Congress may be on summer recess now, but it’s not entirely devoid of activity. Yesterday Rep. Sandy Adams (R-FL) announced Wednesday she has introduced legislation to support a local economy facing thousands of layoffs with the retirement of the Space Shuttle. The “Shuttle Workforce Revitalization Act of 2011″, HR 2712, would designate all of Brevard County, Florida (home of the Kennedy Space Center), as a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone), giving businesses there preferential treatment for some federal contracts. The legislation, she notes in the release, would give local businesses a “competitive edge” in federal procurements and “will not cost the federal government a single additional dollar, nor does it authorize or appropriate any additional funding.” Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL) said in the release that he supports the Adams bill, although he has not signed up yet as a co-sponsor.
Late Wednesday evening Rep. David Wu (D-OR) formally resigned from the House. Wu had previously indicated that he would resign in the wake of news of a personal scandal once the debt ceiling debate was resolved. Wu was a senior Democrat on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, serving on the space subcommittee and as the ranking member of the technology and innovation subcommittee. Wu had been skeptical about at least some elements of the administration’s space policy, including its emphasis on commercial space transportation; at a May hearing on the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation’s 2012 budget proposal, he said he was “absolutely stunned” commercial spaceflight was not held to the same rigorous standards of commercial aviation, and warned that an accident involving a commercial vehicle “could potentially flatten the space program for a period of years.”
Wow … Adams let Obama’s $30 million in grants for the Space Coast die on the House floor, now she introduces a pork bill. Had she supported Obama’s proposal, we’d already have a program in place. What a tool.
Elsewhere …
Florida Today reports that Boeing will announce today it’s selecting the Atlas V for the CST-100.
A Historically Underutilized Business Zone? Historically?! We’ve had Kennedy Space Center sutting cheek-by-jowl with the Aire Force’s Cae Caneveral Space Center for over 50 years now, and that makes the area “Historically” Underutilized?
To quote from THE PRINCESS BRIDE: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
What else can I say? “You killed my father. Prepare to die!”
mike shupp wrote:
To quote from THE PRINCESS BRIDE: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.â€
Sandy Adams is not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Last December, she wrote a guest editorial in which she claimed U.S. astronauts were being forced to fly on Chinese rockets.
Florida Today called her lack of knowledge about space policy “appalling.”
When I’ve seen her online asking questions in hearings, she reads from prepared remarks. It looks like someone is telling her what to say.
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ August 4th, 2011 at 6:58 am
“Florida Today reports that Boeing will announce today it’s selecting the Atlas V for the CST-100.”
Slowly but surely we are seeing the dawn of the commercial space age.
We are in a bad way in this country now. Almost all of our institutions have failed (this happens periodically in our history) and the climb out of them is long BECAUSE for the most part politicians and voters have a hard time 1) recognizing when what is cannot be fixed and 2) try and preserve what is and just waste resources.
The definition today of conservatism has become “unwilling to accept the future and longing for the past”. This is why you see mostly “right of center” people arguing for “the traditional NASA” not able to comprehend that this NASA can never come back, the circumstances events etc which built and sustained it no longer exist. We have tried to maintain the traditional NASA for decades past when it could work, and NASA has shown no ability (as is true with the rest of the federal government) to change into where the future is headed.
Parts of Boeing anyway seem to recognize this…as do folks like SpaceX and OSC and Armadillo and others. As always it will be messy getting there (that is the story of what we call The Depression) but just as we came out of the Depression a stronger more federal centered country…we will do the same thing here.
The trick is to just hang on in the process. Robert
…but just as we came out of the Depression a stronger more federal centered country…
You have to admit Robert that statement alone gives most “right of center” folks a sufficient reason to fight against the future.
Especially if the future indicates that more government intrudes into their lives.
The definition today of conservatism has become “unwilling to accept the future and longing for the pastâ€.
RGO is fond of making grandiose pronouncements. But his track record just leaves one to chuckle. Recall that last year declared that congress would lie down and Obamaspace would be fully implemented.
A combined effort by Boeing and Lockmart to win a NASA ISS using existing components (whose development was also funded by the government)! does not seem so revolutionary. CST-100/Atlas V is a good solution for the stated problem of ISS resupply. The tragedy is the pointless goal not the technical solution.
amightywind wrote @ August 4th, 2011 at 11:14 am
” Recall that last year declared that congress would lie down and Obamaspace would be fully implemented.”
and so far I am absolutely correct…look at what is making it into hardware and what is staying as viewgraphs RGO
dad2059 wrote @ August 4th, 2011 at 10:56 am
I wrote:
…but just as we came out of the Depression a stronger more federal centered country…
You replied:
“You have to admit Robert that statement alone gives most “right of center†folks a sufficient reason to fight against the future.
Especially if the future indicates that more government intrudes into their lives.”
the great canard of the right of center crowd is that a “more federal centered country” means more intrusions into an individuals “life liberty and pursuit of happiness”.
There is a reason that most red states and red “areas” are poorer, with jobs that pay less, and where social services are less or primitive…and it is because that the notion of banding together for community projects is something that is either put down or limited to the “community” that the majority of that area finds acceptable.
The rise of the US as a superpower is directly traceable to the notion that more and more things are under the perview of the Federal government which can have a multiplier affect based on national group effort..and this is true of course in our military power, and thins like space programs, but what is not seen is that it is also true in the well being of our people.
Just as there would be no Transcon Railroad without the federal government organizing as national policy the work of private enterprise…there will be no major move into space (if it is possible at all) without that at some point becoming a collective issue of The Republic…and from which The Republic derives a positive benefit from it.
What is stunning to me, is that the groups which claim that they dont want a strong federal government “intruding into our lives”…are good with NASA doing it.
There is no real reason that NASA should be the group which either sets safety standards for human spaceflight or regulates it. Not only has it proven inept at such efforts in its own backyard (killing 14 astronauts and refusing to take responsibility for it) …but it seems to have no clue about how to promote private enterprise…and that “intrusion” into corporate lives by an agency that does not work…seems to be acceptable to a lot of red state politicians.
As a political aside…the most intrusive people or groups on the planet are those who wish to impose their social agenda on others…and that is not the federal government.
Robert G. Oler
AW –
Compare ATK’s development costs with BLM’s.
I keep trying to tell you that Obama’s announced goal of a manned mission to an asteroid came out of over a decade of studies, but some people seem unwilling to accept that. If you have a problem with that goal, then state what goal you want.
As far as the heavy lift need goes, I keep telling you that as well, but it never seems to sink in. I think the future history of impact studies should be titled “Worlds in Denial”.
While we know what SpaceX and Boeing plan to do in terms of medium heavies, given the budget situation whether USA DIRECT will be implemented is currently an open question.
Adams demands massive cuts in taxes and in government spending. She completely supported the end of Shuttle (announced by Bush in 2004) as long as Bush was in office. Now she is shocked that there are massive layoffs because we have no more shuttle. Oh, wait, we’ll just blame Obama for this!
Never mind that even though Constellation is still proceeding (rebranded as SLS/MPCV) there are no jobs at KSC. Never mind that SLS really is a big government jobs program with no useful product. She wants to force NASA to use what little money it has left on SLS. But of course she can get the money by eliminating all research on climate change, which she thinks is just a Democratic plot and will go away if we just stop studying it.
The real irony is that almost all the KSC workers voted for her because they are loyal Republicans and also want lower taxes. Too bad they didn’t see it coming.
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ August 4th, 2011 at 6:58 am
“Florida Today reports that Boeing will announce today it’s selecting the Atlas V for the CST-100.”
I think that is the choice. RGO
Two observations about the Boeing announcement to go with Atlas V for their CST-100 crew capsule:
1. The ATK/Astrium Liberty is effectively dead now, if it wasn’t before this. No NASA funded Commercial Crew system will use it, and it offers nothing to potential customers that doesn’t already exist.
2. ULA has a great opportunity here. Atlas V will be used, at least initially, with three of the four CCDev participants, so they seem like a virtual lock for being a provider as long as NASA funds two or crew providers. Will ULA use this opportunity to lower their costs to head off competitive pressure from SpaceX?
No big surprise, but it does show that commercial space is moving steadily forward. 2015 should be a very busy year – let’s hope the Air Force gets funding for the improvements they’ll need to keep up with all the launch activity.
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ August 4th, 2011 at 9:28 am
“Slowly but surely we are seeing the dawn of the commercial space age.”
ROFLMAOPIP you mean the commercial glacial age. ‘Cause that’s the pace of commercial space, fella, and without government subsidies in the Age of Austerity, it’ll freeze in place. And when the budget cutters turn up the heat, it’ll melt away.
DCSCA wrote @ August 4th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
ROFLMAOPIP you mean the commercial glacial age..>>
it cannot be slower then NASA and the socialist (grin) age taking between 4-6 years and accomplishing nothing but turning money into make work jobs.
Commercial activities are slow because of the need for efficiency and profit…but we are well on the track with commercial space to redo previous “investments” by government in creating new industries…see the airmail contract. RGO
What is stunning to me, is that the groups which claim that they dont want a strong federal government “intruding into our livesâ€â€¦are good with NASA doing it.
I am happy with NASA being a federal agency because I don’t think a space agency run by Minnesota would be very effective.
ULA has a great opportunity here. Atlas V will be used, at least initially, with three of the four CCDev participants, so they seem like a virtual lock for being a provider as long as NASA funds two or crew providers.
Clearly. Atlas V has the upper hand. Makes you wonder why Lockmart doesn’t get aggressive in using an uprated version for Orion. I have been wondering for months what is going to take the place of Ares I. Will it be a Direct-like vehicle, or an Atlas or Delta variant? While NASA dithers with SLS, companies will start to move. All part of Bolden’s obstructionist plan. It is working now, but will land him in hot water with congress.
SpaceX is absent from the discussion because, being vertically integrated all other contractors see them as competition. They will be launching their proprietary system, while Lockmart and Boeing sell interoperability to a congress looking to spread the wealth. Curtains for SpaceX.
> All part of Bolden’s obstructionist plan. It is working now, but will land him in hot water with congress.
Somehow I doubt that Gen. Bolden loses much sleep over the prospect of congressional displeasure. The relevant committees have shown themselves to be pretty toothless to date and that doesn’t look like it’s going to change.
Breaking news … Boeing has confirmed that the Atlas V will be the launch vehicle for the CST-100:
“Atlas V to launch test flights of Boeing capsule”
There’s also an animation of such a launch. Click here to watch on my site.
Particularly interesting about the animation is where the CST-100 docks. It’s not the ISS.
It’s the Bigelow space station.
They will be launching their proprietary system, while Lockmart and Boeing sell interoperability to a congress looking to spread the wealth. Curtains for SpaceX.
In your dreams. NASA needs SpaceX much more than SpaceX needs NASA.
@ almightywind,
If (big if) NASA are eventually forced to put MPCV on an EELV, it will likely be the Atlas-VH (dual-engine Centaur and three CCBs in parallel). The Atlas-V is already being crew-rated as part of the commercial LEO-only CST-100 and Dreamchaser projects. So, it wouldn’t be too much of a jump to use it to fly NASA’s spacecraft too.
FWIW, over on NSF, we’ve been doing some number-crunching and figure that ULA would be able to produce enough EELVs for six missions per year using one MPCV (launched by Atlas-VH) and ~90,000kg cargo launched by three Delta-IVH+GEMs. This is enough for a lunar surface mission similar to Apollo. If you add in the oft-discussed Common Centaur upper stage (with four RL-10 engines instead of one or two), you get figures more like 120t cargo + MPCV. If Falcon Heavy is operational, it can launch another 50t to LEO. Between the three LVs, two or three better-than-CxP lunar surface missions per year are logistically possible. All this for a likely yearly cost less than the cost of one CxP mission using Ares-I and Ares-V.
The bigger EELV-derived launchers, Atlas-V Phase-2/3A and the Delta-derived EELV Phase-II only become necessary if you want either a Moonbase or Mars Landing and, consequently, the ability to punch 100,000kg/220,000lbs cargo into LEO per shot becomes necessary. That isn’t impossible anymore because of today’s announcement about possible Martian liquid water (FWIW, the Moon First/Mars First argument between Doctors Spudis and Zubrin should be interesting to observe). The probability of the existance of both liquid water and life on Mars is growing and I think that will boost public interest.
In answer to your quoted question, outside of Headquarters, NASA wants an Ares-V-like SD-SHLV and appears to have the support of pro-space deligates in the House. The Senate mandated something not unlike the DIRECT SD-HLV family. The budget situation, combined with NASA’s own internal political and organisational problems seems to suggest that nothing shuttle-derived is doable in any realistic time-scale.
I, personally, got interested in this debate after finding out about the DIRECT movement. I still feel that the DIRECT concept is the best shuttle-derived option that would have allowed a flexible planetary exploration program. However, this is the real world and, in this real world, NASA isn’t very good any more at building large launch vehicles and, even if you wave that problem aside, there isn’t really the budget for it. To me, the fiscally responsible thing is to use the SLS budget to finish MPCV, build a dual-role crew/cargo lander and use a multi-EELV strategy to go to the Moon.
Given that there are lots of non-governmental crewed space launch programs underway, I consider it plausible that the next human to walk on the Moon may step off the ladder of a commercially-procured lander as part of a mission that was, at least partly, developed with venture capital as a commercial product to sell to government space programs for lunar survey and exploitation.
amightywind wrote @ August 4th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
I wrote:
What is stunning to me, is that the groups which claim that they dont want a strong federal government “intruding into our livesâ€â€¦are good with NASA doing it.
You replied:
I am happy with NASA being a federal agency because I don’t think a space agency run by Minnesota would be very effective….
But just because you support a federal agency or like this or that federal agency does not mean that this federal agency should get a pass on being “intrusive into our lives”.
Right wingers like you like federal agencies or federal policies that are INTRUSIVE into individual and corporate lives where you draw the line is when you dont like the intrusion. That is hypocrisy.
Then we can move on to the notion of if space policy is a national policy so should the health care of the people but that is another blog…RGO
Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ August 4th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
You wrote:
All this for a likely yearly cost less than the cost of one CxP mission using Ares-I and Ares-V.
That is a solid analysis.
you wrote:
” That isn’t impossible anymore because of today’s announcement about possible Martian liquid water (FWIW, the Moon First/Mars First argument between Doctors Spudis and Zubrin should be interesting to observe).”
sadly the argument is purely rhetorical. It wont make any difference. The stock market has started the tumble of confidence…and by Nov of next year the talk will be about how to stop the declining US and free world economies not going to Mars or the Moon.
Robert G. Oler
Right wingers like you like federal agencies or federal policies that are INTRUSIVE into individual and corporate lives where you draw the line is when you dont like the intrusion.
Outrageous! I am a centrist if there ever was one
There is no market model for human space exploration. There might be (Boeing/Bigelow, Virgin Galactic). Until there is NASA is here to stay.
To me, the fiscally responsible thing is to use the SLS budget to finish MPCV, build a dual-role crew/cargo lander and use a multi-EELV strategy to go to the Moon.
Why not use the SLS budget for buying propellant launches, use the MPCV budget (and perhaps its workforce) for building that lander and go to the moon sooner?
“They will be launching their proprietary system, while Lockmart and Boeing sell interoperability to a congress looking to spread the wealth. Curtains for SpaceX.”
Even if SpaceX dropped Dragon and ULA took over the entire human orbital launch market, Falcon 9 has contracts for a couple dozen commercial satellite launches, including the new Orbcomm and Iridium fleets, the latter of which was the largest commercial launch contract ever signed.
Don’t make stuff up.
amightywind wrote @ August 4th, 2011 at 3:12 pm
“Makes you wonder why Lockmart doesn’t get aggressive in using an uprated version for Orion.”
First of all, because Orion/MPCV is a NASA product, not a Lockheed Martin one. LM is just the contractor. The CST-100 is a Boeing designed product.
Secondly, use an uprated version for what? At max it could only hold six people, so it’s not going to be competitive against any of the commercial crew designs. And it costs so much to make that they could never price it where they could make money versus the commercial designs. Who would pay for it?
The Orion/MPCV design was designed for supporting a short lunar mission, so it’s kind of hard to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear…
“SpaceX is absent from the discussion because, being vertically integrated all other contractors see them as competition.”
One of your more ignorant comments.
It doesn’t matter how they achieve their pricing, lower costs for the same service make them competitive.
“They [SpaceX] will be launching their proprietary system, while Lockmart and Boeing sell interoperability to a congress looking to spread the wealth.”
So you think politicians should be involved in making all purchasing decisions? Boy, you are definitely not a conservative, nor even a RINO.
It’s also funny that you don’t understand that ULA is proprietary too, and you can’t put an Atlas V on a Delta IV launch pad, and vice versa – different payload interfaces, different fuels… oops, so much for interoperability.
But no matter, payloads don’t really care what they’re sitting on as long as it gets them to space on a smooth ride, so I wouldn’t count your rockets before they get sold, especially if ULA doesn’t get serious about reducing costs significantly. Every order SpaceX gets from the U.S. Government is an order that ULA loses, so they are the ones that have to worry about competition, not SpaceX.
Ben Russell-Gough wrote
“To me, the fiscally responsible thing is to use the SLS budget to finish MPCV, build a dual-role crew/cargo lander and use a multi-EELV strategy to go to the Moon.”
I certainly agree that the course you propose would be more responsible than continuing SLS. But, one might ask, what would be the cost of such a program? One might guess $10B for lander/MPCV development plus $6B per year for three lunar missions per year with a stay time of 2-4 weeks each for four crewmembers. What would these expeditions accomplish that would provide a comparable return to the taxpayers?
Regarding Sandy Adams, she demands massive tax cuts and small government, applauded Bush’s cancellation of Shuttle, attacks Obama for canceling Shuttle, and has said that human spaceflight should be funded by eliminating funding for NASA climate research. She believes this would halt global warming.
@Rand Simberg wrote @ August 4th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
“In your dreams…” and here’s your wake-up call: SpaceX needs NASA much more than NASA needs SpaceX. There, fixed that for ‘ya. Tick-tock, tick-tock…
Robert G. Oler wrote @ August 4th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
Commercial activities are slow because of the need for efficiency and profit…
ROFLMAOPIP no, they are slow because they cannot secure capital investment from the private sector for a high risk/low ROI venture for a limited market so they turn to the government for seed monies and subsidies and in the Age of Austery, that is evaporating before their eyes. Tick-tock, tick-tock, fella. 2. They cannot do it on their own to begin with, as the 80 plus years of history of modern rocketry has shown.
Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ August 4th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
“I, personally, got interested in this debate after finding out about the DIRECT movement.”
So did I, mainly because I thought the Ares I/V rockets under Constellation were duplicative – Delta IV Heavy should have been picked over Ares I, and Ares V just didn’t seem sustainable (4 moon missions & we were done).
I thought DIRECT was an intriguing concept, and it appealed to my sense of keeping costs down where possible. Of course that was before I learned that the Shuttle program components were not anywhere near the lowest cost choices available for accessing space, so I gave up on DIRECT.
However that interest in lowering the cost to access space has helped me shape my views on what we should be doing in space, so for that I thank the DIRECT people for getting me involved in this wonderful ongoing (and going, and going) discussion about how we move forward in space.
Being a numbers type of person, I like the work that you and others have done on hardware alternatives for missions. It’s certainly the right direction in regards to using what’s available and only building what you absolutely have to.
However I do share the concern about the overall program cost, since it’s highly unlikely that NASA will be authorized to do a Moon mission anytime soon, especially since the costs would be prohibitive in this budget environment. Any exploration plan that starts with “First we build a new and bigger rocket” is going to difficult to get going, especially after SLS (regardless if it gets built or not).
I think the best direction to go is more modular, using existing launchers to their fullest extent. We certainly have not utilized the full potential of modular spacecraft assembly, so I think all we need is for people to understand that so we can stop building new things and start using what we have to do exploration.
amightywind wrote @ August 4th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
“Until there is NASA is here to stay.”
you are not conservative or centrist…government should when it can be a customer of private enterprise for services, at least in a Free Enterprise system…seesh RGO
Space 2015
Orion completes 3 flights. 2 unmanned and 1 crewed. All full-up spacecraft from the start. All on Atlas V. The Orion Cargo variant is back! Shelved back in 2007 to make way for the original commercial crew contracts.
CST-100 has completed 3 flights. 2 unmanned and 1 crewed. Cargo variant ready to fly to ISS. 2-3 flights a year get funded by NASA for ISS support –crew and cargo.
Orbital has flown Cygnus many times and more cargo contracts are in the pipe.
SpaceX is flying out its cargo contract. ULA beats SpaceX and the Falcon 9 on cost, reliability, safety and a proven track record ( thanks to a very large back order of US Gov launches and that LM has over 100 RD-180s in the US).
Atlas V become the commerical launcher for crewed spacecraft. SpaceX discovers without Lori, they can’t compete with the majors.
Also, LM builds a commercial version of Orion and flys it under CC.
Brave new world
Why does everyone want to get rid of NASA? The agency may have its problems, but it should remain at the top of deep space exploration. The announcement just a few days ago, that Mars may have flowing water, certainly gives us more cause to want to go and colonize. This should be NASAs destiny. Make colonization happen. I think Mr. Musk has the idea andhope he alone with NASA can make it happen in my lifetme.
That should read ,he along wth NASA, needs to make it happen, with regards to Mr. Musk. Im not a very advanced typer…
I want us to build new things, Ron. I just want those “new things” to be what goes under the fairing at the pointy end of the rocket.
tom wrote @ August 5th, 2011 at 12:36 am
I have a slightly different vision, but no matter isnt competing visions in the dynamo of free enterprise a great thing…RGO
Falcon 9 has contracts for a couple dozen commercial satellite launches, including the new Orbcomm and Iridium fleets, the latter of which was the largest commercial launch contract ever signed.
I am familiar with both systems. Orbcomm and Iridium were bottom feeders in the 1990’s and they are bottom feeders now. The high dollar comm satellite and government satellite markets won’t go near SpaceX until they have a track record. They also don’t have a high performance upper stage. Do they plan use the skanky kerolox one? SpaceX is ‘gonna do’ a lot of things. One wonders how long we must we wait for them to actually perform. I thought these internet geniuses were supposed to be fast.
Why does everyone want to get rid of NASA?
Many people on this site do. There is no explaining them. All you can do is refute their idiocy. But the notion is not widespread.
The announcement just a few days ago, that Mars may have flowing water
Another interesting result, but not new at all. Seemingly active gullies in several regions were observed by Mars Global Surveyor and other spacecraft since 2000.
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/june2000/
I want us to build new things, Ron. I just want those “new things†to be what goes under the fairing at the pointy end of the rocket.
That’s so weird, Justin, because I want those ‘new things’ to be what goes under the blunt end of the bottom of the rocket. I believe they are called ‘engines’ and they are the little things that seem to make the rockets work.
Considering that the only ‘engines’ of any efficiency that the US has now, besides the overweight liquid and gas consuming RS-68 and the SpaceX Merlin 1C – are the Russian RD-180 and NK-33 (AJ26), then I would be have to be as blunt as possible to suggest that as an employee of NASA you really do seem to have your priorities all wrong. Nothing new there.
Five years to reengineer some hydrocarbon and hydrogen engines seems just about right. Wasn’t that Obama’s original plan? I’d have to go with the Tea Party on this one, Atlas V and Falcon 9 could be used as boosters for the Frankenstein rocket that we don’t really need, until which time NASA can put together the smallest possible launch vehicle to add critical and necessary upgrades to our existing fleet of commercial launch vehicles, upgrades that clearly and demonstrably all aerospace corporations short of SpaceX have been heretofore unwilling to make, let alone acknowledge.
@Dennis Berube
“Why does everyone want to get rid of NASA?”
Again. The idea is not to get rid of NASA, but to have commercial companies do launch and have NASA use the savings to finish human an robotic exploration into the inner solar system. But to do this would require killing the monstrously wasteful SLS.
Shame that the Merlin 1d has a thrust to weight ratio of 160 to 1 – better than the NK33 – eh?
What was that about inefficient engines again?
Why does everyone want to get rid of NASA?
It is monumentally stupid to think that anyone here is proposing getting rid of NASA.
Mr. Simberg, I have seen even on this sight, talks of perhaps shutting NASA down for other options. Some people would like to see that happen. Not me however. If NASA and SpaceX can get us to Mars, I am all for it. I dont think that SpaceX however can do it alone either.
Shame that the Merlin 1d has a thrust to weight ratio of 160 to 1 – better than the NK33 – eh?
Wikipedia says:
Thrust To Weight ratio: NK33 = 133, Isp(vac) = 331s
Merlin = 96, Isp = 305s
Outch! The Merlin is definitely a monkey on a rocket’s back! Heck the old Atlas II RS-58 has a specific impulse of 316s and it first launched in 1991. SpaceX hasn’t even improved on that!
Justin Kugler wrote @ August 5th, 2011 at 8:35 am
“ I just want those “new things†to be what goes under the fairing at the pointy end of the rocket.”
Understood. Although you could still go into serial production for things such as probes or rovers, which would drive down their costs and increase the number you could send out. You lose some capabilities initially because the designs won’t be optimized, but you can make it up in volume because you can afford more.
The other thing that will become apparent soon too is that rockets like Falcon Heavy remove some of the weight limitations that required more time and effort to optimize, and the possibility of using a Dragon capsule to land payloads on Mars removes more cost overhead from the program.
What’s needed is a program or two that will take advantage of these new capabilities, and prove them out so everyone else can follow.
tom wrote @ August 5th, 2011 at 12:36 am
“The Orion Cargo variant is back!”
This should have been your first indication that you were dreaming, since Congress has no inclination to develop yet another version of the MPCV, which is already a derated Orion.
And why would you want to? After the first CRS contracts are done, I think the next ones will be even less expensive since everyone will have worked out the risky issues and costs can be predicted.
Anyways, by law NASA can’t compete with commercial providers, so there goes that fantasy.
“and that LM has over 100 RD-180s in the US”
This should have been your second indication that you were dreaming. What company would tie up that much capital for that long with a product that has no supply issues? The RD-180 cost LM $10M back in 2001, so using those prices you want them to keep $1B of inventory sitting around? Sure you want to keep some safety stock “just in case”, but at the rate of 5 launches per year, that’s 20 years worth of safety stock. That’s why it’s only a dream.
“Atlas V become the commerical launcher for crewed spacecraft.”
Well at least some reality crept into your dreams. Of course this is really old news since Atlas V has been chosen by three of the four CCDev participants.
But unlike you apparently, those of us that support commercial space also support a robust and competitive marketplace, so we’re not looking for just one provider, but as many as the market can support. Competition keeps prices as low as possible, and drives innovation for new products and services.
Atlas V is a good vehicle and I hope ULA takes advantage of the orders they’ll be getting to lower it’s cost, since it needs to shed 40% of it’s cost to be competitive with Falcon 9. And that’s extremely hard to do for an existing product with legacy overhead.
I have only heard of one person who has specifically suggested we shut down NASA. His idea was quickly dismissed. I hear NO ONE calling for shutting down NASA.
Dennis is right when he talks about NASA and SpaceX. This is a partnership between the government and the private sector, in short, “limiting government”. This is the model we would like to see used in future missions and operations.
The partnership of NASA with ULA, Boeing, Orbital, LockMart, Ball, and others is what needs to happen. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt NASA cannot manage multi-year, multi-billion dollar budgets that span presidencies. The bureaucracy is too slow.
Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space
tom wrote:
“ULA beats SpaceX and the Falcon 9 on cost, reliability, safety and a proven track record ( thanks to a very large back order of US Gov launches and that LM has over 100 RD-180s in the US).”
ULA beats SpaceX on cost? Exactly how much does it cost to launch an Atlas V?
No one seems to know, SpaceX puts their prices on their website, hell congress can’t even find out how much an Atlas costs:
“It is obvious that the matter of costs and launch vehicles continues to be an area where new ventures fail to communicate, by hiding, misunderstanding, neglecting to study, or simply misleading, the true scope of resources required to keep and operate a launch system. When congressionally mandated Nunn-McCurdy correction reporting reaches a scope of a program having to report jumps from [18]$18.8 billion to a $31.8 billion, the situation is not only dire, it must by definition have poor estimation colluding with lack of interest.
While high-level data sources and the varied mix of sources can reconcile to agree on some key EELV cost parameters, it is not clear without further detail that a true picture of EELV costs will emerge in the near future. The approval of the [19]United Launch Alliance, merging Atlas and Delta, Boeing and Lockheed-Martin launch operations, can reasonably be expected, by way of full monopoly, to only make this lack of transparency worse. Future initiatives on the part of the Government should include the possible breakup of launch vehicle services from any spacecraft providers similar to the [20]anti-trust guidelines that keep airliner manufacturers such as Boeing from owning airline operations such as American. Co-ownership is NOT healthy, long term. Immediately the cost of the launch would be visible, albeit at a high-level, as apart from the spacecraft on any bids, making it possible to compare a Northrop-Grumman or a Space-craft-R-Us proposal by a manufacturer only in the satellite / spacecraft business against any other (vs. trying to figure out the equalizing difference when a launch vehicle provider also bids for a constellation of spacecraft, to be launched on their own launch vehicles). The latter break-up notion could possibly interplay with any eventual merger between ULA and United Space Alliance (USA) at KSC (albeit opening new problems as to sheer size). In either case, initiatives exploring new legal or procurement methods should focus on having a healthy understanding of costs, which is critical to future US pre-eminence in space. You can not control what is not understood.”
A Review of Costs of US Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV)
When Lockmart starts publishing a fixed price then we can start talking about who beats who on costs.
The 160 thrust to weight ratio for Merlin 1d was presented at a recent conference – see NSF website. Also bumped the ISP a bit.
Interesting that the SpaceX development path consists of build for reliability and low cost, the improve via testing & modification cycles. After all, that’s exactly how the NK33 came about.
Contrast with alternative idea – bleeding edge spec from the start, spend billions to meet it. Usually miss…
Atlas V is a good vehicle and I hope ULA takes advantage of the orders they’ll be getting to lower it’s cost, since it needs to shed 40% of it’s cost to be competitive with Falcon 9.
I just watched an Atlas V flight with restarts and complex booster stage maneuvering. The performance was flawless. SpaceX seems to struggle to keep their rocket second stage flying straight. Until they demonstrate a mission profile comparable to a Centaur, SpaceX is not a competitor, and are not credible on cost.
SpaceX seems to struggle to keep their rocket second stage flying straight.
It only seems that way to the sort of idiot who would imagine that it spun out of control and didn’t achieve orbit.
The BBC reports that the Boeing plans to use the Atlas V 412 configuration to launch the CST-100. The 4 is misleading because the CST-100 will have a custom fairing. But the vehicle will use 1 Aerojet SRM (yay!) and a 2 engine Centaur.
amightywind wrote @ August 5th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
So wouldn’t it make more sense to evolve an existing launcher rather than build one from scratch?
> you could still go into serial production for things such as probes or rovers, which would drive down their costs and increase the number you could send out.
Asteroid probes. I’ve long thought that the asteroids have not gotten quite the attention and funding they deserve considering their number, compositional diversity and accessibility. Design a standardized probe to cost and mass specifications that would allow a launch rate of one or two per year for a ten year campaign.
Revisit the design after ten years to take into account advances in technology and asteroidal knowledge. But avoid replacing good-enough old technology with something that’s just shinier.
Hi AW –
Your suddenly favorable comments about the Atlas aren’t related to the fact that some of the heavy versions of it which have been proposed show the use of solid boosters, now would it?
I wonder if Arianespace will man rate the Ariane 5?
China apparently intends to man rate the CZ5 for Moon Phase I.
My guess is still that China will go with re-usable fly-backs to maintain their cost advantage after that, but we’ll see.
There you go Jeff – not a mention of politics or impacts.
RGO, don’t feel too bad. My cat just left.
So wouldn’t it make more sense to evolve an existing launcher rather than build one from scratch?
That’s what the SLS is.
Asteroid probes. I’ve long thought that the asteroids have not gotten quite the attention and funding they deserve considering their number,
Instead of thinking, you should read.
EROS
Dawn
Galileo
Cassini
Deep Space 1
Deep Impact (comet)
Stardust (comet)
Hi Egad –
“Asteroid probes. I’ve long thought that the asteroids have not gotten quite the attention and funding they deserve considering their number, compositional diversity and accessibility. Design a standardized probe to cost and mass specifications that would allow a launch rate of one or two per year for a ten year campaign.”
Actually, those probes have been given a high priority. Its in the detection side of things where there have been seriously deficiencies.
The reason Obama chose a manned mission to an asteroid was as a test of manned Mars systems.
“Revisit the design after ten years to take into account advances in technology and asteroidal knowledge. But avoid replacing good-enough old technology with something that’s just shinier.”
You don’t understand yet. The main problems are comets, comet fragments, and comet dust loads.
It appears that we have less than 10 years to work on these problems.
Your suddenly favorable comments about the Atlas aren’t related to the fact that some of the heavy versions of it which have been proposed show the use of solid boosters, now would it?
I was not aware Atlas V would use large SRB’s. I still admire their dial-a-rocket approach using the Aerojet motors. They do a good job launching NASA missions and defense satellites. They will do a good job launching the CST-100. But the Atlas V is still too small, IMHO, to be the primary post shuttle booster.
Why the Euros don’t man rate the Arianne V and build a simple ISS transport escapes me.
amightywind wrote @ August 5th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
“But the Atlas V is still too small, IMHO, to be the primary post shuttle booster.”
Atlas V Heavy isn’t too small, and lifts more than what the Shuttle could. Since it uses proven components that are in production and use now, it can be ready in 3 years for a cost/lb that SLS can only dream of.
“Why the Euros don’t man rate the Arianne V and build a simple ISS transport escapes me.”
A lot of things escape you, so that’s no surprise…
LM acquired RD-180s for just over a million each. Sealed, secured, delivered and flight ready. What a deal. Also the Merlin engine is based on the FASTRAC engine developed for the X-34. SpaceX did not invent it, MSFC did. The Atlas V heavy uses 3 core stages just like Delta IV. But it never got past CDR. It could be built now but it would take 2-3 years for the heavy to reach 1st flight.
“LM acquired RD-180s for just over a million each.”
Do you have a reference?
“Why the Euros don’t man rate the Arianne V and build a simple ISS transport escapes me.â€
Airanne V was actually designed from the beginning to be man rateable.
The concept hasn’t escaped their attention, if your recall ARD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_Reentry_Demonstrator
They have also looked at evolving ATV in that direction.
tom wrote @ August 5th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
“LM acquired RD-180s for just over a million each. Sealed, secured, delivered and flight ready. What a deal.”
I think you’re confusing the NK-33 (built for the Soviet N-1 rocket) with the RD-180. The NK-33 (now the Aerojet AJ26-58), was in storage for decades. The RD-180 is a newer engine and is in production in Russia.
Not only that but the $10M price I was quoting for the RD-180 was from Lockheed Martin when they were testing the engine for Atlas V use in 2001. I believe them more than I believe you… sorry.
“Also the Merlin engine is based on the FASTRAC engine developed for the X-34. SpaceX did not invent it, MSFC did. ”
Are you arguing with yourself on this? Does anyone care? Technology that is not being used is useless, regardless how great it is, so kudos to SpaceX for grabbing the best U.S. technology and making it useful. Good use of our previously spent tax dollars.
Using already developed technology has been one of the many ways SpaceX has been able to develop their products so fast without spending $Billions on R&D. I doubt they have a Not Invented Here (NIH) attitude like some aerospace contractors, especially since every dollar they save on development can be put towards lowering their costs. Smart business guy that Musk…
Merlin 1d has a thrust to weight ratio of 160 to 1.
I’ll believe it when I see it. Too bad it isn’t a 300 to 500 klb class engine.
tom wrote:
“LM acquired RD-180s for just over a million each. Sealed, secured, delivered and flight ready. What a deal.”
Actually it was General Dynamics and Pratt & Whitney that worked out the deal for that engine.
RD-180
“During the early 1990s General Dynamics Space Systems Division (later purchased by Lockheed Martin) acquired the rights to use the RD-180 in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) and the Atlas program. As these programs were conceived to support United States government launches as well as commercial launches, it was also arranged for the RD-180 to be co-produced by Pratt & Whitney. However all production to date has taken place in Russia. The engine is currently sold by a joint venture between the Russian developer and producer of the engine NPO Energomash and Pratt & Whitney, called RD AMROSS.”
Blunt Man wrote @ August 5th, 2011 at 6:47 pm
“I’ll believe it when I see it.”
I’m sure everyone is waiting for your blessing, especially SpaceX and their customers…
“Too bad it isn’t a 300 to 500 klb class engine.”
Why? If you need more thrust, you add more engines. Hence the “9” in Falcon 9.
For someone that goes by the moniker “Blunt Man”, you sure are vague.
“Orbcomm and Iridium were bottom feeders in the 1990′s and they are bottom feeders now. The high dollar comm satellite and government satellite markets won’t go near SpaceX until they have a track record.”
False on several counts:
1) The SpaceX/Iridium contract is the highest dollar contract ever signed in the history of the commercial launch market.
http://investor.iridium.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=479890
2) SpaceX has signed up other “high dollar comm satellite” customers like geostationary comsat SES-8:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=AviationWeek.com&id=news/asd/2011/03/15/02.xml&headline=SpaceX%20Wins%20An%20SES%20Satellite%20Launch
3) The Air Force is releasing new solitications with the expressed intent of getting Falcon 9 on board:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/05/06/10.xml&headline=Triana%20Sat%20Eyed%20For%20Competitive%20Test%20Launch
Don’t make stuff up.
“They also don’t have a high performance upper stage.”
And SpaceX needs to spend investor dollars developing a hydrogen upper stage because… ?
Think before you post.
“One wonders how long we must we wait for them to actually perform.”
Years less than it took/is taking Ares I/SLS/Orion to get to orbit.
“I thought these internet geniuses”
They’re not “internet” anything:
“Mr. Buzza was the test project manager for Boeing’s Delta IV 1st Stage”
“Chris was given responsibility for all Test and Verification activities at the Boeing Huntington Beach Engineering Labs, which supports all development and qualification tests on Delta II, III, and IV, Titan IV, and Space Station.”
“Mr. Mueller spent 14 years at TRW where he ran the Propulsion and Combustion Products Department, responsible for all liquid rocket engine activities.”
“During his tenure at Certified, Mr. Reagan oversaw construction of several critical sub-components of the International Space Station and tooling assemblies for construction of the Space Shuttle External Tank.”
“Dr. Koenigsmann has served as head of the Space Technology Division of Germany’s Center for Applied Space Technology and Microgravity (ZARM) at the University of Bremen. In that role, he was responsible for the development and operation of the satellite BREMSAT.”
“Selected to the astronaut corps in 1987, Bowersox has flown five times on NASA’s Space Shuttle, serving as pilot, commander and mission specialist, and once on a Russian Soyuz. Bowersox has logged over 211 days in space, including five and a half months aboard the International Space Station (ISS), where he was the mission commander of the 6th expedition.”
“Prior to his time at ULA, Vander Weg served as the Director of the Atlas Government Program Office for Lockheed Martin’s (LM) Atlas Program.”
http://www.spacex.com/company.php#spacex_people
Don’t make stuff up.
“Many people on this site do.”
Which posters here have stated that they want to get rid of NASA? Names? Quotes? Links?
Don’t make stuff up.
“Another interesting result, but not new at all. Seemingly active gullies in several regions were observed by Mars Global Surveyor and other spacecraft since 2000.”
Again, wrong. The 2000 observations only indicated water flowing on the surface of Mars in recent geological history, which can be thousands to millions of years in the past. The information in this week’s release indicates that water is flowing on Mars today, on annual/seasonal cycles.
Don’t make stupid statements out of ignorance.
“Heck the old Atlas II RS-58 has a specific impulse of 316s and it first launched in 1991. SpaceX hasn’t even improved on that!”
And SpaceX needs to spend investor dollars developing an engine with a greater Isp than the RS-58 because… ?
Think before you post.
“That’s what the SLS is.”
Not if it uses unflown solid boosters, replaces those with undeveloped liquid boosters, and kludges a Delta IV upper stage to boot.
Don’t make stuff up.
in 2009 I was part of a study to use an Atlas V as the 1ts stage (with the Ares I Upper Stage) as a replacement if we could not solve the thrust oscillation problems with the original ATK solid 1st stage. We verified the costs/availability/etc of the RD-180. P&W has lic to make them in Fla, but why would they? when they stockpiled 100 several years ago. RD-180 is a great engine. This combo could have worked. The Atlas V avionics was the back up for us when the Ares I avionics development effort fails(ed). That’s why Ares I-X was launched. To prove the Atlas V avionics could control the original Ares I configuration. I did that rather well. SpaceX could say thank you to MSFC for the engine.
Also 27 engines on the Falcon 9 heavy? Come on, just say boom!
“Space 2015
Orion completes 3 flights. 2 unmanned and 1 crewed. All full-up spacecraft from the start. All on Atlas V.”
It’s a nice fantasy, but there are no funded plans to launch Orion on an Atlas V.
“The Orion Cargo variant is back! Shelved back in 2007 to make way for the original commercial crew contracts.”
No, the Orion cargo vehicle was terminated because of Orion and Ares I cost growth.
“SpaceX is flying out its cargo contract. ULA beats SpaceX and the Falcon 9 on cost,”
Economically impossible. SpaceX runs Falcon 9 and Dragon and is developing Falcon 9 Heavy and crewed Dragon with less than 1,500 employees. ULA is staffed at 3,700 employees just to run Atlas V and Delta IV, on top of the workforce for whatever capsule (CST-100) or spaceplane (Dream Chaser) is riding on top. ULA has to feed more than twice as many mouths as SpaceX. ULA will never be cheaper than SpaceX with its current vehicles and the workforce those vehicles require.
“reliability, safety and a proven track record ”
ULA certainly beats SpaceX on this today, but it is unknown if ULA will still beat SpaceX on reliability by mid-decade. SpaceX has more payloads and unless those payloads go away, SpaceX will have more launches under its belt at some point than either EELV family.
“Atlas V become the commerical launcher for crewed spacecraft.”
I’m all for an Atlas V launch vehicle for human space flight. But it becomes the only domestic human launch vehicle if SpaceX terminates Dragon crewed or the laws of economics are suspended. Neither is likely.
Again, ULA has to feed more than twice as many mouths as SpaceX.
Unless its parents or the Air Force sink substantial new development money into a new vehicle and allow ULA to retire the EELV fleet, ULA will never be competitive with SpaceX.
It will require a launch vehicle that promises a lower price point, like the reusability of the Blue Origin booster, to take market share away from SpaceX. That might happen as early as the late teens or early 2020s.
“Also, LM builds a commercial version of Orion and flys it under CC.”
At $1 billion a pop, Orion is way too expensive for commercial crew. Even if LockMart proposed, it would never be selected.
“LM acquired RD-180s for just over a million each.”
Reference? Quote? Link?
“Also the Merlin engine is based on the FASTRAC engine developed for the X-34.”
No, it’s not. Merlin and Fastrac both use pintle injectors, but TRW invented that technology decades before Fastrac (and the head of propulsion at SpaceX used to head propulsion at TRW). Merlin 1a and Fastrac both used ablative nozzles, but SpaceX has dropped ablative nozzles in favor of regeneratively cooled nozzles on the Merlin 1c and 1d and a niobium nozzle on the Merlin Vacuum. The same company (Barber-Nichols) builds the turbopumps for Merlin and Fastrac, but they’re completely different designs at very different thrust levels: 60Klbf vac. for Fastrac versus ~140Klbf vac. for the Merlin family.
FWIW…
An investment article on SpaceX vice ULA:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/08/04/is-this-the-end-of-boeing-and-lockheed-in-space/
FWIW…
@Rand Simberg wrote @ August 5th, 2011 at 10:51 am
It is monumentally stupid to think that anyone here is proposing getting rid of NASA.
Arent you, though. In fact, you have indicated on this very forum and your own forum in months past that you wouldn’t lose any sleep if NASA disappeared. Of course, now, commercial needs NASA as a customer– and now that America has been downgraded by S&P, securing capital is going to get that much more difficult– and costly.
@tom wrote @ August 5th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
“Also 27 engines on the Falcon 9 heavy? Come on, just say boom!”
Shades of the N-1. Another weak design. Should be a good show for Space Coast residents and desperate homeowners trying to unload their houses. But then, occasional ‘fireworks shows’ along the beachfront might be an added selling point.
I’m sure everyone is waiting for your blessing, especially SpaceX and their customers
I’m sure launch service providers are just ordering hundreds of Merlin 1Ds sight unseen. No, wait, SpaceX doesn’t sell engines! But Aerojet does!
If you need more thrust, you add more engines.
You mean just add more boosters, right?
For someone that goes by the moniker “Blunt Manâ€, you sure are vague
I can see how the laws of physics and their engineering implementations would seem vague to someone who isn’t intimately familiar with the process and works with it every day, day in and day out. Good luck with getting what you want with rhetoric and politics. You’ll need it.
to someone who isn’t intimately familiar with the process and works with it every day, day in and day out.
Well Blunt Man, let me be blunt with you: it sounds as if you won’t be doing that sort of thing for much longer, not at the taxpayers’ expense, and not in the private sector either. Tough.
“Shades of the N-1. Another weak design.”
This is a false statement. N-1 was an unwieldy and unaffordable HLLV that massed over 6,000,000lbs. and had 30 engines and thrust chambers in its first stage. Falcon 9 is an MLV massing less than 750,000lbs. with only nine engines and thrust chambers in its first stage. Comparing the two is highly misleading.
Falcon 9 is much closer to Soyuz, which masses 680,000lbs. Soyuz employs five engines with 20 thrust chambers. With over 1,700 launches under its belt, Soyuz is arguably the most successful launch vehicle in history.
Don’t make stuff up.
In fact, you have indicated on this very forum and your own forum in months past that you wouldn’t lose any sleep if NASA disappeared.
That is not the same thing as proposing to get rid of it.
Falcon 9 Heavy has 27 independent engines. It’s the N-1 concept (clusters last stand) That is nuts.
Presently NASA needs someone to make hard decisions. SLS is to much. The money should go into the Orion for deep space, and then launch it on an Atlas or Delta, or even Falcn heavy, if it flies.
tom wrote @ August 6th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Falcon 9 Heavy has 27 independent engines. It’s the N-1 concept (clusters last stand) That is nuts.
So you don’t like clustering? So you must think that the Saturn IB, with EIGHT engines on the first stage, was the biggest piece of sh*t ever built, ay?
Since the Falcon Heavy (not Falcon 9 Heavy) just mates three common booster cores together, you must also think that the Delta IV Heavy, with three common booster cores (just like FH), is the biggest piece of s*it ever built also, ay?
it sounds as if you won’t be doing that sort of thing for much longer, not at the taxpayers’ expense, and not in the private sector either.
Let me be blunt to you Martin – someone in America, whether it be NASA or the DoD or the private sector, or some combination thereof, IS going to reengineer the NK-33/AJ26. Not in Europe, get it, in America. And I’m very happy to have been a major player in making that inevitability – a reality.
If you guys over there want to be a part of that, you can contribute at your convenience, otherwise, you can just wait for SpaceX to start flying with little or no competition from the private sector. We all know what it will take to out compete SpaceX, it will take a high T/W ratio, high impulse hydrocarbon engine. If you Europeans want to take that on, I encourage you to get started. The most prudent choice would be to start right now, since you’ve got a lot of catching up to do, even as far behind as we are.
I don’t care whether and where civil servants with phoney baloney jobs get to work on rocket engines, I don’t care which company has the largest market share, I care about progress in commercial manned spaceflight. Commercial launch prices and volume are an indication of how far we’ve come and how much remains to be done. Who cares if Ariane is outcompeted by SpaceX or ILS?
Blunt Man wrote @ August 6th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
We all know what it will take to out compete SpaceX, it will take a high T/W ratio, high impulse hydrocarbon engine. If you Europeans want to take that on, I encourage you to get started. The most prudent choice would be to start right now, since you’ve got a lot of catching up to do, even as far behind as we are.
You’re making an assumption that SpaceX will not continue to work on the KeroLOX Merlin 1 … they are already on Rev D. Plus it looks like their engineering team is noodling a 7,600 kN KeroLOX Merlin 2.
you can just wait for SpaceX to start flying with little or no competition from the private sector.
You’re also assuming ULA and PWR aren’t going to innovate too … Last I knew both of them were private sector.
So who are these “We” you keep talking about?
he said he was “absolutely stunned†commercial spaceflight was not held to the same rigorous standards of commercial aviation
Nor is NASA manned spaceflight, not is military aviation…
and warned that an accident involving a commercial vehicle “could potentially flatten the space program for a period of years.â€
Like the loss of Challenger and Columbia did? Those were non-redundant launch vehicles, whereas commercial launchers would likely be redundant. So Wu isn’t merely wrong, he is arguing the opposite of the truth. The argument goes exactly in the opposite direction.
Who cares if Ariane is outcompeted by SpaceX or ILS?
The people who develop payloads, Martin. Satellite and instrument operators, and hopefully soon capsule operators. What else were you thinking? Surely not Human Mars surface missions, right?
So who are these “We†you keep talking about?
The United States of America, flush with $11.5 Billion dollars of SLS cash.
Any way you look at space, more engines and more boosters is better. That’s what drives the cost down and innovation and progress forward. Mr. Musk tells you exactly what he is doing and pretty much describes how he is doing it, and then publicly challenges all comers to compete.
Competition in the area of high performance engines requires investment. NASA and the US government (we, us) have obligations in this area. What is going on right now is a complete shirking of these vital responsibilities.
Many clever innovations await. They all require fuel and thrust.
@Major Tom wrote @ August 6th, 2011 at 11:03 am
“Shades of the N-1. Another weak design.†This is a false statement.”
In fact, it is not. The N-1 was a plumber’s nightmare designed with too many engines which only increased the probability of failure– and it did fail on every launch attempt. “Don’t make things up,” indeed.
The people who develop payloads, Martin. Satellite and instrument operators, and hopefully soon capsule operators.
Yes, they will care in the sense that they will move elsewhere. But why should anyone of us here be sad if Arianespace goes under or is kept alive as a government-payloads-only launcher? If others can do it more cheaply and reliably than Arianespace, then that would be great.
Someone comparing Falcon Heavy to the N-1 because both have a “too many engines” is a good indicator that their opinion on technical matters can be safely dismissed.
If others can do it more cheaply and reliably than Arianespace, then that would be great.
Cut can you tell me what is ‘great’ about even $2500 per kilo to LEO?
Because no matter how great you are, someone can do better, and LEO launch costs are prohibitive for most routine applications even at $1000 per pound. Mr. Musk knows that, and thanks to him, now Arianespace and ULA knows it. When you figure that out for yourself, then perhaps you too can contribute to the vital global problem of high LEO launch costs.
Here’s another idea, can a 155 klbf engine with a 160 to 1 T/W ratio launch a small one man capsule to a modest space station, and if so, how would that compare in cost to a high performance high thrust closed cycle engine (for instance, an AJ-500) which clearly can do the job with ease.
Inquiring minds want to know, because inquiring minds understand that even the cost reductions and efficiency improvements accomplished thus far by SpaceX are not the be all end all of LEO launch rate increases, and are not sufficient to generate the high flight rates that are necessary for the kind of problems that humanity are confronted with on this planet.
MSFC will have no role to play in developing cheap lift – it’s something that’s beyond the capability of government hierarchies.
MSFC will have no role to play in developing cheap lift – it’s something that’s beyond the capability of government hierarchies.
Nevertheless, the problems remain:
Eventual US government default by fiscal incompetence.
NASA launch vehicle design failure by fiscal and technical incompetence.
$11.5 billion dollars of designated US launch vehicle development funds.
Congressional mandate to develop a US national launch vehicle that will complement and enhance OUR existing commercial launch vehicle fleet.
NASA civil service staff sitting around and wasting time and money.
Since SLS (Ares V) and MPCV (Orion) are not credible solutions to the above domestic problems (our problem, not yours) the result follows. That result should be clear to anyone who has read Mr. Musk’s May 5th op ed. I’ve published my solution, what’s yours, Martin?
Letting the free market, NASA and congress decide are not credible solutions, because this problem has remained and now escalated for decades as a result of free market economics (big aerospace companies) and NASA and congressional fiscal and technical incompetence as well. Solving the LEO launch cost problem, and the associated orbital debris debacle as a result of serious long term neglect of this problem, is going to require an intimate cooperation between the private and public sectors.
“In fact, it is not. The N-1 was a plumber’s nightmare designed with too many engines which only increased the probability of failure”
That may or may not be true but it has no relationship to Falcon 9. I’ll repeat… This is a false statement. N-1 was an unwieldy and unaffordable HLLV that massed over 6,000,000lbs. and had 30 engines and thrust chambers in its first stage. Falcon 9 is an MLV massing less than 750,000lbs. with only nine engines and thrust chambers in its first stage. Comparing the two is highly misleading.
Falcon 9 is much closer to Soyuz, which masses 680,000lbs. Soyuz employs five engines with 20 thrust chambers. With over 1,700 launches under its belt, Soyuz is arguably the most successful launch vehicle in history.
Don’t make stuff up.
I’ve published my solution, what’s yours, Martin?
You haven’t articulated a solution to the debt problem, so you are going to have to be more specific. I don’t believe solving the LEO launch problem (in other words, achieving cheap lift) is an important societal problem and I don’t think it merits government spending. Furthermore, government funded manned spaceflight seems like a waste of money too. The solution would be to close down NASA manned spaceflight and maybe NASA as a whole.
As a space enthusiast however, I would be disappointed if that were to happen. If we accept there is a space agency that does manned spaceflight, then I think one major goal should be to open up space for mankind. I don’t see how you could justify it otherwise, since it would amount to no more than paid joy-rides for select government employees.
If there is to be an exploration program, it should be done with freely competing commercial launchers. The easiest and most effective way to do that would be by using propellant transfer. I would like to see the money earmarked for SLS + MPCV be redirected to a lander, probably with an orbital precursor first and an unmanned precursor before that.
The propellant consumed by such a spacecraft could establish a large and fiercely competitive propellant launch market. Within ten to fifteen years I would expect to see commercial RLVs with launch prices that would enable large scale space tourism and extensive government funded exploration and even some limited private exploration, say by the National Geographic Society, the Planetary Society or the Mars Society.
If a substantial fraction of the $3.5B/yr spent on Shuttle launches for the past thirty years could continue to be spent on launches, but competitively this time, then all that could happen.
Will it happen? Probably not, because nobody but the special interests care about this and their selfish behaviour will cause this not to happen.
I don’t believe solving the LEO launch problem (in other words, achieving cheap lift) is an important societal problem and I don’t think it merits government spending. Furthermore, government funded manned spaceflight seems like a waste of money too. The solution would be to close down NASA manned spaceflight and maybe NASA as a whole.
As a space enthusiast however
Oh, I see, you’re a mere space ‘enthusiast’, who believes cheap LEO lift is the solution to all of our beyond earth orbit space exploration problems but are unable to discern the societal implications of space travel for the planet, nor even capable of recognizing the severity of planetary problems.
If that’s the case there isn’t much I can do for you other than to point out to you that’s not the way we do things anymore on this side of the ocean.
Good luck with your enthusiast space program over there.
Good luck with your enthusiast space program over there.
I’m not terribly interested in what ESA does as it is highly unlikely to have much synergy with commercial manned spaceflight. I’m more interested in CCDev.
@Major Tom wrote @ August 7th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
“In fact, it is not. The N-1 was a plumber’s nightmare designed with too many engines which only increased the probability of failureâ€
“That may or may not be true…”
In fact, it is true, per the Soviet’s themselves and their analysis of the failures. “Don’t make stuff up,” indeed. 1+1=2, not 11.
I’m more interested in CCDev.
That’s capsules and space planes. Great. However, all of these capsules and spaceplanes will still need primary propulsion and launch vehicles, and Atlas V and even Falcon 9 Heavy at $1000 to $5000 per lb (that’s pound not kilo) simply does not cut it for anything much different than we are already doing. You’re just not thinking far enough ahead or looking at the long term – that those Earth to LEO launch costs will not work for raw materials nobody wants. From my perspective everything is proceeding beyond my wildest expectations, except for the lost ten years and tens of billions of dollars, and the extreme cost of the shuttle and ISS and the continued fixation on SLS (Ares V) and MPCV (Orion). What I simply intend to do (and indeed, what I have done) is broaden the playing field far beyond SpaceX and ULA and into the realm of new (from the old) Russian propulsion and the vastly smaller, more affordable, modular and reusable launch vehicle architectures while opening a five year window in which second generation hydrocarbon engine reengineering, development and production can proceed with federal investment, to give the competition a chance to compete with SpaceX (who is already doing those things) on a level playing field, with multiple players. That’s exactly what you want, right? You can debate all you want the nuances of gas generator and pintle designs -as opposed to closed cycle, vacuum enhanced nozzles and the answers I have to all of those issues are – yes. Invest heavily and widely in propulsion and build small versions of the large rockets you eventually may want to fly, and fly often and unsafely, Wider is not better with this.
Anyone not fixated on Earth to LEO transportation is not fixed in reality, sorry, but that is the BLUNT TRUTH. Even the Russians get those basics. Certainly Mr. Musk ‘gets it’. Europeans should be excelling at this as well. The ‘opening up the solar system’ line is hopelessly naive, as it is several very large steps beyond the work we have yet to do to get to that point.
Anyone not fixated on Earth to LEO transportation is not fixed in reality, sorry, but that is the BLUNT TRUTH.
I don’t know where you get the idea I disagree with that. I’ve said that to first order cheap lift aka low cost and reliable access to space is the only thing that matters. With it we’ll have the entire solar system, without it we’ll have paid joy-rides for a select group of government employees and perhaps Apollo on steroids at best. Nothing is more important than cheap lift.
Merrill Lynch analyst Seve Milunovich
“In our view, CEO Elon Musk may be similar to Steve Jobs in being a technology visionary also able to manage and create shareholder value.â€
http://blogs.forbes.com/ericsavitz/2011/08/08/tesla-is-elon-the-next-steve-merrill-launches-with-buy/
I’ve said that to first order cheap lift aka low cost and reliable access to space is the only thing that matters.
Ok, so far so good. So what do you have against a reengineered NK-33 (AJ26/500)?
With it we’ll have the entire solar system
Extremely unproductive (almost idiotic) rhetoric. We (as in US) weill be at Ceres and Pluto by 2015, you know that right? We’re already there Martin.
Nothing is more important than cheap lift
to LEO. Your ‘solar system’ mantra is complete nonsense, especially since you offer no concrete plans on how that ‘cheap lift’ is to become a reality. On the other hand, an AJ-500 on a three meter modular booster is just about as concrete and ‘not SpaceX’ as one can get, considering Soyuz 1.
“In fact, it is true, per the Soviet’s themselves and their analysis of the failures.”
Not according to Korolev, Mishin, Chertok, or Kamanin. The number of engines on the N-1’s first stage does not appear in any of their statements as to why the N-1 suffered test launch failures or why the Soviets lost the Moon race:
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/whynrace.htm
Don’t make stuff up.
And for the third time, this still has nothing to do with Falcon 9. N-1 had 30 first-stage engines and massed over 6 million pounds. Falcon 9 has nine first-stage engines and masses less than a million pounds. It’s like comparing a watermelon to an apple.
Think before you post.
Ugh…
Ok, so far so good. So what do you have against a reengineered NK-33 (AJ26/500)?
Nothing at all, I’m merely against targeted government funding for it, because I believe launch vehicle decisions should be made by the market.
Extremely unproductive (almost idiotic) rhetoric. We (as in US) weill be at Ceres and Pluto by 2015, you know that right? We’re already there Martin.
For a handful of probes, yes. What I meant was something far more ambitious, to expand the Earth’s economic sphere to encompass the whole solar system. Say commercial manned spaceflight right up to the surface of Mars or maybe even Ceres or Vesta and commercial unmanned exploration well into the outer solar system. Which is what would / will happen at $100/kg.
to LEO.
Yes, to LEO. Which is halfway to anywhere else in the solar system.
Your ‘solar system’ mantra is complete nonsense, especially since you offer no concrete plans on how that ‘cheap lift’ is to become a reality.
I’ve done so several times, but maybe you weren’t paying attention. That’s your prerogative of course, but then you shouldn’t complain if you overlook the reply.
On the other hand, an AJ-500 on a three meter modular booster is just about as concrete and ‘not SpaceX’ as one can get, considering Soyuz 1.
Yes, very concrete, but I don’t see how that would lead to cheap lift or why it deserves targeted government funding, let alone an MSFC monopoly on such work. If that is what you’re proposing. But since I believe cheap lift should be the number one priority in the field of manned spaceflight I’ll be happy to listen to any details you may be willing to provide.