Congress, NASA

House plans commercial cargo hearing

The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee announced today that its space subcommittee will be House plans commercial cargo hearing “NASA’s Commercial Cargo Providers: Are They Ready to Supply the Space Station in the Post-Shuttle Era?” on Thursday, May 26, at 10 am. The scheduled witnesses:

Mr. William Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator, Space Operations Mission Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Ms. Cristina Chaplain, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, U.S. Government Accountability Office

Ms. Gwynne Shotwell, President, Space Exploration Technologies

Mr. Frank Culbertson, Jr., Senior Vice President and Deputy General Manager, Advanced Programs Group, Orbital Sciences Corporation

50 comments to House plans commercial cargo hearing

  • Coastal Ron

    Wow, a fair and balanced panel of experts. Who screwed up and put them on the witness list? ;-)

  • SpaceColonizer

    YES! and if they’re not… HELP THEM!!! Commercial space will be able to stand on its own two legs eventually, but if you want to have access to the service earlier than that and reduce the number of seats you have to buy from the Russians, you gotta grease the wheel. As long as the money comes in the form of milestone based rewards and NOT something that more resembles a subsidy, then the cost of this financial assistance can be amortized not only over the number of flights of a single vehicle… but over the long term utilization of an entire industry!!!

  • amightywind

    Glad to see this congress provide the oversight so lacking in the last. I am particularly interested in Orbital’s program, as they have the more compelling technical package.

  • Well, that should be interesting.

  • Bennett

    Glad to see the invitees include actual participants in the COTS program, unlike witness lists convened by the Constellation huggers in congress, who have no one credible show up to testify. I am particularly interested in hearing Gwynne Shotwell’s testimony, because windy hates SpaceX so much.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ May 17th, 2011 at 6:21 pm

    I am particularly interested in Orbital’s program, as they have the more compelling technical package.

    More expensive, less flexible, less capacity, no downmass capability compared to SpaceX – yes, I can see why you would find them the “more compelling technical package”.

  • Matt Wiser

    Interesting list…And I, too, am glad to see Congress providing needed oversight. Anyone care to bet that the topic of Commercial Crew will get discussed, even though that’s not the issue before the Committee? Those hearings need to be held….

    FYI Charlie Bolden finally said in an interview (for ABC News) that lunar missions are on his agenda. Too bad he hasn’t said that openly in Congress, other than a vague “late 2020s” timeframe…..here’s the ABC story:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/nasas-charles-bolden-americans-deep-space/story?id=13620479

    Before that, there was a member of NASA’s Exporation Advisory Committee who said on NPR that lunar return was coming….

    Said it before and I’ll repeat: If Charlie Bolden goes to the Hill and tells Congress that, yes, human lunar return in the mid to late 2020s is on the agenda not as a study, but as something NASA intends to do, a lot of ruffled feathers in Congress would be smoothed over. And if POTUS had said last year at the Cape, “We are restructuring the lunar program to make it more sustainable, more affordable, and in so doing, we will get there sooner than under the previous program,” there would’ve been a lot more support-instead Congress threw out not just the original FY 11 Budget, but the supplemental, and wrote their own-as is their perogrative.

  • mr. mark

    “Glad to see this congress provide the oversight so lacking in the last. I am particularly interested in Orbital’s program, as they have the more compelling technical package.” – amightywind

    Funny, as I was going to say just the opposite. They are horizontally integrated where as Spacex is vertically integrated enabling Spacex is spend considerably less in production costs. Not sure how Orbital has a better technical package as they are relying on a solid second stage.

  • vulture4

    We had better respect what these guys say because with the Shuttle being tossed into the scrap heap they are all we have going for us. NASA needs to stop sniping and start taking notes.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Ah Windy, trying hard but mia again. Orbital’s is not more convincing – just different. They haven’t successfully flown the package yet, SpaceX has, LV twice, capsule once.
    And, it’s about cargo not human cargo and it’s also a bit late and a waste of time and taxpayer’s money. CRS contracts have been signed and both companies are successfully working to agreed milestones a la COTS which was designed to enable commercial to reach the required standards for ISS cargo support.

  • TarsTarkas

    You guys have heads so far up SpaceX’s tookas your credibility is nil.
    Are you guys dating Elon on the side or just paid lackeys? Even a hint of criticism or even caution for an unproven system is instantly thrown out or challenged by you fan boys. Even when another COTS provider is the comparison, let alone an actual exploration program. Get a grip and apply some objectivity. It’s like listening to Donald Trump talk about himself.

  • Rhyolite

    “More expensive, less flexible, less capacity, no downmass capability compared to SpaceX – yes, I can see why you would find them the “more compelling technical package”.”

    I though he just liked the higher foreign content.

  • pathfinder_01

    Mattthe Taurus II has an ATK designed 2nd stage hence amightywinds love of Orbital.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    My mistake, forgot that COTS-D was a further option to provide crew capability but has never been progressed by NASA.

    BTW Matt, since when has Congress been particularly useful in the oversight of anything. Name one? Guess that must be why the US can’t get it’s spending under control!!

  • tu8ca

    amightywind wrote @ May 17th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
    “I am particularly interested in Orbital’s program, as they have the more compelling technical package.”

    The first stage is made in the Ukraine and Russia. The second stage is in a state of flux. Neither has flown. They haven’t resolved their fairing problem…

    What’s you rational, amightywind? Why do you like it so much? “compelling technical package”? What are you blithering about?

    TarsTarkas wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 12:43 am
    You guys have heads so far up SpaceX’s tookas your credibility is nil. Are you guys dating Elon on the side or just paid lackeys? Even a hint of criticism or even caution for an unproven system is instantly thrown out or challenged by you fan boys.

    Back to back successes, including the inaugural launch. American made, for pennies on the dollar compared ‘old space’. An outsider succeeding after years of ‘old space’ sneering at them – this is a great story, Tars.

    “unproven system” ? the hardware has launched, dumass.

  • GClark

    @tu8ca:

    Different fairing.

    Before people go all Neanderthal about OSC and fairings, they have had 2 Minotaur 1s, 3 Minotaur 4s, and 3 OBVs all successfully launch since the OCO Taurus failure (Feb 09). I think I can be reasonably secure in stating that whatever the problem is/was, it’s confined to that vehicle.

    IIRC, the Taurus II 2nd stg(s) have been downselected. Pls do try to keep up.

  • amightywind

    What’s you rational, amightywind? Why do you like it so much? “compelling technical package”? What are you blithering about?

    The NK-33 is vastly superior to the Merlin 1C in thrust to weight ratio and ISP. Orbital is at least planning for a high performance methane upper stage. SpaceX is not. The emperor has no clothes.

  • mr. mark

    ah, no once again Spacex does not need a high performance 3rd stage for Falcon 9 planetary payloads. Reference nasaspaceflight.com

  • Space Cadet

    @GClark

    “Before people go all Neanderthal about OSC and fairings, they have had 2 Minotaur 1s, 3 Minotaur 4s, and 3 OBVs all successfully launch since the OCO Taurus failure (Feb 09). I think I can be reasonably secure in stating that whatever the problem is/was, it’s confined to that vehicle.”

    And after dumping OCO in the ocean, they did the same thing with Glory, due to the SAME failure. Mistakes happen in this business, but making the SAME screw-up twice reveals incompetence. And OCO-2 is forced to use the same launcher.

  • common sense

    I would recommend this slightly off topic:

    http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/05/commerical-spac.html#_login

    Read and watch here:

    http://www.sncorp.com/news/press/pr11/snc_dream_discover_channel.shtml

    Thanks JM72 at nasawatch.

    My comment there:

    BEAUTIFUL

    Funny we never hear from the Constellation-Shuttle groupies and SpaceX bashers about SNC or Boeing. All the while SNC makes tremendous progress.

    Way to go SNC !

  • amightywind

    ah, no once again Spacex does not need a high performance 3rd stage for Falcon 9 planetary payloads. Reference nasaspaceflight.com

    I was speaking of their low performance, high mass second stage. Like flying to orbit with a monkey on your back.

  • mr. mark

    Addition science planetary payload information relating to Falcon 9.

    “Several missions could take advantage of Falcon 9’s leaner launch capability and lower price of about $50 million per launch. These include the Soil Moisture Active and Passive mission, an Earth-observing satellite due for launch in 2015; the International Lunar Network, a system of landers designed to measure the Moon’s seismic activity, among other things; and modest-sized astrophysics and planetary-science missions that would launch in 2016″.

    http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100518/full/465276a.html

  • tu8ca

    amightywind wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 11:06 am
    “The NK-33 is vastly superior to the Merlin 1C in thrust to weight ratio and ISP. Orbital is at least planning for a high performance methane upper stage. SpaceX is not. The emperor has no clothes.

    yes, the NK-33 is good stuff, but it’s made in Russia. I’d rather my tax dollars stayed in the US, directed to companies that best earn it.

  • Vladislaw

    amightywind wrote:

    “The NK-33 is vastly superior to the Merlin 1C in thrust to weight ratio and ISP. Orbital is at least planning for a high performance methane upper stage. SpaceX is not. The emperor has no clothes.”

    You have said we shouldn’t be working with the “evil”, “commie” russians on the ISS and America should not be held hostage by the russians with Soyuz launches to the ISS. But it is okay for an American firm, Orbital Sciences, to be dependent on the Russians for engines for cargo launches?

    So it is better for America that Russian aerospace workers have jobs (i know they are already built but they are talking about restarting production) rather that an American company building engines in house?

    Why is it okay when Orbital “plans” for something in the future but you mock and ridicule every future plan that SpaceX puts forth?

    You are pro Russia when it serves you but they are the evil enemy if they serve anyone else’s idea.

  • Matt Wiser

    WHEN Space X flies people and returns them safely home, I’ll be one of the first to congratulate them. Not before. When they show that they can do what’s being asked of them, they’ll get support. Until then, treat everything Musk (who, btw, is NOT a god) with justified skepticism.

    I’ll echo a previous comment: why is a skeptic’s attitude to Space X or other commercial providers treated as heresy? The question is not “Should there be commercial participation in LEO?” but “How much participation, and when?” This attitude of “My way or the highway” gets us nowhere. I’ve said it before: as soon as the commercial side gets stood up, that frees up NASA to go explore.

    beancouter: do you even know how our Congress works? They are not a rubber stamp. Congress held hearings, and concluded that the original FY 11 budget proposal was not what was needed. So they exercised their perogrative and wrote their own authorization act. Which is their right. Again, there’s a difference between what you want to do and what Congress will allow you to do. Some people here don’t seem to get that. If you want Congress to support increased commercial crew and cargo activities, you have to convince them that doing so is in NASA’s best interests, the taxpayers’ and so on. When/if Musk and some other CEOs of these companies show up to testify in front of Congress, those will be interesting hearings. If Charlie Bolden has to go to the Hill to justify commercial crew, then Congress ought to hear from those who have a financial interest in the proposal.

  • amightywind

    I’d rather my tax dollars stayed in the US, directed to companies that best earn it.

    That’s what Obama thought when he bailed out GM. That their products were inferior and they deserved to go out of business never entered his mind.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Matt Wiser wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    “WHEN Space X flies people and returns them safely home, I’ll be one of the first to congratulate them.”

    there is a flip side to that…which is why is everything SpaceX accomplishes greeted with such contempt by the folks who are shuttle huggers?

    There is no one on this forum who supports Commercial ops in orbit more then I and there is probably no one who puts in their words more often then I “assuming that the cost etc are met” or words to that affect.

    Yet what is annoying to me is that when commercial does something (and SpaceX has done a lot) it is always greeted by the “Winds” and “Whittington’s” and to some extent “Wisers” of the world with “well we really dont know it did that” or some other rejoinder.

    There is never any explanation of why Cx spent 10=12 billion and got nothing space qualified for it…the list is pretty long.

    In the end the shuttle is limping to a final wheels stop…and while we should greet success with “skepticism” in terms of the numbers involved…we should greet success.

    Musk and company have managed a major feat…they developed 2 new rockets and flew adn recovered a capsule for less money then NASA HSF spends in four months of keeping the shuttle paychecks going…

    thats something RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    “That’s what Obama thought when he bailed out GM. That their products were inferior and they deserved to go out of business never entered his mind.”

    or the GOP as it keep oil subsidies going?

    or Bush as he cranked up TARP …

    or…Griffin as he argues to save Cx…

    dont throw rocks when you live in a glass house. its like Gingrich lecturing on morals

    RGO

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    The question is not “Should there be commercial participation in LEO?”…

    Oh but that is one of the questions, and it’s been voiced many times. Some think that only NASA can do things in space. You even hear it from a few in Congress.

    …but “How much participation, and when?”

    Congress, through legislation going back to 2005, has stated that commercial cargo and crew is to be supported to the fullest extent practical. NASA is trying to do that, but “some” in Congress are blocking those efforts.

    why is a skeptic’s attitude to Space X or other commercial providers treated as heresy?

    Skepticism is good, if it’s applied fairly and evenly. That’s not the case with the commercial cargo and crew efforts.

    You know full well that Hutchison, Shelby and others have been pushing for NASA to be the one to transport crew to the ISS, but in doing that it will sap NASA of $Billions they could be directing to real programs. Are you defending them?

    I defend the American Way, which is letting the private market compete for providing low cost and innovative solutions. What do you stand for?

  • Bennett

    Matt wrote “When/if Musk and some other CEOs of these companies show up to testify in front of Congress, those will be interesting hearings.”

    Does the President of SpaceX count? Or is it just company CEOs that would hold your interest?

    Like Trent wrote on hobbyspace.com:

    Gwynne + Congress = Popcorn.

  • Facts Ma'am

    yes, the NK-33 is good stuff, but it’s made in Russia. I’d rather my tax dollars stayed in the US, directed to companies that best earn it.

    That’s not true. The NK-33 is not made anymore AT ALL. There are roughly equal numbers of them in storage in the US and Russia, and both nations have the PLANS in place in order to restart production. It’s questionable if either nation has the ABILITY to make them, certainly not without some R&D, but the engines exist for anyone to reverse engineer them, if they aren’t so naive to toss them all away before they actually do that. With their total thrust and T/W ratio and total weight, they easily have the capability to go all the way to orbit on their own with GEM or SRM assistance; an even a decent payload with an upper stage and a modest amount of roll control and steering assistance, which is how the Russians are approaching it with the Soyuz 1. They’ll be flying that very soon too.

  • Vladislaw

    Matt wrote:

    “Until then, treat everything Musk (who, btw, is NOT a god) with justified skepticism.

    I’ll echo a previous comment: why is a skeptic’s attitude to Space X or other commercial providers treated as heresy? The question is not “Should there be commercial participation in LEO?” but “How much participation, and when?” “

    If SpaceX and others were suggesting they are going to build bridges held up with anti gravity engines, yes I would be skeptical. But your skeptism is on the lines of a company announcing they are going to build a car and you are skepticall they have the technological abiltiy to achieve it. Commercial aerospace companies have build ALL space craft for America to date. To now suggest that expertise is not somehow available for entrepreneurs takes it beyond the pale.

    Name me a single other transportation system that has to go under that kind of litmus test? “How much participation, and when?”

    Are American entrepreneurs locked out of oceanic shipping? The automoblie industry? Trains? Planes?

    Why are you saying their is somekind of ceiling to participation? You can only do this and you can go NO FURTHER!

    Since when is that the federal governments responsiblity to limit American capitalists to what they can do with a transportation system?

    I thought Americans were grounded in the idea that it is this competition that spurs innovation and creates the jobs. Oh .. I guess unless you are talking about space. Then it is NASA, cost plus, no competition, escalator clauses and armies of workers to create space systems like Constellation.

    Healty skeptism is one thing, for an American to be skeptical about fellow Americans in the aerospace industry as somehow being to ignorant to create space systems, something they have been doing for 50 years is not skeptism anymore.

  • tu8ca

    Facts Ma’am wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
    That’s not true. The NK-33 …
    Oh yes it is. The NK-33 was made in the USSR and purchased from Russia. I’d rather have my tax dollars go to US companies that earn it.

    Unfortunately, ‘old space’ companies in the US have been conditioned over decades to be lethargic hogs, dependent on vast quantities of corporate welfare. PWR has been payed billions over the decades to tinker with the J-2, over and over again. That’s why the US started buying Russian engines.

    Well, now there are alternatives.

    It’s no surprise that four of the five companies vying to replace the Shuttle are ‘New Space’.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Matt Wiser wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    I didn’t say they were a rubber stamp Matt, however Bolden is appointed by and reports to the WH not Congress. Once NASA has an appropriated budget, how it’s spent is provided in at line item level and even then, it seems there is flexibility in how the Administrator spends or doesn’t spend those funds. Congress can’t direct anything at that point. They can hold hearings and so one but they’re essentially toothless.
    Correct me if I’m wrong by all means but I think I have the general gist of the process.

  • Matt Wiser

    beancounter: Budget items can and often are dictated to agencies by Congress. Not just in NASA, but in DOD (like the AF’s continuing effort to not buy anymore C-17s, but congress keeps putting them in), the Justice Department, and so on. Congress also has the authorization act, which sets out how much money can be spent-this is different from appropriations, which actually authorizes the funds. Now, there is some flexblity in how an agency head can spend the money, but not always. Authorization acts have the force of law-once POTUS signs it, or it becomes law without his signature, that’s it. What congress is complaining about now is that the exploration side (Orion/MPCV and SLS) is getting the short end (less money than the authorization act allowed) and CCdev getting more. Congress seems set in fully funding the crew vehicle and rocket and giving the Commercial side less. That is their perogrative. An old D.C. adage states this: “The Administration proposes, but the Congress disposes.” We had it last year with that disaster of the NASA FY 11 budget, and the same thing is probably coming. It’s a shame that Charlie Bolden isn’t a good enough communicator: every time he shows up at a House or Senate hearing, he’s like a gladiator going into the arena….

    Oler’s anti-HSF attitude is well known, and doesn’t need anymore than that.

    Vadislaw: Again, I repeat: once the commercial sector actually flies people to LEO and back, I’ll be one of those to give them the congratulations they deserve. But here’s the politics of it: Congress is intend on providing NASA with an independent, government-owned launch capability, not just for exploration, but in case these commercial providers fail to deliver. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson said it best last Spring: Not opposed to the private sector, but opposed to the private sector being the ONLY source for the mission.

  • Facts Ma'am

    Oh yes it is. The NK-33 was made in the USSR and purchased from Russia. I’d rather have my tax dollars go to US companies that earn it.

    That’s simply not true. An American corporation, Aerojet general, purchased those engines, along with the plans and I believe the manufacturing rights from the Russians with their OWN MONEY over a decade ago. Since those engines have not flown a single time for the US government yet, your tax money is safe. Furthermore, Aerojet and the company that intends to fly those engines, Orbital Science Corporation, are US commercial companies that are flying missions for profit, and have been doing so for decades now. Are you equally distraught that US airline companies fly Airbus and Embraer Aircraft for US customers, and US rental companies rent Japanese cars to US customers as well? Are you demanding that all US government activities use US made products?

    I think not.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Beancounter from Downunder wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 9:58 pm

    “Correct me if I’m wrong by all means but I think I have the general gist of the process.”

    pretty much. the joy of serving at the pleasure of The President of the US is that once confirmed by the Senate the worse the Congress can do is zero out your budget and hurl harsh words and after they give you their budget then they are left with “harsh words”.

    The crowd at NASAspaceflight has a hard time understanding that.

    Charlie may be in for some harsh words, but Jack and Coke make those go away

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    You are pro Russia when it serves you but they are the evil enemy if they serve anyone else’s idea.

    The Russians and Ukrainians make perfectly adequate suppliers. The Russians are not partners in any sense.

  • Me

    “Orbital is at least planning for a high performance methane upper stage”

    Wrong, they are going with a “upgraded” solid stage.
    OSC takes two steps back with a stage that is inferior to an RP-1 upperstage.
    Windy, you just have shown that you have no real experience or knowledge to pass judgement on the merits of an spaceflight system.

  • Coastal Ron

    Facts Ma’am wrote @ May 19th, 2011 at 12:26 am

    Since those engines have not flown a single time for the US government yet, your tax money is safe.

    That’s an obtuse justification. That’s like telling someone you haven’t killed them yet, even though you’ve already injected them with a slow-acting poison.

    The Soviet Union built the NK-33, Russia sold them to Aerojet, Aerojet is selling them to Orbital, Orbital is using them to send their Cygnus to the ISS, after which NASA pays Orbital taxpayer money. I see a direct connection.

    amightywind wrote @ May 19th, 2011 at 8:19 am

    The Russians and Ukrainians make perfectly adequate suppliers.

    You sound like a prostitute trying to describe yourself as an “entertainer”. It doesn’t matter the relationship, the taxpayer is still writing a check to Mother Russia.

    It’s funny how you’d rather support a foreign country than capitalists in your own country. Is that a Tea Party trait too?

  • Vladislaw

    Matt wrote:

    “Congress is intend on providing NASA with an independent, government-owned launch capability, not just for exploration, but in case these commercial providers fail to deliver.”

    You just do not seem to get it, put this in a pure TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM for the Nation and take it outside of a NASA self interest.

    I prefer an open transportation system rathat than a government system. If somehow having a government civilian agency having their own seperate ability. Would we do this for cars? Should the Dept of transportation design their own cars and have them built at cost plus? Should the FAA be designing their own planes and have government cost plus contracts for them? Shipping, trains etc etc.

    This is a transportation system problem not a NASA problem. NASA doesn’t design and have built for astronauts, at cost plus, bicycles, cars, motorcycles, planes, trains, boats etc etc. Everything an Astronaut rides or drives is commercial and going 200 miles straight up should not be any different that it requires a seperate government , overpriced, system.

  • Facts Ma'am

    The Soviet Union built the NK-33, Russia sold them to Aerojet, Aerojet is selling them to Orbital, Orbital is using them to send their Cygnus to the ISS, after which NASA pays Orbital taxpayer money. I see a direct connection.

    So do I, an American company develops technology, flies missions to the ISS that closes the spaceflight gap, makes a profit and pays its US employees.

    I prefer an open transportation system rathat than a government system.

    So do I, for instance, one where a US company gets to choose their own design, procure their own components, fly their own missions for profit and win a government award for services that the government can’t supply. The reason they chose the NK-33 is because there were no other alternatives, and it was best and least expensive engine in the inventory. If the US government had been on its toes for the last few decades, there would have been US engines of that caliber reading for commercial procurement. If the US government was on its toes right now, they could be funding the reverse engineering of the existing AJ26s, and reusable flyback or recoverable booster on which to mount it, and there would be plenty of AJ26 with which to perform reverse engineering studies on, and then it would be manufactured in the United States, and would be available for commercial US space flight companies to fly as a US engine.

    How much would that cost? I guessing far less than a billion bucks, especially if it was flying on a three meter booster in single engine form.

    This is a transportation system problem not a NASA problem. NASA doesn’t design and have built for astronauts, at cost plus, bicycles, cars, motorcycles, planes, trains, boats etc etc. Everything an Astronaut rides or drives is commercial and going 200 miles straight up should not be any different that it requires a seperate government , overpriced, system.

    Then change the law, because right now SLS is the law, and the AJ26 is the only US engine (and its now a US engine, please don’t lie about that) that can get the job done before 2016 in a reasonable reusable manner on a vehicle that is small enough to be built with the funding available.

    The US doesn’t need an SRB powered expendable heavy lift launch vehicle, but the US commercial launch vehicle industry as well as the DOD needs a three meter reusable hydrocarbon powered booster, and the AJ26 exist right now for almost immediate return to production. It doesn’t take a genius to figure this out. It takes is a leader to make it happen.

  • Coastal Ron

    Facts Ma’am wrote @ May 19th, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    So do I, an American company develops technology, flies missions to the ISS that closes the spaceflight gap, makes a profit and pays its US employees.

    I actually don’t have an issue with Orbital choosing foreign components. I like international cooperation, which is something that “Windy” is all over the map on. That’s OK too (he’s not the only one), but one moment he’s promoting “American Exceptionalism”, and the next he’s singing the praises of Soviet workers. Windy is true to his name – you never know which direction he’s going next… ;-)

    Myself I’m a capitalist, and someone that advocates for those things that lower the cost to access space. Orbital is doing that through the CRS program, and I wish them success because I feel we need two or more successful competitors for critical transportation segments.

    Mostly I agree with the rest of your post.

  • Vladislaw

    Facts Ma’am wrote:

    “So do I, for instance, one where a US company gets to choose their own design, procure their own components, fly their own missions for profit and win a government award for services that the government can’t supply. The reason they chose the NK-33 is because there were no other alternatives,”

    I believe you got some posts mixed up. My complaint was with Windy and his on and off again relationship with Russia. In one breath they are evil and shouldn’t use even a screw from Russia the next minute is okay.

    I have no problems with Orbital’s choice of engine, my problem was with why it is okay one moment and bad the next. Windy promotes the buy america and if Musk is ready to build 400+ engines domestically why is that a bad thing and it would be better using Russian derived.

    Coastal Ron touched on it here:

    “I actually don’t have an issue with Orbital choosing foreign components. I like international cooperation, which is something that “Windy” is all over the map on. That’s OK too (he’s not the only one), but one moment he’s promoting “American Exceptionalism”, and the next he’s singing the praises of Soviet workers. Windy is true to his name – you never know which direction he’s going next”

    It keeps coming back to if SpaceX is involved in any way, shape, or form, that is automatically bad, anything anyone else does, even utilizing Russian derived equipment is automatically better.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Facts Ma’am wrote @ May 19th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
    … SLS is the law,…

    Mistake if you believe that this will ever happen. NASA has amply demonstrated that they can’t build and fly to a budget. Show me otherwise.

  • Rhyolite

    “Congress is intend on providing NASA with an independent, government-owned launch capability, not just for exploration, but in case these commercial providers fail to deliver.”

    Being government owned doesn’t solve any problems. The government still relies on commercial contractors to build their vehicles and they can still fail.

    The potential for commercial providers to fail should be address by having multiple commercial providers.

  • Coastal Ron

    Rhyolite wrote @ May 20th, 2011 at 12:51 am

    The potential for commercial providers to fail should be address by having multiple commercial providers.

    You would think that this would be common sense, since this is what we do in life. But it just goes to show how Congress doesn’t necessarily use common sense for making decisions.

  • Facts Ma'm

    Mistake if you believe that this will ever happen. NASA has amply demonstrated that they can’t build and fly to a budget. Show me otherwise.

    That’s exactly what congress is demanding, show them otherwise. Certainly the White House, Bolden and Garver, Holdren and the OSTP and OMB know that it can’t be done by NASA in the expendable shuttle derived SRB powered monster Jesus rocket form that congress and NASA designers are demanding, at the beck and call of Jeff Bingham and a bunch of foreign interventionists over at the NSF. But I posit that by bending the law a little bit, it certainly is possible with the AJ26 and the dozen or so remaining SSMEs, in three and five meter form factors and in a manner that clearly demonstrates reusability and low cost high flight rates using commercial assets and at payload capacities that are realistic.

    So what if the SSMEs have to be removed from the vehicle at the ISS and shipped back to Earth or disassembly, rebuilding, refurbishment and then reflight. Congress is demanding that our space technology base be both sustained and reinvigorated, and personally I can’t think of a better way to do it, than forcing both the AJ26 and the SSME into reverse engineering and improvement, and then back into production. If that doesn’t keep thousands of aerospace engineers on their toes and bright eyed and bushy tailed, then nothing will. The era of roughneck construction workers as justification for a space program is over, this is a national imperative.

    If the president demands it, and Bolden insists on it, the SRB heavy lift stalwarts within NASA will have no choice but to get with the program.

    NASA is going to spend $11 billion dollars over the next six years one way or another, how would you rather them do it, build another Ares 1X? What I would like to see is a launch vehicle in five years that would be reusable and be of great benefit in a variety of vehicle forms for both the military and the commercial space flight industry, and that’s what I have proposed.

    It’s all about leadership. The engines already exist for this kind of thing, and they were developed at great cost to the Russian military, and already flown at great length for well over a hundred missions by NASA. What NASA intends to do with them if congress gets their way is pure folly, but a clever interpretation of the law and acknowledgment that the AJ26 is a defacto American engine available right now could save this whole thing.

  • Coastal Ron

    Facts Ma’m wrote @ May 20th, 2011 at 11:41 am

    …and personally I can’t think of a better way to do it, than forcing both the AJ26 and the SSME into reverse engineering and improvement, and then back into production.

    That’s OK for a jobs program, but to what end? Wonderful engines won’t fly if you don’t have payloads that need to be launched, so regardless how efficient they are ISP-wise, throwing money at something that isn’t needed doesn’t make a lot of sense.

    …but a clever interpretation of the law and acknowledgment that the AJ26 is a defacto American engine available right now could save this whole thing.

    The problem with that idea is that Congress wants something with LH2/LOX engines (RS-68 or SSME), not RP-1/LOX (AJ26). They want Lockheed Martin building hydrogen tanks at Michoud.

    What I would like to see is a launch vehicle in five years that would be reusable and be of great benefit in a variety of vehicle forms for both the military and the commercial space flight industry, and that’s what I have proposed.

    Admirable quest. But I don’t know if there is enough market to do that, and in doing that you might drive out ULA’s existing products, so that would definitely be a huge change to the industry. I don’t think the launch industry is competitive enough as it stands today, but I don’t want chaos either.

    Maybe I don’t understand your proposal…

  • Facts Ma'am

    That’s OK for a jobs program, but to what end?

    To satisfy the laws on the books for one thing. To develop reusable boosters, repurposed core stages and upper stages, to provide engines for new launch vehicle and spacecraft entrants for the low Earth orbit ISS and alternative space station market, to give the astronauts something to do besides servicing the ISS, and to increase flight rate and lower launch costs. In short, to compete with and cooperate with a company like SpaceX, where Musk has laid down the challenge of lower launch costs through reusability. It’s not as if he hasn’t done what he says he’d do, so my suggestion is that these organizations, ULA, NASA, congress and the industry get on the reusability bandwagon, or otherwise they’ll perish.

    Why are we developing all of these launch vehicles, spacecraft and space stations if there aren’t any plans to actually use them? BEO isn’t going to happen until low Earth orbit happens, and low Earth orbit ain’t happening yet besides the Shuttle, Soyuz and the ISS, and shuttle is ending this summer, if you haven’t noticed yet.The law states commercial backup.

    The problem with that idea is that Congress wants something with LH2/LOX engines (RS-68 or SSME), not RP-1/LOX (AJ26). They want Lockheed Martin building hydrogen tanks at Michoud.

    Anybody can build a five meter single engine SSME core stage, why should Lockheed Martin have a monopoly on this business? Because congress says so? I think not. You need to get it through your head that 8.4 and 10 meter tanks are dead, nobody in their right mind would continue with that.

    The problem is that hydrogen engines won’t fly unless they have solid or hydrocarbon assistance, and since SRBs are vastly too expensive, by and order of magnitude over what is available in time and money. The default alternatives are GEMs, SRMs and the AJ26. End of story. RS-68 is dead.

    But I don’t know if there is enough market to do that, and in doing that you might drive out ULA’s existing products, so that would definitely be a huge change to the industry.

    Tough, they can just adapt or die for all I care. Their products are obsolete if NASA and congress insist on not using them, and they have.

    The free market is very harsh, but very fair. SpaceX is going to destroy them if they don’t start adapting to new realities of launch vehicle design.

Leave a Reply to Facts Ma'm Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

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