. Do the newspace newbies really have “the right stuff” to send US government astronauts to space? Perhaps Boeing does but the others I’m not sure of — even SpaceX. Launching and retrieving an uncrewed capsule is vastly different than doing the same for a crewed one. If it took the US gov’t a Mercury/Gemini-style program and funding to get Americans into orbit, with many early distasters, I would think it would be even harder for upstarts.

    Hopefully this is the sign that some vocal members of Congress still believe in the Moon as our next most logical goal–to parts of it we HAVEN’T been to before. Congress really needs to add some more meat to its SLS and MPCV by defining a mission and payload that require them–perhaps that will be mission to the Moon, be it a landing or just a sling-shot. Even that would be vastly better that doing useless circles aboard the ISS.

  • Rubio is just parroting standard left/right wing rhetoric and is no different than the corporate GOP. He is pandering to the rabid base of right wingers.

    I know more about quantum physics than this guy knows about space issues in his own state.

  • Dennis Berube

    Our government is always mucking things up. They for the most part only are worried about their own pockets, and do not care about this country. While the space program more or less became a routine assessment among people, dynamic missions continued to give us hope for the future. As people ventured into space the normal lives of people took over as they went to work etc. and we forgot about our destiny to explore the stars. I truly hoped that our government would not, and that we would push on into deep space. The one most important thing we can do as humans today, is build us a colony on another world. This will guarantee our survival as a species. This colony will be away from the constant threats of war, and our inabilities to get along. It is vital we colonize either the Moon first or Mars.

  • amightywind

    But, Rubio is supposed to be a Tea Party favorite and the Tea Party is supposed to be anti “government”, “old” space (whatever you want to call it). How can this be?

    I’ll try to explain again. NASA is a lot like the military. It is used to project power and influence. At its best NASA is an expression of patiotism and national pride. So being against NASA is like being soft on defense. You can’t have it if you want to survive as a conservative. For politicians not willing to commit to that there is the oblivion of the mushy-middle. Oler is a good example.

    Rubio stands an excellent chance of being President someday. We are blessed to have him. Mrs. Rubio isn’t hard to look at either.

  • GWM

    “Simplistic poisons of privatization”? So we should continue to crank up the volume on the broken record of cost-plus madness? So we should continue to dump buckets of bucks on the same 3 “spooning” mega-Corps?

  • Coastal Ron

    Joe wrote @ April 26th, 2011 at 9:37 pm

    but of course irony is lost around here

    Joe, we all know what you were trying to get across (you being you), but you were hitting too close to the apple for it to be “irony”.

  • vulture4

    To most political leaders the only importance of the space program is figuring out how it can be used for political advantage. Rubio, Adams and Posey do not even bother to check their facts. They blame Obama for big government, privatizing space launch, and and for eliminating access to LEO. The latter because inevitable in 2004 with the decision to cancel Shuttle without first building a replacement.

    Nelson is a little more aware of NASA but still pushes congressional deals to preserve Constellation.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ April 27th, 2011 at 12:25 am

    “In the end there is no way to justify NASA HSF right now.”

    Of course there is– when the ‘right’ justification is framed, pitched and sold, a la USAF, 1956 and JFK circa 5/25/61. Cue PRC.

  • DCSCA

    @GWM wrote @ April 27th, 2011 at 8:59 am

    From the CAIB report- “Space flight is an inherently dangerous undertaking, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. While all efforts must be taken to minimize its risks, the White House, Congress, and the American public must acknowledge these dangers and be prepared to accept their consequences.”

    This is why governments do it, and not the private sector. And why, over the 80-plus year history of modern rocketry it has been governments, in various guises and for a variety of reasons (chiefly political and military, not ‘for profit’) have funded the development of this relatively new science and technology to the human species. “For profit” private firms have never taken a leading role in this field (except in the movies- see ‘Destination Moon for a business plan) but have always been follow-alongs, cashing in where they could, letting governments socialize the massive risks involved due to the largess of capital requirements and the scale of the projects involved. That’s the way it is in this era– and will be for the “forseeable future.”

  • Coastal Ron

    adastramike wrote @ April 27th, 2011 at 1:32 am

    . I shudder to think what happens to the US human space program should this commercial crew initiative fail, or even be canceled, without a backup program of some kind.

    As long as politicians view space as a program, we’ll never go anywhere.

    What if our forefathers had viewed the westward expansion as a “program”? The goal of the United States should be to encourage and support the expansion of our commerce into space. Exploration can be part of that, and will likely be needed to create technology and validate where we should go, but otherwise exploration that ends with footprints and bags of rocks is not worth pursuing.

    I support the nurturing of the commercial crew program specifically because it frees up NASA to do other more productive things out in space, and it saves the U.S. Taxpayer LOTS of money for the same service.

    Along the same lines, the SLS does NOTHING to either 1) save money on launch costs, or 2) do something we can’t do already, so spending money on it before Congress even funds a number of payloads for it is ridiculous.

    Can you tell me what funded payloads will use the SLS?

    As always, it boils down to choices. What is the most you can do with the money you have. $Billions go a lot further with commercial efforts than with NASA, so for the same money you spend to build one NASA MPCV, you could get two or more commercial crew systems going.

    Two is more reliable than one, and it’s save us money we would have sent out of the country to Russia. Getting commerce going to me is more important at this juncture than building an “exploration” capsule that could be obsoleted by the development of true spaceships like the NASA Nautilus-X concept.

    My $0.02

  • Rubio wants a Senate seat and is having a hard time choosing to support expensive “old commercial” or inexpensive (relatively) “new commercial”.

    The votes every Florida politician wants to count on is “old commercial” since they have such large labor forces. His gut probably wants to support the cost benefits of “new commercial” but he hasn’t figured out how to make the leap of his fiscal-faith and still get the votes.

  • Rubio wants a Senate seat and is having a hard time choosing to support expensive “old commercial” or inexpensive (relatively) “new commercial”.

    I’m pretty sure he already has a senate seat until at least 2017.

  • adastramike

    “I support the nurturing of the commercial crew program specifically because it frees up NASA to do other more productive things out in space, and it saves the U.S. Taxpayer LOTS of money for the same service.”

    I agree that if commercial crew succeeded, in the best of scenarios by 2016, with lower launch costs than the traditional rockets, NASA would have more money for exploration. But funding companies that have little experience building and designing capsules and launch vehicles to me is suicide for human spaceflight. Only Boeing, in my opinion, has the infrastructure and know-how to build its CST-100. The best Space-X can do in the near term is loft cargo. Human spaceflight is a whole other ball-game. Unless quality assurance in the design and manufacturing of space capsule/launch vehicle is enforced the way a government program would enforce it, the commercial crew programs will just be a bunch of flight disasters, in my view.

    As for NASA having more money for exploration, it would have that money if we got rid of the ISS. Now that’s not going to happen because it’s become a major program and we’ve just finished building it. But if we can spend $100b for a space station in LEO, at a bad inclination at that, then we sure as heck could afford some lunar infrastructure. So I’m arguing for the kind of exploration only a government can do.

    Now if SpaceX wants to start its own exploration projects, I’m all for it, but I believe they should really crawl before they can walk. I do wish them luck, if they truly have the knowhow to succeed at a new lower-cost LV than NASA has been trying to build with its various RLV projects that were canceled. However we should not fund commercial crew at the expense of building and designing infrastructure for beyond LEO exporation. We need to be done exploring LEO and return to true space exploration.

    “Exploration can be part of that, and will likely be needed to create technology and validate where we should go, but otherwise exploration that ends with footprints and bags of rocks is not worth pursuing”

    That’s exactly what Obama’s asteroid mission is, just flags and footprints with a bag of rocks. The same thign with his prediction of the first human trip to Mars. And its’ too far in the future to last politically. The next president will do the same thing and “re-vamp” NASA again, possibly canceling commercial crew if it hasn’t made the promised progress. What we need is a series of near-term destinations, and technology required to reach or sustain a base at those destinations should be developed. We need to step back into our backyard–the Moon–rather than just create another program to figure out how to get onto the porch, so to speak. Exploration should be NASA’s primary HSF focus, with commercial playing an appropriate role, not the other way around. Don’t forget that commercial crew won’t open the door for the public to reach space — only something like Virgin Galactic will. Commercial crew, if it succeeds, still services the government.

    What we need is a roadmap of destinations and timetables that incrementally step us forward to permanent outposts. The capsules and earth departure stages can be launched on whatever human-rated launch vehicle is available.

    1) First payload for SLS or Falcon Heavy: Orion MPCV to a slingshot around the Moon by 2020 or earlier
    2) Second payload and subsequent payloads: Orion + Lunar lander for sorties to the lunar South pole by 2025. Begin installing lunar infrastructure such as ISRU plants. Learn to live off the lunar resources and prove life support systems. This can possibly involve international cooperation to spread the costs. Invest at least 5yrs to a decade supporting the lunar base.
    3) Next payload: Orion’s for first crewed visit to Mars orbit by 2035, with international cooperation
    4) Next payload: Orion’s or larger vehicle for crewed landing on Mars by 2040, with international cooperation
    5) Next payload: Begin installing a base at Mars by 2050

    We’ve already spend 30 years in LEO since Apollo ended–it’s time we stop being timid politically and reach back out beyond LEO.

  • common sense

    @ adastramike wrote @ April 27th, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    “I’m all for it, but I believe they should really crawl before they can walk. ”

    This is precisely what they do. They learn: Falcon I, Falcon 9, Dragon. They just learn faster than others.

    ” However we should not fund commercial crew at the expense of building and designing infrastructure for beyond LEO exporation. We need to be done exploring LEO and return to true space exploration.”

    Where are we doing that? We are not. They are part of the LEO infrastructure that will allow BEO in the future. Prove me wrong.

    “What we need is a roadmap of destinations and timetables ”

    No we don’t need that. VSE was it and its implementation, Constellation, miserably failed.

  • adastramike wrote:

    We’ve already spend 30 years in LEO since Apollo ended–it’s time we stop being timid politically and reach back out beyond LEO.

    This comment reflects a fundamental ignorance about the core problem.

    The core problem is that most of Congress doesn’t care about space exploration. No one is “timid.” But they are apathetic.

    Most of those who take an interest do so because they have NASA space centers in their district, and/or NASA contractors. In their case, their interest is bringing pork to their districts to tell voters they protected jobs — again, it’s not about any particular enthusiasm for space exploration.

    The main problem with many in the space advocacy movement is that they can’t grasp political reality. Apollo was a political fluke born out of the Cold War. That fluke no longer exists, hence the political motivation no longer exists.

    The only way out is to grow commercial access to space. Those folks are most certainly not “timid.”

  • Vladislaw

    “1) First payload for SLS or Falcon Heavy: Orion MPCV to a slingshot around the Moon by 2020 or earlier”

    The first launch of the Falcon Heavy is supposed to be 2012, I highly doubt the Orion will be ready then.

  • Coastal Ron

    adastramike wrote @ April 27th, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    We’ve already spend 30 years in LEO since Apollo ended–it’s time we stop being timid politically and reach back out beyond LEO.

    We have no shortage of political bravado – don’t you listen to the politicians?

    What we lack is a real reason and the money to do it. I’m not talking about a nice-to-have reason, like going back to the Moon and doing all the neat things you outlined. I’d like to do that someday too, but if Constellation taught us anything, is that Moon programs are very expensive. NASA survives on %0.05% of the total budget, whereas Apollo had 3-4%. Until we address the cost issue, we’ll never make it back.

    The ISS at least is an analogy that is easy to understand for the public (an outpost & international laboratory in space), and far easier to support than a similar one 1,000 times further away (i.e. the Moon). Considering that we have lots to learn about living and working in space, why not learn that as close to home as possible? And the same infrastructure we’re creating to support the ISS can be used for beyond LEO support too. Win win.

    But funding companies that have little experience building and designing capsules and launch vehicles to me is suicide for human spaceflight.

    So only companies that have built spacecraft can build spacecraft? And companies that have never done something can never acquire the skills to do something? Kind of like the hiring dilemma – to get a job you need skills, but you need skills to get a job.

    Comments like this tell me that you’re very much an old-school type person. That’s OK, but most of the innovation doesn’t come from old-school companies.

    Until SpaceX launched Falcon 9, no one thought a brand new commercial company could build and launch a mid-heavy-class rocket successfully. Until SpaceX launched and recovered their Dragon capsule, no commercial company had ever done that. Boeing and Lockheed Martin could have built and launched their own capsules, so why didn’t they?

    Regarding the “little experience” comment, that’s the beauty about companies vs people – you hire what you need.

    Considering that no one in life is perfect, including NASA and Boeing, I think most people expect that failures will occur in the future, and the only way to mitigate that is to create vehicles WITH abort system (unlike Shuttle), and to create more than one system (to avoid Shuttle-type shutdowns).

    Your solution (NASA products built by old-guard companies) is risk adverse, whereas I think we should invite innovation and spread the risk more.

  • adastramike

    Stephen C. Smith wrote:

    “In their case, their interest is bringing pork to their districts to tell voters they protected jobs — again, it’s not about any particular enthusiasm for space exploration”

    Well, all I can say is that’s politics and that’s not going to change. So HSF has to work within that reality. Congressmen and women speak for their constituencies–that’s the point of representation.

    Of course I don’t want a program that’s only about jobs that will be canceled in the next couple of years only to be replaced by the next jobs program. And how do we really know that commercial crew won’t be canceled like so many of NASA’s previous launch vehicle/crewed spacecraft development efforts?

    One of my concerns is that some of the newspace newbies don’t have the knowhow or real capability that the government does and that the astronauts will pay with their lives aboard commercial crew spacecraft developed by newcomers.

    For beyond LEO exploration, governments need to lead the way as they have the resources and infrastructure. I’ve already accepted that commercial crew development will be around for a short while–until a company is successful or the program is canceled or lives are lost. In the mean time, we can’t let NASA flounder around going nowhere. So whatever political support NASA can get for beyond LEO exploration, the better. NASA can be structured in a way that allows and prepares for really awesome and inspiring human spaceflight missions. And it’s just a reality that government has to play a role in that, just as they did in discovering the Americas. Commercial will follow once the gov’t has cleared the way — unless commercial crew really does plan to take us beyond LEO–but I really hope they’re not just looking simply for contracts to taxi gov’t astronauts and the super rich to the ISS, and then that’s it.

    And we do need destinations and timetables–just as is done in the robotic space mission world. Technology is developed and matured FOR missions that go TO destinations within defined timeframes. The technology must be applied in a real scenario if it ever is to see the light of day. I see no reason why human spaceflight should be any different. We need real HSF missions away from LEO to inspire, innovate and make history, as it’s important in my opinion for the US to remain a leader in HSF.

  • Coastal Ron

    adastramike wrote @ April 27th, 2011 at 8:49 pm

    And how do we really know that commercial crew won’t be canceled like so many of NASA’s previous launch vehicle/crewed spacecraft development efforts?

    By changing space from a “program” to a place of commerce.

    High-minded? No. It’s the same thing we’ve done with every frontier, and space will just be the next.

    It is true that commercial crew needs the ISS support contract to get going. SpaceX and Boeing could fund their own solutions, but without the guaranteed revenue of an ISS contract, it would take a far larger/longer commitment. But luckily the ISS will need crew services, so this is not an issue.

    Once two or more providers get established, then we’ll see if Bigelow can start up his habitat-for-hire service. If that happens, then commercial crew should be able to survive without the ISS after 2020, but I think the ISS will continue through next decade.

    But what if we depended on government-funded NASA? Who says it might not get shut down at some point too, and where would you be?

    One of my concerns is that some of the newspace newbies don’t have the knowhow or real capability that the government does and that the astronauts will pay with their lives aboard commercial crew spacecraft developed by newcomers.

    Don’t forget those that have given their lives flying with NASA. I’d feel far safer flying on Dragon to/from orbit than Shuttle, since Dragon has an LAS and a protected heat shield. Falcon 9 also has a much less dangerous failure mode than the SRB powered Shuttle. Which would you feel safer on, and why?

    I’ve already accepted that commercial crew development will be around for a short while–until a company is successful or the program is canceled or lives are lost.

    I’ll save you the suspense – lives will be lost, no matter who builds the vehicles. That’s life, and if you’re too timid to climb aboard, then don’t worry, there is a long line of people to replace you. If you didn’t realize this after Challenger and Columbia, then you’re not very observant. And the commercial companies realize the risks too, so don’t think that you’re being omniscient or something.

    And maybe you haven’t noticed, but SpaceX has the best spiral development plan for crew development. They are flying the same capsules and same rockets for the CRS program that they will use for crew, so they will have more experience with their systems before the first person flies than NASA, Boeing or anyone. Not bad for a newbie… ;-)

  • Coastal Ron

    adastramike wrote @ April 27th, 2011 at 6:32 pm

    Don’t forget that commercial crew won’t open the door for the public to reach space — only something like Virgin Galactic will. Commercial crew, if it succeeds, still services the government.

    Now you’re a marketing expert for the commercial companies? My opinion has been that space tourism will be an outgrowth of commercial crew, not a driver, but with seven seats, I think there is a lot of potential for people to fly on crew rotation flights, and that opens up the market for lots of possibilities.

    But what I think you don’t recognize is the market potential that gets opened up by having commercial crew, and not having access to space controlled by NASA.

    Bigelow Aerospace has signed MOU’s from seven sovereign nations, and if you think space is a national prestige issue for the U.S., then you can imagine those in other countries that realize they can lease their own space station for far less than the cost of one Shuttle flight.

    That won’t happen with the NASA SLS/MPCV, and that’s part of the reason why I support commercial crew – I want lots of activity in space, not just the little bit that Congress allows NASA to do.

  • Vladislaw

    “One of my concerns is that some of the newspace newbies don’t have the knowhow or real capability that the government does and that the astronauts will pay with their lives aboard commercial crew spacecraft developed by newcomers.”

    We are smart little monkeys but we still haven’t managed to eliminate the risk of walking down a stairs or getting out of bathtub. People die in all activities. The idea that somehow being an astronaut eliminates risk will only set yourself up for disappointment. Astronauts will die in the future. You might as well accept that as a given.

    I do not believe commercial will pursue a policy of killing off their customers by taking longshot risks, it’s bad for business. But accidents will happen in space, like it does on land sea and air. We do our best and move forward.

    What is this know how that the government has? Commercial companies build all the spacecraft. NASA has designed how many rockets/spacecraft for human spaceflight, that have made it to orbit, in the last 10 years? 20 years? 30 years?

  • Ferris Valyn

    adastramike

    Don’t forget that commercial crew won’t open the door for the public to reach space — only something like Virgin Galactic will. Commercial crew, if it succeeds, still services the government.

    Thats fundamentally not true. CST-100 is linked with Space Adventures, to sell seats to the private market – Virgin Galactic is linking with SNC’s Dreamchaser.

    Now, admittedly its a limited private market, because of price – but it is opening the door to the public at large

  • DCSCA

    @Vladislaw wrote @ April 28th, 2011 at 10:56 am

    “The idea that somehow being an astronaut eliminates risk will only set yourself up for disappointment. Astronauts will die in the future. You might as well accept that as a given.”

    Yes but the goal is to minimize that risk with ‘fail-safe’ engineering. Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, after the fire, were pretty good at that. Shuttle is/was deficient in that area– an area NewSpace needs to work on.

  • Dennis Berube

    With all this development, is commercial crew also engineering space suits for their customers? I have been wondering that for awhile..

  • Yes but the goal is to minimize that risk with ‘fail-safe’ engineering. Mercury, Gemini and Apollo, after the fire, were pretty good at that.

    NASA was very lucky to not lose the crew in Apollo 13.

    With all this development, is commercial crew also engineering space suits for their customers?

    Space suits are not required to deliver people to and from the ISS.

Leave a Reply to Vladislaw Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

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