Congress, Other

FAA commercial space budget hearing and a policy initiative

The space subcommittee of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee is holding a hearing next Thursday, May 5, on the FY2012 budget request of the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST). George Nield, the associate administrator of commercial space transportation at the FAA, is the only scheduled witness so far.

The FY2012 budget proposal for FAA/AST (included in the overall FAA budget proposal) requests $26.6 million for the office in 2012, up considerably from the $15.2 million it got in FY2010 (the 2011 budget is uncertain because of long battle to finalize FY11 spending government-wide.) the increase is largely due to the planned creation of the Commercial Spaceflight Technical Center at the Kennedy Space Center, as well as a proposed $5-million Low Cost Access to Space Initiative prize announced by FAA/AST in February.

In addition to FAA/AST’s budget, there are moves afoot in industry to adjust existing law regarding commercial spaceflight that could come up at the hearing. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 gives FAA/AST the authority to issue regulations “governing the design or operation of a launch vehicle to protect the health and safety of crew and space flight participants”, but for the first eight years afte the law’s enactment, those regulations are limited to circumstances that resulted in, or posed the “high risk” of causing, serious or fatal injury to crew or spaceflight participants. The idea was to give industry time to build up experience in commercial human spaceflight and identifying best practices before codifying those practices in regulation.

That eight-year period expires on December 23, 2012, but the industry hasn’t developed as quickly as advocates expected in the heady days of 2004, when SpaceShipOne was winning the Ansari X PRIZE and other ventures appeared to be following close behind. While no one expects FAA/AST to start issuing regulations willy-nilly next December, the industry would like to extend that current restriction to provide industry assurance it won’t. “I’m not saying the FAA wants to do that, or would do that,” Jim Muncy of Polispace said during a session of the Space Access ’11 conference in Phoenix earlier this month, “but bureaucratic organizations tend to exercise their authority.”

Because the industry hasn’t developed as quickly, some in the industry are looking to reset that eight-year “learning period” through legislation, and have met with people in Congress about that. “We are setting up as an eight-year period from the first flight of a spaceflight participant, so that it’s literally eight years of learning,” said Muncy. He said at Space Access ’11 that the House Science Committee showed interest in holding hearings on this and then marking up legislation for this provision. This change, he added, might be rolled up into another proposal to include third-party indemnification for spaceflight participants, similar to existing indemnification for commercial satellite launches.

55 comments to FAA commercial space budget hearing and a policy initiative

  • “We are setting up as an eight-year period from the first flight of a spaceflight participant, so that it’s literally eight years of learning,”

    Doesn’t sound totally unreasonable to me…

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p6EruPdoXY&feature=player_embedded

    as NASA JSC does yet another study on a goofy HLV…the future just keeps coming the way everyother industry has brought it to the US….

    SpaceX Rocks

    Robert G. Oler

  • $5M Space Prize for innovation is a great idea!

    Similar concept applied to Heavy Lift Development might achieve the goals and deadlines that Posey and company wants. Shelby and the overly proscriptive rocket designers in Congress probably wouldn’t be interested in anything that risks pushing fewer dollars to their constituencies.

  • @Robert G. Oler

    An HLV can launch fuel to LEO and L1 much cheaper than small rockets can. An HLV can launch spacious 100 tonne Bigelow space stations into orbit which is something small launch vehicles like the Falcon 9 simply cannot do.

    The development of an HLV is going to allow the NASA and private US companies to dominate cis-lunar space both strategically and economically!

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ April 28th, 2011 at 9:21 pm

    An HLV can launch fuel to LEO and L1 much cheaper than small rockets can.

    I’ll start by pointing you to the article that Paul Spudis likes to reference for HLV costs. That gives us a common point of reference:

    http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/01/the-hlv-cost-in.html

    If you look at the chart, it shows the development costs (DDT&E), and the total cost that includes 18 operational flights.

    For the 130mt launcher the total cost is $45.5B, so dividing that down it comes out to $16.9B non-recurring and $28.6B recurring, or $1.5889B/launch. Even without taking into account the development costs, the 130mt launcher still costs $5,544/lb. With development, those 18 flights cost $8,820/lb.

    As a comparison, we’ll say that Delta IV Heavy costs $450M/flight (also a Spudis number), which works out to $9,000/lb. More than the HLV, but with the $16.9B of DDT&E you spent on the HLV, you could have used Delta IV Heavy to put up 1,850,000 lbs of mass over 37 flights. That’s the size of two ISS spacecraft in LEO. So in order for you to even consider needing an HLV, you have to have a funded need for more than 2,000,000 of mass in space.

    What about Falcon Heavy? It has a high end cost of $125M for 117,000 lbs to LEO, which works out to $1,068/lb. So instead of developing the HLV, that $16.9B of DDT&E could be spent putting 15,795,000 lbs into LEO over 135 flights. In order for the NASA HLV to put the same amount of mass into LEO, it would take 55 flights at a total cost of $104B. Oh, and that doesn’t include the cost of making all that payload (2x, 4x that amount?).

    As a final comparison, if you used Falcon Heavy to put 15M lbs of mass into LEO, it would cost you $17B, saving you $87B over the NASA HLV. WOW! You could build a LOT of space hardware for $87B!

    So to answer your question, no an HLV CANNOT launch fuel to LEO and L1 much cheaper than small rockets can. And depending on how much mass you need, there are a LOT of launchers that can do it far cheaper than an HLV.

    If you disagree, I assume you’ll accompany it with the same level of detail I provided?

  • SpaceColonizer

    @Marcel

    The SLS will not be able to compete with the Falcon Heavy’s 1000/pound. Having a larger payload to deliver something like fuel, which can be sent in any amount at a time, doesn’t matter if you’re not getting a lower price per pound. And even if it it would be cheaper… where’s the funding for the fuel depot? Why build a HLV now before we’ve even designed and budgeted the payloads we want to use it for?

    Also, a 100 ton Bigelow unit? I seriosly doubt they would ever design a single module of that size. Mass producing smaller modules and using them to create larger structures is far more practical. And even if I’m wrong on that point, it still comes down to the launch costs/pound. No customers will order such a large module if they have to pay through the nose to get it into space. If NASA wants one, they need to budget for that before they budget for the rocket… and with the ISS funded to 2020 (potentially 2028) why would they do that this decade?

  • pbryan

    Coastal Ron,

    Hat’s off to you. What an amazing email. If only the posters like Amightywind could respond with such intellectual vigour we might shed more light rather than heat on this website.

    So Marcel, let’s hear your reply. And it’s OK to admit that you maybe have to reconsider your position given the new information. It woundn’t lessen your value as a human being to do a u-turn. Honest.

  • Dennis Berube

    I thought we already have had our early learning curves. Time to move on and out into deep space. Learning curves, please! I think our government and NASA, need a major Paradym shift.

  • Dennis Berube

    In this 8 year learning curve, I was wondering who will be engineering the space suits for their future commercial customers! I havent heard anything about this. Where is SpaceX getting its spacesuits from for their customers. I assume NASA will supply that for their astronauts, but what of the commercial customers?

  • Ferris Valyn

    Dennis – Look up Orbital Outfitters. And there are the companies that provide NASA with suits, although OO is way better.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Dennis,

    Also, it depends on what you mean for Space Suit, the application for which, the user, and so on. You’ll need to define what you mean within that category.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ April 28th, 2011 at 6:09 pm

    “You’ve got a lot to learn about modern management techniques for the 21st Century. Here’s a tip for you: strip away the ‘military veneer’ of the film you reference, “12 O’Clock High,” and you’ll discover it is an excellent study in now obsolete American business management techniques- circa 1945-1980.”

    If the LEADERSHIP (not management) techniques portrayed by General Savage ever go out of style we are finished as a Republic.

    OK maybe they have gone out of style at JSC NASA.. Replaced with dorky Linda H…”What could we do about it anyway?”

    There are several leadership films that came from WW2 in the era of 12 O Clock High…but it is clearly illustrative of the traits which have seen The REpublic’s military in particular hold fast since we first fired on our own Army at Lexington and Concord.

    Peck portrays a character that inspires people not only to be better then themselves, but to unify in a group action that can accomplish what individuals cannot…at in this case horrific cost to themselves…and Peck’s character drives himself the hardest

    That leadership at NASA JSC in particular has not existed in decades. The twits that are there now are more inclined about keeping the government money rolling absent some real mission then actually accomplishing something. The poster person for sloth and incompetence is amazingly (considering Linda H. is a potential candidate) Jeff Hanley.

    That clown had almost all the money he needed and yet as his program unhinged he couldnt answer with any sort of numbers if recovering the first stage of ARes was cost effective or not.

    There is no inspiring there. Hanley didnt have to make the speech “consider yourself dead, dont worry about home or going home or anyone at home, just do yourself a favor and consider yourself dead”. But as he either capitulated or instigated (the jury is still out on that) to one goofy thing after another on Ares, when he was unable as program manager to say “OK this requirement is goofy” then everyone else in his “command” felt goofy was ok.

    It will/would be hard to fix JSC. One is going to have to snap them up with some hard reality and push a lot of dead wood toward someone else shop (because you dont can civil servants just because they dont sing along)…but it can be done. But once you do…then the song will start again…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    Maybe it wasn’t clear at the time, but certainly through hindsight it’s easy to see why no commercial crew services wanted to start up 8 years ago. Before investing $Millions in building anything, you have to identify who your likely customers will be, and why they would choose you over other alternatives.

    Eight years ago the only customer for crew-to-LEO services was for the ISS, and the ISS partners had a lock on taking care of their own needs (i.e. Soyuz & Shuttle). Bigelow Aerospace didn’t have their systems developed yet (they were getting ready to test Genesis I), so no other potential customers existed. There was no need, no market, for commercial crew to compete for.

    The final piece of this puzzle is that once the Constellation program was announced, and the end of the ISS defined, there would have been no known destinations in LEO for a commercial company to take customers.

    Maybe they could have created an experience like Virgin Galactic’s sub-orbital one to provide tourist rides to LEO, but for the $20M Dennis Tito paid in 2001, he was able to visit a real space station as part of an 8-day trip to space. Going to space for an experience less than that (no space station stops), at prices likely far above that, is not going to attract many people. Not a solid business plan.

    So while I think it was aspirational for the Congress to provide the first 8-year grace period, the real time period it is needed will be over the next 8 years.

  • pathfinder_01

    “In this 8 year learning curve, I was wondering who will be engineering the space suits for their future commercial customers! I havent heard anything about this. Where is SpaceX getting its spacesuits from for their customers. I assume NASA will supply that for their astronauts, but what of the commercial customers?”

    Space X plans to make its own but there are companies that plan to make them for others. check out this:

    http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/03/21/commercial-spacesuit-companies-compete-market-share/

    Also I don’t think the commercial craft will support space walks. Spacewalks for Orion are contingency only. These are just for use inside during launch/reentry/landing(or splashdown).

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ April 28th, 2011 at 9:21 pm

    “An HLV can launch fuel to LEO and L1 much cheaper than small rockets can. An HLV can launch spacious 100 tonne Bigelow space stations into orbit which is something small launch vehicles like the Falcon 9 simply cannot do. ”

    I dont think that is accurate on a few fronts.

    First off I am not aware of a 100 ton Bigelow single piece space station…Although anything is possible in the future I view short term such a notion as unlikely.

    Second, the mantra is cost per pound. If an HLV cannot beat the cost per pound of a “smaller rocket” and the smaller rocket can boost the payload, then why would anyone chose the HLV?

    Third, if development cost of the HLV zap up all the funds that are available for human spaceflight development, then there wont be any payloads to launch on the HLV.

    I could go on, but I do not understand how spending 12 billion (at least) on an HLV design that will launch 4 (FOUR) times is a good thing..? That makes the cost per launch near the cost of a CVN.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “So to answer your question, no an HLV CANNOT launch fuel to LEO and L1 much cheaper than small rockets can.”

    Not to nitpik but you shot yourself in the foot there. You should have said ‘no a HLV designed, developed, built at cost plus, and operated by NASA can not launch fuel to LEO and L1 cheaper than already developed private sector launch vehicles’

  • Coastal Ron

    Vladislaw wrote @ April 29th, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    I agree, your version is better. Thanks

  • @Coastal Ron

    As far as the Falcon 9 cost rates per launch are concerned, I don’t think any of the cost rates coming from Elon Musk can be taken seriously until Space X can routinely launch payloads and humans safely into orbit without mishaps over several years, as Russia’s space company, Energia, has done over several years. The Delta IV heavy was originally supposed to cost less than $200 million per launch. But lack of demand for its services has raised its cost substantially.

    And, IMO, Space X should eventually do this without continued support from tax payer funds and NASA infrastructure. Unfortunately, Elon’s continued interest in getting civilian and military government contracts is going to make his true cost as murky as those from the ULA.

    Also, continuing to fund the ISS as a ‘make work program’ for the emerging private spaceflight companies when NASA is supposed to be focusing on– beyond LEO missions– is going to cost NASA and the tax payers about $3 billion a year. Space X or any other private company should not be going to the ISS, an expensive big government program that really should be discontinued after 2016. They should be traveling to privately financed Bigelow space stations. Plus there’s not enough traffic to the space station to support more than one or two private companies.

    If the new NASA HLV is limited to only 18 flights during its lifetime then that would be an economic disaster. Over an 18 year period, that would be like having one HLV flight per year:-) The space shuttle, at its maximum launch rate, had 9 launches in just one year. So if you build an HLV, you actually have to use it in order for prices to be economical. The Space Shuttle had a history of over 130 flights over a 30 year period. So we should assume that the HLV should have a future flight history of at least 100 flights over the next 20 years– if we really intend to use it!

    The HLV that you reference requires the development of 5-segment SRBs which adds about $5 billion to the development cost. But you don’t need to develop 5-segment boosters in order to launch 100 tonnes into orbit if you use an upper stage with the current 4-segment SRBs.

    Space shuttle launches cost about $450 million per launch (not including development cost). And, in theory, unmanned shuttle derived HLV launches should be cheaper to launch than a manned shuttle launch. So if you add the cost of development, that would only add an additional $120 million per flight for a 100 tonne payload shuttle derived HLV. A $450 per launch Delta IV heavy can launch 25 tonnes of fuel into orbit at about $18 million per tonne. A higher launch rate Delta IV heavy at about $225 per launch might reduce cost to less than $9 million per tonne. But a basic NASA HLV with 4-segment SRBs and an upper stage could launch 100 tonnes of space depot fuel into orbit for less than $6 million per tonne.

    There’s also the possibility that a simpler and safer crew launch vehicle could be developed from the HLV by simply using the 5 space shuttle main engines without the SRBs to achieve orbit as has been proposed by Boeing for a couple of decades now. This might be an attractive crew launch vehicle for private industry which could substantially increase the production rate of the core vehicle and the RS-25 engines which should also help to significantly reduce cost for the HLV.

    But, again, neither the Falcon heavy nor the Delta IV heavy would be able to launch the largest Bigelow space stations (BA 2100) into orbit which will weigh between 70 to 100 tonnes. So some jobs, they simply can’t do, no matter how cheap they are.

  • @Robert G. Oler

    You can find out more about Bigelow’s 100 tonne private space station concepts at:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BA_2100

    and (Video)

    http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2011/01/bigelow-space-station-concepts.html

  • @SpaceColonizer

    Developing space depot is part of NASA’s space R&D program, as it should be. Also, NASA desires to develop space craft that can also be used by the military and by private industry in order to reduce cost.

    If we already had an HLV, then all we’d have to do is develop a reusable lunar lander and we could use it to establish a permanent presence on the lunar surface and private industry could use to transport tourist all the way to the lunar surface. An HLV makes establishing a lunar base easier, deploying space depots cheaper, and deploying large space stations both cheaper and easier.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ April 29th, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    Space shuttle launches cost about $450 million per launch (not including development cost)….

    that is low. it is about 1 billion a year without development cost

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ April 29th, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    “As far as the Falcon 9 cost rates per launch are concerned, I don’t think any of the cost rates coming from Elon Musk can be taken seriously until Space X can routinely launch payloads and humans safely into orbit without mishaps over several years, as Russia’s space company, Energia, has done over several years. ”

    I agree that there is going to be some “settling time” (Ie figuring out what the cost is) but it wont be “years”…it will probably be less then six months.

    What is different between NASA costing the shuttle and Musk Falcon boosters is that Musk cannot survive unless he at least breaks even and wont be in business long if he doesnt make a profit.

    “But, again, neither the Falcon heavy nor the Delta IV heavy would be able to launch the largest Bigelow space stations (BA 2100) into orbit which will weigh between 70 to 100 tonnes. So some jobs, they simply can’t do, no matter how cheap they are.”

    but there is no indication that such a Bigelow station is needed nor even practical UNTIL THEY HAVE PROVEN the smaller designs. So there is plenty of time for things to evolve.

    No need for a HLV

    Robert G. Oler

  • pathfinder_01

    “If the new NASA HLV is limited to only 18 flights during its lifetime then that would be an economic disaster. Over an 18 year period, that would be like having one HLV flight per year:-) The space shuttle, at its maximum launch rate, had 9 launches in just one year. So if you build an HLV, you actually have to use it in order for prices to be economical. The Space Shuttle had a history of over 130 flights over a 30 year period. So we should assume that the HLV should have a future flight history of at least 100 flights over the next 20 years– if we really intend to use it! “

    The last HLV we had was Saturn and it flew twice a year in most years. Only in 1969 did it fly three. BEO spaceflight is not conductive to high flight rate with an HLV. There are only so many launch windows to the moon a year. If you attempt to lift the entire mission in one HLV shoot your mission is going to be tiny (i.e. Saturn V only sent about 45MT worth of spacecraft to the moon of it and only a %MT capsule returned). If you spend all your money on the rocket you don’t develop things like upper stages that do not suffer for cryogenic boil off.

    The reason why the shuttle could fly so often is because it was reusable. You didn’t need to repurchase a lander and a capsule and a rocket the size of a skyscraper for each mission. You only replaced the fuel tank, and refurbished the solids, and refurbished the Orbiter. The Orbiter and whatever was within its payload bay was reused. Also the shuttle typically only flew 4-6 a year, 9 a year was the year before the Challenger Disaster.

    In the case of the shuttle it was 3 -4 shuttles flying 4-6 times a year or each shuttle getting 1-2 flights a year. Unlike a disposable HLV you didn’t replace engines on every flight(Shuttle main engines are reusable),) or spacecraft(shuttle is reusable). Also most of the Shuttle’s avionics are in the shuttle itself.

  • SpaceColonizer

    If we had all those things then we’d have something to use the HLV for… but we don’t… so again… why are we building a rocket BEFORE we have anything for it to launch. Having a depot listed as part of a long term plan is nice but you gotta have the budget for it. No such budget can materialize if SLS and Orion suck up all the money.

  • And, IMO, Space X should eventually do this without continued support from tax payer funds and NASA infrastructure.

    SpaceX can do without both right now. And it uses no NASA infrastructure. Should ATK be able to do without taxpayer funds? Because they can’t.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ April 29th, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    As far as the Falcon 9 cost rates per launch are concerned…

    The same could be said about HLV costs, and honestly, does anyone believe any estimates that NASA puts out about costs? At least SpaceX advertises their prices, and once you sign on the dotted line that is the price you pay. Could they raise prices? Sure, but 10 or 20% increases will still keep them far below their competition.

    And, IMO, Space X should eventually do this without continued support from tax payer funds and NASA infrastructure.

    This seems like an artificial barrier to me. First of all, SpaceX only gets paid for actual work that they won under open competition, so where’s the issue with that? NASA is mandated by Congress to get commercial crew going so we can stop paying Russia. Are you against that?

    Secondly, what “NASA infrastructure” are you talking about? The launch pad they use is Air Force property, they use their own engine test facility, and they use their own mission control. Besides, the U.S. Government leases government facilities to industry for industry use all the time, so why shouldn’t a U.S. company make use of the fruits of the tax dollars? Weird.

    Elon’s continued interest in getting civilian and military government contracts is going to make his true cost as murky as those from the ULA.

    Companies don’t have to divulge cost data – it’s proprietary information. What you can find out is prices charged, although SpaceX is the only launch company that puts them on their website.

    Also, continuing to fund the ISS as a ‘make work program’ for the emerging private spaceflight companies when NASA is supposed to be focusing on– beyond LEO missions– is going to cost NASA and the tax payers about $3 billion a year.

    Congress designated the ISS as a national laboratory back in 2005, and deemed it worthwhile enough to extend it’s life after they cancelled Constellation. Just out of curiosity, don’t you think learning how to live and work in a weightless vacuum is worthwhile? If we’re going to spread out into the solar system, there is an awful lot of things we need to test out, and since the ISS is already paid for, how would throwing $100B & 20 years of work away be a good ROI for the U.S. Taxpayer?

    Plus there’s not enough traffic to the space station to support more than one or two private companies.

    Look up the term “loss leader”. They don’t have to make a profit only on the ISS.

    If the new NASA HLV is limited to only 18 flights during its lifetime

    I never said that, and in fact I showed an example that went up to 55 flights, and still didn’t make economic sense.

    So we should assume that the HLV should have a future flight history of at least 100 flights over the next 20 years– if we really intend to use it!

    The key phrase is “if we really intend to use it!” So far there are no identified or funded programs that require an HLV. And since the SLS is a government-funded product, it should have a solid business case so the U.S. Taxpayer can be assured that their money won’t be wasted competing with the commercial marketplace. With ZERO customers, the ROI stinks right now.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ April 29th, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    But you don’t need to develop 5-segment boosters in order to launch 100 tonnes into orbit if you use an upper stage with the current 4-segment SRBs.

    I don’t know if anyone really knows for sure whether the “130 ton” statement from Congress means they have the flexibility to build something smaller. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Nevertheless, unless you have a need for more than 1,000,000 lbs in LEO, it’s cheaper to use existing launch vehicles. And you probably need to demonstrate 3,000,000 lbs or more to make a convincing business case to even CONSIDER a government-run launcher.

    So if you add the cost of development, that would only add an additional $120 million per flight for a 100 tonne payload shuttle derived HLV.

    You are way off. Here are the actual ET & SRM costs for Shuttle when it was flying regularly:

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=24363
    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=8785

    The ET costs $173M and the SRM sets cost $69M, so that’s $242M right there, and that is for 4-segment SRM’s and non-extended ET’s. Since the SLS will be funded for a low launch rate, the costs are going to be much higher than those for Shuttle, so the $1.5B estimated by NASA is likely much closer. You also have to remember that the Shuttle program averaged $1.2B/flight without R&D costs added in ($1.5B with), and the HLV is a much larger vehicle.

    There’s also the possibility that a simpler and safer crew launch vehicle could be developed from the HLV by simply using the 5 space shuttle main engines…

    I don’t know how you can assume that a much larger vehicle is “simpler”, but the safer vehicle is one that launches more often, and an HLV is not going to do that for a long time (if ever). Besides, you’re fighting the trend here, since every current commercial crew vehicle fits on a med-heavy launcher – an HLV would be overkill (i.e. a bigger waste of money). And if Boeing thought it was “simpler and safer” decades ago, why didn’t they build it? Too costly? No customers? Why?

    But, again, neither the Falcon heavy nor the Delta IV heavy would be able to launch the largest Bigelow space stations (BA 2100) into orbit which will weigh between 70 to 100 tonnes.

    And the 130 ton NASA HLV can’t launch my 200 ton mythical payload. Oh, and if you build a 200 ton launcher, I’ll up my mythical payload to 500 tons.
    Seriously though, is the Bigelow 2100 the mythical payload that Congress will be funding so that the SLS will have true need? Is that it?

    Can somebody please tell us what possible programs Congress is going to fund so that the SLS will have a purpose?

  • Bennett

    @Marcel:

    Since the SLS is going to eat all of NASA’s HSF budget between now at 2016-2018 (or whenever the thing is finished), leaving no money for payload development until after the SLS has been declared flight ready…

    Oh bog, never mind. We all know this SLS fiasco means the end of NASAs participation in any serious manned BEO exploration, for the foreseeable future.

    A shame really. Perhaps my son will get to see it happen in places other than his minds eye.

  • Martijn Meijering

    If we already had an HLV, then all we’d have to do is develop a reusable lunar lander and we could use it to establish a permanent presence on the lunar surface and private industry could use to transport tourist all the way to the lunar surface.

    FTFY. If we want to go to the moon (or Mars), then we need a lander. We already have launch vehicles.

    An HLV makes establishing a lunar base easier, deploying space depots cheaper, and deploying large space stations both cheaper and easier.

    False on the first two and on the first part of the third one. It looks as if you simply want an SDLV for its own sake and as if you are inventing pretexts without regard for the facts. I’m starting to wonder if there are any honest SDLV advocates.

  • Martijn Meijering

    no a HLV designed, developed, built at cost plus, and operated by NASA can not launch fuel to LEO and L1 cheaper than already developed private sector launch vehicles

    True enough, but I’m more motivated by the fact it cannot lead to a reduction in commercial launch prices by an order of magnitude. If it weren’t for that, then I wouldn’t be so passionate about it.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Aargh strikethrough fail, it did work in the preview.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ April 29th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
    “So we should assume that the HLV should have a future flight history of at least 100 flights over the next 20 years– if we really intend to use it!”

    Which makes it more mystifying why Congress was unable to clearly identify how our country would use 100 flights of this launcher when they mandated that it be developed. Five flights per year! But then again, as many suspect, and it appears you may too, Congress doesn’t have any illusions about using it. The purpose of the vehicle is development dollars spent in certain Congressional districts, and the marching army that is constituted to preserve launch capability.

    BTW, Bigelow’s business plan in no way presumes development of HLVs or 100mt modules. One of the wonderful advantages of his architecture is that piecewise assembly of a large station is straightforward. To the extent that one needs a coliseum or convention hall on-orbit, an HLV might be handy. But a hundred of those?

  • Rhyolite

    “And the 130 ton NASA HLV can’t launch my 200 ton mythical payload. Oh, and if you build a 200 ton launcher, I’ll up my mythical payload to 500 tons.”

    The basic problem with HLV supporters is that their requirements are plucked from thin air. They never, never point point to studies that say if we invest this $XXB in an HLV it will save $YYB over 20 years. They don’t because they can’t.

    Congress on the other hand picked 130 mt because they think it will guarantee pork for their home states. The fact that they haven’t funded any payloads makes this crystal clear – there is no justification but pork.

  • “And, in theory, unmanned shuttle derived HLV launches should be cheaper to launch than a manned shuttle launch.

    You still need the entire SRB processing infrastructure, theVAB, MLPs, crawlers, LC-39, railcars, factory in Utah, etc. and all the crane oeprators, haz ops, etc. for a lower flight rate. A shuttle-derived HLV would be significantly more expensive to launch than the Shuttle. No OPF but a new payload facility and core and upper stage manufactured for each flight. The cost per launch for the HLV would certainly be much higher than the cost of the Shuttle launch.

  • If you want an HLV, put out an RFI and *wait* for the results. They did the first half, we’re still waiting… but Congress wants to spend, spend, spend.

  • NASA Fan

    The congressional dynamics that surround the Senate Launch System, is not contained to NASA legislation/appropriations. This example of our dysfunctional government is wide spread across all that Congress has its meat hooks into. Which is sad/bad news for our Republic, and indicative of the slide into third world country status.

    NASA’s future with SLS can be seen in it’s past. Many NASA led rocket development starts, nothing accomplished. Look for the SLS to die in a few years, replaced with nothing. Once again proving the adage that even if you learn about your history, you are doomed to repeat it anyway

  • common sense

    @ Bennett wrote @ April 29th, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    Why are you being so negative?

    Others elsewhere mentioned at least tow things that can/will help:
    1. Using Area-51 anti-gravity technology
    2. Using Unicorn transportation funding and technology

    Now they may be one and the same, that I don’t know. BUT if you agree that at least either will bring a decent Congress funded launch system then all your assumptions are just wrong and reflects on some disgruntled space fan.

    Which is it Bennett? Which is it?

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://quantumg.blogspot.com/2011/04/role-of-goverment.html

    this is worth a read…nice job Trent

    Robert G. Oler

  • Just out of curiosity, don’t you think learning how to live and work in a weightless vacuum is worthwhile? If we’re going to spread out into the solar system, there is an awful lot of things we need to test out, and since the ISS is already paid for, how would throwing $100B & 20 years of work away be a good ROI for the U.S. Taxpayer?

    These loons are like parodies of Apollo Cargo Cultists. They really seem to believe that if only we have a really big rocket, we’d back on the moon again.

    It reminds me of the old cartoon of the scientist writing the proof on the blackboard: “First we build a big rocket…and then a miracle occurs.”

  • Robert G. Oler

    Nelson Bridwell wrote @ April 29th, 2011 at 8:53 pm

    ” However, in a recent The Space Show, Wayne Hale, former shuttle program manger, commented that reusables only tend to work if you have very high flight rates, and that in most cases a more practical approach is to lower the manufacturing cost of expendable technology. (Surprised me.)”

    It surprises you only because you clearly dont have a clue what you are talking about nor the ability to figure out what other people are talking about. Sorry, I know that is harsh but when you go quoting Hale, you clearly have no clue how fracked up he is.

    Wayne is a nice guy and a smart person but he knows as much about a system that is truly “operational” (in terms of capability, cost, and safety) as he knows about what is going on around the Alpha Centauri system.

    “High flight rate” has nothing to do with it.

    What has everything to do with something being “reusable or expendable” is “what is the cost of replacement vrs the cost of making something have a lifetime of more then one cycle”…and caught up in that is “how many cycles do you get”.

    Almost NOTHING in the shuttle is reusable…it is “serviceable”. Reusable (up to their lifetime) are the tires on a car or the engine on my Ercoupe or my Boeing…there is NOTHING (oh maybe the chairs people sit in) that flies and then is not “serviced” before the shuttle is relaunched. The SSME’s illustrate this…if they fire and abort, they are done they have to come off just as if they had made the run up the hill.

    There is no flight rate which makes that effort work. The cost to “disassemble” the vehicles parts (including the solids), service them and reassemble far outstrip the cost of just manufacture and assemble. The infrastructure that has to be in place just for “disassembly” is mammoth. (how bad a manger Hanley was is that he never figured out if the cost to recover the first stage of Ares equaled just expending it…goofy).

    Once NASA made the decision (and that happened pretty quick in the program) that EVERYTHING was more or less going to be serviced extensively (to the “send back to manufacture level”) at that point the shuttle system cost were out the window.

    we are some distance away from complete (or even partial) notions of the FIFO theory, meaning if the systems flew in then they are (with a modest checkout) ready to fly out…but SpaceX seems to be gaining on it…they can at least fire the engines for multiple “up the hill” run time and not replace them. Thats a big step. I dont know where they are in Dragon systems but that shouldnt be much more complicated then a 777 in terms of FIFO.

    The point of it is when you use words like Anarchist and then quote Hale, you clearly have no concept of what went wrong at NASA (he mostly doesnt either) in terms of making the shuttle system live up to its promise.

    What the shuttle system proved is that in everything (including payloads) servicable…isnt cost effective. It would have been cheaper to launch on an expendable…a New Hubble everytime it was serviced.

    learn somethings

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bennett

    common sense wrote @ April 30th, 2011 at 11:24 am

    :-)

    I vote for the Unicorn Engine.

    Until NASA gets that on line I’ll have fun watching SpaceX, Bigelow, and all the sub orbital folks do some great work.

    Powerpoint launches just don’t cut it.

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ April 30th, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    Nicely written.

    “learn somethings”

    He is an engineer… Whatever… It’s not like NASA has too few right?

  • Vladislaw

    If the senate launch system is supposed to be operational for beo flights in 2016.

    When do they have to start on the EDS and how much will it cost?

    If this is supposed to be used for a return to the moon, when do they have to start working on the lander and how much will it cost?

  • common sense

    @ Vladislaw wrote @ April 30th, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    “When do they have to start on the EDS and how much will it cost?”

    They will start right when they can with the budget they (will) have. Come on!

    “If this is supposed to be used for a return to the moon, when do they have to start working on the lander and how much will it cost?”

    They will start right when Congress dictates and it will not cost that much!

    Can’t you get that? Please! Again with those facts??? How about opinions for once?…

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ April 30th, 2011 at 5:23 pm

    “He is an engineer… Whatever… It’s not like NASA has too few right?”

    he is an engineer? Really? Oh well so is Wayne…

    NASA actually has far to many engineers…doing things that engineers have no business doing. Robert G. Oler

  • Das Boese

    I don’t feel like jumping into the endless HLV discussion again, but on a side note:

    I wonder how long this petty “spaceflight participant” nonsense will continue.

  • BeancounterFromDownunder

    Notice there could be a challenge by Aerojet (and probably others) regarding the SLS and using existing components such as propulsion systems. Apparently this would mean all work on existing contracts related to these systems would have to cease until the issue was resolved.
    “Private companies can challenge a government contract award decision at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Even modifications to existing contracts are fair game when it comes to bid protests, Cooke said, if the changes significantly alter the scope of the work being performed.”
    Shucks, what a pity. Might save some of the billions that are being wasted.
    Reference: http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110429-nasa-wary-protests-heavy-lift.html

  • Folks,

    Do we have to ask Jeff to create a generic daily HLV rant topic for people to talk about… so that they don’t use OTHER topics that I would genuinely appreciate hearing feedback on to bitch pro-con HLV?

    I mean, SERIOUSLY?!

    – Jim

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 1st, 2011 at 12:54 am

    “he is an engineer? Really? Oh well so is Wayne…

    NASA actually has far to many engineers…doing things that engineers have no business doing. Robert G. Oler”

    Well actually, didn’t you know that an engineer is someone who knows everything there is to know on whatever they speak of? It’s the law I think. Isn’t it?

  • common sense

    @ BeancounterFromDownunder wrote @ May 1st, 2011 at 7:30 am

    Yeah I read at nasawatch.com. It’s so cool actually that I can’t help smiling. Way to go Aerojet! Keep it up my friends! Wait until other challenges come about, like MPCV… Wait you’ll see.

    Don’t you like irony?

  • common sense

    @ Jim Muncy wrote @ May 2nd, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    “I mean, SERIOUSLY?!”

    Are you getting tired of the HLV reqs that every one knows what they MUST be in order to achieve the mysterious unfunded 130 mT mission???

  • Dennis Berube

    Well I was questioning thes space suits that will be worn on Dragon, ad or CST-100, with civilians aboard. They are going to have space suits arent they? It was learned early on, with Soyuz 11 what happens to crew that fly without space suits. That is what my question is aimed at.

  • pathfinder_01

    “Well I was questioning thes space suits that will be worn on Dragon, ad or CST-100, with civilians aboard. They are going to have space suits arent they? It was learned early on, with Soyuz 11 what happens to crew that fly without space suits. That is what my question is aimed at.”

    Yes, check the posts above for more info but they should have space suits.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ May 2nd, 2011 at 3:04 pm

    They are going to have space suits arent they? It was learned early on, with Soyuz 11 what happens to crew that fly without space suits.

    I think Ken Bowersox, who has flown on both Shuttle and Soyuz, and is the SpaceX VP of Astronaut Safety and Mission Assurance, is quite aware of the issue. I would imagine Boeing has someone of similar experience and knowledge to guide their astronaut safety program. And if you’ve seen any of the SpaceX Dragon videos, they all show suited passengers.

    If you look back at the Shuttle program you will find that they changed to various forms of crew escape suits after the Challenger accident. Before Challenger they were just in blue flight suits (unpressurized).

    Between the Soyuz flights and Challenger, I would imagine that everyone will err on the side of caution. But it’s kind of like worrying about where your kid will go to college when they are only just starting 6th grade…

    You know Dennis, sometimes you could answer your own questions by just doing a few simple internet searches. It’s not like we all work for Boeing or SpaceX – we’re just better at doing internet searches than (apparently) you are. Don’t worry though, since that is a skill that you can easily pick up – if you just try.

  • Dennis Berube

    I did attempt to find out about spacesuits on the SpaceX site. However I found nothing. Im sure they are planning for such, but just watching a vid. doesnt answer the question. Sorry if my internet skills are lacking, in that if you are not working for Boeing or SpaceX, then neither do you have the final word. I am very sure the risks are known, but the question is how far will it be allowed to go. Spacesuits add weight to the payload, so that must be considered into it.

Leave a Reply to Robert G. Oler 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>