Comments on: CCDev hearing preview

By: Aberwys

Aberwys — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 21:22:18 +0000

common sense wrote @ October 26th, 2011 at 6:34 pm

NASA doesn’t need to ask. I knew/know plenty of folks who have asked if they can donate to NASA. I always echoed the party line: “no, they can’t”.

Um, I was totally wrong about that.

By: Robert G. Oler

Robert G. Oler — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 17:13:50 +0000

Mr. Right wrote @ October 27th, 2011 at 1:04 am

“CxP was not a waste. Thatâ€™s an unfair criticism. Itâ€™s like you go to build a house, pay cash along the way, then stop. Yeah, if you had finished the house the investment works out”

It all depends on your notion of value for cost…if something cost far more then its value then completing it wont make it less of a waste. If something is being built at a cost that is several times what the same capabilities can be achieved at, then completing it wont make it less of a waste..

The SLS is the XC-99 of the space age…and the only reality is that building more of the 99’s would not have made the investment “valuable”.

nice words but you are trying to justify what is not justifiable. 20 billion dollars so far on Ares/SLS and thats a waste RGO

By: John Malkin

John Malkin — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:04:01 +0000

Since Challenger, the DOD has stayed away from using NASA for launch vehicles. They have relied directly on Boeing, Lockheed and ULA for big stuff. I doubt that will change. Liberty is a paper rocket with no payload i.e. capsule (cargo or crew). Maybe ESA will use it. Orion MPCV will not launch on it because they are going to use a Delta IV for early orbital flights and SLS Mini aka Ares V Lite (Augustine) for CIS-Lunar mission.

SLS may fly but it wonâ€™t be affordable or cost effective for its 30+ years of life. Sounds familiarâ€¦

By: BeanieCounterFromDownunder

BeanieCounterFromDownunder — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 12:38:32 +0000

Mr Right, totally wrong. SLS will never fly. Liberty will remain a paper rocket. MPCV will likely also never fly. There, fixed that for you. Why? Too costly, no missions. No customers. CHeck the DoD if you don’t believe me. They have monster budgets compared to NASA and they are getting very worried about cost of U.S. launch vehicles so where do you think NASA is going to get funding for more Cx-type programs?

By: Fred Willett

Fred Willett — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:35:51 +0000

The bottom line is that NASA needs commercial crew, so somehow they’re going to have to make it work. Inspite of congress.
It might be that they will down select to a single supplier, say CST-100. Boeing would be happy to do that reguardless of whether it was FAR or SAA. But NASA has to make something work. If commercial fails totally then all that NASA is left with is MPCV and they’re grounded, relying on the Russians for the better part of 10 years.
Then again reguardless of what NASA does SpaceX will push on. On their own dime if necessary. So will SNC and Blue Origin. They’ve all said so. Only Boeing has said they won’t procede without NASA.
So commercial space will get here. It may be slower if NASA stuffs it up, But it likely to happen anyway. We’ll see.

By: Stephen C. Smith

Stephen C. Smith — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 11:05:27 +0000

Florida Today on yesterday’s hearing:

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20111027/NEWS02/310270025/NASA-Commercial-space-program-needs-adequate-financing

By: Ben Russell-Gough

Ben Russell-Gough — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 08:44:05 +0000

@ RGO,

Yes, and that raised eyebrows at NASASpaceflight.com too. Nonetheless that’s what he said and we’re all waiting to see if that was a misstatement, misspeaking or another finger in the eye of the super-slow NASA dev process being used on Orion/MPCV.

@ Vladislaw,

Of course, if SpaceX can meet Elon’s promise that that would be great and a big leap forward. That said, the per-seat cost is only a part of the story. The big advantage of using Soyuz is that it is a mature product. The USG isn’t having to (directly) pay for R&D, vehicle testing and the like, although I bet there’s margin in Roskosmos’s prices that go towards their next gen projects. I suspect that Mr. Wittington’s concerns lies with the risk that the commercial crew vehcles will end up costing more on a lifetime basis (including R&D, infrastructure and ground ops).

What’s my position on this? I don’t pretend to be an expert who can make a prediction. However, so far none of the commercial providers have broken the bank to get to where they are. Indeed OSC has got some political praise for its low-cost solid-only sat launchers built from recycled ICBMs. There is also the issue of the benefits from creating US-based jobs and encouraging skill development in the US. Both of these things generate tax revenue, something that buying a foreign product off-the-shelf does not.

My own hope is that the commercial companies will provide cheaper tools that will enable NASA to carry out launch services more cost-effectively. This will mean more money for missions rather than developing bespoke LVs. Ultimately, I would hope that we see something not unlike how airlines do it: buy an existing basic vehicle and then fit it out for your needs. That’s still a long way off – I don’t think any commercial launch company except ULA and possibly EADS Astrum could build an HLV-class launcher as a commercial product. However, what the coming decade will prove is whether it is possible to do this on the smaller scale of crewed MLV to LEO.

By: Ed Minchau

Ed Minchau — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:30:22 +0000

Mark R. Whittington wrote @ October 26th, 2011 at 2:45 pm

In any case, one of the great takeaways from the hearings is that private markets for commercial manned space flight are a little thin. In fact they seem to consist of Bigelowâ€™s private space station project. That is a thin reed indeed if NASA expects this experiment to pay out. Otherwise paying the Russians may be the cheaper option.

Mark, you’re operating from a mistaken premise. Do you really think Bigelow started his space company just to build one space station? Only one? Recall that this is a guy who has built hundreds of hotels.

By: Mr. Right

Mr. Right — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 05:04:45 +0000

A few points.
CxP was not a waste. Thatâ€™s an unfair criticism. Itâ€™s like you go to build a house, pay cash along the way, then stop. Yeah, if you had finished the house the investment works out. If not, you blew it. The Ares I avionics and software will be used on Boeings CX-100 spacecraft. Good reuse. The 5 segment boosters will fly on SLS as will the J2-X, good investments. We now know who to fly people on a solid 1st stage. Good science, other applications. ATK will use a vast amount of existing infrastructure for Liberty. Good reuse. The Orion Abort capability will be awesome. Yeah, Orion will fly on an EELV in 2013. Lastly on the SLS side, found out today a contract is going to be let for the core stage in Jan 2012. Open competition. Ares I Upper Stage becomes the SLS 2nd stage. Boeing gets to write the flight s/w. Not NASA. The IUA transfers to SLS. Letâ€™s hope commercial works out and congress does not seek a few pounds of flesh for how NASA was run the past 3 years.

By: nom de plume

nom de plume — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:45:46 +0000

I caught the end of the hearing, but according to Musk’s written comments, SpaceX just completed the preliminary design review (PDR) milestone for the LAS. Musk went into a lot of detail in his 12 page written remarks found at the House Committee’s link (top of Jeff’s post). Descriptive, but a little short on timelines, but I heard his response about schedule slips â€“ SpaceXâ€™s delays are minor compared to government-run space programs. He could have but did not rub salt in the wound by mentioning the huge government cost over-runs.

Written comments also described SpaceXâ€™s plan to use similar components for cargo and crew (major advantage) and the comparison of Soyuz and Falcon/Dragon was insightful.