Congress, Other

Raising the profile of FAA’s commercial space transportation work

Thursday morning the space subcommittee of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee took up a topic that typically gets little attention: commercial space transportation, and the regulation thereof, as it examined the fiscal year 2012 budget proposal for the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST). The office’s proposed major budget increase ($26.6 million in 2012, a 75% increase over the $15.2 million it received in 2010) was the subject of considerable scrutiny by committee members, although a bigger, underlying problem may be a lack of familiarity with the office and its activities.

Some members of the committee expressed skepticism about the need for an enhanced AST budget. The office’s head, FAA associate administrator George Nield, cited a projected spike in commercial launch activity due to both commercial ISS cargo, and later crew, missions, as well as commercial suborbital spaceflight. Nield said he expects “several dozen” commercial launches that will require licenses or experimental permits from his office in 2012, primarily from suborbital ventures. That’s far more than the single-digit level of commercial launch activity overseen by AST for each of the last several years.

“You’re asking for us to increase your budget for a ‘what-if’,” Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) said to Nield towards the end of the hearing. “I have grave concerns about that.” Adams said that after another witness, Gerald Dillingham of the GAO, noted that his office could not justify the requested jump in spending. “We have argued that maybe incrementally, based on the industry, one could start making that move in that direction,” he said, referring to increasing AST’s budget, “rather than the ‘big bang theory’.” Adams was also far more combative than her colleagues on the committee, expressing frustration when she could not get what she thought was a simple answer on how long it took AST to provide a reentry license to SpaceX last year. (That was apparently because of some miscommunication between Adams and Nield, who had been trying to explain that the office issued the license about two weeks after receiving a complete application; Adams was citing one year, which may date back to the initial submission of the application that only much later was deemed substantially complete.)

Another area of attention was on the eight-year restriction on AST’s ability to issue safety regulations included in the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 and expires in December 2012. There are efforts by industry to extend that deadline given the lack of flight experience built up by commercial operators during that time. In fact, a provision tucked away at the end of HR 658, an FAA reauthorization bill passed by the House last month, changes that provision from eight years after enactment of the 2004 legislation to eight years after “the first licensed launch of a space flight participant”. There seemed to be little objection to that extension, although there was some discussion about why that restriction should be eight years long. Dillingham said it wasn’t clear to the GAO “what the basis was for the eight years”, while another witness, Henry Hertzfeld of George Washington University, suggested that in place of an “arbitrary” time limit, the extension should be based instead on indicators “of the maturity of the industry and the risks involved.”

One subcommittee member, Rep. David Wu (D-OR), seemed particularly concerned about the fact that commercial spaceflight is not held to the same rigorous safety standards as commercial aviation. “I am absolutely stunned about that characterization of the future of commercial human spaceflight,” he said, warning later that an accident involving a crewed commercial vehicle “could potentially flatten the space program for a period of years.” Nield responded that any form of transportation has risks and fatal accidents. “The nation needs to understand that that is part of the risk of exploring the unknown, of doing new things,” he said.

One topic that got very little discussion was a proposal in the 2012 budget proposal for AST for a $5-million low cost access to space prize. Subcommittee chairman Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) suggested in his opening testimony that such efforts should be left to NASA. “It is my view that NASA is doing a more than sufficient job funding new technologies and capabilities through aggressive use of Space Act Agreements,” he said. Given the constrained fiscal environment, he added, “I question the wisdom of implementing another form of federal largesse.”

A general, if unsurprising, theme from the hearing, though, was that many members just aren’t familiar with the roles and responsibilities of AST. Part of that is no doubt because many of the subcommittee’s members, including Chairman Palazzo, are freshmen who are perhaps getting their first exposure to the office, but even more experienced members expressed misunderstandings about the role of the office and its future plans during the course of the hearing. As the office seeks additional funding for what it anticipates to be a much higher level of commercial activity, industry advocates may need to step up their outreach to Congress on just why those additional resources are necessary and important.

[Disclaimer: my employer does work for AST, but is not involved in licensing or permitting activities for the office, nor the development of Congressional testimony.]

156 comments to Raising the profile of FAA’s commercial space transportation work

  • …“I am absolutely stunned about that characterization of the future of commercial human spaceflight,” he said, warning later that an accident involving a crewed commercial vehicle “could potentially flatten the space program for a period of years.” Nield responded that any form of transportation has risks and fatal accidents. “The nation needs to understand that that is part of the risk of exploring the unknown, of doing new things,” he said.

    While I’m not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, it seems to me that any agency (government or private) doesn’t quite know how to impose safety regulations to this relatively new travel industry, so they’re playing it by ear IMHO.

    Please correct me if I seem off base here.

  • amightywind

    Rep. David Wu (D-OR), seemed particularly concerned about the fact that commercial spaceflight is not held to the same rigorous safety standards as commercial aviation.

    A seemingly serious statement from the mercurial Mr. Wu.

    The FAA has a minimal role to play in commercial space. The last thing Richard Branson needs is for the nanny state to descend on his fledgling enterprise.

  • CharlesHouston

    Rep Wu certainly must be from a different planet? The crash of Air France 447 caused Air France to organize a long, expensive search for the “black boxes”. A loss of a commercial capsule would force that operator to stop until the cause was considered understood. We must expect losses of this sort.
    Now, it will help to have multiple commercial options – if Dragon has an accident we can shift to CST-100.
    The FAA is the appointed agency to certify spacecraft, as they certify airliners. They are going to have a big role.

  • I sure hope the local GOP find someone more intelligent than Adams to run in 2012. She’s an embarrassment to our district.

    Florida Today‘s report on the hearing noted that AST would bring a commercial spaceflight center to KSC. Adams apparently objected to that too even though it would bring 50 jobs to her district.

  • The FAA is the appointed agency to certify spacecraft, as they certify airliners.

    The FAA has no statutory authority to certify spacecraft.

  • Me

    “The FAA has a minimal role to play in commercial space.”

    Another clueless statement. The FAA has more of a role in commercial space than any other gov’t agency. NASA is not required for commercial space.

  • Sir Charles

    The crash of Air France 447 caused Air France to organize a long, expensive search for the “black boxes”. A loss of a commercial capsule would force that operator to stop until the cause was considered understood.

    Sure Charles, just like Air France ceased all operations and entirely quit flying A330s and paying passengers until they found those ‘black boxes’.

  • This tidbit from the GAO:

    FAA will become responsible in the near term for the licensing and oversight of the commercial transport of NASA cargo and eventually for the licensing and oversight of space tourism flights and for safety regulations for all human commercial space travel.

    It says “near term” which generally means “for now.” My guess is that a permanent agency that deals specifically with the commercial space industry will be formed later, especially if the projected growth patterns appear.

    http://gao.gov/mobile/products/GAO-11-629T

  • SpaceColonizer

    Might as well be the FAA… we don’t need a brand new government agency and NASA should be focused on science and exploration, not industry regulation.

  • Might as well be the FAA… we don’t need a brand new government agency and NASA should be focused on science and exploration, not industry regulation.

    It already is the FAA, and has been for many years. NASA is not a regulatory body.

  • common sense

    I agree. For now the FAA will do just fine. They have relevant experience and they could do with something new. The day we need another agency is far off into the future. The aviation model in this instance applies pretty well.

  • @ common sense wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    Makes sense to me, the aviation model should be the base for the industry. Changes like issuing re-entry licenses and making sure the various vehicles have the required black boxes and other safety equipment shouldn’t be difficult.

    Let the FAA have its extra money.

  • CharlesHouston

    @sir charles – your comment was interesting but irrelevant. You are saying that you know that SpaceX would NOT stop flying if it lost a capsule and crew? You are saying that Air France did NOT spend money to find the black boxes?

    My point, which you have not refuted, is that in a loss of capsule – the operator will certainly stand down from flying. Aircraft types have stood down in the past. Shuttles have stood down. Lawyers would gather quickly. My point was that we will have options – one reason that MPCV will be built and flown.

  • common sense

    @ CharlesHouston wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    “My point was that we will have options – one reason that MPCV will be built and flown.”

    Not a chance in the universe. We will have optios indeed: Dragon, CST-100, BO and DreamChaser. MPCV is a drag for NASA.

  • My point was that we will have options – one reason that MPCV will be built and flown.

    The affordable way to get options is to make sure that at least two CCDev competitors survive, not build an MPCV.

  • Major Tom

    Arguing over an $11.4 million (with an “m”) increase in the AST budget in FY12 seems out-of-whack when the entire FAA budget request is going up $2.5 billion (with a “b”) over the same time period:

    dot.gov/budget/2012/budgetestimates/faa.pdf

    Goofy…

  • Major Tom

    “My point was that we will have options – one reason that MPCV will be built and flown.”

    As of February 2011 (just three months ago), Orion’s estimated life cycle cost was estimated at $20-29 billion (with a “b”). See page 74 here:

    gao.gov/new.items/d11239sp.pdf

    Crewed Dragon, by comparison, will cost the taxpayer $350-400 million (with an “m”) to develop (including SpaceX’s $278 million COTS and $75 million CCDev agreements) and $20 million per seat (or $140 million per seven-person mission).

    techrevu.com/php/Review-id.php?id=5016

    Assuming NASA’s buys two of these seven-person Dragon missions a year for ten years, crewed Dragon will have a life-cycle cost on the order of $3.2 billion.

    Orion is nearly an order of magnitude (about ten times) more expensive than crewed Dragon. Unless MPCV can miraculously cut those Orion figures by a factor of ten (highly unlikely given that MPCV is constrained to the Orion contracts), it’s hard to see MPCV being affordable or competitive over the moderate- to long-term. Barring a miracle, MPCV’s development or operations will be terminated in favor of much, much lower cost alternatives.

    FWIW…

  • DCSCA

    Nobody is stopping CCD development for LEO operations except the constraints of the free market they wish to service. They do not need government subsidies/funding when the U.S. government currently has to borrow 43 cents of every dollar it spends. The pace for CCD to access capital investors in the private sector. And of course, with respect to LEO access to the ISS, Russia has an operational system in place- Soyuz. and potentially, China’s Shenzhou spacecraft.

    Oler: FWIW, somebody is flying a restored B-17 around here nice and low and slow for several days now. Olive-drab complete w/USAAF markings. Beautiful in sight & sound.

  • Sir Charles

    Aircraft types have stood down in the past. Shuttles have stood down. Lawyers would gather quickly.

    But aircraft operators and the airline industry have not stood down, with the possible exception of small commuter operations, even with faced with catastrophic fatal accidents. In some cases survivors have simply boarded another aircraft and continued to their destination. I do not see how the commercial space flight industry will be any different than the airline industry after they transition for one of a kind billion dollar behemoth operations, to routine suborbital and orbital space flight with rationally designed and constructed high flight rate launch vehicles and spacecraft. Lawyers always gather quickly in the even of fatal catastrophic accidents, usually by regularly scheduled airline fights, too. Sometimes even on the airline unfortunate enough to have a fatal incident. Often on the same day.

    Hint : those vehicles wouldn’t be called STS, SLS or other godlike names. The would be called launch vehicles and spaceships.

  • Robert G. Oler

    CharlesHouston wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 3:16 pm

    “My point, which you have not refuted, is that in a loss of capsule – the operator will certainly stand down from flying. Aircraft types have stood down in the past. Shuttles have stood down. Lawyers would gather quickly. My point was that we will have options – one reason that MPCV will be built and flown.”

    A few points.

    first if one concedes the point “the loss of a capsule” would cause a stand down of the operator…I am not sure why MPCV solves that.

    What if the reverse happens if “MPCV” blows up? Which given NASA’s track record is somewhat more likely? Do we say “well it was only the backup but we have to spend more billions to make it work” …what if MPCV is delayed over more years (as has been the case).

    What people who support continuation of the old way of doing things never quite answer is “why is that method a back up to anything?” It is because the government method worked so badly we are in this mess.

    Help me understand your reasoning here Robert G. Oler

  • SpaceColonizer

    @Rand

    I know… I was just saying it might as well stay that way rather then make a new agency.

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    “Help me understand your reasoning here”

    I am afraid Robert there is nothing to understand. This is not common to the “old” way. The “new” way has its own shortcomings some of which maybe summarized as “we’ll do everything differently” regardless whether the method works or not. It is a human being problem, the lack of imagination, the entrenchment in one’s personal ego over facts. People have a hard time going out of their ways, things that have established their personality, their whole. Anytime you start questioning yourself puts you in a lot of stress. “What if I am wrong?”, “What if I am right?” quite the same. So here we have people who absolutely know one way (or the other), failing to understand what is good about the old way and about the new way. The inability to make these things work together. It’s not about technology. It’s not about budgets. It’s about the human being and its ego. Think of it this way, every time you’re wrong you tear up a little more of all that you believe in. Be it the old way or the new way.

    Of course you are right about MPCV. What if MPCV fails? So far when Shuttle failed we had years of delay between flights. The same system will give us the same result. Does that mean we throw away everything? No. Limited brain functions is what lead to this kind of conclusion. What we do throw away is what we know does not work. For example, a vast, expensive, out-of-control infrastructure for sending people to space. That, we know, does not work.

    I’d be curious to know the size of the infrastructure of the Soyuz program in Russia just to make a comparison. I don’t have this info but can you imagine it costing $200M/month? In Russia? There are other things we know work: For example, capsules do work. They are less expensive and safer than anything else. We actually know that. Why would we use another Shuttle like vehicle? Just for the wings? People have no clue why the Shuttle has wings and why it looks the way it looks. Yet if I were to design a winged vehicle I would most likely use the heritage of the Shuttle. Have a look at the X-37 wing. Looks a lot like the Shuttle does it not?…

    And so on and so forth… Human nature.

  • Martijn Meijering

    My point was that we will have options – one reason that MPCV will be built and flown.

    Commercial space would be its own backup, with each company acting as a backup for all the others. There’s no need for a separate government backup and we could even have several additional commercial capsules for the price of MPCV.

  • John Malkin

    Shuttle had no practical escape system. All the capsule designs have an escape systems so it might be loss of mission and hardware but not loss of life. It can’t be calculated now to any precision because these vehicles have had little flight history or none but it’s better than Shuttle.

    As far as standing down, I think it’s the difference between having a backup vs. having multiple providers. A backup tends to sit around while multiple providers create ready redundancy something that would protect the HSF industry from complete shutdown.

  • red

    “Orion is nearly an order of magnitude (about ten times) more expensive than crewed Dragon.”

    I think you might be being too generous to Orion when comparing it to Dragon.

    Would any of the $278M COTS funding be attributable to Falcon 9 development work, or at least the Falcon 9 launches for COTS demonstration missions? If so, you’d have to subtract that amount from the $278M, making Orion look even more expensive in comparison.

    Likewise, if a Dragon crew mission costs $20M per seat, or $140M for 7 seats, shouldn’t some of that cost be assigned to the launch vehicle, and not to Dragon? If so, the comparison becomes even more unfavorable for Orion.

    Also, is the Orion life cycle that the GAO assessed similar to the 10 years and 20 missions for Dragon that you described? I couldn’t tell from their document. Of course the comparison would be very different depending on the number of years, number of missions, type of mission, etc.

  • red

    “Barring a miracle, MPCV’s development or operations will be terminated in favor of much, much lower cost alternatives.”

    It seems like the cost of the MPCV, and the value for the nation for that cost, is irrelevant to the part of Congress that has the most influence over these particular decisions. Congressional local interests over the nation’s interest may be the “miracle” MPCV needs, at least to take lots of funding for too many more years.

    It’s too bad there doesn’t seem to be any willingness to even compromise at all and at least allow a little bit of usefulness to come out of the MPCV funding (e.g.: fully commit to an EELV to launch the MPCV [with or without eventual SLS support] to support the launch industrial base and perhaps indirectly help the rocket part of commercial crew, or use some MPCV funding and test opportunities for useful technology demonstrations inside, or with, the MPCV, etc). If you could get some cubesats on an MPCV test launch, or do some technology work with AR&D/refueling/ECLSS/whatever, well, even if we write off the MPCV itself as valueless, at least we get some results out of the MPCV spending.

    Even with Constellation, with the complete waste of Ares/Orion we still managed to get useful results out of LRO/LCROSS.

  • Martijn Meijering

    @red:

    If they want to spend the money, they could spend it on an unmanned Altair precursor or deep space transfer stage instead and perhaps spin off an ‘Agile Orion’ as a commercial crew taxi. That could even supply a substantial propellant launch market very soon. It would be much more than just salvaging something from a worthless project, it would be a very useful way to spend the money.

  • Martijn Meijering

    NASA is not a regulatory body.

    And until it gets out of the Earth to orbit and crew return business it will have a conflict of interests.

  • Martijn Meijering

    The affordable way to get options is to make sure that at least two CCDev competitors survive, not build an MPCV.

    Maybe even at least three, to ensure that the need for at least one backup doesn’t diminish competitive pressure too much.

  • common sense

    @ Martijn Meijering wrote @ May 7th, 2011 at 8:29 am

    My crystal ball for CCDev:

    . Dragon and SpaceX win. We need vehicles quickly.

    . Dreamchaser will keep on for winged body work, may take a while to get it through. Escape systems are particularly difficult for winged bodies.

    . BO may have to go it alone. The biconic is not going to be trivial and I believe NASA already recognized it in their awards.

    BTW SN got that much cash probably because of the substantial amount of data already existing for DreamChaser, a lot of which from NASA itself. If it were a clean sheet design they’d probably have even less than BO.

    Oh well…

  • common sense

    Ooopppsss

    Of course I meant:

    Dragon and CST-100 win.

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/05/06/10.xml&headline=Triana%20Sat%20Eyed%20For%20Competitive%20Test%20Launch

    Whittington and other right wing folks are grrring.

    This is a great idea, indeed the USAF should do more of this Robert G. Oler

  • TarsTarkas

    This argument about Orion vs Dragon always confuses me. Orion is meant for Beyond Earth Orbit exploration, not servicing Space Station. While it can make flights to Space Station and will during test flights, the design and requirements are for BEO. It is not meant to be a low cost frequent flyer system. For those of us who see human exploration of the solar system as a priority, the commercial systems are a distraction.

    The commercial crew vehicles are meant to do Station service and enable more use of LEO space for comercial applications. If we want to do serious exploration BEO we need both systems for the foreseeable future.

  • Malmesbury

    At least two space craft that can use each others launch vehicles.

    Say we go for Boeing and SpaceX: CST-100 rides on both Falcon-9 and Atlas 5. Same for Dragon.

    That means that we will have 4 configurations – if either a spacecraft or a rocket get stood down, there will always be 1 configuration that is unaffected.

  • Martijn Meijering

    For those of us who see human exploration of the solar system as a priority, the commercial systems are a distraction.

    No they’re not. CST-100 and Dream Chaser may be less suitable for beyond LEO than Orion, but Dragon is designed for it. And with spiral development CST-100 at least would serve as a fine basis for a beyond LEO capsule.

    But more importantly, launch vehicles that are much cheaper to operate (much lower total launch cost / kg of payload) are very helpful for meaningful exploration and crucial for commercial manned spaceflight.

    Without SLS + MPCV we could do manned exploration much sooner than with it and give an enormous boost to commercial manned spaceflight in the process.

    Commercial vs exploration is one of these false dichotomies / red herrings that keep coming up, like cryogenic depots later vs HLV now, NASA vs hobby rockets, wide fairings vs on-orbit assembly, low risk NASA vs high risk commercial or R&D vs exploration. It’s all nonsense, we could have it all. The real problem is that many people on various sides of the argument have ulterior motives involving getting funding for pet technologies or preferred companies / organisations or keeping aerospace salaries up.

  • Robert G. Oler

    TarsTarkas wrote @ May 7th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
    ” For those of us who see human exploration of the solar system as a priority, the commercial systems are a distraction.”

    that attitude to me at least is completely baffling.

    I guess in your world that human exploration of the solar system is something that must be done as a government effort no matter the cost and no matter the actual return for the cost….ie you think of it as an entitlement which you justify for either your personal belief or some other notion.

    Yet there is nothing in the past 30 years that says this notion will work. NASA and its political friends have been trying for almost that entire period of time to get NASA HSF to “go somewhere” (mostly the Moon) as a function of its government mission. Counting the Cx effort, NLS, ALS and all the other efforts in between have probably consumed over 20 billion dollars and produced nothing. I mean nothing…and gotten the US, humanity or whatever metric you are using no where closer to any exploration. Cx would have taken another 100-200 billion dollars and a bunch of decades to have gotten a few people back to the Moon.

    In the last 30 years every government effort has gotten more expensive, pushed timelines out farther, and accomplished nothing much of value for the cost…and yet I keep hearing people like you say that NASA should do more of what it has done.

    Why do you think this works?

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    Major Tom wrote @ May 6th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
    “Crewed Dragon will cost the taxpayer $350-400 million (with an “m”) to develop (including SpaceX’s $278 million COTS and $75 million CCDev agreements) and $20 million per seat (or $140 million per seven-person mission).”

    Absurd. Paper projections for a paper space project.

    It is already mid-2011. SpaceX has flown NOBODY. SpaceX has not launched, orbited and safely returned any human crewed Dragons be it test flights or on operational missions- and never will because it is simply poor economics to develop a LEO at this point in time to access a space station slated for splash in 2020 with diminished American support projected to commence as early as 2015. Private sector capital investors continue to balk and Americans know all to well how costly it when they end up subsidizing firms which socialize the risk on the backs of the many and shelter the profits for a few- if any profits can be made in commerical, orbital HSF at all in this era. Dragon has no intergrated, independently verified, flight tested operational ECS to support a human crewed spaceflight; it has no independently verified, flight tested/operational escape system. It makes no economic sense for a ‘for profit’ firm to construct such a vehicle at this point in time, particularly with reliable, ISS access already operational via the Russian Soyuz and possibly through future use of China’s Shenzhou spacecraft. It makes for a good bargaining chip by China as well when dealing w/t U.S.

    In an era when the United States government has to borrow 43 cents of every dollar it spends (chiefly from Communist Red China) there is zero rationale for dwindling U.S. government resources to be used to subsidize commerical orbital HSF projects when the place for free market, free enterprised firms to source funding for high risk ventures w/low ROI is in the private capital markets, not the United States Treasury. Private capital markets continue to balk, as the very parameters and constraints of the free market continue to inhibit investment in commerical HSF orbital flight ventures. Politicians know it. Cash strapped Americans know it. Russia knows it. And Red China knows it. The United States government has multiple venues for government operated/managed space ops. It does not need (and cannot afford) to subsidize commercial HSF firms which cannot convince the private sector to invest in their high risk/low ROI enterprises.

    The next logical step in commercial HSF is Branson’s suborbital ‘ticket-to-ride.’ He’s hiring pilots. Paying passengers will start making flights next year.

  • Coastal Ron

    TarsTarkas wrote @ May 7th, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    For those of us who see human exploration of the solar system as a priority, the commercial systems are a distraction.

    If you look at all of the recent NASA exploration concepts, none of them show us traveling around the solar system in capsules. Maybe you’ve heard of the Lockheed Martin Plymouth Rock concept, but that is LM drumming up more business more than a preferred way of venturing into space. Capsules are really only viable for short durations in space, since you can’t exercise much to reduce the loss of muscle and bone mass.

    The latest exploration spaceship NASA has been proposing is the Nautilus-X, which would likely use capsules as lifeboats and for ferrying passengers to/from them. In that case, while the MPCV could be used, so could upgraded “commercial” capsules. The other thing about commercial capsules is that they are far less expensive for transporting people to LEO, which is a likely departure point for solar system expeditions.

    Once you get out of the mindset that your entire expedition has to launch on one rocket, then the logic & advantages of using commercial cargo and crew to assemble your expeditions in LEO or L1 becomes clear.

    Commercial transportations actually enable NASA to put more mass in space with far less money than what they can do on their own, and since Congress only lards so much money on NASA, which means doing everything themselves equals not doing much.

    If you need validation of the commercial concept, just look around and see how much you depend on the government for provisions and transportation – not much. As we spread out into space, it will be the same there too.

  • common sense

    @TarsTarkas wrote @ May 7th, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    “This argument about Orion vs Dragon always confuses me. Orion is meant for Beyond Earth Orbit exploration, not servicing Space Station.”

    Here it is. Orion was meant for BEO missions. Orion/MPCV does not have any budget, nor any LV to perform BEO missions. Orion/MOCV is at least 1 order of magnitude more expensive than Dragon or CST-100. Upgrading either CST-100 or Dragon to BEO (lunar) missions will cost a lot less than ever building Orion. Is that clear enough? Otherwise I suggest you try and read yet again the Augustine Committee report, all the links that Major Tom provided in several threads to GAO reports and to anything that gives you the cost of CST-100 and Dragon. And if you still are confused what can I say then tough luck.

    “While it can make flights to Space Station and will during test flights, the design and requirements are for BEO. It is not meant to be a low cost frequent flyer system.”

    It will not fly. Period. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. There is NO budget.

    “For those of us who see human exploration of the solar system as a priority, the commercial systems are a distraction.”

    Yeah, those of you who think that way have no clue what you are talking about.

    “The commercial crew vehicles are meant to do Station service and enable more use of LEO space for comercial applications. If we want to do serious exploration BEO we need both systems for the foreseeable future.”

    Yes indeed, so in what way is that a distraction then? Do you have any idea of a ground/space infrastructure using NASA and commercial providers? Do you have any idea that if NASA dedicates their up coming budget (~$3.0B) to MPCV and SLS then there will not be any, nothing, nada, to run a BEO mission for decades to come. Do you actually understand that? Do you understand that the allocated budget at least is missing $3.0B (billions) per year to actually accomplish anything in space? Is it that difficult to understand that the current Congress is bent on cuts? You know? Cuts in like “we remove budget form programs”? Do you actually understand something? Anything?

    You are now welcome back to your program of Space-1999.

  • C. Adelphia

    DCSCA said:

    Private sector capital investors continue to balk

    Maybe you’re unfamiliar with the companies that are working on commercial crew?

    Boeing is a huge public company, and though they have made it clear that they want NASA to co-invest, they have also been vocal about wanting to be a leader in transportation to space (maybe in space too). No investor balking there.

    Sierra Nevada Corp. is a 50 year old privately held company that has stated that they will invest what’s necessary to enter the crew market, and their record so far has been pretty good. No outside investors, so no investor balking.

    SpaceX, as everyone knows, is privately held, but is planning an IPO next year sometime. They also say they have been profitable since 2007, so they seem to be in good financial shape at this point. No outside investors, so no investor balking.

    Blue Origin is owned by Jeff Bezos, the Billionaire CEO of Amazon, and though we don’t know much more, there is no reason to think that Bezos needs or wants outside investors.

    That’s the four companies that are pursuing crew transport through NASA right now, and none of them are pursuing public financing specifically for their projects, so there is no indication that funding is an issue at this point. Unless you can provide a specific example?

    DCSCA also said:

    it is simply poor economics to develop a LEO at this point in time to access a space station slated for splash in 2020

    Maybe you are using a different calculator than everyone else, but so far the going price is around $60 million per seat for Soyuz, and American companies could win business in 2016 just by charging the same amount. That puts the revenue from a three person flight at $180 million, which seems doable if you’re using a basic Atlas V and your crew vehicle is reusable.

    The other thing to consider is that each of these companies knows about the economics of the initial market, so they are planning to make a profit in the long-run, not the short-run. Certainly both Boeing and SpaceX have publicly stated essentially that.

    Regarding your statement about the ISS, maybe you didn’t know this, but Congress does not have plans to end the ISS after 2020, since they just finished funding it through 2020. But they have asked NASA to review what would be needed to keep it in operation past 2020, so that is still undecided, but I think the odds are good that they will keep it going.

    I hope that helps.

  • TarsTarkas

    And now for more rationale discourse. The point I am trying to make is that the commercial crew systems are not being designed in any way shape or form for BEO work. The LVs are sized for the ISS transfer, not lift of heavy mass. The cost studies that have been done to get the mass up to LEO for assembly show the large payloads on SLS are more effective than multiple small launches. Falcon Heavy, may help with this issue if it becomes feasible.

    Coastal Ron has some good points, but all the HEFT reference architectures show the Orion capsule is the crew return, and EDL module and an essential part of the architecture. So it is needed, as is the habitat and the departure and return stages.

    As for Mr Oler, I do beleive that BEO exploratino is worth while goal and a priority for NASA. You obviously do not. I personally hope that commercial crew is wildly successful and provides NASA all the savings needed to do other missions.

    As for Mr. Oler’s assertion that we have produced nothing for decades, well, the 135 shuttle missions, the 10 yrs of operation of the ISS, the Hubble, the Mars landers, and all the other achievements of the past 30 years just point out how wrong he is.

  • Major Tom

    “Absurd. Paper projections for a paper space project.”

    Absurd:

    bbc.co.uk/news/10209704

    bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11948329

    dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1336868/SpaceX-Dragon-privately-funded-spaceship-launched-orbit.html

    “it is simply poor economics to develop a LEO at this point in time”

    Absurd:

    “In a teleconference with reporters on Thursday, Space Adventures chairman Eric Anderson said his company projects approximately 140 people to fly in space commercially in the coming decade. By comparison, during the last ten years seven people flew to space commercially on eight flights (one, Charles Simonyi, flew twice.)

    Anderson said Space Adventures was asked by NASA and by Boeing (who Space Adventures has partnered with on development of a commercial crew vehicle, the CST-100) to provide an estimate on the demand for commercial human orbital spaceflight. That figure, he said, includes direct sales to individuals (the traditional ‘space tourist’) as well as lotteries and other competitions, corporate research, and educational missions. Anderson said the total specifically excludes what are often called ‘sovereign clients’, representatives of national space agencies flying for their governments. Those 140 people, he said, would fly to the ISS as well as Bigelow Aerospace facilities and one proposed by a Russian company, Orbital Technologies. ‘Realistically, having 140 individuals fly by the time 2020 rolls around is a pretty darn big accomplishment,’ he said.

    That estimate uses some relatively conservative assumptions on factors such as price and training time, Anderson said later. ‘For the majority of the next ten years, we would see prices roughly where they are now,’ between $20 million and $50 million, he said. Price, he said, is probably the most important factor in demand, and there would not be dramatic changes in prices unless there was the development of a fully-reusable vehicle. Training time, he said would likely be no less than two months even for missions not going to the ISS.”

    newspacejournal.com/2011/05/06/space-adventures-optimistic-about-the-next-decade-of-space-tourism/

    Dragon’s crew capacity is seven. Assuming one of those seats is assigned to a pilot, that leaves six passengers per mission. Satisfying 140 passenger trips would therefore require over 23 Dragon missions. At $20 million per seat, we’re talking about $2.8 billion in revenue.

    Even if we cut the number of passenger trips in half, we’re still talking about 70 passenger trips, over 11 Dragon missions, and $1.4 billion in revenue.

    And we havn’t begun to touch sovereign client markets.

    These are not “poor economics”, to say the least.

    “Private capital markets continue to balk.”

    Absurd:

    bloomberg.com/video/65845906/

    spacex.com/press.php?page=47

    blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2010/11/11/the-daily-start-up-spacex-blasts-off-with-50m/

    xconomy.com/san-diego/2010/10/28/spacex-receives-50000000-new-financing/

    socaltech.com/jurvetson_leading_spacex_funding__says_report/s-0022439.html

    space.com/5701-paypal-founders-invest-20-million-spacex.html

    And they’re planning an IPO for next year:

    portaltotheuniverse.org/blogs/posts/view/106900/

    Sigh…

  • common sense

    @ DCSCA wrote @ May 7th, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    “The United States government has multiple venues for government operated/managed space ops.”

    Multiple venues? Multiple? Like how many? 1? 2? 10?

    “It does not need (and cannot afford) to subsidize commercial HSF firms which cannot convince the private sector to invest in their high risk/low ROI enterprises.”

    But it might afford the whole NASA HSF under the DoD wing? $10B under NASA control is not affordable while the same $10B under the DoD are affordable?

    No wonder why MOL was a success to you! You know actually Dyna-Soar was a success too! And what else, the Spruce Goose, the MD-11. Okay okay maybe the MD-11 was more successful than the others. Let’s see. I digress. Any other space projects successful? Ah yes, X-33 and X-34 two of the greatest successes ever! Government programs such you like so much. Innovative, pushing the envelope, whoop-dee-doo!

    Here goes just for you:

    Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines.
    They Go Up, Tiddly, Up, Up.
    They Go Down, Tiddly, Down, Down.
    They Enchant All The Ladies And Steal All The Scenes
    With their Up, Tiddly, Up, Up
    And They’re Down, Tiddly, Down, Down.
    Up! Down! Flying Around.
    Looping The Loop And Defying The Ground.
    They’re All, Frightfully Keen
    Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines.
    They Can Fly Upside Down With Their Feet In The Air.
    They Don’t Think Of Danger. They Really Don’t Care.
    Newton Would Think He Had Made A Mistake.
    To See Those Young Men And The Chances They Take.
    Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines.
    They Go Up, Tiddly, Up, Up.
    They Go Down, Tiddly, Down, Down.
    They Enchant All The Ladies And Steal All The Scenes
    With their Up, Tiddly, Up, Up
    And Their Down, Tiddly, Down, Down.
    Up! Down! Flying Around.
    Looping The Loop And Defying The Ground.
    They’re All, Frightfully Keen
    Those Magnificent Men, Those magnificent men, Those magnificent men and their fly–ing ma–chines!

  • common sense

    Hmm come to think of it “Those Magnificent Men” were all commercials flying for a prize…

    Oh well. Sorry. My mistake. There is no song I can think of for government programs I guess. Any military march you know?

  • common sense, the HLV advocates either refuse to accept the allocated budget is required or they think there will magically be more money available in the future. I imagine the logic goes something like this: well, in a few years we’ll have a HLV and then they’ll *have to* give us more money to do something with it, otherwise it’ll be just a big waste of money. They refuse to accept that the people requisitioning the big waste of money *want* a big waste of money.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 7th, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    Orion has flown noone
    Orion has not flown
    Shuttle is stuck on the pad.

    Dragon has flown.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @TarsTarkas wrote @ May 8th, 2011 at 12:41 am

    “And now for more rationale discourse.”

    Yeah sure let’s see.

    “The point I am trying to make is that the commercial crew systems are not being designed in any way shape or form for BEO work.”

    That is rationale??? How do you know that? Oh boy…

    “The LVs are sized for the ISS transfer, not lift of heavy mass. The cost studies that have been done to get the mass up to LEO for assembly show the large payloads on SLS are more effective than multiple small launches. Falcon Heavy, may help with this issue if it becomes feasible.”

    Define more effective. You mean more cost efficient? Please point to the study.

    “Coastal Ron has some good points, but all the HEFT reference architectures show the Orion capsule is the crew return, and EDL module and an essential part of the architecture. So it is needed, as is the habitat and the departure and return stages.”

    HEFT is not affordable and does not have any budget. Okay more and more rationale…

    “As for Mr Oler, I do beleive that BEO exploratino is worth while goal and a priority for NASA. You obviously do not. I personally hope that commercial crew is wildly successful and provides NASA all the savings needed to do other missions.”

    I see rationality here. Commercial crew is a distraction that you wish to be successful? How do you measure “worthwhile”? Why is it so? Can you elaborate your rationale?

    “As for Mr. Oler’s assertion that we have produced nothing for decades, well, the 135 shuttle missions, the 10 yrs of operation of the ISS, the Hubble, the Mars landers, and all the other achievements of the past 30 years just point out how wrong he is.”

    Mars landers are crewed? Maybe you ought to read again what Robert has been telling you. In what way the Shuttle/ISS complex has return anything of value for the amount we invested.

    Your rationale is pretty empty if you ask me. Just words. Good luck with that.

  • Martijn Meijering

    And now for more rationale discourse.

    Rudeness objection. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they are being irrational.

    The point I am trying to make is that the commercial crew systems are not being designed in any way shape or form for BEO work.

    Your point came across loud and clear, but people simply disagree with it. Dragon for instance was designed explicitly for beyond LEO applications.

    The LVs are sized for the ISS transfer, not lift of heavy mass.

    Heavy lift isn’t required for exploration, nor is it even terribly useful. Propellant transfer on the other hand is very useful and allows you to do exploration without HLVs. And unlike HLV which last existed almost forty years ago, propellant transfer is operational today and has been for more than thirty years.

    The cost studies that have been done to get the mass up to LEO for assembly show the large payloads on SLS are more effective than multiple small launches.

    No, those are studies written by people who stand to gain from a NASA-funded HLV. If you really care about lower cost, you should procure the launch services competitively and see what the market chooses. I’d be surprised if the answer were an HLV, but Musk for one believes he can reduce launch costs and prices spectacularly with an HLV.

    Falcon Heavy, may help with this issue if it becomes feasible.

    As I said above, this “issue” isn’t actually an issue, but even if it were EELV Phases 1 and 2 would be low-risk alternatives which would be more cost-effective than SLS.

    Coastal Ron has some good points, but all the HEFT reference architectures show the Orion capsule is the crew return, and EDL module and an essential part of the architecture.

    First of all, HEFT is a partisan study by the same fine people who brought us Constellation and SLI. But even so, it still doesn’t show that Orion specifically is needed, Dragon would work just fine.

    So it is needed, as is the habitat and the departure and return stages.

    The habitat could be based on Bigelow modules, the departure stage could be ACES (which would give us EELV Phase 1 in the process), or even just existing EELV upper stages combined with spacecraft docking and refueling at L1/L2, which is a good idea anyway. The return stage could then even do double duty as a TMI stage (from L1/L2). That is one of the few bits where reuse of Constellation hardware (Orion SM + avionics in this case) would make sense. And even here there would be plenty of commercial alternatives.

    So far from being irrelevant to exploration as you claimed, commercial manned spaceflight would be strongly synergetic with exploration, with each side benefiting strongly from cooperation with the other.

    As for Mr Oler, I do beleive that BEO exploratino is worth while goal and a priority for NASA. You obviously do not.

    Whether it is a worthwhile goal or not is not being disputed. What is being disputed is that it is a priority, but more importantly it is being disputed that we need to choose between exploration and commercial manned spaceflight. You are suggesting that choosing one would delay the other, which would make it necessary to think about which is more urgent and you would choose exploration over commercial development of space. But this is simply not true, the fastest road to exploration goes through commercial manned spaceflight and the fastest route to commercial manned spaceflight goes through government funded exploration. The two are strongly synergetic. You shouldn’t believe or contribute to pro- SLS/MPCV rhetoric masquerading as a plea to defend exploration.

    I personally hope that commercial crew is wildly successful and provides NASA all the savings needed to do other missions.

    Good. That argues for getting NASA out of the Earth to orbit, crew return and LEO to high energy orbit business.

    As for Mr. Oler’s assertion that we have produced nothing for decades, well, the 135 shuttle missions, the 10 yrs of operation of the ISS, the Hubble, the Mars landers, and all the other achievements of the past 30 years just point out how wrong he is.

    NASA HSF (and that excludes the Mars landers) has contributed little to nothing to either exploration or commercial development of space. It has been a program run for the benefit of the Shuttle political industrial complex and a group of government funded space tourists aka the astronaut corps.

  • common sense

    @Trent Waddington wrote @ May 8th, 2011 at 7:46 am

    I think if you ask me they no longer are “advocates” they are becoming delusional. All the empty arguments for the unfunded missions that we will have in the future. All the attacks on commercial systems that are affordable and that might even help their dreams.

    These people need big rockets and Apollo glory. They are stuck between the past and a Marvel comic book.

    I am not sure how much they weigh in the decision process but when I read arguments given by our political leadership that tend to support this nonsense I think that we are really close to the world of Idiocracy.

  • Martijn Meijering

    I imagine the logic goes something like this: well, in a few years we’ll have a HLV and then they’ll *have to* give us more money to do something with it, otherwise it’ll be just a big waste of money.

    That “logic” would also apply to a lander, but somehow it is an HLV they want, so there must be more to it.

  • Coastal Ron

    TarsTarkas wrote @ May 8th, 2011 at 12:41 am

    The point I am trying to make is that the commercial crew systems are not being designed in any way shape or form for BEO work.

    At this point, that is true. The market they are focused on is LEO.

    But the MPCV (i.e. downscoped Orion) is not being designed for BEO either. Orion was only designed for 21.1 day missions with a total endurance in space of 210 days (i.e. docked at the ISS or something), and the MPCV is supposed to be even less capable.

    There are no funded requirement for a BEO vehicle yet, so it is unknown if the MPCV will be needed or useful when that time comes. The MPCV is a political vehicle, one that was proposed in order to salvage work already done on the Orion. Whether the $Billions already spent, and the $Billions still to be spent result in anything worthwhile, is unknown.

    The LVs are sized for the ISS transfer, not lift of heavy mass. The cost studies that have been done to get the mass up to LEO for assembly show the large payloads on SLS are more effective than multiple small launches.

    I’m not a rocket scientist, I’m a manufacturing guy, so I like to look at cost issues. Maybe you are referencing a widely respected study on SLS launch costs that I haven’t seen, but I doubt it since the SLS is not even defined yet. Every estimate I have seen shows that vehicles the size and cost of the proposed SLS only make sense cost-wise after they have been in constant use for far more than a decade. Here is the most recent one:

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

    You can do the math yourself, but make sure you include the DDT&E costs, since they are part of the “opportunity costs” (look that up). What you’ll see is that if you need to get mass to orbit, that building an HLV only makes sense if you need to get somewhere around 2M lbs to LEO. Until we have a funded program that requires 2M lbs in LEO, an HLV is a waste of money.

    but all the HEFT reference architectures show the Orion capsule is the crew return…

    That’s because when the study was being done, no other capsules existed.

    But this is an example of how being locked into an architecture too early in the requirements process can lock out alternatives that could provide a better solution (i.e. more capable, more flexible, lower cost, etc.). If NASA is required to do every mission using the MPCV, then NASA will only be able to go as far as the MPCV’s limits (not that far).

    The untested, unproven MPCV is not a mature enough design to be the foundation of all of NASA’s exploration missions – it is a prototype, and not ready for serial production and use. To use a Cernanian description, we don’t know what we don’t know yet about the capabilities and usefulness of the MPCV – good or bad.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Until we have a funded program that requires 2M lbs in LEO, an HLV is a waste of money.

    Even then it probably wouldn’t make sense, since that’s more than enough to fund small RLVs, which could launch payloads much more cheaply than an HLV, unless that HLV was itself reusable.

  • Robert G. Oler

    TarsTarkas wrote @ May 8th, 2011 at 12:41 am

    “As for Mr Oler, I do beleive that BEO exploratino is worth while goal and a priority for NASA.”

    when people cannot answer a question is frequently when they dont even try.

    But I’ll give you one more shot.

    Do you think that the model for getting beyond earth orbit as a government only program has been very successful the last 30 years. NASA has on ALS/NLS and Cx spent 20 billion or so dollars and is nowhere…is that model working for you?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    TarsTarkas wrote @ May 8th, 2011 at 12:41 am

    “As for Mr. Oler’s assertion that we have produced nothing for decades, ”

    I have never asserted we did “nothing” or produced “nothing.”

    I was wondering if you think we get the value for the cost of what we have produced?

    “well, the 135 shuttle missions, the 10 yrs of operation of the ISS, the Hubble, the Mars landers, and all the other achievements of the past 30 years….”

    The Mars landers had nothing to do with people in space, Hubble was far more expensive then if we had just launched a new one everytime we serviced it and 135 shuttle missions…we got what for those?

    Another sign you cannot answer the question is when you make up things that other people say.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Trent Waddington wrote @ May 8th, 2011 at 7:46 am

    “common sense, the HLV advocates either refuse to accept the allocated budget is required or they think there will magically be more money available in the future. I imagine the logic goes something like this: well, in a few years we’ll have a HLV and then they’ll *have to* give us more money to do something with it, otherwise it’ll be just a big waste of money.”

    the crowd at NASAspaceflight.com has about that “mantra”. The HLV advocates (and that includes the DIRECT believers) all sing along to the song of “we cannot waste what we already have”…which is the doctrine that gave us a space station that cost tens of billions to deploy and what we deployed is built to the limit of the shuttle’s capabilities…

    Many years ago it was (I think but am pretty sure) Dick Truly who was being pressed by several Congressfolks as to why NASA didnt develop “shuttle C” and then launch most of the station on that…and his reply was (and this is a close paraphrase, I have the exact quote on my “quotables” page it has been used in OP EDS) “I already have programmed money to fly the space shuttle, shuttle launches are more or less “free””.

    This is why you read HERE people like Shanon come on and use the accounting methods he has…”the first one cost us blank and the rest are free”.

    the whole notion of the HLV group is that build it and the payloads will have to come…even though they have no real clue about the cost of the effort…or care. It is the most goofy group I have seen.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Martijn Meijering

    It is the most goofy group I have seen.

    It is only goofy if you imagine their main goal is to achieve something worthwhile in space. Their behaviour is perfectly explicable if you assume their main goal (or at least their principal constraint) is to be part of a manned spaceflight program.

    How many engineers at MSFC could expect to be involved in launch vehicle design and operations if their services were procured fairly, competitively and redundantly? How many engineers at JSC could expect to be involved in manned spacecraft design?

    And once commercial crew taxis are operational, how many astronauts in the astronaut corps could expect to get paid to fly into space repeatedly instead of having to shell out $20M of their own money per flight like the commercial spaceflight participants? What exactly is it that they’re doing on the ISS that couldn’t be done by Bigelow or SpaceX employees (some of whom are former NASA astronauts)?

    As long as they’re part of an astronaut corps that has a monopoly on government funded manned spaceflight they don’t have to worry about new applicants, since NASA only hires new astronauts when it needs them. But once privately employed astronauts start flying the next logical step will be to use them for more and more tasks that are currently reserved for NASA astronauts.

  • pathfinder_01

    Martijn Meijering

    Actually it is not as bad as you posted. The engineers might be too many but in terms of astonaunts not so much. NASA Radation limits means that at best you can only make two trip to the ISS in a lifetime. The ISS plus the Shuttle meant a tempory increase in the amount needed however with the shuttle retiring there could be too many atm.

    With commercial crew some of them will have a chance to fly for commercial and I can see non ISS mission being possible if commercial lowers the cost of spaceflight enough. There will always be a need for government employees esp. astronuants. What will change is the NASA will no longer be the gate keeper of civilian manned access to space.
    Coperations might use Space X and others to do research on a bigloew station, but the US government also can us their own employees. If anything commercial can make it possible for different parts of the government to purchase access to space. i.e. NIH has its own labs along with many other parts of the government.

    The reason why there is so much push back is because no one has done propellant transfer before and because many think that an SDHLV can fit in a shuttle budget (it can’t). It is bad logic. They think that if you get rid of the shuttle you can now afford to turn shuttle parts into an economical HLV. Like HLV’s or not the shuttle is not the place to build any rocket other than perhaps another reusable space plane. It’s parts were not desegined to be cheap, they were designed with reusability in mind. It is the difference between tossing a plastic fork and tossing your silverware. They also don’t get the implications of disposability (i.e. you have to buy another). With the shuttle the shuttle itself was reusable. It might not have been cheap to reuse but you didn’t have to buy a capsule, lander (or hab), and earth departure stage with every flight. This gives a lot more flexability in the budget and allowed the shuttle to have double to more than double the flight rate of Apollo.

    The shuttle and everything in its cargo bay could fly again(like Spacelab, Spacehab, the robot arms).Nor do they see the importance of having a system with more than one user to spread the fixed costs over. They care more that say a Falcon Heavy or a Atlas Phase II can lift X amount than can be used in smaller version for other users.

  • Martijn Meijering

    @pathfinder:

    I’m not complaining about the size of the astronaut corps (the more the merrier), but I’m trying to explain their seemingly irrational (‘goofy’) negative attitude towards commercial manned spaceflight and the seemingly irrational positive attitude towards HLV, which for whatever reason has to be Shuttle-derived as well.

    The reason why there is so much push back is because no one has done propellant transfer before and because many think that an SDHLV can fit in a shuttle budget (it can’t).

    The latter is probably a myth, as you imply, but so is the former. Propellant transfer is a mature technology with a thirty year operational history. It’s only cryogenic propellant transfer and storage that is unproven. And while that is highly desirable, we can make do with a combination of cryogenic propellants without transfer and storage in orbit and storage and transfer of noncryogenic propellants. We’d need both cryogenic propellants and transfer and storage, but not transfer and storage of cryogenic propellants themselves.

    Then again, the mere fact that we could does not necessarily imply we should. We could also wait and develop cryogenic depots first. I’d prefer the former approach, but the latter can be defended. Of course, if we do that we have to accept some of the criticism of people like TarsTarkas, since we’d be trading commercial development of space against exploration. I’d be willing to make that trade if necessary, just as I would be willing to sacrifice the ISS if I thought that would help (but I don’t), but it is not in fact necessary.

    And even for commercial development of space an early propellant launch market would in my view be much more useful than early cryogenic depots. In fact, that is why I am so strongly in favour of it and why I changed my mind against HLV and government funded launchers after the potential of commercial funding for small RLVs as a result of an exploration program centered around propellant transfer was explained to me.

    So I disagree that doubts about propellant transfer or optimism about SDLV costs are what’s behind the HLV advocacy. I think that some opponents of using storable propellant know full well that it would work without adding significant costs, and I believe that is secretly their real reason for opposing it, because they realise it would be a threat.

    It would be a threat because it would mean exploration could start before their own launch vehicle is ready. In that case it might never even get funding. Then they’d be reduced to cheering on a space program conducted by others instead of personally participating in it.

    As for optimism about costs, I think that’s probably not the case either. The Shuttle workforce know how expensive they are, and they are fighting for their own paychecks. They want SDLV because they know it is more expensive.

  • pathfinder_01

    “ But the MPCV (i.e. downscoped Orion) is not being designed for BEO either. Orion was only designed for 21.1 day missions with a total endurance in space of 210 days (i.e. docked at the ISS or something), and the MPCV is supposed to be even less capable.”

    Actually it was supposed to be 6 months without a crew (i.e. you could leave it in a parking orbit and land on the moon). 6 months at the ISS, and 21 days crewed.

    This is one of the things that drove up the weight. For a system to spend 6 months or more at the ISS all you need is batteries, the station can supply power and station keeping. The CST100 has a 7 month life span but only 48 hours worth of flight.

    If you need to support yourself 6 months in space then fuel cells are not a good idea due to boil off and so now you need batteries and solar cells along with a water tank for the crew. One of Apollo’s weight saving tricks was the fuel cell since that removed the need for water tank for the crew, batteries and solar panels. You did need tanks for Hydrogen and Oxygen but the crew could share the Oxygen tank saving more weight.
    Anyway Dragon is the only ccdev planned to have BEO capability and that might take some upgrades in terms of propulsion and possibibly life support. There are some intresting ideas for Dream Chaser in the BEO department in terms of Dream Chaser XL. Boeing CST100 is probably the least suited for BEO work atm, but they could come out with a upgraded model.

    “But this is an example of how being locked into an architecture too early in the requirements process can lock out alternatives that could provide a better solution (i.e. more capable, more flexible, lower cost, etc.). If NASA is required to do every mission using the MPCV, then NASA will only be able to go as far as the MPCV’s limits (not that far).”

    Anyway the bigger issue in terms of CRV is making sure that it works after a long trip. Right now the longest a capsule can stay in space is nearly a year for Soyuz.Dragon lab is planned to be able to spend 2 years in earth Orbit.

    HEFT had some interesting uses for the CTV and did concider using commercial for some items (if barely) but the HLV god won out. Anyway what HEFT planned to do is create an Orion that could be stored for 400 days. Before the Senate bill passed the Orion they wanted would be one that would be launched without crew with commercial possibly providing the crew for the craft.

    Anyway the reason why they want a more capable BEO CTV is to be able to perform in space aborts(i.e. if something breaks down in the hab retreat to the CTV and figure out the next steps from here).The biggest issues Orion has atm is the fact that it is tied to SLS. When SLS fails, it will probably take Orion with it.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Well here we are, still waiting for Shuttle to launch due to an ‘electrical glitch’ and ‘repairs’, while the much maligned commercial launches a military satellite on schedule. Well to be fair, a day late due to poor weather. Yet another instance of why NASA shouldn’t be in the space launch business.

  • Major Tom

    “The point I am trying to make is that the commercial crew systems are not being designed in any way shape or form for BEO work.”

    False.

    “[Dr. Chris] McKay said that Musk had told him that at every point where SpaceX had to make choices on Dragon about materials, heat shield strength and other issues, they chose to design the vehicle for Mars flights. That shines a new light on the video above, which shows a Dragon landing on the Red Planet. The side-mounted retro-rockets are useful not just for targeted touchdowns on Earth but for missions elsewhere.

    McKay also revealed NASA is conducting a study on how the agency might send a drill to Mars aboard an unmanned Dragon capsule. I’m not entirely sure how the drill would be deployed, but it’s a really interesting idea. This would be a great way to test out a Dragon on the Red Planet.”

    parabolicarc.com/2011/05/03/nasa-send-dragon-mars/

    “NASA made its expertise and specialized facilities available to SpaceX as the company designed, developed and qualified the 3.6 meter PICA-X shield it in less than 4 years at a fraction of the cost NASA had budgeted for the effort. The result is the most advanced heat shield ever to fly. It can potentially be used hundreds of times for Earth orbit reentry with only minor degradation each time – as proven on this flight — and can even withstand the much higher heat of a moon or Mars velocity reentry.”

    comspacewatch.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=35548

    “The cost studies that have been done to get the mass up to LEO for assembly show the large payloads on SLS are more effective than multiple small launches.”

    Also false.

    “* Large in-space mission elements (inert) can be lifted to LEO in increments on several medium-lift commercial launch vehicles (CLVs) rather than on one Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles (HLLVs)
    * The heavy in-space transportation mission elements are beyond the payload capability of medium-lift CLVs; however, 80 to 90 percent of their mass is propellant that can be delivered in increments to a Propellant Depot and transferred to the in-space stages
    * Saves DDT&E costs of HLLV
    * Low-flight-rate HLLV dominated by high unique fixed costs. Use of CLVs eliminates these costs and spreads lower fixed costs over more flights and other customers.
    * Use of large re-fueled cryo stages save DDT&E/ops costs for advanced propulsion stages (e.g., SEP)”

    “Tens of billions of dollars of cost savings and lower up-front costs to fit within budget profile (no HLLV-based options fit within budget)

    “HEFT=$146B
    CLV+Prop Depot=$95B”

    images.spaceref.com/news/2011/F9Prop.Depot.pdf

    “Coastal Ron has some good points, but all the HEFT reference architectures show the Orion capsule is the crew return… an essential part of the architecture.”

    There are multiple options for crew return. Just because a study assumes a certain vehicle as its baseline doesn’t mean that said vehicle is “essential”.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “I think you might be being too generous to Orion when comparing it to Dragon.

    Would any of the $278M COTS funding be attributable to Falcon 9 development work, or at least the Falcon 9 launches for COTS demonstration missions? If so, you’d have to subtract that amount from the $278M, making Orion look even more expensive in comparison.”

    Yes, you’re right. I just don’t have the Falcon 9/Dragon development split, so I can’t make an perfect comparison. Given that the difference is an order of magnitude, it’s in the weeds anyway — not a big deal.

    “Also, is the Orion life cycle that the GAO assessed similar to the 10 years and 20 missions for Dragon that you described?”

    It’s in the ballpark. ESAS assumed about two annual crewed Orion missions to the ISS from 2012-16 followed by four lunar missions 2017-2018.

    “It seems like the cost of the MPCV, and the value for the nation for that cost, is irrelevant to the part of Congress that has the most influence over these particular decisions. Congressional local interests over the nation’s interest may be the “miracle” MPCV needs, at least to take lots of funding for too many more years.”

    That’s why I wrote “moderate- to long-term”. I agree, we’re going to waste billions on MPCV for at least a couple to a few more years to come. But unless MPCV is able to radically restructure the economics of Orion, those economics are going to catch up with it, likely when the next Administration comes into power in 2012 or 2016, if the appropriators don’t act first.

    “It’s too bad there doesn’t seem to be any willingness to even compromise at all and at least allow a little bit of usefulness to come out of the MPCV funding (e.g.: fully commit to an EELV to launch the MPCV [with or without eventual SLS support] to support the launch industrial base and perhaps indirectly help the rocket part of commercial crew, or use some MPCV funding and test opportunities for useful technology demonstrations inside, or with, the MPCV, etc). If you could get some cubesats on an MPCV test launch, or do some technology work with AR&D/refueling/ECLSS/whatever, well, even if we write off the MPCV itself as valueless, at least we get some results out of the MPCV spending.”

    The things you’re talking about are ~$1M-$500M investments. It’s hard to justify a $20-30B platform to perform activities that cost 1/40th or less without that platform. It’s like buying a car so you can listen to the radio. It’s an irrational justification, and you’re better just buying a radio.

    FWIW…

  • Coastal Ron

    pathfinder_01 wrote @ May 8th, 2011 at 9:16 pm

    My inelegant description was meant to mean what you wrote, so thank’s for the correction. Nice description on the other stuff too.

    There are some intresting ideas for Dream Chaser in the BEO department in terms of Dream Chaser XL.

    I guess the XL is supposed to be 50% bigger, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but using it as the vehicle to take you from Earth’s surface to L1 or lunar orbit doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

    It would only make sense if we couldn’t figure out aerocapture and we have to rely on direct return, otherwise the added mass of being both a lifting body and a long distance transporter makes it less efficient for both tasks, and less safe due to possible debris impacts during it’s time in space.

    Maybe it’s a short-term solution, but I don’t see it as a long-term one.

    Anyway the reason why they want a more capable BEO CTV is to be able to perform in space aborts(i.e. if something breaks down in the hab retreat to the CTV and figure out the next steps from here).

    I also see this as a short-term issue, since I think we’ll eventually do long distance exploration with more than one exploration spaceship, so the lifeboats only need to provide short-term survival. Expeditions will resemble what Columbus did with La Niña, La Pinta, and Santa María.

    The other simplification is that if we have staging areas at LEO and L1, then no matter where you are you only have to abort to the closest staging area, and not all the way back to Earth’s surface. That means the lifeboats don’t have to have heat shields, and they can be your general purpose local transports. For instance, the HEFT vehicle called the Multi 
Mission
 Space
 Exploration Vehicle
 (MMSEV) could fulfill this role.

    The biggest issues Orion has atm is the fact that it is tied to SLS. When SLS fails, it will probably take Orion with it.

    That would be my hope, but Lockheed Martin (and it’s Congressional supporters) will unhitch the MPCV from the dying SLS pretty quickly if they need to, and LM can already point to their plan to launch the MPCV on Delta IV Heavy (human rating it only costs $1.3B). Zombies are hard to kill. ;-)

  • There is a fundamental logical point that the defenders of big rockets cannot get around. Propellant transfer is a necessary condition for being a spacefaring society. Heavy lift is not. If they continue to fight for the latter at the expense of the former, it is an indication that they have no interest in spacefaring, and have some other agenda.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 8th, 2011 at 8:17 am
    Shuttle is a proven crewed spacecraft and has been flying humans into and back from orbital spaceflight for 30 years. NASA has been lofting humans into space and returning them for half a century. But your disdain for HSF has been well documented on this forum anyway.

    It is mid-2011. SpaceX has not launched, orbited and returned any human being safely to earth aboard a Dragon. And they never will because is no economically viable rationale for a ‘for profit’ company to be pouring millions into develop a LEO crewable capsule to service the ISS with reductions in commitment of U.S. affiliations pencilled in as early as 2015 and the ISS slated for splash by 2020, especially with a reliable, operational system in already in place- Russia’s Soyuz, and the potential additional access via PRC’s Shenzhou. It makes for a good bargaining chip by China as well when dealing w/t U.S.

    No human crewed Dragon ‘capsules’ have been launched orbited and returned their human crews safely. It has no independently flight tested tested/verified/integrated/operational ECS for human spaceflight. It has no independently verified/integrated/flight tested LES.

    The future of commercial HSF is Branson’s ‘ticket-to-ride.’ He is hiring pilots and will be lofting paying customers on suborbital flights next year. And unlike Master Musk, who has said he will ‘retire on Mars’ yet says he will not not ride his own space vehicles, Branson has said he will make the trip in his VirginGalactic system.

    In an era when the United States government has to borrow 43 cents of every dollar it spends, chiefly from the PRC, there is zero rationale for dwindling U.S. government resources to be used to subsidize commerical orbital HSF projects when the place for free market, free enterprised firms to source funding for high risk ventures w/low ROI is in the private capital markets, not the United States Treasury. There is no reason to socialize the high risks on the backs of taxpayers for ‘private’ firms when, among other reasons, the U.S. already has several govermnent funded venues to access space . The place for free enterprised/free market/’for profit’ commerical HSF firms to secure investors is the private capital markets.

    Private capital markets continue to balk, as the very parameters and constraints of the free market continue to inhibit investment in commerical HSF orbital flight ventures. The United States government has multiple venues for government operated/managed access to space. It does not need (and cannot afford) to subsidize commercial HSF firms which cannot convince the private sector to invest in their high risk/low ROI enterprises. End of story.

    @ C. Adelphia wrote @ May 8th, 2011 at 12:26 am

    Maybe you don’t understand th difference between an existing access and a paper space project. It makes no sense for a ‘for profit’ firm in the commercial HSF industry, begging for US gov’t subsidies at every turn, to pour millions into creating a LEO crewed capsule to access the ISS when U.S. interests in same are slated to diminish as early as 2015 with splash planned for 2020. A ‘for profit’ LEO crewed capsule for ISS access is a ticket to no place– which is precisely what Dragon is supposed to be. It may eventually haul cargo up but that’s all. Not surprising as Tesla remains unprofitable as well. .

  • Justin Kugler

    The ISS is not “slated for splash by 2020,” DCSCA. We are working to ensure the program is extended to 2020, at the least, and are looking towards the 2028 timeframe for lifetime extension. Really, the only limiting factor is the assessment of the structural life of the ISS, which is still pending.

    I also have no idea what “reduction in commitment” you’re talking about. Our slots for external platforms are rapidly filling up, we have more payloads than there is staff to manage, and there’s even talk of flying a seventh crewmember when the CCDev vehicles come online.

    Your opinions of commercial crew to Station are well-known and documented. You are not entitled to your own facts, though.

  • amightywind

    It is mid-2011. SpaceX has not launched, orbited and returned any human being safely to earth aboard a Dragon.

    Indeed that latest schedule has slipped from July to October. Our Russian partners squelched Musk’s hoped for ISS rendezvous in hopes of bleeding him out of existence. If Musk doesn’t make an ISS underwear delivery by the end of 2012 a new President is likely to shut him down.

    We are working to ensure the program is extended to 2020, at the least, and are looking towards the 2028 timeframe for lifetime extension.

    ISS has had several serious failures that were resolved by unplanned servicing missions by the space shuttle. Solar array bearings, the ammonia cooling system, control gyros have all failed unexpectedly. When the shuttle program ends any one of these failures will be enough to cripple the ISS. It will not last through 2016, unless it is saved by Orion/Direct. You heard it here first folks.

  • I really have to laugh when one of the resident trolls claim something can’t be trusted because it’s never flown. Every single vehicle in the history of human space flight was unflown at some point. Using their illogic, it means that we could have never left the ground. Hey, Mercury has never flown with a human on board, we better not launch Alan Shepard! What a silly line of reasoning.

  • Justin Kugler

    Orion/MPCV has no capability to carry spares to the Station. Whether it flies or not by 2016 has absolutely nothing to do with continuing the ISS program. As I said before, people are entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts.

  • common sense

    MPCV just like SLS will burn cash for the near future. My wild guess has always been for 4/5 years such that the workforce disappears via retirement or other form. It will cost billions indeed. It will not build anything of value.

    SLS is the most obvious since it is supposed to rely on the SRBs and other STS systems.

    The MPCV might have had some value. However considering the timeline of development of the MPCV I suspect that any value will be obsolete by the time it comes online. The other commercially developed vehicle with a potential for lunar travel will already have everything they need.

    Also MPCV will never, NEVER, be designed for anything beyond the Moon. We don’t even know how to travel to Mars, say. They do not have any technological development program that I know associated with such travel to Mars, even Mars orbit.

    Therefore the MPCV is a direct competitor with at least Dragon and CST-100 both of which come at a fraction of the cost of MPCV. MPCV will not be built. Nope. No savings, nothing.

    It would be far more effective to take those NASA personnel who know what needs to be done for lunar travel and get them to help, somehow, develop the necessary components for a lunar Dragon or CST-100. That would require a new CCDev-Moon and competition and all. I suspect it will happen if CCDev-ISS is successful. I suspect it is being planned.

    As far as Mars… Someday maybe. Just not now. We need an infrastructure and we need a plan. So far all I have seen is for one shot mission, a la Apollo, to Mars. There is no propellant depots, no advanced propulsion nothing being funded since all goes to SLS and MPCV. Thanks Congress.

    We’ll see.

  • Das Boese

    Justin Kugler wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 7:25 am

    The ISS is not “slated for splash by 2020,” DCSCA. We are working to ensure the program is extended to 2020, at the least, and are looking towards the 2028 timeframe for lifetime extension. Really, the only limiting factor is the assessment of the structural life of the ISS, which is still pending.

    I don’t know about the US/European modules, however the Russians seem pretty confident that their modules will last even longer.
    Their long-term plan (yeah, unlike everyone else they actually have a plan) is, after ISS is decommissioned, to use ROS modules as the core of a new station that is to serve as a construction platform and operations base for BEO vehicles.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 8:17 am

    Our Russian partners squelched Musk’s hoped for ISS rendezvous in hopes of bleeding him out of existence.

    What a wimp you are Windy! Someone complains a little, and you fold like a cheap deck chair.

    Russia didn’t say that CRS contractors couldn’t dock at the ISS, just that they wanted to make sure that whoever does can do it safely – what a surprise! That they said that publicly was probably for Putin points, and you gave him just what he wanted. I’m glad you’re not one of our diplomats.

    ISS has had several serious failures that were resolved by unplanned servicing missions by the space shuttle.

    That’s called life in space. If you are surprised that unplanned things happen in space, then you better not go. But that is also one of the major reasons to have an occupied space station in LEO, so we can experience the realities of living and working in space, and learn how to deal with problems.

    The “unplanned servicing missions” were not as dramatic as you make them seem either, since the Shuttle was making regular deliveries to the ISS anyways. What this does show is how valuable frequent commercial cargo and crew trips will be, since ISS managers won’t have to wait long for minor replacement parts. And once delivery tugs are developed, delivering large replacement parts like a CMG or SARJ will be quite easy, not to mention far less expensive than using a government-run rocket.

    It [the ISS] will not last through 2016, unless it is saved by Orion/Direct.

    LOL. Windy is “spinning out of control” again.

    The MPCV might fly by 2016, but no NASA mega-rockets will. And as usual, you would rather waste taxpayer money on the most expensive solution instead of using commercially available ones that cost far less.

    Better not go to Tea Party conventions and crow about the SLS, because they are starting to focus on the SLS earmark you love so much:

    http://www.teainspace.com/the-ten-billion-dollar-earmark/#more-838

  • common sense

    ““It [the ISS] will not last through 2016, unless it is saved by Orion/Direct.”

    LOL. Windy is “spinning out of control” again.”

    He does spin out of control most of his awaken time but today I think he admitted he is pushing for Direct. Not Sidemount, not Ares. Direct. That explains a lot after reading what the usual suspects were posting on this site and elsewhere.

    Hey amightywind, is there any classified mission already being prepared for Direct???

  • amightywind

    Russia didn’t say that CRS contractors couldn’t dock at the ISS, just that they wanted to make sure that whoever does can do it safely

    Russia and operational safety are words normally not used together. I guess you don’t remember Shuttle/Mirs, a veritable carnival of crisis. If you think Russia is not trying to hobble SpaceX your are naive, which indeed you are. It is nothing to me. But I would have expected Musk fans to be outraged.

    I’m glad you’re not one of our diplomats.

    I believe purposeful diplomacy is best conducted by the Department of Defense. Seems Obama has come around to that fact as well.

    Better not go to Tea Party conventions.

    Just got back from one yesterday as a matter of fact, where Michelle Bachmann knocked ‘em dead. She backs a strong, traditional NASA. So will any Tea party candidate if they want to survive.

  • common sense

    @ Coastal Ron wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 11:30 am

    “Better not go to Tea Party conventions and crow about the SLS, because they are starting to focus on the SLS earmark you love so much:”

    Wow I never thought I would agree on anything with the Tea Party. What do I know? Thanks for the link. The comments are also telling on their site.

    In a strange twist of life, is the Tea Party agreeing with President Obama space policy????

    We do live interesting times.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 2:24 am

    “Shuttle is a proven crewed spacecraft and has been flying humans into and back from orbital spaceflight for 30 years. NASA has been lofting humans into space and returning them for half a century. But your disdain for HSF has been well documented on this forum anyway.

    It is mid-2011. SpaceX has not launched, orbited and returned any human being safely to earth aboard a Dragon. And they never will because is no economically viable rationale for a ‘for profit’ company to be pouring millions into develop a LEO crewable capsule to service the ISS with reductions in commitment of U.S. affiliations pencilled in as early as 2015 and the ISS slated for splash by 2020,”

    The misstatements in your post aside (ie my disdain for human spaceflight and the “splash” ISS) the above statements seem strange to me.

    First off that NASA has been flying the space shuttle for 30 years plus is no mean feet (or feat) considering the sum of money 200 billion plus they have burned through to do just that. A LOT OF THINGS can be done for 200 plus billion and the mere act of going and coming to LEO is one of the more trivial ones.

    And they do it so badly. they are hung on the ground it looks like chasing down a zero impedance or resistance to ground issue…

    As for SpaceX…time will tell who is correct and who is not…but the fact that you consider the business case weak doesnt impress me much. You are not putting your money into it.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 8:17 am

    ” When the shuttle program ends any one of these failures will be enough to cripple the ISS. It will not last through 2016, unless it is saved by Orion/Direct.”

    then its doomed because Orion cannot service the station, DIRECT will never fly and none of them have a chance of flying before 2016.

    LOL Robert G. Oler

  • GladIamNotU

    Robert G. Oler wrote:
    “…consumed over 20 billion dollars and produced nothing. I mean nothing”

    Robert G. Oler wrote
    “I have never asserted we did “nothing” or produced “nothing.”

    Can you say WTF?

  • Dennis Berube

    I think, that if a commercial venture, like SpaceX can get a manned mission into space and return it safely to Earth, then and only then, will the doubt vanish. Sadly that attempt is still aways off! As to the ISS, I think it will keep running for as long as our government wantsit to operate. When the money for it evaporates, so too will the station. If Bigelow can develope his inflatable station, just maybe there will no longer be a need for the ISS. Time will tell.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 12:55 pm

    I guess you don’t remember Shuttle/Mirs, a veritable carnival of crisis.

    Notice how you had to reach back more than a decade to find something bad to say about the Russian Soyuz? Maybe you should have pointed out all the crashes the Wright Brothers had… ;-)

    But what is even more disturbing is that you apparently have problems surviving in a less-than perfect world. If anything, overcoming problems in space shows that we CAN survive in space, and that we should continue to expand our presence.

    If you think Russia is not trying to hobble SpaceX…

    Hey, no more than what you try to do – are you in cahoots with Putin? Why are you so anti-American and anti-capitalism?

    Of course this is a competitive issue for Russia, just like it’s a competitive issue for Boeing (CST-100) and Lockheed Martin (MPCV). But NASA is the primary partner on the ISS, and as long as their contractors get qualified for deliveries to the ISS, Russia can’t say much.

    She [Bachmann] backs a strong, traditional NASA.

    Oh sure, just like your buddy Palin was FOR the “bridge to nowhere” before she was AGAINST it. “Tea Partiers” are no different than any other politician once they get the taste of money in their mouth. Besides, the MPCV/SLS embody the things the Tea Party is supposed to be against, whereas commercial crew and cargo embody what they supposedly support.

  • Vladislaw

    “She backs a strong, traditional NASA”

    No competitive bid, cost plus contracts, an army of ground personal, a huge underutilized launch infrastructure. So I take it Bachmann is now taking money from all the usual suspects?

  • pathfinder_01

    “I guess the XL is supposed to be 50% bigger, which makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but using it as the vehicle to take you from Earth’s surface to L1 or lunar orbit doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”

    Depends you need more than aero capture to make a LEO/L1 transfer craft. You need the ability to be able to do inspections/repairs in space and at the moment chemical rocket engines have lifetimes measured in minutes to hours (i.e. they are not like car engines or jet engines capable of running thousands of hours without serving). You also need the ability to do these repairs economically in orbit.

    Also aborting directly to earth saves time (i.e. you can return to earth from l1 at any time but if you want to return to the ISS, it will take 10 days for the window to open). Would you want to be forced to wait ten days if you were having a medical emergency? With direct return it would only be a matter of finding somewhere on earth to land, a rescue team could meet you there. The shuttle employs similar concept in that its computer keeps track of places it could land on every orbit. While KSC is the primary there are runways around the world where if an emergency arose and you needed to return “NOW!” the shuttle would land there instead. Better to get the spacewalker who got injured down at an Air force Base in France than worry about trying to make Florida.

    Anyway one way to think of it is like the difference between a short haul jet and a long haul jet liner. The 737 for instance is a short to medium haul liner great from say New York to LA but you would not use it to fly from New York to Hawaii ( unless you wanted to stop somewhere in between for refueling). Some 767 variants could fly that distance nonstop.

    A Dream chaser XL for instance could deliver more supplies to LEO could carry more passengers (say 3 more or so) to LEO as well as do BEO spaceflight in its BEO variant. Dragon and CST100 would likewise be able to carry more crew to LEO in a LEO or carry fewer to L1/L2. Orion’s parachute problem prevents it from caring 6 people to LEO so its capacity is stuck at 4. In space impacts are a danger to any kind of spacecraft not just ones with heat shields.

    “I also see this as a short-term issue, since I think we’ll eventually do long distance exploration with more than one exploration spaceship, so the lifeboats only need to provide short-term survival.”

    Nah the idea was more like an Apollo 13 type thing. The Orion would give you around 20 days to fix whatever went wrong on the hab. 21 days when compared to a 400-600+ day round trip is pretty short term.

    They give you options. You could de crew the larger transport craft and let it ease itself into earth orbit unmanned (the 30 day Vasmir mars trip does this at mars.). It gives you days to fix the closed loop life support instead of hours.

    Sending multiple ships increases costs and limits options (i.e. about the only way they could render assistance is if they dock…which might not be possible). Also in such a scenario the CTV is going to need to have substantial delta V capability of its own if it is to ferry people around and there is no law requiring that the earth to L1 ferry be the same craft as the CRV. You could for instance send (or carry) an Unmanned Dragon or Orion ahead and use them for CTV or CRV at your destination.

    IMHO getting Orion to Delta would be a good thing for both commercial crew and NASA. Orion could do some BEO missions early. Orion could evolve into something more specialized for BEO and commercial could evolve to BEO at their lessure. They would gain experience in what not to do from Orion. Orion could say provide crew transport to a L1 outpost, commercial cargo could then follow in its foot steps and commercial crew evolve to be able to reach this point.
    Orion say could evolve into the version that could be stored for longer without impacting other roles and say do NEO missions with a hab.

  • vulture4

    Is there any hard data that demonstrates that any lifting body can perform a runway landing at a realistic spaceflight mass? If not, why is it better than a capsule? NASA’s romance with lifting bodies began 50 years ago, and we still don’t have any in service.

    Oddly Orbital’s Prometheus design, originally proposed for the OSP project, was not funded even though it was the only concept to carry forward the more logical wing-and-fuselage configuration that worked on Shuttle and X-37, possibly because it carried four rather than six.

    At this stage we need to develop the technology and experience that will tell whether runway landing or parachute recovery will ultimately be more practical; it does not matter if the number of passengers is zero. Of course an alternative would be for NASA to once again take an active role in the X-37 project.

  • common sense

    @ vulture4 wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    “Is there any hard data that demonstrates that any lifting body can perform a runway landing at a realistic spaceflight mass? If not, why is it better than a capsule? NASA’s romance with lifting bodies began 50 years ago, and we still don’t have any in service.”

    There is a romantic notion to landing on a runway, the way real pilots in real aircraft do. Further, the lifting bodies that we keep looking at have wings, more or less. And the wings are there for the low speed and runway landings. This is idiotic. However there are benefits to lifting bodies. Note that capsule in actuality are lifting bodies when they fly at an angle of attack. Some benefits of course include lift with all related to aeroheating and low Gs and down/crossrange. Do we need a lifting body??? Heck it’s all about requirements, not romanticism. But who cares?

    “Oddly Orbital’s Prometheus design, originally proposed for the OSP project, was not funded even though it was the only concept to carry forward the more logical wing-and-fuselage configuration that worked on Shuttle and X-37, possibly because it carried four rather than six.”

    There are issues associated with lifting, rather wing body design. One such issue is the ability to always reenter with the base heatshield facing the flow. It is not trivial. Apollo, hence CEV, had this problem, unlike Soyuz. In case of a malfunction Soyuz beautifully demonstrated its ability to reenter heatshield first even though it must have been scary as hell. Is there any such design for lifting body out there? I believe I know of one ;)

    “At this stage we need to develop the technology and experience that will tell whether runway landing or parachute recovery will ultimately be more practical; it does not matter if the number of passengers is zero.”

    The best way to afford a RV today is to use a capsule. There is no question about it. All the trade studies have shown that. If we really, really need runway landing with a capsule we can use specific parachutes or parafoil, a la X-38. But X-38 showed it is not easy. Not one bit. Now if someone comes up with a working retro rocket landing system, a la DC-X then wings become obsolete. Further such system would be useful on other planetary bodies, you know, unlike wings… And moderate lift might be all you need for atmospheric entry. We are far, FAR, from any of that though. Capsules are the way to go now. Period.

    “Of course an alternative would be for NASA to once again take an active role in the X-37 project.”

    Now that it is a DoD program I seriously doubt that NASA will be part of it any more. The only possibility would be that DoD says they don’t need X-37 after all and remove all the possibly classified systems. Possible? Yes. Probable? I don’t think so.

    Hope this helps.

  • pathfinder_01

    “Is there any hard data that demonstrates that any lifting body can perform a runway landing at a realistic spaceflight mass? If not, why is it better than a capsule? NASA’s romance with lifting bodies began 50 years ago, and we still don’t have any in service. “

    Dreamchaser is planned to be able to land anywhere a 737 can land and probably can indeed perform a runway landing at a realistic mass. Heck the shuttle stubby wings don’t provide that much lift yet it does. Blame the shuttle for that one, it hogged all the roles and resources needed and any spacecraft that would compete with it had a political problem. I think they have a pretty good idea of how much mass it will be in the end.

    Anyway lifting bodies have advantages and disadvantages. They have lower g forces during renentry and greater cross range than a capsule. Their disadvantage is complexity, complextity of launch escape (i.e. capsules don’t have a preferred direction of flight, lifting bodies do).

    Runway vs. Parachutte may also depend on the role of the craft. For BEO work lifting bodies and winged craft have one disadvantage. The need for stronger/additional structure to handle high speed reentry. It hurts thoose two more than capsules.

    It was more than just carres 4 that was Prometheus problem. It needed a heavier version of Atlas. Dream chaser had been developed durring CCDEV1 where as Prometheus was not in any developed state at all.

  • Coastal Ron

    vulture4 wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 5:48 pm

    Oddly Orbital’s Prometheus design, originally proposed for the OSP project, was not funded…”

    Maybe it had it’s own advantages, but as pathfinder_01 pointed out it needed a larger launch vehicle, and the NASA evaluator also didn’t think that it had as good growth opportunities as Dream Chaser.

    At this stage we need to develop the technology and experience that will tell whether runway landing or parachute recovery will ultimately be more practical; it does not matter if the number of passengers is zero.

    I know I HOPE that we can transition to horizontal landers, but I think we’ll be using capsules primarily for the next 10 years. I think Dream Chaser is a good start if it can become operational, and we’ll see how it is used and how it performs – that should give future spacecraft builders (or those that want to be) a good idea which type of design they should pursue.

    I could definitely see a market for cargo-only HTHL (Horizontal Takeoff, Horizontal Landing) vehicle, and let that evolve into a larger multi-purpose one. The challenge is that larger capsules and just about any kind of HTHL are going to require either clever designs or deep pockets, so I think it will take the market a while to develop them.

    With the limited amounts of money coming from NASA and the initial commercial ventures, it’s going to take a while to evolve follow-on vehicles. But this initial group of vehicles will give us a great start.

  • DCSCA

    @Justin Kugler wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 7:25 am

    Paper projections, paper space projects, no more, no less. ISS represents past planning pre-Age of Austerity and is not a justifiable expense to U.S. taxpayers in this era. American participation in ISS acitivities should begin to wind down and commence around 2015. Projects are for splash in 2020 and any proposals to fund operations past 2020 are pie in the sky, at least on the backs of U.S. taxpayers. If other participating countries (and any new leasees in the wings, such as the PRC) wanna foot the bill to keep the turkey aloft, let’em pay the freight. But not Americans. It represents past planning and has yet to produce anything of value to justify its costs to taxpayers to date, especially in an era when the U.S. government has to borrow 43 cents of every dollar it spends.

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
    Badly? You’d do well to bone up on the technological advances reprsented in space shuttle compared to the previous generation of manned spacecraft. Shuttle is/was an engineering advance on a par with Apollo, albeit less glamorous. Perhaps the only thing we may agree on is that the managment of shuttle operations has been very poor. and that’s a management flaw, not the fault of the technology. The engineering and the state of the vehicle is what it is. Half a century isn’t bad at all, compared to SpaceX– which as flown NOBODY. As to ‘misstatements,’ we can take the time to go back to threads in months past to quote your own words back to embarrass you further or to simply nullify your HSF commentary in general but why take the time. Suffice to say your position is well known by regular readers. But to compare NASA’s half century of accomplishments in HSF to SpaceX’s failure to fly anyone to date is uncharacteristicly lame on your part. The quickest way for SpaceX and the Musketeers to establish any validity in commercial HSF is to crew a Dragon with some humans, launch it into orbit and return them safely. Then do it again. Even a sub-orbital flight would add some credibility. Won’t happen. And we all know why. More’s the pity.

    @Stephen C. Smith wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 8:22 am
    “Hey, Mercury has never flown with a human on board, we better not launch Alan Shepard!” You best refamiliarize yourself with the risk assessments facing NASA, Kraft and his team before Shepard’s M/R flight, which was preceeded with a few unmanned and monkied test flights to verify systems as best they could at the time. Kraft has stated in his memoirs that he was working with a missile technology with a 60% reliability factor- or if you like, a 40% chance of failure based on past performance and NASA still launched Shepard– a test pilot BTW– well aware of the dangers involved. The odds weren’t much better for Glenn’s M/A system either. The real story today is the NASA management of 2011 would never have launched Shepard with those odds because it would have risked their budgets for the next year.

  • Scott Bass

    Since NASA announced the 200 million dollar space gas station study it brought up a question maybe you guys can help me with. They are specifying liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen and that just sets off alarms in my mind because of the inherent danger ……..would some alternative fuel be better, wasnt the fuel used on the lunar lander less volatile ?

  • DCSCA

    @amightywind wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 8:17 am
    LOL If you’re comparing Dragon to a laundry truck then Soyuz is most definely akin to FedEx: ‘when it absolutely positively has to get there.’ Which leaves space shuttle as the USPS. The slippage for STS-134 is the pinnacle of embarrassment and right in character for the managment in place at the NASA of 2011. It’s the ‘sad stuff.’ Wolfe should write a sequel.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
    Postscript-
    Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 4:17 pm– “First I really dont care that we (the US or humanity or whatever) goes to the Moon or Mars or an asteroid in the next 10-20 years. I dont think that there is any need to send people we have good robotics which can do the job at far lower cost.” ‘Nuff said.

  • pathfinder_01

    “Since NASA announced the 200 million dollar space gas station study it brought up a question maybe you guys can help me with. They are specifying liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen and that just sets off alarms in my mind because of the inherent danger ……..would some alternative fuel be better, wasnt the fuel used on the lunar lander less volatile ?”

    All rocket propellant are explosion dangers. The propellants used on the lunar lander was more storable but it is very toxic. Lox Hydrogen are in theory the best chemical propellants in terms of ISP but storage of hydrogen is difficult. The propellant used in the lunar lander was hypergolic meaning they exploded on contact with each other.

  • They are specifying liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen and that just sets off alarms in my mind because of the inherent danger

    Why is oxygen/hydrogen more inherently dangerous than propellants that ignite on contact?

  • “Dreamchaser is planned to be able to land anywhere a 737 can land and probably can indeed perform a runway landing at a realistic mass. Heck the shuttle stubby wings don’t provide that much lift yet it does.”

    I’ve read this, but as i said if there is any data to indicate that an unpowered lifting body can land on a runway with the actual gross weight it would have as a spacecraft, I would like to see it. The early 60’s experiments were basically flying mockups a quarter the weight of an actual spacecraft, and they landed pretty hot. The Shuttle has conventional wings and is about at the limit for runway landing. The X-37 was a logical evolution from the Shuttle; keeping the delta wing for high hypersonic L/D and pretty good flare characteristics, but moving the wings forward to the mid-fuselage and adding a V-tail for better pitch trim authority and CG range, while ditching the vertical fin, which is shadowed in the entry shock and of little use during entry.

    It”s a matter of basic aerodynamics; the requirements for a good wing are so different from the requirements for a good fuselage that it is difficult to make one shape do both well. The lifting body originated as an intuitively attractive conceptual idea, but it is hard for me to see how it is a logical consequence of theory and experiment.

  • red

    “The things you’re talking about are ~$1M-$500M investments. It’s hard to justify a $20-30B platform to perform activities that cost 1/40th or less without that platform. It’s like buying a car so you can listen to the radio. It’s an irrational justification, and you’re better just buying a radio.”

    I agree that such things don’t justify an Orion-based MPCV. I just meant that, to continue the analogy, since we apparently are being forced to buy and perhaps sort of drive this unaffordable car that we don’t need, it would nice if we could at least use some of the money to outfit it with a radio that we might be able to also use in the affordable cars we really need. Or, maybe if we’re going to have to take that car on an expensive test drive, it might be nice if we could use that test drive to do something useful like get some lunch.

    It certainly doesn’t justify the expense and lost opportunity of an Orion-based MPCV. The only thing I can think of that would justify that would be the scenario where the Orion political forces separate from the SLS, go with EELVs, and use their political power (combined with other interests like Science, Commercial Space, technology, etc) to stop the idea of a Shuttle-derived SLS, freeing up that funding for other (presumably NASA) uses. I’d be a loyal fan of Orion if that happened, in spite of its cost.

    The way I see the MPCV, the Authorization Act defines the SLS as “the follow-on government-owned civil launch system developed, managed, and operated by NASA to serve as a key component to expand human presence beyond low-Earth orbit.” There is no such definition for the MPCV, so the way I read it the MPCV does not need to be (or is not supposed to be) government-owned or managed and operated by NASA. In addition, the MPCV needs “The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-elements, and commercial operations.” That doesn’t sound like a purely Orion system. It seems to mean the MPCV could be a vehicle whose components include perhaps a CCDEV (or other, such as Orbital) module for LEO and ISS access/return, combined with perhaps a purely in-space module for BEO or servicing missions. These need to include, or at least “continue to advance development of”, components of the Orion design (parts of ECLSS, computer chips, solar panels, whatever matches). All of this would have to be capable of being launched by the SLS (but other rockets are not ruled out).

  • Justin Kugler

    And that is just your opinion, DCSCA. The Program is not planning to terminate operations in 2020.

  • Major Tom

    “Since NASA announced the 200 million dollar space gas station study it brought up a question maybe you guys can help me with. They are specifying liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen and that just sets off alarms in my mind because of the inherent danger ……..would some alternative fuel be better, wasnt the fuel used on the lunar lander less volatile ?”

    For in-space burns, unless you’re willing to try really exotic and toxic stuff like flourine oxidizers, LH2/LOX is the most efficient chemical propellant combination possible. LH2 is low density and has to be kept colder than other propellants, which increases the mass of its tanks and storage system. But as long as you’re not carrying that extra mass in the early stages of a launch vehicle to get out of a large gravity well (like Earth), those disadvantages are outweighed by the ~30-40% Isp advantage that LH2/LOX has over most other propellants.

    CH4/LOX is a contender, but it only becomes really competitive if Mars ISRU is part of the equation. This was considered for the Altair lunar lander early in the Constellation Program but quickly dropped as that program ran into budget and schedule problems and could not afford the additional development associated with relatively immature CH4 engine technology.

    Either way, you have to manage two out of three cryogenic propellants (LH2 or CH4 and LOX) and keep too many of their vapors from building up dangerous pressure, escaping, or mixing. LH2 is somewhat harder to keep from building up dangerous pressure and/or escaping than CH4, and you have to do that anyway for the LOX in either case. But LH2 is not going to be anymore “volatile” (i.e., burn explosively) than CH4 unless it’s allowed to mix with an oxidizer like LOX. It’s not like the Hindenburg burning in an oxygen-rich atmosphere.

    It’s important to note that most human space exploration architectures require LH2/LOX storage, even those that involve very large HLVs. Unless you’re launching everything on a single launch vehicle (like Apollo did on Saturn V), an LH2/LOX transit stage put into space on one launch will have to wait for the crew, lander, or other elements put into space by a second launch vehicle. Thus, whether we call it an transit stage or a propellant depot and whether the propellant gets topped off or not, this cryogenic propellant storage technology is desperately needed and on the critical path, regardless of whether we ever build another HLV. The Constellation Program was in denial about this, focusing on the launch vehicles (Ares I and Ares V) instead of the key technologies that would have allowed them (or any other LVs) to work together in operationally realistic scenarios.

    FWIW…

  • DCSCA

    @Scott Bass wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    If memory serves LL fuels were hypergolic.

  • Rhyolite

    “would some alternative fuel be better, wasnt the fuel used on the lunar lander less volatile ?”

    I don’t think anyone would describe UDMH/NTO as less volatile. They’re toxic, corrosive and hypergolic (ignites on contact). Their only advantage is that they are storable at room temp.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 8:24 pm

    I gave up trying to elicit any intelligent response from you long ago, so I’m just pointing this out so everyone else can remind you of it for years to come. You said:

    American participation in ISS acitivities should begin to wind down and commence around 2015.

    Congress, through PUBLIC LAW 111-267, disagrees with you:

    SEC. 501. CONTINUATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION THROUGH 2020.

    (a) POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.—It shall be the policy of the United States, in consultation with its international partners in the ISS program, to support full and complete utilization of the ISS through at least 2020.

    and

    SEC. 502. MAXIMUM UTILIZATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.
    (a) IN GENERAL.

    With assembly of the ISS complete, NASA shall take steps to maximize the productivity and use of the ISS with respect to scientific and technological research and development, advancement of space exploration, and international collaboration.

    Congress is not “winding down” ISS activity, but instead is directing NASA to MAXIMIZE ISS activity through AT LEAST 2020. Get a clue.

  • Das Boese

    Dennis Berube wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 2:05 pm

    I think, that if a commercial venture, like SpaceX can get a manned mission into space and return it safely to Earth, then and only then, will the doubt vanish.

    You’re dreaming. The “doubt” expressed about commercial space ventures isn’t grounded in reality, the people who indulge in it are either delusional or posturing for their own political or economic gain. That won’t just go away.

    Sadly that attempt is still aways off!

    It’s closer than anything NASA can come up with.

    As to the ISS, I think it will keep running for as long as our government wantsit to operate. When the money for it evaporates, so too will the station.

    You’re not the sole operator of ISS. Should the US decide to end their engagement, it is likely only some of the US modules will be deorbited while the Russian segment and possibly Columbus or Kibo stay on orbit.
    But luckily, that is still a ways off.

    If Bigelow can develope his inflatable station, just maybe there will no longer be a need for the ISS. Time will tell.

    Bigelow’s station is an attractive commercial venture, but it’s no ISS replacement and was never meant as such. Bigelow’s is primarily a microgravity platform. ISS is much more than that, it’s a multi-purpose astronomical observatory, remote sensing platform, vacuum materials testing facility and orbital construction platform. It has more electrical power, more bandwidth and can accomodate half a dozen docked spacecraft at a time.

  • Das Boese

    vulture4 wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    There need not be such a dichotomy between lifting bodies and capsules with parachutes. Remember the X-38, which reentered as a lifting body and made its final approach using a large parafoil wing.

    I don’t know, I don’t think there’s been a lot of modern research into lifting bodies that could ultimately answer your question, which I think is kinda sad because IMO lifting bodies are still an attractive area of research. Perhaps some of the results from NASA’s own blended wing body could be used to try and find new, better shapes.

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ May 10th, 2011 at 1:49 am

    Yes, remind me of the VSE; of Constellation, too. Or the X-30; or the X-33. You just don’t get it: – the gravy train is over. Legislation is quite meaningless w/o funding to back any of it. See Constellation most recently for details. Just like privatizing shuttle and making it profitable was, too. Don’t be so myopic. You may be in for some sobering realities as shuttle ends. Because Americans won’t miss it– and already care little about the ISS. As of now the United States government is borrowing 43 cents of every dollar it spends and it is not going to commit dwindling resources in out years to an absurdly expensive aerospace boondoggle like the ISS beyond nor is it going to subsidize commerical HSF firms which cannot convince private investment from capital markets due to the high risk and low return. The U.S. is broke. Retirees in Florida and around the land want necessities like their Medicare kept flush not wasted on the ISS. Luxuries like the ISS benefit the few, not the many, and are glaringly obtuse in the Age of Austerity. It is not a justifiable expense any more than Constellation was in its last configuration. ISS crews spend more time maintaining it than conducting any research of value. It has returned nothing to justify its expense in 2011 and beyond. It is an aerospace works project from another era.

    The space program can no longer be a jobs program: [As late as 2008, Joe Biden, ‘beaming with confidence,’ told some 2,000 supporters on Florida’s Space Coast … that America’s space program was more than just about sending humans to the moon (before his boss cancelled Constellation): it was about jobs.- source, Orlando Sentinel.] It can no longer be a massive works project for bloated aerospace contractors and their subcontractors. The U.S. cannot afford it. Not in the Age of Austerity.

    The Congressional Record is littered with legislation mandating NASA do this or that then have it vectored in a new direction within an election cycle, adding costs, forcing endless redesigns, contractual modifications or just outright cancellation. The shift to BEO planning has started and out year LEO projects like the ISS drains scarce funding.

    LEO is a ticket to no place. It represents past planning. Old thinking. Of going in circles.

    Per the new budget proposals:”… space operations, which includes the shuttle and station programs, drops $1.16 billion to $4.3 billion in 2012. All of those funding levels are frozen through 2016–projected spending in 2013 through 2016 etc., etc….–and until Congress gives its final approval, design details and target dates are nebulous.”- source, news.cnet.com It has already begun. Good grief, the legislative landscape is littered with dead/doomed aerospace projects; X-30; X-33; Constellation… American commitments to the ISS will diminish as HLV and Orion development progresses for BEO operations. Skylab splashed; Salyuts splashed; MIR splashed. So will the ISS– the sooner, the better for the U.S. Treasury. Yes, you best get a clue, because the vast majority of Americans won’t be bothered by it much and applaud the billions in savings. The ISS won’t miss it at all anymore than shuttle. You commerical HSF advocates best watch how Branson does it. With paying passengers. Next year. That’s the next logical step in commerical HSF.

  • DCSCA

    @Das Boese wrote @ May 10th, 2011 at 5:07 am
    Most likely any U.S. ISS modules would remain on orbit and the U.S. would lease/sell their use to commerical or other interested governments, provided no vital ‘technology transfer’ is at risk. Mkes for a good bargaining chip in Geithner’s pocket. Americans are pretty good at sinking huge amounts of money into big ‘construction’ projects, abandoning them under varying conditions and moving on. See Vietnam (or more recently, Iraq) for similar patterns of behavior. Or for that matter, Apollo.

    @Justin Kugler wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
    Hmmm. Never met a government program ‘planning’ to terminate itself at all–until it was cancelled. See Shuttle and Constellation for details. If it wasn’t for the VSe, NASA would have just kept flying shuttle well into the 20-teens, as ‘planning’ projected pre-Columbia. Good grief.

  • Dennis Berube

    Mr. Boese, What do you mean its sooner than what NASA can come up with? They still have two shuttle flights to go. That is sooner than any commercial venture I know about. As to ISS, if NASA wants to end its participation in the project, maybe Russia will take it over, or perhaps it could be sold on E Bay? Probably some buyers out there. Meanwhile China plans its station, Russia its commercial ventures, Russia a commerical Moon mission, andSpaceX its plans. NASA is planning trips outward bound from Earth. I do think that it will come about, but how history will dictate the results remain to be seen.

  • Dennis Berube

    As to lifting bodies vrs. capsules. Are not capsules better at those high speed deep space return velocities? Skip glide re-entries etc. etc.. Also they make for easier launch escape systems to be built in. Just a thought.

  • Justin Kugler

    DCSCA, as Ron pointed out, the Station budget isn’t going down any time soon. Continuation of the ISS is perhaps the one thing Congress and the White House agree upon. Your opinions simply have no relation to what’s really going on. This is the era of ISS utilization.

  • Teddy Ballgame

    Trouble in New Mexico. Commercial space future in doubt?

    http://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-news/ci_18019339

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 8:24 pm

    You wrote:
    “Badly? You’d do well to bone up on the technological advances reprsented in space shuttle compared to the previous generation of manned spacecraft.”

    Technology advances for the sake of technology are pretty useless unless the technology itself meets other goals. And the goals for the shuttle which prompted the policy changes to build and continue the shuttle were clearly NOT met by the technology.

    Hence while anyone can be “impressed” with the effort, they barely get a C for trying…because on everything else, they got an F.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Scott Bass

    Thanks for the answers on the fuel depot types, it still hits me that the best way forward would be a no maintenance, no expiration date storage solution ….. If the tech needs to be invented then it is far better to spend those research dollars now, after all we will probably be stuck with this infrastructure for the next 100 years or more. Murphys law should be heeded….. But if the article I read was correct then the decision has already been made, no contractor is going to present a different system than the one specified

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ May 10th, 2011 at 6:09 am

    Yes, remind me of the VSE

    The VSE was an aspirational document, not a funded program in of itself. Can you point to a line item in the budget that says “VSE program”?

    of Constellation, too. Or the X-30; or the X-33

    I know it’s tough understanding the world when all your information comes from 40 year old sources, but this is way things tend to work:

    “A funded program that becomes operational tends to stay funded, whereas a funded program that is not operational, no matter how big it is, can be easily cancelled at the whims of Congress.”

    The ISS is operational, is international, and in the eyes of Congress only needs a small sustaining budget (~3B/year) that, most importantly, provides a steady flow of work to many districts across the country.

    The Shuttle is further proof of my theorem, as it never hit any of it’s cost, safety or operational goals, but since it worked, it kept being funded.

    LEO is a ticket to no place.

    Comments like that are further proof that you just like to argue, and are not really interested in human expansion into space.

  • Trouble in New Mexico. Commercial space future in doubt?

    The future of commercial space is not dependent on New Mexico.

  • common sense

    @ vulture4 wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    “It”s a matter of basic aerodynamics; the requirements for a good wing are so different from the requirements for a good fuselage that it is difficult to make one shape do both well. ”

    Absolutely. And the wings are a distraction in as much as they are needed pretty much only for flare at landing. The delta wing at hypersonic speed does not do much, it does at supersonic speed. Yet there are shock impingement issues with a double delta such as that on Shuttle. A lifting body, if used as a well lifting body does not need wings or fins or anything, just like a capsule.

    “The lifting body originated as an intuitively attractive conceptual idea, but it is hard for me to see how it is a logical consequence of theory and experiment.”

    Again there are advantages with a lifting body enumerated above in the thread. But in no ways are these requirements. Requirements are dictated by the mission.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Concerning the lifting bodies vs capsules – Why are we discussing it here? Fundamentally, the decision shouldn’t be a political issue – its a technical issue, that I submit would be best determined in the marketplace, rather than at a political level

  • common sense

    @ vulture4 wrote @ May 9th, 2011 at 9:55 pm

    Oh and btw. Actual lifting bodies will always land hot because of the conflicting requirements between hypersonic velocity and landing velocity. If you do not satisfy the hypersonic requirements well you will not land whatsoever. The only option would be to have variable geometry but the mass and complexity will not make it happen.

    There was this vehicle from the USSR though. read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-105

  • Coastal Ron

    Ferris Valyn wrote @ May 10th, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    Fundamentally, the decision shouldn’t be a political issue – its a technical issue, that I submit would be best determined in the marketplace, rather than at a political level

    Agreed, although that’s not always what happens. The decision to build the SLS has been political so far (no funded use for it other than bragging rights).

    If the Skylon were to actually succeed, I could see our politicians demanding an SSTO program to compete, not unlike the SST program of the 60’s to compete with the Concorde.

    Luckily this shouldn’t be a near-term issue, as capsules are likely to rule for a while…

  • common sense

    @ Ferris Valyn wrote @ May 10th, 2011 at 12:21 pm

    “Fundamentally, the decision shouldn’t be a political issue – its a technical issue, that I submit would be best determined in the marketplace, rather than at a political level”

    I think I know what you mean but a technological issue is better discussed inside whatever organization is trying to perform the mission. I don’t know if I would say the “marketplace”. For example if NASA were in charge then they ought to decide. Not the marketplace, not the politicians. Marketplace and politics interfere with the best technical approach all the time. Now if you mean each individual entity be it on the market or government then I agree. See technical solutions are already quite often devalued by managers inside an organization who don’t know any better. Anyway.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Why is oxygen/hydrogen more inherently dangerous than propellants that ignite on contact?

    I don’t think it would be more (or less) dangerous for the scenario we’re talking about. It would be different for a launch vehicle (which is part of the reason Mercury didn’t use an escape tower but ejection seat), but not enough of a reason to choose to have to deal with corrosive, toxic and carcinogenic propellants.

    See, I don’t prefer hypergolics everywhere. ;-)

  • Martijn Meijering

    Their only advantage is that they are storable at room temp.

    Density and hypergolicity itself are also advantages as is the ability to use proven positive expulsion devices.

  • Martijn Meijering

    The propellant used in the lunar lander was hypergolic meaning they exploded on contact with each other.

    It combusts on contact, it doesn’t detonate because it doesn’t have enough time to form an explosive mixture. That was part of the considerations for Mercury.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Coastal Ron

    Luckily this shouldn’t be a near-term issue, as capsules are likely to rule for a while…

    I wasn’t thinking capsules vs something like Skylon, but rather capsules vs spaceplanes (ala Dreamchaser or Prometheus). Unless you were using the idea of capsules to mean something launched a top an existing rocket.

    common sense – yea, it’d be better to have phrased it as the various end users, rather than the marketplace. (Yes, I know there are liberals everywhere gasping at what I said :D ).

    The larger point I am kinda trying to get at is there is this preference to consider this purely from a technical side with the assumption that what we in general (and to a degree NASA in particular) needs to do is pick the one thing that will work. In other words, it becomes a purely technical discussion. And yes, while thats important to the individual user, its most definitely not how you build an industry or society, which is what we really need to be focused on.

    (and yes, I know I am speaking to the converted with both common sense, and Coastal Ron)

  • Ferris Valyn

    Martijn

    (which is part of the reason Mercury didn’t use an escape tower but ejection seat),

    I think you are thinking of Gemini, not Mercury.

  • Martijn Meijering

    would some alternative fuel be better, wasnt the fuel used on the lunar lander less volatile ?

    Perhaps avoiding LH2 (say with LOX/methane) could be a useful intermediate step, but remember that this is a technology demonstrator, not an operational vehicle (although it would be wise to try to wring something out of it). There would be no point in using hypergolics like the ones used for the Apollo LM (or Orion, Dragon, CST-100, ATV, HTV, Shuttle, satellites, probes…) on a technology demonstrator since the technology has long been proven. It has seen continuous operational service ever since Salyut 6 in 1978 and is used today on the ISS every time it is refueled by Progress or ATV. And if you only use mild cryogens, you don’t get that much of an advantage over non-cryogenic propellants. My vote would be for LOX/LH2.

    Of course I would prefer it if they left depot development to the market and focussed their energies on creating the demand by building an operational deep space spacecraft based on Orion (but probably unmanned at first). That would be a perfect application for hypergolics.

  • Rhyolite

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ May 10th, 2011 at 1:56 pm

    “Density and hypergolicity itself are also advantages as is the ability to use proven positive expulsion devices.”

    I’ll grant that those can be advantages. Density in particular, which leads to lower dry mass weights, is one of the reasons that the difference in system performance between storables and LH2/LOX is not as great as the difference in Isps would suggest.

    Still, when every-pound-is-precious and cost-is-no-object, LH2/LOX comes out on top. The interesting question is whether LH2/LOX would still be worth the hassle if we can get way from the mode where every-pound-is-precious and cost-is-no-object.

  • Martijn Meijering

    @Major Tom:

    A thoughful post from a thoughtful poster and I agree with much of what you say, but I strongly disagree with what you say below:

    Thus, whether we call it an transit stage or a propellant depot and whether the propellant gets topped off or not, this cryogenic propellant storage technology is desperately needed and on the critical path, regardless of whether we ever build another HLV.

    It’s not on the critical path and that is an important consideration if you’re in a hurry to stimulate commercial development of space, manned exploration or both. I wish people would either stop saying it is or explain to me why my reasoning is wrong. I don’t expect that from our trolls, but as I said above you are a thoughtful poster, not a troll.

    While we probably do “need” cryogenics (in the sense that it would be unreasonably inefficient not to use them) to get out of the Earth’s gravity well, we don’t need it after we get there, or very close to it at L1/L2. And to get to L1/L2 we don’t need the ability to refuel an EDS just yet, just the ability to use it. A Centaur can be launched fully fueled on an EELV Heavy (in a sort of three stage configuration) and would only need minor boil-off mitigation (days to a week) and no propellant transfer. The necessary modifications are detailed on the ULA website.

    So we need cryogenics, we need propellant transfer but we don’t need cryogenic propellant transfer specifically, although we should certainly want it. But it is most definitely not on the critical path and no more of a game changer than high Isp deep space propulsion.

    What we really need is cheap lift and any kind of propellant transfer can help us achieve it and once we have cheap lift any kind of propellant transfer would allow commercial lunar surface activity. Cryogenic depots are no more than gravy.

    Perhaps on balance some people would choose to wait for cryogenic depots, and that’s fine but that would be a separate argument. I maintain it’s not on the critical path and I would appreciate it if people made the distinction and could either agree it isn’t or explain what’s wrong with my reasoning.

  • Martijn Meijering

    I think you are thinking of Gemini, not Mercury.

    Good call, thanks!

  • Martijn Meijering

    The interesting question is whether LH2/LOX would still be worth the hassle if we can get way from the mode where every-pound-is-precious and cost-is-no-object.

    That’s a very interesting question indeed. That’s what I was thinking of in my remark about commercial lunar surface operations. I would expect that LOX/LH2 would still win out, especially with ISRU. Only if LOX/LH2 depots proved impossible or if cheap lift emerged before cryogenic depots would I expect commercial lunar operations to use noncryogenic propellants and both scenarios seem unlikely. Then again, if Musk can achieve the prices he is aiming for with FH it could happen.

  • DCSCA

    @Justin Kugler wrote @ May 10th, 2011 at 7:11 am
    Nonsense. In fact, in terms of real dollars, it’s winding down even before it’s techinally complete. You are generating paper and projecting a paper rationale for a make work project, as all bureaucracies do, which may make you part of the problem, not the solution. You best start understanding that “The Program” doesn’t decide if it is funded for survival, Congress does. A LEO boondoggle like the ISS is a massive waste of increasingly dwindling resources as focus shifts to BEO. LEO is a ticket to no place. ISS has yet to justify itself and in the Age of Austerity is increasingly obtuse. It’s a luxury reprsenting planning from the past at a time when necessities have become a national priority. And it certainly will not be funded for silly projections out to “2030.” Best you worry about 2013. Vain attempts to perpetuate a program that has yet to justify itselt with continued investment from a government that’s practically broke falls on deaf ears: a government that is borrowing 43 cents of every dollar it spends. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? The gravy train is over. The ISS is an aerospace works project– no more, no less. It is not ‘space exploration.’ It is a massive waste of dwindling resources. Nothing would make this writer happer than if you could justify ISS spending in the Age of Austerity. But you simply can’t. Ron’s trying to keep the gravy train flush. Without a government funded LEO ‘destination,’ struggling ‘commerical’ space firms vying for contracts and/or government subsidies to service a space station will wither and die. That’s why Branson’s ‘ticket-to-ride’ is the next logical step. Paying passengers on suborbital jaunts. They want it coming and going– socializing risk on the backs of the many to profit a few. And that simply is not going to fly in this era. Boehner again recently that the country is broke. Seniors need their Medicare funded; retirees expect their SS to remain solvent; roads are overdue for repaired; bridges need built; schools refurbished, etc., The national infrastructure is crumbling. Necessities in need of repair. The ISS is not a necessity. The ISS is a luxury. But if you can convince this writer that the ISS returns justify continued massive expense and funding from a government borroring 43 sents of every dolalr it spends, do so. It’s a very, very hard sell. See Constellation for details.

    @ Coastal Ron wrote @ May 10th, 2011 at 10:23 am
    FYI, X-30, X-33 and especially Constellation are not ’40 year old’ programs. Would be a surprise to Reaganites, the Clintons, Bushies and Obama folks. But if you want to pick through the Congressional record for doomed aerospace projects (or big science projects like the super collider) killed by budget cuts, feel free to do so– you’ll find plenty. You rationale for perpetuating existing projects might have beenvalid 20 years ago but not in the Age of Austerity. Killing Constellation, which had infrastructure in place (like a launch pad,) should have taught you something. Skylab was in place; splashed, killed off, etc., etc. The ISS is not even totally completed and you deem it ‘operational’ yet and in its stunted configuration has yet to deliver any results to justify past and future expense in out years with 43 cents of every dollar spent by the government, borrowed. It’s an aerospace works project, no more, no less. And it saps dwindling resources from newer projects. And whether you like it or not, LEO is a ticket to no place– going in circles– now a half-century old accomplishment, is not ‘expanding the human presence in space.’ But it’s easy to see why you’d try to label it otherwise as it does try to perpetuate contractors/sub-contractor/suppliers– at taxpayer expense, doesn’t it.

    After re-reading the CAIB report last month and witnessing STS-134’s inexcusable slippages, poor managment remains a fixture at NASA. And the fundamental question facing HSF advocates, commerical and government-funded, remains- why are we putting people in space. Expanding the human presence out into space and exploration are valid arguments, but ‘going in circles’ in LEO is not space exploration. It was in 1961. It is not in 2011 and beyond.

  • Major Tom

    “So we need cryogenics, we need propellant transfer but we don’t need cryogenic propellant transfer specifically, although we should certainly want it. ”

    We’re in violent agreement. Repeating what I posted above, my comments focused on long-term, in-space cryogenic storage, not transfer, being the critical path technology:

    “It’s important to note that most human space exploration architectures require LH2/LOX storage, even those that involve very large HLVs. Unless you’re launching everything on a single launch vehicle (like Apollo did on Saturn V), an LH2/LOX transit stage put into space on one launch will have to wait for the crew, lander, or other elements put into space by a second launch vehicle. Thus, whether we call it an transit stage or a propellant depot and whether the propellant gets topped off or not, this cryogenic propellant storage technology is desperately needed and on the critical path, regardless of whether we ever build another HLV.”

    FWIW…

  • Justin Kugler

    DCSCA, it’s you who has trouble comprehending. Congress has shown no signs that it will cut funding for the ISS any time in the near future. They created its function as a National Laboratory and have made clear they want to see that function carried out. Nothing is “winding down.” We have a nearly full manifest for external payloads and are pushing the limits of available crewtime for utilization.

    The ISS is the only destination for manned spaceflight for the next several years. It is the only platform we have for continued on-orbit development of human space exploration technologies, especially since Congress eliminated the Flagship Tech Demos proposed in the FY2011 budget. It will be home to AMS and numerous other scientific instruments for its lifetime. It is a national asset that has already been bought and paid for. Besides, I don’t think NASA HSF could survive eliminating it before BEO missions begin.

    The argument is there. You just don’t want to hear it. You instead prevaricate over issues that eliminating ISS funding wouldn’t even begin to solve.

  • Martijn Meijering

    We’re in violent agreement. Repeating what I posted above, my comments focused on long-term, in-space cryogenic storage, not transfer, being the critical path technology:

    I see, I conflated the two in my reply. But I think my argument also applies to long term storage of cryogens, we only need very short term storage of cryogens (days to a week) combined with long term storage (and transfer) of noncryogenic propellants to get this started.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 10th, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    “Nonsense. In fact, in terms of real dollars, it’s winding down even before it’s techinally complete.”

    I am certain that is not a valid metric…cost should go down as construction ends…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ May 10th, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    “The Program” doesn’t decide if it is funded for survival, Congress does.

    And Congress did decide to fund it, but unfortunately you can’t comprehend what they wrote (I posted the law above). Poor guy, you know there is night school classes that could help you.

    FYI, X-30, X-33 and especially Constellation are not ’40 year old’ programs.

    I said YOU only look at 40 year old documents – see, there’s that comprehension problem again.

    Killing Constellation, which had infrastructure in place (like a launch pad,)

    Constellation had pieces and parts laying around, but Ares I was a paper rocket, and Orion only existed in the real world as an empty shell. If that is your definition of an operational program, no wonder you’re confused.

    The ISS is not even totally completed…

    By that standard my 30 year old house wouldn’t be “operational” since I keep making changes to it, but yet it’s been functional as a living space for these 30 years. You need to get out more and see how the world really works.

    Skylab was in place

    Skylab was a first attempt at building, operating and living on a space station for us, and it taught us a lot of stuff that likely went into the ISS. But the key reason it was abandoned was because it would have been too costly to keep using it – Skylab had not been designed for extensive resupply. What should have happened was it should have been evolved, but instead the budget went to the Shuttle. C’est la vie.

    It’s funny that you’re defending Skylab, especially since you think space stations in LEO are pointless. And that is why I say your frame of references are 40 years old, since you think everything 40 years ago was great, and nothing meets your standards today. You’re the prototypical old codger who only complains and doesn’t contribute.

    And on that point I’d love to be proved wrong – can you do more than complain? If LEO isn’t the right place, then what is in your view, and how do we get there long term? Do you have any ideas of your own?

  • DCSCA

    @Justin Kugler wrote @ May 10th, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    “It [the ISS] is a national asset that has already been bought and paid for.”

    Who are you kidding, aside from yourself? The ISS has NOT been ‘bought and paid for.’ It is on Uncle Sam’s credit card. Do you understand that 43 cents of every dollar the United States Treasury spends now is borrowed and that percentage, left unchecked, will continue to rise? Do you comprehend that you are attempting to sell Congress and the American people to continue funding a project the United States can no longer afford and has yet to return anything to reasonably justify past and future expenditures? Do you understand that the space program is NOT a jobs program for folks like you? And contrary to your assertions per the new budget proposals:”… space operations, which includes the shuttle and station programs, drops $1.16 billion to $4.3 billion in 2012. All of those funding levels are frozen through 2016–projected spending in 2013 through 2016 etc.,” Congress knows the ISS is a flying turkey, sopping up dwindling resources and flying on borrowed cash and borrowed time. So do Americans, if they give it any thought at all. During the last shuttle mission, 11 people were on orbit there and nobody knows what they were doing up there aside from spinning around and mugging for cameras. Crews spend more time maintaining the station than doing any real productive research. It’s a boondoggle. You can list all the manifests full of experiments, gadgets and gimmicks you want but all that matters is results- and you have yet to delineate any thing of value garnered from the billions poured into the ISS. It has been a 20 year works program for the aerospace industry, no more, no less. What a waste.

    “The ISS is the only destination for manned spaceflight for the next several years.” Going in circles is not a destination. And shuttle was its own destination for years before the ISS. LEO is literally a ticket to no place. BEO is, “the only destination for manned spaceflight for the next several years” but you are trying to justify draining off dwindling resources to fund an aerospace works project that represents past planning; has no viable future; has yet to return anything to justify the massive investment in it to date and quite literally condemns the United States to continue going in circles. What you want to do is maintain a useless platform as a ‘destination’ so commercial space/HSF folks can pitch Congress for subsidies to develop LEO space vehicles which are tickets to no place as well. It’s make work for you and make work for them- all nice and cozy with the risks socialized on the many to profit a few, all at the taxpayer’s expense. Yet you still cannot justify why the ISS should be funded; have yet to present any thing it has produced for the costs thus far and yet continue to believe the boodoggle should be funded on borrowed monies out into ‘2030.’ It’s absurd. When Edison sought funding for his lab, his backers told him to develop things he could sell. The ISS isn’t doing that. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution and it represents the kind of management thinking powers outside the space agency must clean out of NASA. Ending shuttle is a start. The ISS is next. It is old thinking; old planning and a luxury completely out of sync with the pragmatic necessities needing attention in the Age of Austerity.

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ May 10th, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    You just don’t get it. The gravy train is over.
    “… space operations, which includes the shuttle and station programs, drops $1.16 billion to $4.3 billion in 2012. All of those funding levels are frozen through 2016–projected spending in 2013 through 2016 etc.,”

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 10th, 2011 at 7:08 pm

    Uh-huh… shuttle was supposed to be a profit center, too, and costs decline in out years. LOL That worked well, didn’t it.

  • Justin Kugler

    DCSCA, if you can’t get basic facts correct, we have no chance at having a real discussion. I am not at all interested in debating the same tired talking points that you regurgitate over and over again.

    The Space Operations budget is decreasing, but that doesn’t mean the budget for continuing ISS operations and payloads is going down. Most of that decrease you cite is coming from Shuttle retirement.

    If you look at the Apollo budget, there was a spike when facilities were first built and rocket production was ramped up. However, after that initial spike, the buying power of NASA has already settled to a relative level not too much more than what it has today. My point, which is what Robert was also saying, is that there was a peak in Station costs during the fabrication, launch, and assembly of the on-orbit facilities. Now that all of the racks are built, all of the modules are in place, and we’ve flown just about every spare we can, the cost to maintain the Station and continue operations is adjusting accordingly.

    Do you understand that we’re talking about fractions of pennies on the budget dollar here? Trying to sell killing ISS as part of solving our nation’s debt problem is intellectually dishonest when the reality is that it won’t even make a dent.

    You even acknowledge that I have posted in the past the kinds of things we’ve done on Station that have brought scientific return. I’ve also posted here all the things we are ramping up. You’ve already made up your mind, though, that nothing on the Station will ever be of enough value to you. In the meantime, I’m working on following Congress’ mandate to make the Station available to commercial and academic partners and other government agencies through the National Lab.

    With no budget other than our salaries, we’ve helped companies like NanoRacks go from paper proposal to hardware on-orbit within a year. We’ve instituted Space Act Agreements and cooperative agreements that keep the IP with the payload developers, so they can turn around and sell their products. So, for you to say that I’m part of the problem is comical. I’m one of the people helping change the way NASA does business so that we can afford to do BEO exploration.

    I at least have the courage to put my name behind what I say. I didn’t always understand why the Station is important. I even took this job fully expecting to have it go away in a few years time. Now, I understand that the ISS is the only outpost in space that we’ve got and we have to give it time to bring back the science return.

    When it comes to basic research, it takes years – if not decades – for the results to become apparent. That is why NASA is selecting a Non-Profit Organization to manage Station research, figure out what the best prioritization scheme should be, and match promising researchers with the outside funding they need.

    Besides, we have to make the fullest use of Station to bridge NASA to the next generation of exploration programs. That’s why there is now a ISS Technology Development Office at JSC now. The mistake Constellation made was that it didn’t work with what we already had available, including the ISS. Throwing everything away before the next system is ready is “old thinking” and “old planning.”

  • Coastal Ron

    Justin Kugler wrote @ May 11th, 2011 at 7:41 am

    Nice write up Justin. We’ve talked before about how the ISS program needs to do a better job of communicating what they are doing, so having someone on the program provide their perspective is very nice.

    You’re running up against the same wall I did many months ago with DCSCA, and why I generally ignore him for long periods of time – he’s not for anything. It’s one thing to be concerned about the budget, which he says he does, but basically he’s just anti-space. Oh sure the glory years of the past were OK, but nothing today is in his eyes.

    Just thought I’d pass that along.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 10th, 2011 at 9:54 pm

    “Uh-huh… shuttle was supposed to be a profit center, too, and costs decline in out years. LOL That worked well, didn’t it.”

    Two parts.

    First, and as my saintly Mother usually says “I say this kindly” one reason you and I dont do so much back and forth is that like Justin, I have a hard time going back and forth with you, even though you bring up some interesting points because a great deal of the time you dont debate back and forth….you are not Wind who is just a troll, but somethings you bring up just dont seem to be related to reality.

    Second, the above however is interesting. Shuttle as a “profit center”.

    This was one of the issues which in my view should have been thrashed out a bit more even before the “technology” of doing an affordable shuttle one that could actually meet the requirements of cost effective access to space.

    One of the earliest op eds I wrote on the shuttle system was trying to get ones arms around “how it would work”. If shuttle had worked, if it h ad been low cost access to space; replacing every rocket in the US field except Scout and Saturn…that would have fundamentally changed the nature of free enterprise; because what we would have had is private industry paying government directly for a service; not in taxes and not in user fees; but in direct sales for service…and in my view that was a nasty step on the road to having our (then) own version of British Airways.

    It was a pretty good article (for my age and level of writing maturity) in the NSS magazine. I had some notions of how we might “translate” the vehicle from pure government control to a TVA like system…

    anyway it and another article I wrote for Proceedings (The Full Deck Carrier in the next century) got a little wind in my career sails…what is interesting,m at least to me…is that I was receiving some Kudo’s from someone of note and the line that this person used to me rings in my ears even today “Nice article; however the shuttle does not stand a chance of doing half of what it was promised to do so it will never get to this point, but someday”…this person was correct and it explains to me why this person fought so hard for the USAF and other US organizations that need launch capability to hold on to its expendables.

    In my view this same issue will dog the space station.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    “Who are you kidding, aside from yourself? The ISS has NOT been ‘bought and paid for.’ It is on Uncle Sam’s credit card. Do you understand that 43 cents of every dollar the United States Treasury spends now is borrowed”

    The federal government does still take in taxes. The ISS was paid for from the those revenues, the borrowed money went to pay for the wars.

  • DCSCA

    @Vladislaw wrote @ May 11th, 2011 at 1:28 pm

    Nonsense. And FYI, Afghanistan alone is running up $10 billion/month in ‘charges’ on Uncle Sam’s credit card.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ May 11th, 2011 at 3:42 pm

    Nonsense.

    What? That the U.S. Government doesn’t still take in taxes? Don’t be an idiot.

    Or are you somehow arguing that we haven’t paid the bills for building the ISS? If so, provide a list of companies that haven’t been paid.

    And FYI, Afghanistan alone is running up $10 billion/month in ‘charges’ on Uncle Sam’s credit card.

    If you actually read what he said, that’s what he said.

    You’re so confused, you don’t even know when you’re agreeing with someone…

  • DCSCA

    @Justin Kugler wrote @ May 11th, 2011 at 7:41 am

    What’s to discuss when you assert the ISS is not paid for when it’s on Uncle Sam’s credit card. With that mind set in place (and as a multiplier across the government)it’s little wonder America is drowning in massive debt.

    Sell me your program! Justify the massive costs; show the citizenry what you’ve returned for the $100 billion investment so far. Justify the expense out to “2030” with the United States government borrowing 43 cents of every dollar it spends. You can’t. Better still, revisit Norm Augustine’s comments from 4/15/10 delivered after President Obama’s speech– it was lost in the backwash of O’s delivery and you’ll understand why funding for the ISS drains dwindling resources and all but condemns U.S. HSF to more useless LEO operations. It’s a works project for the aerospace industry, no more, no less. The problem w/t ISS is it is sailing along in circles around Earth, 250 miles up instead of being firmly anchored to the floor of the Ocean of storm, 250,000 away. And if you look at the ‘Apollo budgets’ you’ll discover an operational program (<- surprise, Ron) was terminated; the last three lunar missions cut, in spite of the fact that the hardware was already procured, wasted on ASTP and diverted into Skylab, (also an 'operational program,' Ron) which was cut- with the remaining unflown Skylab on a perch at the NASM in Washington.

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 11th, 2011 at 11:26 am

    Two points? Howza 'bout just one:

    You've pretty much nullified your positions on HSF:

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 4:17 pm “First I really dont care that we (the US or humanity or whatever) goes to the Moon or Mars or an asteroid in the next 10-20 years. I dont think that there is any need to send people we have good robotics which can do the job at far lower cost.” 'Nuff said.

    'Reality' is this: the United States government is borrowing 43 cents of every dollar it spends and in the Age of Austerity, the space projects are a luxury, not a necessity, so any funding for same requires a very hard sell for justification. ISS proponents have yet to do that.

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ May 11th, 2011 at 10:24 am
    Nonsense. You just don't like what you're reading as my position on HSF generally supports the position of Armstrong/Cernan/Lovell/Kraft/Lunney/Kranz et al, who articulated it nicely last spring– which is a government led/managed HSF program that all but starves fledgling commerical space firms- HSF or cargo- of any chance of tapping government funds as subsidies to get off the ground. My knock on Constellation (aside from Dubya failing to properly fund it) was Ares- it was way over budget for SR technology and just a lousy rocket design to build a 30 year program around. Kraft's plan of procedure pretty much lays out how the next chapter of HSF will go given the limits of the technology in this era- whether it is American led is another matter- although american participation is likely- but it is a proven methodology given the successes of Gemini and Apollo and the limits of our times. Develop a GP spacecraft (Orion) a lander; long-term habitation capability; a HLV; return to the moon, develop systems and methods for long-stays on a semi-permenent basis; refine and apply the knowledge from same (a la Gemini for Apollo) modify and adapt the vehicles for an expedition to Mars, asteroids etc.. That's pretty much lays out a HSF program for a 50-90 year time frame. And don't kid yourself- it is going to take multiple decades to move outward given environmental extremes, the costs and engineering involved. We're already 40 years on from Apollo. NASA keeps getting vectored in too many directions and tries to do too much with too little. Too many fingers in too many pies. It needs cleared out of shuttle management, streamlined and focused. These days nothing really every gets done to the fullest– or the best. One thing is certain- w/o a boondoggle 'destination' like the ISS, fledgling orbital HSF/cargo commercial space firms would have no rationale to solicit government subsidies, wither and die away in this time frame. So it's easy to see why the commercial space folks favor the ISS. It's a nice, cozy relationship– socializing the risks on the backs of the many to 'profit' a few. But it's not space exploration and going in circles is not 'expanding the human presence out into space.'

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ May 11th, 2011 at 11:26 am
    A postscript- Shuttle was originally designed as part of a shuttle/station ‘system'; it was to be a much smaller vehicle and the history- in terms of politics, design and funding- from DoD, etc., of what eventually evolved is an easy if not interesting thread to follow. No doubt it would not have evolved the same way today.

  • DCSCA

    Justin, sell me on the ISS.

    The mind set you’ve presented to me is a ‘this and that, too’ ans ‘we’ve set up an office to figure out why we should perpetuate it.’ The economics of our times in the real world is so beyond that. We’re at a ‘this OR that’ point, and soon will reach a ‘neither’ point. We’re spending $10 billion/month in Afghanistan alone. Do you pull the troops home and funnel $3 billion/year to keep NASA flush, or pour it into some other agency– or just pay off debt? We subsidize oil companies which are reaping gluttonously huge profits. Do we cut those subsidies and funnel a percentage to commercial space or Medicare or some other program that benefits the many or just pocket the savings? This is where we’re at. Our national infrastructure is literally crumbling. Our people need affordable medical care; our schools need modernized. The ‘official’ unemployment rate is at 9%– it is really most likely in the 15%- 17% range. Look at a Detroit. It’s dying. Witness the South Bronx, where the unemployment rate for African-Americans is at 24%. And you are trying to justify funding for a space station by waving an experiments manifest? By setting up another in-house NASA bureaucracy to think of ways to perpetuate the boondoggle? Fire them. Non-essential personnel. Do we maintain and invest in the necessities to rebuild the things we need on the ground or pump billions and billions more into space stations and commercial space ventures? This is where the United States is at. People are deciding between buying food or fuel. Either, or–not both. It may be unfair to single out space alone as there are plenty of other areas in government to examine, but space projects promote themselves as high profile attention getters for reasons we all know and when they blatantly foul up, as NASA did embarrassing itself yet again in front of the CIC with the STS-134 scrub given the months it had to prepare and three decades of flight experience, it only reinforces the perception in the public, that bothers to look, that space projects managed by NASA as currently organized aren’t managed very well and that kind of incompetent management has not earned consideration for future, expanded funding in the Age of Austerity. Today’s NASA is not that NASA the public remembers- the one which put men on the moon. It is bureaucratic and layered with astonishing poor management. Convince the citizenry the ISS has been worth the $100 billion investment so far. It’s a hard sell and it is going to get harder as the nation falls deeper and deeper into debt. And Ron…. yes, the government still collects taxes but still has to borrow 43 cents of every dollar it spends so no, the ISS is not paid for. Get with it and stop pretending funding space projects are some kind of special entitlement. In this day and age they’re a high profile luxury– a luxury, beyond DoD requirements, the United States increasingly cannot afford.

  • Justin Kugler

    The Technology Demonstration Office isn’t just “examining” uses for the Station. They are getting payloads ready to fly. I know because I work with them every day.

    You’re making deliberately false and emotional equivalencies to try to shame me into conceding your position on the ISS. If you don’t think space science, exploration technology research, and the experience we gain for long-duration operations by using the Station as a testbed is worth it, then I can’t sell you on it and we will just have to agree to disagree.

  • red

    Justin Kugler: “the Station budget isn’t going down any time soon. Continuation of the ISS is perhaps the one thing Congress and the White House agree upon.” … “Besides, we have to make the fullest use of Station to bridge NASA to the next generation of exploration programs.”

    I think it’s important that strong ISS use is one of the few areas that the Administration and Congress agree on. It would be good if the 2 sides would agree that this is one of the NASA areas that should have its budget considerably increased. It might even make sense to package certain of the efforts the Administration originally packaged as exploration technology demonstration missions as simply part of ISS support, use, and increased capability. These might include the AR&D vehicle (packaged and managed as an operational ISS support capability and not a technology demonstration), inflatable habitat module, and ECLSS. Expanded ISS human research could be another similar effort. A centrifuge could fit the Administration’s original research, technology, ISS use, and exploration goals, while also fitting Congress’s ISS, local jobs, and exploration goals (the House was even pushing a centrifuge).

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ May 11th, 2011 at 5:04 pm

    Nonsense. You just don’t like what you’re reading as my position…

    As someone that used to refer to themselves as “this writer”, you would think that you would have better writing skills – ever hear of paragraphs? Your rants become too tiring to read, so most of the time I don’t. You want people to read what you write? Write better.

    Develop a GP spacecraft (Orion) a lander; long-term habitation capability; a HLV; return to the moon, develop systems and methods for long-stays on a semi-permenent basis; refine and apply the knowledge from same (a la Gemini for Apollo) modify and adapt the vehicles for an expedition to Mars, asteroids etc.

    So pretty much you want government funded space activity, right? 100% paid for by the American Taxpayer? You’re a hoot!

    Here you are complaining about “the government has to borrow 43 cents of every dollar it spends” on one hand, but demanding 100% government financed (by way of China) Moon bases.

    How do you explain yourself?

    The interesting part is that most of us wouldn’t mind doing what you suggested destination-wise (not the HLV though), but we don’t see that the U.S. Taxpayer can afford to do it unless you raise their taxes dramatically – and that AIN’T gonna happen. BUT YOU DO!

    So where you want the U.S. Taxpayer to foot the entire bill, most of us would rather than we reach the Moon with more of a capitalist approach, with companies and individuals contributing to the goal – regardless how long it takes. 10, 20, 50 years. Whatever.

    But before the U.S. Taxpayer pays $Billions for your lunar dreams, you better be able to show them that you’re not going to spend $100B on some lunar outpost, and then dispose of it when you travel on to Mars – like you want to do with the ISS.

    It’s your kind of disposable thinking that keeps us from leaving LEO, and the U.S. Taxpayer wants durable value for their tax dollars, not one-shot space fantasies. You better listen to them, otherwise you won’t get your 100% government-funded space dreams.

  • common sense

    @ DCSCA wrote @ May 11th, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    “A postscript- Shuttle was originally designed as part of a shuttle/station ‘system’; it was to be a much smaller vehicle and the history- in terms of politics, design and funding- from DoD, etc., of what eventually evolved is an easy if not interesting thread to follow. No doubt it would not have evolved the same way today.”

    Are you saying that DoD involvement doomed the originally planned shuttle/station infrastructure?

    Just askin’

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 11th, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    “A postscript- Shuttle was originally designed as part of a shuttle/station ‘system’; it was to be a much smaller vehicle and the history- in terms of politics, design and funding- from DoD, etc., of what eventually evolved is an easy if not interesting thread to follow. No doubt it would not have evolved the same way today.”

    at last something interesting. Now if you would post more like this you would be an entertaining person to deal with.

    three points.

    First the notion of a reusable shuttle particularly one where development cost were limited AND the actual operating cost depended on almost airplane like re usability at the time that the shuttle was proposed by NASA was goofy on its face.

    The folks who were going to build it were smart, but they had no operational experience, no real knowledge of what it took to measure operational cost vrs maintenance and while talented at creating space technology had done so for vehicles which were essentially disposable. I did not recognize this at the time; but I have an excuse I was still either a teenager or was pretty knew to systems engineering…but if you go read my early op eds both in some of the space pubs and the college newspaper I learned quick.

    Some people knew better. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Ford gotten “a first term”…from what I have read and people who have talked from that administration the sentiment was starting to wake up to the notion that shuttle was not going to live up to its expectations…no matter what the design.

    Second…while the debate you and Rand and others have over Nixon or LBJ killing the lunar program….the reality is that GOP Presidents usually end up caring less about human spaceflight then DEM ones…and that includes my beloved Ronaldus the Great. GOP Presidents usually talk a good game about human spaceflight AND buy off on whatever notion NASA is selling…but they generally do not do due diligence as to if the notions are possible AT ALL much less on the likely dollars.

    Hence Ed Boland gets a kudo for nailing the space station program. Oddly enough on the CSERVE space forum where I first bumped into Mark Whittington we had this issue out…and Mark was as he is today…always willing to blame the Dems for GOP shortfalls.

    Finally…what we need in HSF is what we have with Obama’s policy; not only a dose of realism but also some notion of what can be accomplished for the dollars that are likely to be available. …and an ability to get the private sector back toward acting like well the private sector.

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    Justin Kugler wrote @ May 11th, 2011 at 8:36 pm

    It’s not a matter of ‘shame.’ It a matter of injecting the context of reality.

    The space program is not operating in a vaccum. It is a discretionary expenditure. A luxury in an era when necessities across the board are a priority. Nothing would please this writer more than to have the ISS justified, assorted manned spacecraft, commercial and government operated, lifting off every month pressing onward and outward. Norm Augustine’s report(s) repeatedly indicate the underfunding levels hover in the $3-$4 billion/year range to keep various proposals flush and operating, which, for example, compared to the monthly war(s) funding alone, discretionary expenses as well, is quite minimal. But instead, the fiscal shell game goes on and shifting funds between programs barely sustains them resulted in no progress for any. Look what happened to Constellation- the $10 billion sunk into that was lost, save Orion.

    In the current economic environment every dollar that goes to LEO operations starves development of BEO projects. That’s just the way it is and a 20-plus year space project costing $100 billion so far (roughly the cost to build, not annually operate, 14 aircraft carriers) which has yet to to return anything to justify the investment so far is a waste, diverting dwindling funds for BEO programs. It is a case study as a works program for the aerospace industry.

    “… the experience we gain for long-duration operations by using the Station as a testbed is worth it, then I can’t sell you on it and we will just have to agree to disagree.”

    In front of me are several AAS volumes on Skylab research; MIR has decade-plus data to mine and source as well. Neither were $100 billion projects and both produced results. Certainly a ‘test bed’ has value but there’s a limit to the cost/return in the face of redundancy and the ISS has yet to produce anything of value to justify the expense and the ‘research’ garnered, if any so far, is redundant to what has already been attained. In current configuration, the crews spend more time maintaining the station each day than doing and productive research. Bear in mind that before Columbia was lost, the ISS was planned for splash by 2015 to free up funding for Constellation as well. Space station, ‘Freedom,’ ISS or whatever it is named, has been kicked around, budgeted/planned/designed/re-designed/re-re-re-designed and worked on for over 20 years at great cost. It has been nothing more than a works program for the aerospace industry, repeasents past planning and today is out of sync with the needs of the Age of Austerity. Do you keep funding the LEO ISS and deny funding for BEO development? No. disengage and let the partners pay for it or let it splash.

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ May 11th, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    Apparently you just don’t get it. Taxes will be raised. Funding will be cut. How revenues are spent is the key. You assume outlays and priorities will not shift. Of course, they do. But civil space is discretionary spending, and increasingly a lowering priority and an easy target for budget cuts in a stand-alone agency like NASA. When borrowing 43 cents of every dollar spent, your focus is necessities while scaling back discretionary expenses. Scaling down government agencies as a whole is critical now. Streamlining NASA with a fresh focus, leaner management, clearing shuttle deadwood and anceletory areas the agency has been involved with (like aviation, climate research, etc.) has been a sustained position of this writer. Shifting that to other agencies is necessary. The ‘gap’ may be a blessing.

    By redirecting to a sustained, disciplined, BEO space program, leaving 30 years of LEO operations behind, a steady base budget for NASA (adjusted for inflation) over decades, w/o micro-managed reviews and resdesigns, etc., helps as well — and in this environment, tucking it under the DoD is one idea which may offer that kind of funding stability although it may be too late for that now. It would permit efficient managers and smart engineers to focus on what they’re good at rather than spending time chasing evaporating funding every year. A sustained, properly funded base budget line for HSF programs supplemented w/planetary exploration w/academia support, adjusted for inflation w/benchmarks, checkpoints at 5 year increments/ mandatory goals/personel turnovers, etc., would allow reasonable increments for technological and engineering development. Verify goals met would release additional funding and un-met goals results in immediate cancellation. Given the long lead times needed to change direction from LEO to BEO operations and the support elements necessary, it’s going to take decades and that kind of planning cannot survive these annual budget battles.

    Private sector for profit firms will never be capable of sustaining a space effort of scale for BEO operations in this era. Even LEO has been a struggle and w/o the government sustained ISS as a faux ‘destination,’ would wither and die. Branson’s effort is the best bet on the next logical step in commercial HSF. That’s why governments do the big stuff- and have been leading rocket development under various political guises for 80 years. And it was a good investment until it became a LEO works program. That’s just the way it is in this era and Kraft’s methodology is the way it will be done- whether it is American led remains to be seen. Would Americans accept a supportive role in sending Chinese to the moon? Doubtful.

    @common sense wrote @ May 11th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
    Doomed? Nixon killed the original shuttle/station concept, greenlighted a shuttle alone, underfunded it from ’72 on then resigned; DoD stepped in w/funding in the Ford/Carter years and redesign specs for its use as a part of the re-re-re-designs culminating in what flew in ’81, which in ’80 dollars had already cost $14 billion when STS-1 left the pad.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ May 12th, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    Are you ignorant of the truth, or just making stuff up? You said:

    Bear in mind that before Columbia was lost, the ISS was planned for splash by 2015 to free up funding for Constellation as well.

    Here are the facts:

    o February 1, 2003 – Columbia broke up on re-entry

    o January 14, 2004 – President Bush announces the VSE, which eventually begat the Constellation program.

    And you wonder why we have a hard time believing what you say…

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ May 12th, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    Two things first of all:

    1. Thanks for writing in paragraphs. Now I only have to deal with your outlandish ideas… ;-)
    2. I noticed that I reminded you of your “this writer” 3rd person style of writing. I’m sure I’ll come to regret that…

    Ah, but to the matter at hand.

    It [the ISS] has been nothing more than a works program for the aerospace industry

    Let’s be honest here – if the ISS is a “works program”, then so are your dreams of setting up little huts on the Moon. There is NO national imperative to go to the Moon. Oh sure, it would be nice, but remember what you say about any government spending? Heed thy own advice.

    Shifting that [NASA’s budget] to other agencies is necessary

    LOL. If you could point to any evidence that Congress has even considered this, we might take the idea seriously. Until then, you might as well be suggesting that NASA get put under the Dept of Agriculture.

    By redirecting to a sustained, disciplined, BEO space program

    You know, in a lot of ways I don’t care what the next destination is. I don’t. But what I do know is that NASA will never have the budget to develop more than one major program at at time, and with little money left over for operating the last major program. Constellation proved that.

    If keeping the ISS going costs $3B year, what do you think a lunar mission will cost? The smallest HLV that NASA has costed out will run $27B for 18 flights, or $1.5B/flight. And that’s for the 70-100mt side-mount. These are NASA’s numbers, which if history is any guide, are probably wildly low, so you better assume $2B/flight just to be safe. And that is WITHOUT developing any payloads like an EDS or lunar lander. How much money do you want to borrow from China???

    Private sector for profit firms will never be capable of sustaining a space effort of scale for BEO operations in this era.

    You don’t listen very well. Most of us see commercial cargo and crew as supporting NASA’s exploration efforts, not leading them. And there is no doubt that commercial firms can get cargo and crew to space much cheaper than NASA is capable of.

    But the most fantastic part about this particular claim is that you apparently don’t realize that NASA is really just a contracting organization, and that the private sector ALWAYS profits off of NASA’s exploration efforts. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ATK, and a myriad of other large corporations are where NASA’s budget goes. You didn’t think it all went into training astronauts, did you? ;-)

    The shift that many of us want to happen is to change from government-owned, government-run transportation. That is what always drags NASA down, because it has no clue how to run a transportation entity – NO CLUE! Costs go up? NASA says OK. Things go boom? NASA takes the lumps, while the contractors get contract extensions (i.e. more money). Where is the incentive to keep costs in check?

    And you buy into this horrible cycle. YOU PERPETUATE THIS CYCLE. Even with this phony “43 cents” crap, since you want NASA to zoom off to somewhere that will cost EVEN MORE MONEY than NASA has today.

    You my friend are a Apollo cargo cultist that has evolved into a “Moon First” adherent. And that’s OK, but it also means you don’t care how much it costs to return to the Moon. And as long as that’s your attitude, you never will make it back. Remember your 43 cents.

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ May 12th, 2011 at 11:12 pm

    “You know, in a lot of ways I don’t care what the next destination is.”

    Nuff said.

    But ya do care about any subidies and contracts you can secure, dontcha. Short term, self-serving thinking. Slamming the successful Apollo era management structure does little to enhance your position- especially as they showed the way and commerical HSF has not launched, orbited and returned anybody. Don’t knock success, fella. Kraft’s methodology uses the moon as the ‘gemini’ of a long term BEO space program for a 30-50-plus year time frame. It’s the way it will happen given the state of the technology of our times. Hardly ‘Apollo cargo cultist’ at all to build upon learned experiences.

    LEO is a ticket to no place. BEO is the future. 43 cents of every dollar the government spends is borrowed and those who refuse to accept that as a factor in planning are part of the problem. My error on the Columbia/Constellation reference- confused my reports. However, per the Washington Post as late as June, 2009: “International Space Station program manager Michael Suffredini [stated] that the ISS would be decommissioned, de-orbited and destroyed in 2016. Suffredini made that statement to the Augustine Commission, the presidential panel reviewing NASA’s future plans.” Maintaining ISS was forcing NASA to shift funding from Constellation to keep it flying. The shell game again.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    Maintaining ISS was forcing NASA to shift funding from Constellation to keep it flying. The shell game again.

    Uh huh, sure it was. The ISS was in orbit starting in 1998, and occupied starting in 2001, way before Griffin even put together his ATK powered lunar dreams.

    But since Griffin would rather “explore” than work in space, he designed the Constellation program so that it required the funds that the ISS needed to operate.

    There’s the disposable culture again. Spend $100B, and then throw it away. No problem! We’ll go back to the taxpayers and grab another $100B from them, er China, and zoom we go again.

    Oh but of course Constellation represents HSF for you, didn’t it? So after dumping the ISS, we wouldn’t have had astronauts doing anything worthwhile in space for another 20 years. 20 YEARS!!!

    And you supported that farce. It says alot:

    1. HSF is a only worthwhile for you if it’s 100% China/Taxpayer funded
    2. Leave only footprints on the Moon, and no reusable hardware in space
    3. Don’t encourage tax-producing entities in space – government is better

    Luckily the direction of the space program is going against your wishes, so tsk tsk. Capitalism will win out in the end, not your socialist Moon dreams.

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    “Capitalism will win out in the end, not your socialist Moon dreams.”

    And yet you seek to socialize the risks of your ‘for profit’ commerical HSF space ventures on the backs of taxpayers, the many, to ‘profit’ a few’ to ‘service’ a government O&O space station. The very parameters of the free market keep capital investors wary given the high risk, low ROI and the largess of capital necessary for space projects of scale. That’s why governments do it.

    The 80 plus year history of modern rocket development has shown that governments in many guises motivated by various political and military purposes (not for profit, BTW) are the entities which have funded the technology and progressed the engineering of this still very young science to the human species . Capitalists repeated balked. They all but ignored Goddard and let government carry the load by socializing the risk on the backs of the taxpayers in the ‘space race.’ For profit firms have always been a follow along, cashing in where they could. The only place you’ll see capitalists leading the way into space in this era is at the movies- and Destination Moon had a pretty good business plan… if you know you’ll find uranium on the moon by reel five. Today, it may be just water, which just might end up being of more value in the end. A return would make for an excellent second phase in BEO operations culminating w/an eventual voyage out to asteroids and/or Mars, per Kraft’s methodology.

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ May 13th, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    “And you supported that farce. It says alot…”

    In fact, it says you are inaccurate. This writer has been a consistent critic of Ares. It was a lousy rocket design and the weak link in the program, as the early cost overruns demonstrated. and, in fact, government has been better w/respect to HSF- it has managed to put humans into space for half a century; commercial HSF has not launched, orbited and safely recovered anyone. Get some skin in the game: fly somebody.

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>