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.

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.

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.

“…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…

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.

“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.

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.

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.

“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.

“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.

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.

“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.