Campaign '12

A review of the candidates’ space positions (or lack thereof)

While you’re awaiting the results of tonight’s Iowa caucuses (or even if you’re just watching the Sugar Bowl), you can catch up on the positions of the Republican presidential candidates on space in this article published today in The Space Review. It largely recaps what has been posted here over the last few months, with a little bit of additional material: for example, I looked into the voting records of some of the candidates who are or have been in Congress in lieu of position statements from the various campaigns (none responded to a brief questionnaire I sent to them last month.) We may hear more from some of the candidates—at least those who survive the initial rounds of Iowa and New Hampshire—on space issues when they start spending more time in Florida, whose primary is at the end of this month.

106 comments to A review of the candidates’ space positions (or lack thereof)

  • In an extremely important swing State like Florida where sometimes only a few thousand, or even a few hundred, votes can determine who the next President will be, you’d think the candidates would be more focused on a Federal program that is so important to the Florida economy as NASA is.

    But, I guess, if politicians were truly geniuses then the country wouldn’t be in the trouble that its in right now:-)

  • Matt Wiser

    Interesting piece. One does expect Space to come up as an issue at the Florida GOP debate in two weeks. Want to win Florida in either the primary or the General Election? You need the I-4 Corridor (Tampa-Orlando-Daytona Beach). Lots of folks in that area work on the Space Coast, or for contractors inland (Orlando, say). Want them to vote for you? Then you’d best come out in favor of the Space Program.

  • Living here in the Space Coast, I expect the candidates to spend a few days blowing through here reciting talking points written by the Brevard County GOP without having a clue what they’re talking about. Then they’ll move on and we’ll never hear from them again.

    No doubt they’ll be advocating a return to the government monopoly over access to space, hoping to win over the few votes of the hard-liners who work (or worked) at KSC.

    The lone exception will be Newt Gingrich — if he’s even still in the race by the time the roadshow arrives in Florida. His anti-NASA rhetoric will cost him here.

    Philosophically, this area is Tea Party Central and is probably more likely to go for Ron Paul.

    But let’s not think that anyone outside Brevard County gives a hoot about NASA or the space program in general. Those who have space-related jobs don’t live in Orlando or Tampa or Daytona Beach, for the most part. They’re in north Brevard County — mostly Titusville, north Merritt Island, the city of Cape Canaveral and Cocoa Beach.

    No candidate is going to stump statewide in Florida on space simply because it’s not a significant issue anywhere outside of these few towns.

    An article in the latest issue of Space Coast Business detailed how commercial space is leading to a diversification of the local economy, which is surging ahead of the statewide average. Commercial space is the future, and it’s the winner for Brevard County.

    If the GOP candidates blow through here advocating a return to a failed past, well, anyone who votes for failure will get what they deserve.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Matt Wiser wrote @ January 3rd, 2012 at 10:44 pm

    ” Want them to vote for you? Then you’d best come out in favor of the Space Program.”

    all you are suggesting is pander politics (“support the space program”…what space program?) and in any event you dont understand what happened in Iowa.

    The GOP has now nicely fractured along three basic lines…the older more successful folks (Willard), the bible banger wing (Ricky) and then what is left of the true conservatives…The Ron Paul wing.

    Neither of those groups have as any pressing matter “the space program” (whatever you define that as) and it is unlikely that any of those people or at least a significant part of them will have “the space program” as an overriding concern in terms of votes unless it is a pure pocket book pander vote…

    Sadly other then the perfunctory photo op with Newt imploding (or exploding as the case may be) it is unlikely that there will be any serious debate on the space effort from the GOP hopefulls.

    The last act to be played out is 1) how Newt bows out (it will be messy as is Newts style) and 2) what chance any of this gives Huntsman to maybe get some traction.

    The interesting thing about all three groups now of the GOP is that few if any of them will vote for someone in the other group.

    Commercial space is going to be the big hit in 12.

    The SLS crowd is to quote Dick Cheney “a bunch of dead enders” LOL

    RGO

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 4th, 2012 at 11:00 am

    I told you that Newt would go nowhere. And I don’t think he has the cash to move forward for much longer. He may be an interesting voice to keep around though. At least for the fun of it.

    Huntsman? Who is that? Anyway…

    I am surprised at the surge by Santorum though and I think it is just a reflection that the GOP does not know where to go. He may stay there for a while but he’ll fade.

    The most consistent so far are Romney and Paul. I suspect that Paul has the public support even more so than Romney and if he manages an Obama-like campaign he might even sustain his position.

    Romney has the power of money and he’ll be always near the top just because of that. And most likely the support of old fashion GOP lobbyists. But he’ll lose 2012.

    Bachman… Here goes the Cain way…

    Now as far as Florida and Space Program go I am with you. Those who think that the “space program”, whatever that means, is of any importance even in Florida are delusional. But then again they support SLS/MPCV.

  • Coastal Ron

    There is a chance, a slim chance, that Romney will somehow tie his latest push for manufacturing to something space related when he visits the space coast. However, as Stephen C. Smith points out, that may just as likely be commercial aerospace as a government one – Romney fancies himself a “government is not the solution” type of guy, so you fill in the blanks.

    For Paul, he would defund NASA along with everything else that isn’t specifically called out in the Constitution.

    Santorum could be the only currently strong candidate that would argue for a strong government space program, and I say that only because he seems to be a strong military type (bomb Iran, etc.), and using our space program as one of the tools of “containing China” wouldn’t be surprising to hear from him.

    I doubt we’ll hear any specific details that will make “Moon First” or Mars First” types swoon. Just generic “we need a stronger space program”, and “I’ll do better than Obama”, which isn’t detailed enough to hang a hat on.

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ January 4th, 2012 at 11:14 am

    Newt is the orginator of the politics of personal destruction and it was going to be hard for Newt to avoid the now dejure effort at GOP politics which is the politics of personal destruction. It will be entertaining to see if he (Newt) can or will do a similar thing to Willard as he (Newt) “goes down”.

    The GOP primary race is about to enter the Wagner stage where they all use the GOP weapons so nicely honed against Democrats and particularly Obama against themselves.

    Santorums speech last night was first rate. It was not only good politics but it was splendid attack. Rick was babbling on about his grandfather…which is a clear contrast to Willards, whose father left the US when the pologomy laws shut that down in Utah…and then Willards grandfather came back, from Mexico to restart life in Utah. It nicely brings in the “morman” thing which is anathema to the right wing evangelicals.

    Newt and Willard are competing for the same votes…and NH might turn into a bash Willard party…

    What this all means for space politics and policy is that 1) it is unlikely that any GOP candidate will now make as a centerpiece “a return to Apollo”…and 2) the one guy who had a clue as to how to make space a place like aviation or anything else…is likely going to go down in flames.

    It is hard right now to predict the GOP nominee…there is a path now where the GOP cycle that started in the 80’s closes with a pretty massive defeat of a right wing evangelical who then allows the party to restart…or well like I said its hard to predict.

    Except the constant…there will not be any massive call for SLS…that program is a dead person walking. RGO

  • vulture4

    Romney will Speak in Brevard County and, as he normally does, blame everything bad, particularly the job losses, on Obama and “European Socialism”. Romney will be sure to say that Obama spoke at KSC and that he “broke his promises”. The Brevard Tea Party will eat it up. Never mind that Obama promised he would support the “space program”, not “Constellation”, and that his $850M request for Commercial Crew was crushed by Republicans in Congress, delaying the return of US human spaceflight by years.

  • gregori

    There is a ridiculous vanity that just because you happen to be interested in space, that its going to be the issue that decides the election and that the candidates will go nowhere unless they appease your marginal interest. There is the belief that space fans somehow have politicians by the balls over an issue like space. Its out of touch with reality to say the least.

    Space is not going to be even in the top ten issues that decide the election. Actually, its more likely to be a liability. Saying we’re going to the Moon and Mars in a time when people can’t make ends meet is going to be shot down as irresponsible government waste. People will think you are a lunatic. More down to earth issues are going to be the focus of the campaigns.

    Better keep quiet about it and say some meaningless vague talking points in favor of “leadership”, “security” and “inspiration” than making firm commitments to colonies or proposing a budget for it. Those that think NASA will favor better under the republicans in these times are in for a lesson from the school of hard knocks.

    People have been waiting for getting the “right” politicians to fulfill their space fantasies for 40 years and so far that hasn’t worked out. There is no reason to believe that is going to change in the future either. Politicians only have so much room to manouevre on space issues. NASA’s budget going significantly up is not likely in the near term. The solution will have to be policies that allow it to do the most things with the budget it has.

  • amightywind

    It is hard right now to predict the GOP nominee…

    It was hard yesterday. It is a lot easier now. It’s the Mitt and Santorum show now. Either GOP nominee can be expected to pick the low hanging fruit of the disaster that the Obama presidency has been to the Space Coast. If Obama hands you a cudgel, why not use it on him? And yes, that means pandering to the legions of unemployed NASA workers. Romney will be under pressure to walk the walk as a conservative, and that means a traditional NASA policy.

  • I asked some space policy questions of Mitt Romney the other day. I’m not holding my breath waiting for answers.

    Newt is the orginator of the politics of personal destruction and it was going to be hard for Newt to avoid the now dejure effort at GOP politics which is the politics of personal destruction.

    What stupid nonsense.

    It’s the Mitt and Santorum show now.

    And Huntsman, and Gingrich, and Perry, and Paul. No delegates have even been selected yet.

  • gregori

    AMW,

    That’s too funny for words. I will agree, it would be “conservative” in the sense that it keeps NASA doing things as it always has done, but it doesn’t fit in with the pro-market rhetoric of the Republicans. Politicians are trying to conserve something, but its a model more akin to Soviet era design bureaus. Which is fine if you support that model, but at very least be consistent.

    Supporting that NASA model whilst screaming at the top of your lungs about how Obama is an evil “SOCIALIST!!!” does fill one with a sense incredulity. That’s like the example a person uses to explain to a small child what ‘hypocrisy’ is.

    You couldn’t make this stuff up!!

  • DCSCA

    U.S. space policy has always been essentially reactive, not proactive. And there’s little evidence this ‘ fits ‘n’ starts’ mind set of the American character has changed. Beyond the basic needs of defense, communications and land/weather observations, space operations, particularly the luxury of HSF, will remain a low priority until events beyond the shores stir competitive juices. Like the PRC initiating manned missions back to the moon. But even that may produce little more than a yawn from Americans (as recent news reports noted) and the cry of ‘been there, done that’ half-a-century earlier. More’s the pity. For that kind of reaction is reminiscent of past powers in decline reacting to fresh initiatives by assertive nations moving center stage in the world- as when the British century yielded to the American century. A saving grace may be the ‘excitement of the new’ and ‘the thrill of just beginning’ for young engineers, scientists, technicians and politicians. Something Goddard, Von Braun and Korolev knew very well.

    @Rand Simberg wrote @ January 4th, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    “Newt is the orginator of the politics of personal destruction and it was going to be hard for Newt to avoid the now dejure effort at GOP politics which is the politics of personal destruction.” “What stupid nonsense.”

    In fact, Newt, along with crony Bob Walker, are among the most nonsensical political dinosaurs around. Yes the ever petulant Gingrich and his pals are famous for that kind of stupid nonsense. Their brand of failed, ultra-conservative politics, clinging to the discredited and defunct policies of Reagan, who was last on a ballot over 27 years ago, make for good copy for print media and entertaining TV for cable news shows but more importantly, present a glaring reminder to Americans of the damaging legacy of their politics of destruction.

  • DCSCA

    Romney’s wave-of-the-hand, churlishly dismissive comments about Gingrich’s space musings reveals Mitt’s mind set on real world space policy. Besides, as a Mormon, he expects to get his own planet one day, anyway, on faith.

  • NASA Fan

    What is going to make the biggest difference in the future fortunes of NASA has nothing to do with who is President. NASA needs to build the stuff it’s building ON TIME and ON BUDGET. Then the swirl of dysfunctional organizations surrounding them may, MAY, take notice and reward good behavior.

    Who is president will make no difference what so ever. Never does.

  • Ben Joshua

    There are a lot of great things happening at NASA right now despite the budget, policy and bureaucratic doldrums.

    However, the unique political circumstance that led to Mercury, Gemini and Apollo disappeared (forever) and left behind a design bias sans funding and purpose. Call it Apollo Entropy. SLS shows us how long it is taking to play out.

    Run of the mill politicians shy away from the current transition, knowing any strong stance on space policy will lose more votes than it gains.

    Politicians in the know (count ‘em on one hand?) see a very different model for spaceflight emerging, and are biding their time, knowing a premature stance makes them look fringy.

    Should CCDev edge successfully to maturity, more than a few people in both parties will think. “Hey, where did THAT come from?”

    Then they will place finger in the wind and decide whether or not to rally to the new space patriotism, and fork over a few more meager bucks for a happening approach.

  • Coastal Ron

    NASA Fan wrote @ January 4th, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    NASA needs to build the stuff it’s building ON TIME and ON BUDGET.

    That is important, but only half of it. What it builds needs to be of use, otherwise all that effort to build it on-time and on-budget will have been for naught.

    For instance, do we really need to build the SLS right now? There are no payloads or missions for it, so it would appear to be either A) not needed at all (i.e. NASA will never really use it, or be able to afford to use it), or B) not needed right now (i.e we’re building way before we need it).

    People have speculated that some day we’ll need the ability to put 10m diameter and/or 100MT+ payloads into space, but we’re not close to needing that right now. I hope we get there someday, since that will mean that we have lots of activity going on in space, but again, no one, including NASA, can afford that level of activity today or in the near future.

    As of today, what is more important – NASA’s ability to get crew & cargo to LEO, or the need to put 130mt payloads into space? One addresses an immediate and widely recognized need, the other doesn’t.

    So yes, building things on-time and on-budget is important, but building the right products/solutions is even more important.

  • common sense

    @ NASA Fan wrote @ January 4th, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    “NASA needs to build the stuff it’s building ON TIME and ON BUDGET.”

    It is not the problem. The problem is Congress mingling in NASA affairs telling NASA what and when to build for an arbitrary amount. It does not matter they are on budget, on time. We just saw that after Constellation was terminated, our dear Congress revived it so that we now have a zombie program. If Congress was serious about this they would tell NASA: VSE is the law. Here is the money you need/ask, go do it. But Congress does not. NASA does not want SLS and probably not MPCV. NASA wants real money for commercial crew. And, so far, COTS and CCDev are delivering far more than Constellation ever did and more than SLS/MPCV ever will. A successful CCDev will terminate SLS/MPCV. Yes even for exploration beyond LEO. Just watch.

    “Who is president will make no difference what so ever.”

    Agreed. See above.

  • Malmesbury

    Probably of more space policy import than who will lose to Obma….

    http://spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av019/120103rescue.html

    If it does turn out that you can take the slow boat to GEO from LEO using electric propulsion and not get fried in the Van Allen belt (for unmanned missions)….. That could change things quite a bit.

    Even for manned missions – set off from LEO unmanned. The spam can join later via can (aka capsule), after the belt has been passed through.

  • Doug Lassiter

    If space is going to be even a minor factor in the upcoming election, it seems plausible that to the extent Obama has lost support from the Space Coast for his decisions about Constellation, he has gained support from the rest of the country for those same decisions. That is, should it become a campaign issue, he can credibly spin his decisions as ones of fiscal responsibility to the taxpayer. Same with his encouragement of commercial spaceflight. Obama’s NASA budget has been increasing, not decreasing, and most of that money is for jobs. Just not necessarily jobs on the eastern coast of central Florida. That being the case, the number of space jobs has actually increased, outside of a small circle around Cocoa Beach.

    It’s amusing that “space jobs” are often defined as being held by people who have sand between their toes and palm trees over their heads. In this respect, there are many places other than Florida that space could easily enter into campaign discourse. In fact, I would take more seriously pronouncements about space from candidates who aren’t in Florida (or maybe Houston and Huntsville) when they make them. Those pronouncements would speak to why space is good for the country, and not just why it’s good for Florida.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ January 4th, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    I asked some space policy questions of Mitt Romney the other day. I’m not holding my breath waiting for answers.>>

    good thing…aside from the fact that Willard has no real incentive to talk about “space”, the way you pose the questions is slanted as if you have a candidate and you are trying for a gotcha. You have done better. Its weak RGO

  • @Lassiter:

    For instance, do we really need to build the SLS right now? There are no payloads or missions for it…

    Well, that’s not true.

  • common sense

    @ Prez Cannady wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 12:49 am

    There is no payload. There is no funded payload.

    Powerpoints do not make budgets.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Prez Cannady wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 12:49 am
    “@Lassiter:
    For instance, do we really need to build the SLS right now? There are no payloads or missions for it…”

    That wasn’t me, but I feel the same way. Even if they were affordable, the missions you point to are either serviceable in other ways, without an SLS, or are close to one-shot deals. How many SLS-scale large space telescopes do you really think that SMD can afford in the next three or four decades? In fact, in-space construction is a more sensible and extensible approach to achievement of such a telescope.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Prez Cannady wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 12:49 am

    @Lassiter:

    For instance, do we really need to build the SLS right now? There are no payloads or missions for it…

    Well, that’s not true.>>

    sure it is…all those are are viewgraphs. SLS/Cx whatever has had those for a long time. There are no funded payloads.

    RGO

  • Coastal Ron

    Prez Cannady wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 12:49 am

    Well, that’s not true.

    Until Congress and the President allocate money, it is true. Right now there are preliminary plans, wishes, and dreams. But no funding streams.

    The point that Doug Lassiter makes about affordability is a good one. Take all of the ideas that are being proposed, stack them up into payload missions that use an SLS once or twice per year for a couple of decades, and how much will that cost? Far more than any Republican Presidential candidate would propose without some sort of boogeyman threat, and I don’t think China is a big enough threat in space to merit that much spending.

    The SLS is a public works project that is too expensive to use after it’s finished, and leaves no lasting infrastructure after all the money has been spent.

  • common sense

    @ Coastal Ron wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 10:46 am

    “I don’t think China is a big enough threat in space to merit that much spending.”

    Threat in what way? If we are talking national security then the DoD is taking care of it, not NASA.

    An economical threat? I am sure you know we owe them already and quite a bit I might add. He3? I think that unless they have the technology to use it we are safe for a little while. But as far as I remember for us to ensure delivery of oil to our shores we use the military, don’t we? Why would it be any different for He3 – even if I believe this scenario to be outrageous?

    A threat for prestige? A threat to our fertile virility?

    What threat is China that would require NASA to take care of it? And not say the DoD?

    I don’t think you are one of those advocating those absurd notions but you brought it up…

  • MrEarl

    You guys keep blathering on, pushing your ideas about how NASA should be doing space exploration. All have merits and may or may not be better than using an HLV. That is no longer the point.
    This fact remains; Congress has supported the building of an HLV (Aries V and SLS) for the past 8 years. They have been presented with various versions of all of the ideas you espouse and still comeback to support HLV and MPCV.
    Call it pork, stupidity, ignorance or whatever; the course has been set. This fight only leads to more time and money wasted.

    The job now is to:
    1: Develop and implement the SLS and MPCV as cheaply and quickly as possible. From what I’m been reading it seems that NASA has finally learned that lesson.
    2: Design missions that best leverage the existing LV’s (Delta, Atlas, Falcon and others) and the SLS to get the greatest bang for the buck. NASA is in the process of doing that and we should begin to see the fruits of that in mission plans being proposed in the next 6 months.
    3: Bring in more commercial participation in HSF as they prove their abilities. COT’s and CCDev are areas this is starting, another may be fuel depot construction and supply.
    4: Partner with Europe and Japan for the design and construction of habitat modules, landers and other ancillary equipment that could be launched on the SLS.
    As much as anything else, it’s the backstabbing and undermining that has caused the US HSF program to be stuck in LEO for the past 40 years and it’s time for it to stop so we can move ahead.

  • Vladislaw

    Looking at the James Webb and it’s blown schedule and budget can you imagine the cost of a 130 ton telescope? The 130 ton launcher will not be around until 2030, that’s only 18 years away, if they want a big telescope they better start on it and get the funding in place.

  • gregori

    I can have a view graph with 1000 ton lander but it doesn’t take out of the realm of wishful thinking. There is no money authorized for the development of any payloads bar Orion itself. Congress doesn’t seem to actually care that there will be nothing to launch if SLS is finished in 10 years time.

  • common sense

    @ MrEarl wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    “You guys keep blathering on, pushing your ideas about how NASA should be doing space exploration. ”

    and

    “The job now is to:”

    Hmmm. What did you just do? Who’s to say you own the process of what needs to be done “now”?

    Tss tss tss.

  • Coastal Ron

    Coastal Ron wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 10:46 am

    What threat is China that would require NASA to take care of it? And not say the DoD?

    None. But that hasn’t stopped many people who post here and other places from insisting that we need NASA to somehow “respond” in some national security way.

    However this being an election year, and some on the Republican side thinking that chest thumping is the way to the White House, it wouldn’t surprise me if this line of thinking came up at some point, especially when the candidates stump somewhere near KSC.

  • MrEarl

    Hey!
    I’m entitled to be as arrogant and opinionated as anyone else who posts here. :-)
    I’ll entertain any idea YOU may have of how the SLS can be used to further our exploration of space, besides consigning it to the dustbin of history.

    Other than that, We are not amused. lol

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    Call it pork, stupidity, ignorance or whatever; the course has been set. This fight only leads to more time and money wasted.

    For those of us that see the SLS as a waste, fighting to cancel it is our way of saving NASA literally $Billions in the future. The SLS, just like the Shuttle, will eat up a set amount of NASA’s budget no matter how little it flies, and that will be a yearly waste that will hold back NASA from leaving LEO.

    As to your list:

    1: Develop and implement the SLS and MPCV as cheaply and quickly as possible.

    It is ironic that Administrator Bolden, by getting NASA to stick to budgets, is giving the SLS the best chance it has to survive. That will only last until it gets built, and then the lack of payloads and missions will doom it anyways.

    2: Design missions that best leverage the existing LV’s (Delta, Atlas, Falcon and others) and the SLS to get the greatest bang for the buck.

    All NASA missions currently use existing launch vehicles, and all proposed mission hardware can fit on existing and near-term commercial launchers. So why do we need the SLS?

    3: Bring in more commercial participation in HSF as they prove their abilities.

    Yes, we need Boeing and Orbital Sciences to prove that they can build spacecraft and launch rockets before NASA decides to depend on them… ;-)

    This is the funniest bit of backwards logic that has be proffered as of late. Who do you think builds, and for the most part operates, all of NASA’s hardware in space? The commercial aerospace industry. Maybe what you’re saying is code for “SpaceX”?

    The solution to making sure that commercial companies can do what NASA wants them to do is to have competition. The COTS and CCDev programs are doing far more with far less money than any cost-plus program, so why stop at just cargo and LEO crew? Keep using the same process to develop whatever is next on NASA’s agenda – why not?

    As much as anything else, it’s the backstabbing and undermining that has caused the US HSF program to be stuck in LEO for the past 40 years and it’s time for it to stop so we can move ahead.

    No President before Bush 43 was interested in leaving LEO, so let’s not forget that. And with the Shuttle consuming NASA’s time and money, we couldn’t afford to go anywhere without a big increase in NASA’s budget – that didn’t happen.

    Much as I’d like to send people off exploring beyond LEO, we don’t have the infrastructure in place to support it yet, and that’s what we need to work on (and no, the SLS doesn’t address that). That and getting the politicians and public interested in going beyond LEO, since none of them really care to right now.

  • common sense

    @ Coastal Ron wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 1:50 pm

    “But that hasn’t stopped many people who post here and other places from insisting that we need NASA to somehow “respond” in some national security way.”

    I do know what you mean but I think it’d be better to stop the chest thumping nonsense to focus on real economic issues with/within NASA.

    I don’t think it is worth entertaining those antagonistic notions that make no sense whatsoever.

    In addition the US public today is much more informed (Internet) than in the 60s and they can easily see that China is not a threat to which NASA can have any worthwhile response. Except for a few here and there…

  • common sense

    @ MrEarl wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    Hey! I am not arrogant, just common sense. You must mistake me with someone else. ;)

    “any idea YOU may have of how the SLS can be used to further our exploration of space”

    Here is a great idea, not arrogant, just plain common sense: Dump SLS/MPCV and use the cash instead to do something worthwhile. For example, finish CCDev with proper funding and give the rest to firms who can actually go to the Moon and beyond for a fraction of this yet-another-failure to be.

  • amightywind

    The 130 ton launcher will not be around until 2030, that’s only 18 years away

    For comparison we have COTS which has been underway for 6 long, expensive years. They’ve only blown their original schedule by 3 years, and have still launched nothing to a pointless destination. But who’s counting?

  • gregori

    It would be nice if there was money to do things with the SLS, or even a mandate to do them……

  • MrEarl

    Oh Ron and CS, where to begin…….
    “No President before Bush 43 was interested in leaving LEO”
    Not true, there was Bush 41.
    CS “Here is a great idea, not arrogant, just plain common sense: Dump SLS/MPCV and use the cash instead to do something worthwhile. For example, …” Ron “For those of us that see the SLS as a waste, fighting to cancel it is our way of saving NASA literally $Billions in the future.”
    Both of you fall into the trap of believing that money not spent on SLS will be used for your pet projects. Not bloody likely. I think the past two budgets show that congress is hell bent on developing an HLV. The Obama administration tried killing it outright in the FY 2011 budget but it was resurrected as SLS. Then they tried to starve it in the FY 2012 budget but congress cut CCDev way back to give SLS the funding it needed. Fighting it hasn’t worked and just depletes the programs that you want the needed cash.
    It should be clear to most people paying attention that an HLV is going to be built and that any effort to derail it will just make it more expensive and extend the time to build it.

    Ron “All NASA missions currently use existing launch vehicles, and all proposed mission hardware can fit on existing and near-term commercial launchers”.
    Doesn’t make sense to seriously design for what is not available yet. There are plans out there for payloads that will need an HLV but they remain Power Point slides until the SLS project is further along.
    Ron “Yes, we need Boeing and Orbital Sciences to prove that they can build spacecraft and launch rockets before NASA decides to depend on them… ”. CS “For example, finish CCDev with proper funding and give the rest to firms who can actually go to the Moon and beyond for a fraction of this yet-another-failure to be.”
    Since we’re talking about human space flight, yes Boeing, Orbital and the rest need to show that they can design, build, launch and handle operations for human space flight. Some are further along than others but no company is there yet. As for the moon, since not one of these companies have even proven itself in LEO operations, it’s safe to say that none of them “can actually go to the Moon and beyond for a fraction of this yet-another-failure to be.” While I believe that commercial entities like Boeing, SpaceX and the rest could maybe someday go to the moon more economically than NASA, it’s only the development of large scientific and exploration stations on the moon and the EML 1 and 2, made possible by an HLV and MPCV, that makes it economical for them to do so.
    But the real point here is this; Congress has shown that building an HLV and MPCV is the only way they will fund HSF post shuttle. Why continue to tilt at windmills rather than try to make the best of what is coming to pass?

  • Michael from Iowa

    @amighty

    Santorum’s victory is going to be short-lived. He only managed to carry the same counties as Huckabee did in ’08, and by a much smaller margin. He’s not polling well in the next couple contests and odds are he’ll drop out before Super Tuesday in March.

    That leaves Romney – who will just side with whatever the popular opinion of the moment is.

    Gingrich – who wants to “restructure” the space program (substantial cuts)
    and Paul – whose advocated shutting down NASA since the 1980s

    Or, alternatively, there’s Obama.

  • MrEarl

    “It would be nice if there was money to do things with the SLS, or even a mandate to do them……”
    There is money to do things with SLS. Partnering with Europe and Japan will leverage their funding and expertise with our own, as for a mandate, Congress has supported a return to the moon using an HLV and Orion/MPCV for 8 years now. In the ADD world of American politics that’s as good as it gets mandate wise.

  • common sense

    @MrEarl wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    “Both of you fall into the trap of believing that money not spent on SLS will be used for your pet projects. Not bloody likely.”

    Believe me. I know very well what you are saying. I was only day-dreaming. Arrogantly. That’s all.

    “I think the past two budgets show that congress is hell bent on developing an HLV.”

    No. Congress is hell bent on preserving jobs. They did not provide enough money beyond that.

    “The Obama administration tried killing it outright in the FY 2011 budget but it was resurrected as SLS. Then they tried to starve it in the FY 2012 budget but congress cut CCDev way back to give SLS the funding it needed.”

    Are you enjoying yourself now? Spraying salt into the wound. How un-nice of you!

    “Fighting it hasn’t worked and just depletes the programs that you want the needed cash.”

    Maybe, maybe not. Too early to tell.

    “It should be clear to most people paying attention that an HLV is going to be built and that any effort to derail it will just make it more expensive and extend the time to build it.”

    No it won’t. Just watch. At least not the SLS.

    “Doesn’t make sense to seriously design for what is not available yet. There are plans out there for payloads that will need an HLV but they remain Power Point slides until the SLS project is further along.”

    This is extremely poor management and one of the reason those projects are doomed to failure.

    “Since we’re talking about human space flight, yes Boeing, Orbital and the rest need to show that they can design, build, launch and handle operations for human space flight.”

    Are you sure? Who designed and built Shuttle? Apollo? EELVs?

    “Some are further along than others but no company is there yet.”

    Just a matter of cash and personnel.

    “As for the moon, since not one of these companies have even proven itself in LEO operations, it’s safe to say that none of them “can actually go to the Moon and beyond for a fraction of this yet-another-failure to be.”

    Oh yes we can.

    “While I believe that commercial entities like Boeing, SpaceX and the rest could maybe someday go to the moon more economically than NASA”

    Orion is being built by Lockheed Martin and SLS by ATK, possibly Boeing. Why do you trust them more? Or less?

    “Congress has shown that building an HLV and MPCV is the only way they will fund HSF post shuttle. Why continue to tilt at windmills rather than try to make the best of what is coming to pass?”

    Because it is not true. They are also funding CCDev. Politics are more devious than you (seem to) think.

  • gregori

    I hope they enjoy lithobreaking…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Michael from Iowa wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 3:35 pm

    Santorum’s victory is going to be short-lived. >>

    It all depends.

    I’ve looked at the county by county in Iowa as well and Santorums victory is far more impressive then Willards. but in any event what happens the next two or three weeks will determine a lot in the GOP. There is no certainty right now in any of the folks who are viable still, getting the nomination.

    The “money” should be on Willard. Since 1964 the GOP has always nominated someone who either ran for President before or who was the sitting President…and the GOP “elite” are rallying around Willard…

    However, something is breaking out there in my view and Ricky’s victory in Iowa cannot be understated.

    The “nuts” (OK my word for the right wing base) of the party are pretty tired of getting lip service time after time and then the nominee is someone who they really dont care for. Bush 43 kind of had them going for a bit, but he really did not pay them back on all the social issues that they care a lot about.

    Ricky’s campaign is all about that group of the party. If they coalesce around him (a big if) then he is viable AND what is impressive about the Iowa entrance polls is that they more or less SEEMED to.

    The social “right wing” are ready to beat Obama with anyone except they dont like either Morman, dont want a woman to get the nood, the guy who is the poster child for adultery is out and Rick Perry is just to dumb. That leaves Ricky who I think is a whackjob but who honestly believes the stuff he pushes.

    Ricky could be this centuries (or at least the first half of it) AuH2O…ie the guy who came from nowhere oriented a group toward him and then rode into oblivion.

    Ricky is the one person who is viable…who Obama will simply cream .

    None of this will matter for space politics…other then Newt, who is toast none of them care about Space.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Both of you fall into the trap of believing that money not spent on SLS will be used for your pet projects.

    Actually I haven’t stated where I would allocate the SLS/MPCV money, so apparently I did not “fall into the trap”.

    However my preference would be for NASA to be charged with partnering with U.S. industry to put in place the space infrastructure we’ll need to start exploring beyond LEO. What that means is that NASA would not build and operate the infrastructure, but would contract for services for the majority of it. NASA will likely always have a need for bleeding-edge exploration hardware, but they have no need to be in the routine transportation business.

    Doesn’t make sense to seriously design for what is not available yet.

    Apparently you haven’t looked at the plans. They do include the SLS (and previously the Ares V), but they also show that commercial launchers can do the same job, just with more launches. The question remains – what do we need the SLS for?

    Since we’re talking about human space flight, yes Boeing, Orbital and the rest need to show that they can design, build, launch and handle operations for human space flight.

    Having worked in manufacturing for most of my career, I don’t share your lack of faith in U.S. aerospace. There is nothing magical about traveling to/from space, and there is nothing extremely hard.

    What has been missing is a commercial market demand for commercial vehicles, since NASA had the Shuttle to rely upon. Now that the Shuttle is gone, and NASA is finally publishing standards for commercial companies to use if they want NASA business, U.S. industry will be able to develop vehicles that meet the newly released specs and are safer to fly on than NASA’s Shuttle.

    Again, the solution to both of our concerns is for NASA to use the same process it has been using for COTS and CCDev. Companies that fail to perform are replaced without much lost, and NASA has insight into what’s going on so it can address issues immediately. That combined with the companies putting up part of the money for the program creates a competitive and cost effective way for NASA to get what it wants.

    Congress has shown that building an HLV and MPCV is the only way they will fund HSF post shuttle.

    Not quite. Don’t forget that Congress has stated that commercial providers are the primary method of transport to the ISS, and the MPCV is only a backup, so this is really a matter of priority and methods. Does Congress want to keep using Russia for access to the ISS? Once that becomes an issue, which could happen during the Presidential election cycle, then CCDev will regain full funding.

    Why continue to tilt at windmills rather than try to make the best of what is coming to pass?

    Because I believe there is still time to “right the ship” regarding the funding priorities Congress has set, and I see no possible future where the SLS will be considered an asset for the U.S. None. Nada. Zero.

    In my eyes the SLS is stopping us from leaving LEO – what would you do in my position? Stay silent?

  • amightywind

    Michael. First, good job on the caucuses. You Iowans didn’t do anything kooky, like we feared, and you elevated a reasonable number 2. I agree Santorum is an underdog to Mitt. I like Santorum better (that boy is crazy man!), but I think Romney has broader appeal (not a hair out of place!), and I want to win foremost. All the other candidates are goners. I also think Romney will be on his best behavior to keep the conservative base happy, thus I think he will pursue a Bush like NASA policy, and the end of NASA activism. I don’t believe that Gingrich would be as restrained.

  • @common sense:

    There is no payload. There is no funded payload.

    There’s no funded payload for Falcon 9. What’s your point?

  • gregori

    There is, Dragon and a whole list of commercial payloads. $1.6 Billion for resupply flights to ISS

    There would be money for more NASA payloads like depots, landers and habitats if it were not all going to pay for SLS.

  • MrEarl

    Me “congress is hell bent on developing an HLV.”
    CS “No. Congress is hell bent on preserving jobs.”
    Tomato, tomato….. still comes to the same thing. Congress is doing what I want, why question the reason?

    CS “They are also funding CCDev.”
    The president’s budget had $850 million for CCDev but way underfunded SLS and MPCV. Congress raised funding for both SLS and MPCV substantially while cutting the CCDev funding to $400 million with $100 million on hold till NASA proves sufficient progress is made on the SLS. Which one do you think congress values most?

    As for what commercial is able or not able to do with HSF…….
    My main concern is not so much with design and building with Boeing but with launch and operations.
    With SpaceX I have concerns on all four points but success with the COT’s missions would go a long way tword them proving themselves.

    “As for the moon, since not one of these companies have even proven itself in LEO operations, it’s safe to say that none of them “can actually go to the Moon and beyond for a fraction of this yet-another-failure to be.”
    “Oh yes we can.” You forgot to say “Nanner Nanner”. :-)

  • @Lassiter:

    That wasn’t me, but I feel the same way. Even if they were affordable, the missions you point to are either serviceable in other ways, without an SLS, or are close to one-shot deals.

    Possibly, but we can dispense with the “no payload” nonsense right here and now.

    How many SLS-scale large space telescopes do you really think that SMD can afford in the next three or four decades?

    If space telescopes are the end all be all for payloads you see worth lifting over the next three or four decades, we might as well fold up the space program right now.

    In fact, in-space construction is a more sensible and extensible approach to achievement of such a telescope.

    The single experience we’ve had with on orbit construction cost $100 billion to complete assembly, and $50 billion more to date. With 37 shuttle, 88 Soyuz, 50 Progress, and 5 ATV flights, that’s $65 or so billion after total launch cost–or 54 shuttle flights.

    You’re going to have to do better than that if you want to kill HLV.

  • @Coastlal Ron:

    Until Congress and the President allocate money, it is true.

    If that’s the case, then there are no funded payloads for Falcon 9.

    Right now there are preliminary plans, wishes, and dreams. But no funding streams.

    You know, sort of like new commercial lift, propellant depots, etc.

    The point that Doug Lassiter makes about affordability is a good one.

    Not really.

    Take all of the ideas that are being proposed, stack them up into payload missions that use an SLS once or twice per year for a couple of decades, and how much will that cost?

    I thought you weren’t interested in unfunded payloads? Now we’re talking proposals? I’ll pit my imaginary 70 ton nuclear reactor against your imaginary cislunar vehicle.

    Far more than any Republican Presidential candidate would propose without some sort of boogeyman threat…

    How do you figure a GOP President wouldn’t release a $15-$20 billion a year budget request?

    …and I don’t think China is a big enough threat in space to merit that much spending.

    Be nice if you bothered to spell out how much spending you have in mind.

    The SLS is a public works project…

    True.

    …that is too expensive to use after it’s finished…

    Made up.

    …and leaves no lasting infrastructure after all the money has been spent.

    True.

  • @common sense:

    A threat for prestige? A threat to our fertile virility?

    The most immediate threat would be an order of magnitude increase in the PRC military satellite count.

  • @gregori:

    There is, Dragon and a whole list of commercial payloads.

    Where’s the money?

    $1.6 Billion for resupply flights to ISS.

    Again, where’s the money?

    There would be money for more NASA payloads like depots, landers and habitats if it were not all going to pay for SLS.

    There would be more money for depots, landers and habitats if it weren’t all being wasted on SMD.

  • There’s no funded payload for Falcon 9. What’s your point?

    There are dozens of funded payloads for Falcon 9, including several Dragons currently under construction and one flying next month. From what planet are you posting this?

  • Coastal Ron

    Prez Cannady wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    If that’s the case, then there are no funded payloads for Falcon 9.

    I know you think you are making a point, but apparently not one that can be understood by anyone.

    SpaceX has customers that have reserved flights on Falcon 9, and likely even paid deposits to hold their spots in line. Their launch backlog is almost evenly split between NASA and commercial customers. If you bothered to look at their website you would know this.

    So what is the point you’re trying to make?

  • Coastal Ron

    Prez Cannady wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 5:12 pm

    I thought you weren’t interested in unfunded payloads? Now we’re talking proposals? I’ll pit my imaginary 70 ton nuclear reactor against your imaginary cislunar vehicle.

    I don’t know what your background is, but mine has been in manufacturing, including production & factory scheduling. I’ve been the guy that upper management looks to when they need to find out if we can make the revenue plan with the available capacity, and if we’re going to make our weekly production numbers. That means I have to be able to know what the limitations are across the factory for building the product. It’s a team effort to figure all this stuff out, but my department and I are the ones that pull everything together. Because of this I tend to look at our space plans with the same eye.

    If we look at when the SLS will be available and start planning a full-use schedule for it, then it becomes easier to see when payloads and missions for it will need to be created and funded. Your 70 ton nuclear reactor example isn’t being built for itself but for some intended use (whatever that is). But just for the reactor, I would say that we’re talking about more than ten years and likely more than $10B.

    If that is representative of the payloads that we’ll be putting on top of the SLS, then pretty soon the SLS payload budget will increase to an average of $10B/year. Add on top of that the operations budget for the reactor and every other payload, and pretty soon we get to a pretty big number – far bigger than NASA’s current total budget.

    Since Congress hasn’t even started discussing what they intend to use the SLS for, I would say that we’re already behind schedule on fully using the SLS at this point. Remember the Shuttle had payloads being planned for it at the same time it was being designed, so this has been done before.

    Now you may think that things are fine, and we still have plenty of time to build the 1-2 payloads per year that are needed to make the SLS a successfully program, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Certainly not any from Congress.

    Because of all of this, from my professional perspective the SLS program is already behind schedule for being used. You and others may disagree, and I hope you provide some reasons or logic why.

  • @Simberg:

    There are dozens of funded payloads for Falcon 9, including several Dragons currently under construction and one flying next month. From what planet are you posting this?

    Well, hot damn. By that yardstick, guess there is a funded payload for SLS.

  • common sense

    @ Prez Cannady

    Do you know what this means right below?

    http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

    Please show me a launch manifest for SLS.

    It seems you are one of the “there would be more money”-type if this or that or or whatever.

    There is the money there is. No more no less, but possibly less in the near future.

    So far F9 has funded payloads, see above, and SLS does not.

    They all have Powerpoint charts that’s for sure but SLS does not even exist.

    At the risk of being arrogant (MrEarl?) and as Rand is asking “From what planet are you posting this?”.

  • common sense

    @ Prez Cannady wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 5:15 pm

    “The most immediate threat would be an order of magnitude increase in the PRC military satellite count.”

    And that would be of NASA’s concern because????…

    NASA is going to stop the PRC from sending satellites to orbit? How? With SLS? And the super-duper-raygun they are developing at Area 51? The same raygun that is one of the super-super-payload the DoD plans in secret for SLS?

    Anywho.

  • common sense

    @ MrEarl wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    Hmm just in case… So you think Boeing has no launch ops experience? Really?

    You know USA right?

    http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/about-USA.cfm

    “USA is a Limited Liability Company (LLC), equally owned by The Boeing Company (NYSE:BA) and Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE:LMT).”

    And I am sure you know ULA right?

    http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/pages/About_Overview.shtml

    “Formed in December 2006, United Launch Alliance (ULA) is a 50-50 joint venture owned by Lockheed Martin and The Boeing Company.”

    Try something else my friend…

    Just in case “Oh yes we can! Nanner Nanner”.

  • Doug Lassiter

    MrEarl wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
    “As much as anything else, it’s the backstabbing and undermining that has caused the US HSF program to be stuck in LEO for the past 40 years and it’s time for it to stop so we can move ahead.”

    With SLS, which is arguably unaffordable, especially if you want to do anything with it, we’re not talking about being stuck in LEO. We’re talking about being stuck on the ground. SLS won’t fly for a decade or more.

    Prez Cannady wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
    “If space telescopes are the end all be all for payloads you see worth lifting over the next three or four decades, we might as well fold up the space program right now.”

    You’re exactly right. But that was a key payload in the reference you pointed us to. A credible illustration of capability, but a lousy illustration of need.

    “The single experience we’ve had with on orbit construction cost $100 billion to complete assembly, and $50 billion more to date. With 37 shuttle, 88 Soyuz, 50 Progress, and 5 ATV flights, that’s $65 or so billion after total launch cost–or 54 shuttle flights.”

    That “single experience” you refer to was a fourteen year process that gave us a 450,000 kg human-rated space station. We’re talking about a 20,000 kg non-human rated telescope (say, three times the size of JWST). So that’s a nonsensical comparison. But hey, a 450,000 kg telescope sure would be awesome! In fact, we have quite a bit of experience in on-orbit construction if you include all the rendezvous and dockings, and even grapplings, we’ve accomplished. As it turns out, most of those involved ISS, but they didn’t have to. Many of those efforts didn’t even need people attached.

    Seriously, when your largest facility, science or otherwise, is limited by lift vehicle size, you’re all done. Your discipline is kaput. Time to change professions. In-space construction is the only way out. Better get good at it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Prez Cannady wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 6:51 pm

    LOL I dont think its funded to completion or launch RGO

  • @common sense:

    Do you know what this means right below?

    http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

    According to you, something other than a budget and therefore not worth considering.

    Please show me a launch manifest for SLS.

    Here you go.

    It seems you are one of the “there would be more money”-type if this or that or or whatever.

    You have me confused with gregori.

    There is the money there is. No more no less, but possibly less in the near future.

    I haven’t asked for more than that.

    So far F9 has funded payloads, see above, and SLS does not.

    Really? Where’s the money?

    They all have Powerpoint charts that’s for sure but SLS does not even exist.

    You have a web page with no specific dates or contract details for a lifter which has yet to support a single customer.

    At the risk of being arrogant (MrEarl?) and as Rand is asking “From what planet are you posting this?”.

    A planet where you get called on moving the goalposts.

  • @common sense:

    And that would be of NASA’s concern because????…

    Non-sequitur much?

  • @Coastal Ron:

    I don’t know what your background is, but mine has been…

    Yeah, we know. You bring it up every other month or so.

    If we look at when the SLS will be available and start planning a full-use schedule for it, then it becomes easier to see when payloads and missions for it will need to be created and funded. Your 70 ton nuclear reactor example isn’t being built for itself but for some intended use (whatever that is). But just for the reactor, I would say that we’re talking about more than ten years and likely more than $10B.

    If that is representative of the payloads that we’ll be putting on top of the SLS, then pretty soon the SLS payload budget will increase to an average of $10B/year. Add on top of that the operations budget for the reactor and every other payload, and pretty soon we get to a pretty big number – far bigger than NASA’s current total budget.

    If you’re going to simply make up numbers, you could at least follow through and show:

    1. How you get to $10B/yr, and
    2. How you figure operating a nuclear reactor in space and its associated payloads adds another $10B/yr.

    Since Congress hasn’t even started discussing what they intend to use the SLS for…

    I see we’re still pretending that Congress is developing and managing SLS.

    …I would say that we’re already behind schedule on fully using the SLS at this point. Remember the Shuttle had payloads being planned for it at the same time it was being designed, so this has been done before.

    The Shuttle had reference missions, as does SLS.

    Now you may think that things are fine…

    I don’t. SLS is a horrible HLV architecture.

    …and we still have plenty of time to build the 1-2 payloads per year that are needed to make the SLS a successfully program, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Certainly not any from Congress.

    Why are you looking to Congress to dream up the in-space elements in the first place? She is not a body shop for reference mission design, a committee of procurement officers, or a lead contractor. The role Congres has and continues to play is negotiating with the Administration and agreeing to enact policy into law, as well as authorize, appropriate, and oversee expenditures for compliance with Congress’ letter and intent.

    Because of all of this, from my professional perspective the SLS program is already behind schedule for being used.

    I don’t know about your professional perspective, but slips in SLS and MPCV development are a matter of public record. Congress made not a subtle point of this in the last appropriation.

    You and others may disagree, and I hope you provide some reasons or logic why.

  • Well, hot damn. By that yardstick, guess there is a funded payload for SLS.

    It’s sort of insane to think that MPCV is a payload for SLS, considering the disparity between its weight, and the SLS capability. And the fact that it doesn’t really exist…

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 5:28 pm

    “There are dozens of funded payloads for Falcon 9, including several Dragons currently under construction and one flying next month.”

    ROFLMAO 2012 starts with more shilling and more press releases… for pencilled in flights that always seem to miss their highly touted target dates. Not a good sign for a commerical, for profit firm to not deliver goods and services on time as advertised. Meanwhile– tick-tock, tick-tock, no operational Dragons are flying and no crewed Dragons will fly for years– if ever.

  • @Simberg::

    It’s sort of insane to think that MPCV is a payload for SLS, considering the disparity between its weight, and the SLS capability.

    And yet that’s precisely what it is.

    And the fact that it doesn’t really exist…

    A little more and no less than most CCDev alternatives.

    There’s a ton of things wrong with SLS. This payload point is one of the dumbest objections to it.

  • @DCDSA:

    ROFLMAO 2012 starts with more shilling and more press releases… for pencilled in flights that always seem to miss their highly touted target dates.

    How many SLS flights scheduled for 2012?

    Not a good sign for a commerical, for profit firm to not deliver goods and services on time as advertised.

    When has SpaceX missed a date?

    Meanwhile– tick-tock, tick-tock, no operational Dragons are flying and no crewed Dragons will fly for years– if ever.

  • gregori

    If MPCV is the “payload” for SLS, its a gigantic waste of money. MPCV could be launched on vehicles we already have or that are soon to be available.

    A return to lunar orbit without a lander doesn’t justify the expense as this can be achieved very easily and sooner with current vehicles. Space Adventures has intends to perform such a mission in 2015 for only $300 Million, a mere fraction of what it will cost for NASA to repeat this stunt in 2021. They have already sold one ticket to do this.

  • Coastal Ron

    Prez Cannady wrote @ January 5th, 2012 at 11:58 pm

    If you’re going to simply make up numbers, you could at least follow through and show:

    1. How you get to $10B/yr

    Same place you do, only I think I have better assumptions.

    and
    2. How you figure operating a nuclear reactor in space and its associated payloads adds another $10B/yr.

    Flying a minimum of one SLS payload flight per year means that NASA must finish building one significant payload per year, and then must be able to pay for operating it for whatever the lifetime of the payload is. Everything significant NASA does these days seems to take about 10 years, and if the JWST is going to cost $8B for a 7 ton telescope, then it’s not a big stretch to figure a 70 ton nuclear space reactor would be in the same price range. I think it would be far more, but I decided to use a small number to make it easy for comparison.

    So for every year you think the SLS will operate, add a new program with the same budget profile. Go ahead, write it down on paper to see how it works, and you’ll see why none of the SLS supporters even try to show that the SLS can be built and flown on a yearly basis within NASA’s current budget.

    I see we’re still pretending that Congress is developing and managing SLS.

    The President and NASA did not advocate for the SLS, and Congress has been pretty clear that they think the Administration hasn’t supported the SLS as much as Congress wants. If you can’t see that Congress is driving the SLS, then there’s not much we’ll be able to do to educate you.

    The Shuttle had reference missions, as does SLS.

    The Shuttle had payloads being built for it. The SLS only has the MPCV, and nothing beyond that.

    SLS is a horrible HLV architecture.

    Yep.

  • @gregori:

    If MPCV is the “payload” for SLS, its a gigantic waste of money.

    What else is new? Of the 84 launches last year, only 16 were on EELVs, Arianne or the Shuttle. Not much of value is ever launched in the 10 ton and up range.

    MPCV could be launched on vehicles we already have or that are soon to be available.

    Undoubtedly. But we can do away with this silly little line about SLS lacking payloads, especially if we’re to consider Dragon a payload.

  • @Coastal Ron:

    Same place you do, only I think I have better assumptions.

    I’ve made no assumptions at all, so not sure what you’re talking about. On the other hand, it appears you’ve pulled $10B/yr directly out of thin air. Scratch that, I mean your long experience doing this and that and whatever.

    Flying a minimum of one SLS payload flight per year means that NASA must finish building one significant payload per year,

    As it stands now, NASA’s preliminary DRMs envision only manned an unmanned MPCVs. I require only one launch for the reactor.

    …and then must be able to pay for operating it for whatever the lifetime of the payload is.

    The lion share of which is subsumed by the cross-agency support line item.

    Everything significant NASA does these days seems to take about 10 years. and if the JWST is going to cost $8B for a 7 ton telescope, then it’s not a big stretch to figure a 70 ton nuclear space reactor would be in the same price range.

    Destiny was 16 tons, took six years from the start of construction to launch, and cost under $2 billion in present dollars. Not a good sign when a relationship you tease out of two data points–one hypothetical–is demolished by a third, concrete one.

    I think it would be far more, but I decided to use a small number to make it easy for comparison.

    Doesn’t really matter when you’re pulling them out of thin air.

    The President and NASA did not advocate for the SLS…

    They didn’t?

    …and Congress has been pretty clear that they think the Administration hasn’t supported the SLS as much as Congress wants.

    Where?

    If you can’t see that Congress is driving the SLS, then there’s not much we’ll be able to do to educate you.

    You might start with documentary evidence. Last I checked, there wasn’t a single Congressman or Senator on any of the RAC teams.

    The Shuttle had payloads being built for it.

    So does SLS. And unlike the Shuttle, SLS–should she fly–will actually launch with said payload.

  • Coastal Ron

    Prez Cannady wrote @ January 6th, 2012 at 9:54 pm

    As it stands now, NASA’s preliminary DRMs envision only manned an unmanned MPCVs.

    Is there any other kind of MPCV (i.e. manned or unmanned)?

    I require only one launch for the reactor.

    Uh huh. Is it a 70 ton nuclear paper-weight in orbit, or was it going to be used to power something? If it is intended to be useful, then when do the other mission elements get funded, built, launched and used?

    And are manned & unmanned MPCV flights and your imaginary 70 ton nuclear reactor the only missions you foresee for the SLS?

    The lion share of which is subsumed by the cross-agency support line item.

    Who, NOAA? Who are you dreaming is using this 70 ton nuclear reactor in space? Who is pulling what out of thin air?

    Destiny was 16 tons, took six years from the start of construction to launch, and cost under $2 billion in present dollars.

    I guess another one of your assumptions is that a 16 ton pressurized aluminum can is equivalent to a 70 ton nuclear reactor in cost and complexity? Riiiggghhhttt…

    They didn’t?

    They didn’t. Apparently you’re not aware of the history of the SLS, and I’m not going to restate it, so you should go get educated if you want to appear informed. Start here (NASA FY2011 Budget Proposal).

    You might start with documentary evidence. Last I checked, there wasn’t a single Congressman or Senator on any of the RAC teams.

    RAC teams don’t drive budget or policy.

  • gregori

    @Prez Cannady

    So you support wasting vast amounts of money on a capability that is not needed? Why?

  • @Coastal Ron:

    Is there any other kind of MPCV (i.e. manned or unmanned)?

    No. Are you usually this obtuse?

    Uh huh. Is it a 70 ton nuclear paper-weight in orbit, or was it going to be used to power something?

    Probably.

    If it is intended to be useful, then when do the other mission elements get funded, built, launched and used?

    Probably a combination of before and after.

    And are manned & unmanned MPCV flights and your imaginary 70 ton nuclear reactor the only missions you foresee for the SLS?

    Nope.

    Who, NOAA? Who are you dreaming is using this 70 ton nuclear reactor in space? Who is pulling what out of thin air?

    What does NOAA have to do with cross-agency support?

    I guess another one of your assumptions is that a 16 ton pressurized aluminum can is equivalent to a 70 ton nuclear reactor in cost and complexity? Riiiggghhhttt…

    By your rule, it would cost considerably less, given that Americans build 2000 -4000 ton reactors in pressurized compartments for under $1 billion.

    They didn’t.

    My budget request trumps your news article.

    Apparently you’re not aware of the history of the SLS…

    Apparently you’re in denial.

    RAC teams don’t drive budget or policy.

    So where are all these design references, trade studies, development schedules and mission planning pieces authored by Congress?

  • @gregori:

    So you support wasting vast amounts of money on a capability that is not needed? Why?

    You first. Or you might consider rephrasing your question.

  • gregori

    @Prez Cannady

    Falcon 9 is designed ideally to carry a Dragon capsule so its sensible payload for that class of rocket. And there are many other payloads beside the Dragon.

    SLS only has one payload, the Orion, which its is not needed to carry. Therefore its an enormous waste of money. That’s hard to justify, other than if your aim is to funnel money into certain contractors and districts.

  • @gregori:

    You know, I do you the courtesy of directly responding to your comments. You might consider doing the same.

    Falcon 9 is designed ideally to carry a Dragon capsule so its sensible payload for that class of rocket.

    SLS carries MPCV? What’s your point?

    And there are many other payloads beside the Dragon. SLS only has one payload, the Orion.

    There are many other prospective payloads, but that measure is apparently frowned on by your crowd.

    That’s not true.

    …which its is not needed to carry.

    By that measure, Dragon doesn’t require Falcon 9. What’s your point?

    Therefore its an enormous waste of money.

    SLS is an enormous waste of money, but not for the dodgy reasons you lay out. And why you and others think it’s necessary to harp on this point day in and day out is beyond me.

    That’s hard to justify, other than if your aim is to funnel money into certain contractors and districts.

    That’s precisely what Congress aims to do. In fact, it’s about the only thing sustaining their interest in civilian space in the first place.

  • Coastal Ron

    Prez Cannady wrote @ January 7th, 2012 at 8:45 am

    No. Are you usually this obtuse?

    I was trying to copy your style – apparently it worked… ;-)

    By your rule, it would cost considerably less, given that Americans build 2000 -4000 ton reactors in pressurized compartments for under $1 billion.

    What a weird example, especially since terrestrial nuclear reactors exist and your 70 ton space one doesn’t. I guess you assume it will cost $0 to develop one.

    My budget request trumps your news article.

    The NASA FY2012 budget request was after the SLS was created and authorized by Congress over the objections of NASA and the President. Even so the FY2012 budget was criticized by Congress for not supporting the SLS enough. So far you haven’t proved your point, if you every had one, but you have shown that you are not familiar with the history of the SLS.

    Based on the comments you’re also having with others on this subject you seem like you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing – or something along those lines, since you never fully explain what you are saying, only that everyone else is wrong in interpreting what you’re saying. I’ll bow out and let others see if they can tease a complete thought out of you…

  • @Coastal Ron:

    I was trying to copy your style – apparently it worked…

    In your own mind, which is apparently prone to veering off into non-sequitur.

    What a weird example, especially since terrestrial nuclear reactors exist and your 70 ton space one doesn’t.

    No future nuclear reactors exists. That’s why it’s called the future.

    I guess you assume it will cost $0 to develop one.

    Prometheus final report pegged $5 billion for a demonstration 1 MWe reactor in the <10 ton range, so no.

    The NASA FY2012 budget request was after the SLS was created and authorized by Congress over the objections of NASA and the President.

    When did the President ever object? And if NASA had actually objected, why bother with HEFT–which proceeded the 2010 Authorization and provided the requirements listed therein–in the first place?

    Even so the FY2012 budget was criticized by Congress for not supporting the SLS enough.

    No it wasn’t.

    So far you haven’t proved your point, if you every had one, but you have shown that you are not familiar with the history of the SLS.

    You’ve shown you’ll make up history as it suits you.

  • gregori

    @Prez Cannady

    SLS is not needed to carry MPVC at all. Current launchers can do that job just fine and for far cheaper. Building a 70-130 ton launcher to carry a 22 ton spacecraft is idiotic and indefensible.

    “prospective” payloads don’t count. That merely wishing there are things to launch and expecting them to appear out of thin air. NASA has had a good few decades of doing that.

    The other payloads for Falcon 9 actually have companies funding them. But even if there was no Falcon 9, yes Dragon could be launched on other vehicles. It would be more expensive but possible. Its flexible. SLS is not flexible like this.

  • @gregori:

    SLS is not needed to carry MPVC at all. Current launchers can do that job just fine and for far cheaper.

    Falcon 9 is not needed to carry Dragon at all.

    Building a 70-130 ton launcher to carry a 22 ton spacecraft is idiotic and indefensible.

    Not if you intend to fly it mated with something else.

    “prospective” payloads don’t count.

    Then stop harping about Falcon 9.

    That merely wishing there are things to launch and expecting them to appear out of thin air.

    Which, by your yardstick, at minimum includes IDIQ contracts NASA and the Air Force have extended to SpaceX.

    The other payloads for Falcon 9 actually have companies funding them.

    Where’s the money?

    But even if there was no Falcon 9, yes Dragon could be launched on other vehicles. It would be more expensive but possible. Its flexible. SLS is not flexible like this.

    SLS isn’t Dragon. They aren’t comparable.

  • Coastal Ron

    Prez Cannady wrote @ January 8th, 2012 at 2:36 pm

    No it wasn’t.

    You can believe whatever you want.

    However the facts disagree with you – Congress criticized the Administration’s FY2012 budget for not supporting the SLS enough, and we had many discussions about it here on Space Politics last year.

    If it really matters to you, then I suggest you look at the Space Politics posts from that period to get a better understanding of the issues.

  • @Coastal Ron:

    You can believe whatever you want.

    I can believe in the facts; you apparently have none.

    However the facts disagree with you…

    If you had any…

    …Congress criticized the Administration’s FY2012 budget for not supporting the SLS enough, and we had many discussions about it here on Space Politics last year.

    …you’d present them, rather than simply restate your assertion. Give it your best shot.

  • Coastal Ron

    Prez Cannady wrote @ January 8th, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    Where’s the money?

    What do you mean, “where’s the money?” Don’t be so obtuse. Do you mean do the companies have money to back up their orders, or have they paid money to SpaceX? What? Or are you pretending to be a simpleton for the fun of it?

    Falcon 9 is not needed to carry Dragon at all.

    So what? What’s your point? Falcon 9 is the least expensive rocket for SpaceX to use, so why wouldn’t they? Have you no business sense?

    This whole line of conversation that you’re having about the SLS is rather odd. SpaceX has, and ULA for that matter too, signed contracts with customers for future launches. No doubt they have also taken launch deposits on the contracts too.

    The SLS only has two planned missions, both considered test flights. Everything else on the launch manifest is TBD regarding actual hardware and funding.

    Oh sure there are lots of teams working diligently to design new and expensive payloads and missions, but they have no guidance on what the budget profiles will be, and what the goals are. Moon, depots, GEO satellite servicing – no clue.

    So instead of you asking “where is the money?” for a commercial launch provider that has signed contracts with multiple customers, you should be asking Congress “where is the money?” for the SLS, since they are the ones that are pushing so hard for it.

  • @Oler:

    What do you mean, “where’s the money?” Don’t be so obtuse.

    I guess in your world a handshake settles deals amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Do you mean do the companies have money to back up their orders, or have they paid money to SpaceX? What? Or are you pretending to be a simpleton for the fun of it?

    I’m asking very simple questions on the theory that not even you can be this dumb.

    So what? What’s your point? Falcon 9 is the least expensive rocket for SpaceX to use, so why wouldn’t they? Have you no business sense?

    No, it’s not.

    This whole line of conversation that you’re having about the SLS is rather odd. SpaceX has, and ULA for that matter too, signed contracts with customers for future launches.

    Possibly. Delta IV’s first flight carried a civilian payload.

    No doubt they have also taken launch deposits on the contracts too.

    That’s a huge assumption.

    The SLS only has two planned missions, both considered test flights. Everything else on the launch manifest is TBD regarding actual hardware and funding.

    In that case, Falcon 9 has only 2 planned missions, both considered test flights.

    Oh sure there are lots of teams working diligently to design new and expensive payloads and missions, but they have no guidance on what the budget profiles will be, and what the goals are. Moon, depots, GEO satellite servicing – no clue.

    Considering that they have to present these potential payloads to Congress in for FY2013, what’s your point?

    So instead of you asking “where is the money?” for a commercial launch provider that has signed contracts with multiple customers, you should be asking Congress “where is the money?” for the SLS, since they are the ones that are pushing so hard for it.

    Why can’t I ask both?

  • Vladislaw

    “So what? What’s your point? Falcon 9 is the least expensive rocket for SpaceX to use, so why wouldn’t they? Have you no business sense?

    No, it’s not.”

    The zenit would not be anywhere near as cheap as SpaceX using one of their own Falcon 9’s. They would have to pay to ship the dragon to the launch site, pay intergration fees as a commercial costumer.

    They can launch the F9 for cost, not the commercial price they charge others. They would not incur the same shipping or intergration costs. By using their own rocket it would be a lot cheaper than paying to have the dragon launch on anyone else’s rockets.

  • Coastal Ron

    Prez Cannady wrote @ January 9th, 2012 at 8:17 am

    @Lassiter: and @Oler:

    You keep forgetting who your are responding to. Not a morning person? ;-)

    I guess in your world a handshake settles deals amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Now you must really be responding to Lassiter or Oler, since I never made such a statement. In this type of business, signed contracts are the norm. I don’t know what you do for a living, but obviously contracts are unfamiliar territory for you. If you want to become competent on the subject, I suggest starting with some business classes at your local community college.

    No, it’s not.

    Again, business does not seem to be your strong suit. It’s not just the unit cost, but the total cost compared to alternatives that has to taken into account. That is why SpaceX keeps the vast majority of manufacturing in house. Shipping a Dragon capsule to Kazakhstan would also be an ITAR nightmare.

    In that case, Falcon 9 has only 2 planned missions, both considered test flights.

    We’ve already talked about your ignorance concerning contracts – those contracts constitute planned missions, regardless what you think.

    And as a point of clarification, except for the first Falcon 9 flight, all other Falcon 9 flights are revenue flights. For instance, SpaceX was paid $5M by NASA for successfully completing Falcon 9 flight #2, which was COTS Demo 1 Mission. They will get $10M if they successfully complete the upcoming Demo 2/3 mission. All future Falcon 9 flights have paying customers, which right now stands at more than 30 planned Falcon 9 launches.

    Considering that they have to present these potential [SLS] payloads to Congress in for FY2013, what’s your point?

    That beyond testing the MPCV, the SLS has no funded payloads or missions.

  • @Vladislaw:

    The zenit would not be anywhere near as cheap as SpaceX using one of their own Falcon 9′s. They would have to pay to ship the dragon to the launch site, pay intergration fees as a commercial costumer.

    So you’re telling me the Russians would pass up a 50 percent markup to drive integration and shipping costs up to the point where Zenit couldn’t complete?

    They can launch the F9 for cost.

    Provided cost is a third cheaper than their present asking price.

  • @Coastal Ron:

    You keep forgetting who your are responding to. Not a morning person?

    Where you and Oler are concerned, it’s not worth the effort to draw a distinction.

    Now you must really be responding to Lassiter or Oler, since I never made such a statement. In this type of business, signed contracts are the norm. I don’t know what you do for a living, but obviously contracts are unfamiliar territory for you.

    Apparently, you live in a world where there are no voidable contracts.

    If you want to become competent on the subject, I suggest starting with some business classes at your local community college.

    If you want to come across as something other than a resume-inflating fabulist just of junior college, you might want to appeal to actual evidence rather than your unverifiable experience.

    Again, business does not seem to be your strong suit.

    Making stuff up isn’t yours, so why don’t you just give it up?

    It’s not just the unit cost…[blah, blah, blah]

    No one said anything about unit costs, so please feel free to expound on unrelated issues with someone else.

    Shipping a Dragon capsule to Kazakhstan would also be an ITAR nightmare.

    Wasn’t for Orbital.

    We’ve already talked about your ignorance concerning contracts – those contracts constitute planned missions, regardless what you think.

    In that case, NASA’s cost scenarios constitute planned missions, regardless of what you may think.

    And as a point of clarification, except for the first Falcon 9 flight, all other Falcon 9 flights are revenue flights.

    Clarifying what exactly?

    That beyond testing the MPCV, the SLS has no funded payloads or missions.

    Neither does Falcon 9, beyond Demo 2/3.

  • That beyond testing the MPCV, the SLS has no funded payloads or missions.

    Neither does Falcon 9, beyond Demo 2/3.

    Stop repeating this nonsense. Even ignoring the huge commercial manifest for the vehicle, there are several more Dragons under construction in Hawthorne right now. They are funded.

  • @Simberg:

    Stop repeating this nonsense. Even ignoring the huge commercial manifest for the vehicle, there are several more Dragons under construction in Hawthorne right now. They are funded.

    How you figure? Demo 2/3 is funded with carryover and NASA hasn’t announced its spending intentions for 2012’s commercial funds.

  • pathfinder_01

    “How you figure? Demo 2/3 is funded with carryover and NASA hasn’t announced its spending intentions for 2012′s commercial funds.”

    Prez

    Space X and orbital have a contract with NASA until 2016 for 12 flights of Dragon delivering 20 tons of cargo. The COTS 1-3 flights do not count towards the 12 flights so yeap there are funds for Dragon. The money will come out of the ISS’s budget instead of out of the COTS program.

  • pathfinder_01

    I mean Space X has 12 flights. Orbital has 8. Here is the old news:

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/dec/HQ_C08-069_ISS_Resupply.html

    If needed more Dragon’s and Cygnus can be ordered at the prices listed(should you want to assemble someting at the ISS, a supply line is already in place).

  • Coastal Ron

    Prez Cannady wrote @ January 10th, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    …NASA hasn’t announced its spending intentions for 2012′s commercial funds.

    It’s funny how you reference the NASA FY2012 proposed budget for your arguments, but apparently have never read it.

    As pathfinder_01 pointed out, the CRS contract is funded out of the ISS account, which you can see on page “BUD-4″ of the budget, line “ISS Crew and Cargo Transportation”. And in case you’ve forgotten (or never knew), NASA signed the CRS contracts with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences back in December of 2008 – stable funding so far.

  • @pathfinder

    Space X and orbital have a contract with NASA until 2016 for 12 flights of Dragon delivering 20 tons of cargo.

    Here are the contracts, as amended, binding OSC and SpaceX. Show me where any of these requires NASA to guarantee SpaceX or OSC 12 flights.

  • @pathfinder:

    Pardon, here are the contracts:

    OSC.
    SpaceX

  • Coastal Ron

    Prez Cannady wrote @ January 11th, 2012 at 1:27 pm

    Show me where any of these requires NASA to guarantee SpaceX or OSC 12 flights.

    I know you’re trying really hard to be a contracts expert, but why don’t you just look at what NASA says about this:

    NASA Awards Space Station Commercial Resupply Services Contracts

    Pardon, here are the contracts:

    Well those are some contracts, but not necessarily ALL of the relevant contracts. The information you can’t find may be on the contracts you don’t see. You apparently need to dig deeper to find the documents that NASA references in their press release, although since finding that information disproves your point I wouldn’t imagine you’ll do it.

    As always, what was the point you were supposed to be making? That the future could change? Wow, I’ll alert the press… ;-)

  • Vladislaw

    “Shipping a Dragon capsule to Kazakhstan would also be an ITAR nightmare.

    Wasn’t for Orbital.”

    That link didn’t have anything about what hoops they had to jump through if any and what ITAR related to their system.

    I would rather use Robert Bigelow for an example and he has expressed, more than once, how it was a real pain in the A$$ to launch his payloads from russia. He had a lot of additional expenses to the point he was close to not launching from there. Those are all costs SpaceX would not incur by launching on their own rocket.

    the zenit was 45 million per your article but that was older data, I would bet it is closer to the 50 now with the way the fed has inflated the dollar. SpaceX was going to be at a 15 – 20% gross margin or about 37- 40 million for the basic F9, that was from Musk a few years ago, do not know if those are still his gross margins. In house ingration versus having a foreign country doing it would also be cheaper.

  • Vladislaw

    If you had read the contract you would have seen this:

    “INDEFINITE QUANTITY (FAR 52.216-22) (OCT 1995)
    (h) This is an indefinite-quantity contract for the supplies or services specified and effective for the period stated in Clause I.A.2. The quantities of supplies and services specified in the Schedule are estimates only and are not purchased by this contract.

    (i) Delivery or performance shall be made only as authorized by orders issued in accordance with Clause II.A.7, FAR 52.216-18, Ordering (Oct 1995). The Contractor shall furnish to the Government, when and if ordered, the supplies or services specified in the Schedule up to and including the quantity designated in the Schedule as the “maximum.” The
    Government shall order at least the quantity of supplies or services designated in the Schedule as the “minimum.”

    (j) Except for any limitations on quantities in Clause II.A.8, FAR 52.216-19 Order Limitations (Oct 1995) or in the Schedule, there is no limit on the number of orders that may be issued. The Government may issue orders requiring delivery to multiple destinations or performance at multiple locations.”

    The 12 launches is only an estimate NASA can demand more or less. The contract has a 25 million dollar milestone fund that NASA pays out for current milestones on any of the COTS launches not counting the demos. So if SpaceX is welding up the tank for the first delivery launch they are getting paid already for parts of those future launches, up to 50% of the cost of each launch can be paid out before the actual launch.

  • @Coastal Ron:

    I know you’re trying really hard to be a contracts expert, but why don’t you just look at what NASA says about this:

    I know you’re trying really hard to pretend to be an engineer, but why don’t you do what you were told to do and show us where in those contracts NASA guarantees 12 flights.

    Well those are some contracts, but not necessarily ALL of the relevant contracts.

    These are all the relevant CRS contracts. Get to work, buddy.

  • @Vladislaw:

    If you had read the contract you would have seen this:

    Apparently I have, since I’m calling BS on claim that SpaceX has a binding agreement for 12 flights and 20 tons by 2016 and you’ve just made the case.

  • @Vladislaw:

    That link didn’t have anything about what hoops they had to jump through if any and what ITAR related to their system.

    And no, it didn’t. Because it’s utterly irrelevant to the fact that Orbital and other American companies looking for launch services go ahead and do it anyway.

    I would rather use Robert Bigelow for an example and he has expressed, more than once, how it was a real pain in the A$$ to launch his payloads from russia.

    So not only are you cherry picking, but you resort to the gripes of a man who obviously didn’t find ITAR and shipping costs so nightmarish that he wouldn’t use Russian launchers for his payloads.

    the zenit was 45 million per your article but that was older data, I would bet it is closer to the 50 now with the way the fed has inflated the dollar.

    I’d advise you to stop making up numbers, but I’m amazed you’ve chosen ones that still cast Zenit with a better $/kg than Falcon 9.

  • Vladislaw

    There are loop holes for both to get out from under the contract, but I have absolutely no doubt that NASA is not only is going to order those 12 flights but I believe they will be adding more and will asking for more down cargo.

    I also belive that once Bigelow is up and running that NASA will jump in and try and lock other countries out by leasing as much as possible. They made sure that the COTS contract allows for sending cargo to multiple locations, so they will have the logistics in place once bigelow opens for business. Just my opinion, but we will see how it plays out in the next few years and see if I was on the mark.

  • Vladislaw

    “So not only are you cherry picking,”

    Were you not cherry picking by using a link that made it seem everything is rosey for ALL itar launches? I mearly showed that everyone that launches with russia breezes though ITAR regs.

    Almost the entire aerospace industry has been lobbying for ITAR reform, it it wasn’t an issue there wouldn’t so many calls for reforming it.

    Bigelow decided not to do the Galaxy launch and module because of escalating costs and instead will use it as an inhouse test module. So costs WERE a factor.

    I am not making numbers up. Prices have risen with the fed’s move on increasing the money supply. In some cases companies have absorbed it in other cases not. You have seen it in a lot of imports rise in price to match the moves and you saw it in the jump for domestic food costs. The zenti 2 was listed per your link at 45 million but that is a 2009 price and I have not been able to find a current price on that rocket, maybe because it is being retired and the new zenit 2m will be replacing it. Couldn’t find any prices for that either.

Leave a Reply to DCSCA Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

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