It was a case of good timing: a day after commercial crew was a centerpiece of a pair of hearings on the NASA 2013 budget proposal in the Senate and the House, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation held a forum on the topic on Capitol Hill Thursday morning. The event gave representatives of four companies a chance to talk about their companies’ efforts, while a key member of Congress offered some qualified support for the program.
“Commercial crew is a high priority for me, and a high priority for the administration,” said Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), the ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, said in brief opening remarks at the Thursday morning event. However, he warned that it will be “a challenging environment, given the overall fiscal circumstances relative to NASA” this year, with a final appropriations bill likely to come only after the November elections.
At that point, he said, “it will be an opportunity for the country to think clearly about when it is that we want to have the capacity, an American capacity,” to send astronauts to the ISS. “The quickest way for us to get there is through commercial crew, and the worst way to proceed along that line is by undercutting the funding.”
Industry representatives echoed the need for full funding for commercial crew during their presentations and Q&A session that followed. “We need to get Americans into space on American spacecraft, and the quickest way you can do that is the path we’re on now,” said Mike Leinbach, a former NASA shuttle launch director who joined United Launch Alliance earlier this year. Progress, he said, will be “fully dependent on the funding levels going forward”, and getting the requested funding of nearly $830 million in 2013 “would be a real boost to the system.”
“We don’t see any issue of flying crew by the end of 2015, assuming we’re fully funded,” said Boeing’s Keith Reiley, discussing his company’s CST-100 vehicle concept, “which is why the funding coming out Congress is very important, not only for us but everybody at the table here.”
Industry participants were also skeptical of some calls in Congress to downselect now to two teams, or even one, to save money for the program. “This next round of commercial crew development is really a development contract,” said Adam Harris of SpaceX. “It makes sense to let a number of teams go forward and develop those concepts, and then when you’re getting to flights to the International Space Station, you’ll have a lot more data to make that decision.” Sierra Nevada’s John Roth said a better time to make a downselect to one or two providers would come in a later FAR-based contract (as opposed to the Space Act Agreements currently used) to handle vehicle certification work.
Leinbach said NASA needs to decide what level of redundancy it wants in crew transportation: “Whether NASA needs redundancy among American providers, or is redundancy with the Russians sufficient with a single American provider.” (In Wednesday’s hearings, NASA administrator Charles Bolden said his goal was the former, that is, having at least two American companies able to transport crews.) Whether the funding will be there to support multiple companies over the next several years, though, is an open question given this week’s debate about the program.
Jeff, what was the attendance for this event? Did any members of Congress attend other than Rep. Fattah? Or were they talking to an empty room again?
I like the noises Boeing made. They are the only group willing to pull in the date. I also think they have the most practical, low risk design. But I have no doubt we will continue to screw around while the billionaires make excuses, rake in the subsidies, and blow through their schedule. It’s worked for them so far. I’ll remind you that the first commercial ISS servicing mission as supposed to be in 2008. 2011 is flying by…
Mr. Smith: I didn’t do a head count, but I estimated about 30-40 people in attendance, including a number of staffers, who I believe were the primary intended audience of this event. Rep. Fattah left after his opening remarks.
Jeff Foust wrote:
Mr. Smith: I didn’t do a head count, but I estimated about 30-40 people in attendance, including a number of staffers, who I believe were the primary intended audience of this event. Rep. Fattah left after his opening remarks.
Thanks, Jeff. It’s a start, I guess. At least it seems the alarm is being sounded, unlike last year.
I find it interesting that Boeing still says 2015, as does SpaceX. Of course, that’s mostly posturing for the next round, but at least they’re giving us a number two years sooner than the official 2017 date.
“I like the noises Boeing made. They are the only group willing to pull in the date.”
Dream Chaser is also scheduled for 2015.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14011555
Crewed Dragon is scheduled for 2014.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14012131
“I’ll remind you that the first commercial ISS servicing mission as supposed to be in 2008.”
No. When the first COTS awards were made in 2006, SpaceX and Rocketplane Kistler were scheduled to make their first test flights as early as 2008, to be completed by 2010. SpaceX completed their first test flight in December 2010. Rocketplane Kistler fell out of the program.
Commercial ISS servicing missions under CRS were not awarded until 2008.
It’s sad that the only member of congress that showed up for this event is from PA, not from a NASA district or state. Hard to explain given how critical commercial cargo and crew are to continued space operations at KSC, JSC, and MSFC, and the engine testing that’s generated at SSC and in TX, the TPS testing at ARC, and the flight testing at DFRC.
DBN, it’s just further proof that they’re stuck in the Apollo mindset where only monolithic programs spending billions of taxpayer dollars a year on government-owned systems seem to count.
Commercial crew is absolutely critical for expanding science on the Station. It’s going to be very difficult to support live biological sample return without it.
Dark Blue Nine wrote @ March 9th, 2012 at 10:29 am
“Commercial ISS servicing missions under CRS were not awarded until 2008.”
“amightywind” gets easily confused when people use facts, so you have to t y p e s l o w e r .
amightywind wrote @ March 9th, 2012 at 8:01 am
“But I have no doubt we will continue to screw around while the billionaires…”
You sound like the socialist wing of the Republican party that attacked Mitt Romney for being rich.
And of course you ignore the $Billions (yes, that’s a “B”) that “old space” continues to rake in with no-bid contracts. Does that bother a socialist Republican? Apparently not.
As far as I can see none of these so called commercial space companies are addressing the issue of cost reduction on a serious scale. Low cost access to LEO is the key factor to successful commerical space. Your will not acheive that with slightly improved ICBM technology. It is also clear that this is not true commercial space in that it depends on NASA funding, now thats alright since new high risk technologies sometimes require goverment seeding except the in this case the technology is not new it’s old and expensive,.The goal is rather limited as well, delivering crews to the ISS. Soyuz does this already. How long will the ISS be in operation? Iam not oppossed to commerial space, far from it, but this being done on the cheap and won’t be very successful.
Congress doesn’t trust NASA, doesn’t trust Boeing or the commercial industry and no longer seems particularly interested in ISS access. All for SLS. Whatever machine drives these attitudes has to be given credit for it’s effectiveness.
“It is also clear that this is not true commercial space in that it depends on NASA funding, now thats alright since new high risk technologies sometimes require goverment seeding except the in this case the technology is not new it’s old and expensive.”
Except that some of it is older and more expensive than others, in order to slush money into NASA Centers and congressional districts. New is not better if it cannot drop operational costs as well as a small apparent change from the past.
“The goal is rather limited as well, delivering crews to the ISS. Soyuz does this already.”
Under the radar, the goal is to establish an American program that, when people start making phone calls to investors from NASA offices with competing programs, dissing the engineering of a private effort, there is a NASA office to go to who can actually tell them about how bad or how good that engineering is, without having a dog in the fight. Countering NASA turf warrior behaviors that stretched from 1979-2004, and restarted in 2009, is the best thing this program is doing. Once the mystique of the NASA/Congressional Complex is broken, there is no turning back from a path where Congress loses control of US activity in Space, as it should. That’s also what the Congressmen and Senators are, ultimately, reacting against.
Getting a sooner US capability for crew to ISS is a big deal. But for me, the key is establishing that Americans without a NASA badge can operate crewed spacecraft in LEO and beyond. Even when a commercial company is in their district or State, as ULA is in Alabama, their success will not give the pols from Alabama nearly as much clout as a government program in which they control the budget. It’s the same in Texas and Florida. At least in Florida the pols seem to be hedging their bets. The Texas delegation seems to be doubling down in their bid to keep control, however. They are mostly the ones calling for NASA to undo Commercial Crew, and remake it into a standard NASA pork-barrel.
“How long will the ISS be in operation?”
That will make less and less difference, once there are 2 private US launch companies that can deliver passengers to ISS or to one of Bigelow’s leased Space Stations. The ISS could and should, by 2020, be a small portion of LEO crew traffic.
“I am not oppossed to commerial space, far from it, but this being done on the cheap and won’t be very successful.”
Success is measured many ways. Doing it on the cheap, many times, with small increments of technical change each time, is the only way to make it pay, financially, so that others join the industry with their own ideas for cost cutting and safety. They will do the things that NASA ignored for the 40 years in which spending money was the goal, not saving it. That is the way to the lower costs you noted you want.
Donald
“As far as I can see none of these so called commercial space companies are addressing the issue of cost reduction on a serious scale.”
Actually…….both SpaceX and Blue Origin are proposing both reusable rockets and reusable spacecraft. Sierra Nevada and Boeing are both proposing reusable spacecraft, and have both said that their reusable spacecraft can fly on reusable SpaceX rockets.
SpaceX is guaranteeing under $20-Million per person to LEO versus an average cost of $200-Million per seat to LEO during the Space Shuttle era for NASA. This would be a 10-fold reduction in cost.
Tom Billings wrote @ March 9th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
those are really quite thoughtful comments…and in my view spot on RGO
Donald Ernst wrote:
“As far as I can see none of these so called commercial space companies are addressing the issue of cost reduction on a serious scale. Low cost access to LEO is the key factor to successful commerical space.”
Maybe you should have your vision checked so you can actually see farther.
SpaceX did a press confrence announcing they were going to spend their own dime and start working the reusablity issue. Jeff Bezos from Blue Origin filed a patten on his reusability plan.
It was costing American taxpayers about 100-150 million a seat (depending on who’s math you used) for NASA to put an astronaut into LEO we are paying the Russians about 63 million a seat and commercial is going to be coming in at 20-40 million a seat.
So how is that not working cost reduction? Burt Rutan, when he was working with T/Space for the CEV bid for NASA said their cost to orbit would be 5 million a seat. The stratolauncher is going to be doing what they planned with T/Space, By 2025 I believe cost to orbit will be in the 10-20 million a seat range. A LOT better than what the cost was under the Stalinist big government monopoly shuttle system.
NASA Seeks Proposals for Crew and Cargo Transportation to Orbit This was Jan 18th, 2006, with the bids scheduled for the summer of 2006.
COTS schedule, pre constellation cancellation
The three demo flights were supposed to be 08 and late 09. Events relating to Constellation changed that as Bill Gerstenmier (SP) outlined a couple of times before committee meetings.
Ares I and Orion were the original plan A for cargo delivery to the ISS with COTS plan B. When Constellation was canceled COTS was moved up to plan A and there no longer was a plan B at all.
It was at this time that NASA decided to buy down additional risk for COTS because it was now going to be imperative they succeed because there was no longer going to be an alternative.
It was decided that SpaceX would be given additional milestones and time to complete those milestones and increase the confidence index of cargo delivery. This added an additional 8-10 months and put the first launch in the late 09 early 2010 range.
So yes, pre constellation cancellation 08-09 was the timeline but as Bill explained more than once, COTS was always considered plan B and the timeline was really flexible. It was only the increased milestones that NASA wanted that moved the schedule to the right.
No fault of the COTS teams.
“As far as I can see none of these so called commercial space companies are addressing the issue of cost reduction on a serious scale.”
They are. NASA’s own analysis shows that Falcon 9 development was an order of magnitude (10 times) less costly than what historical cost models projected. Here’s an excerpt:
“Appendix B – Discussion of Cost Effectiveness of Commercial Cargo Effort
NASA recently conducted a predicted cost estimate of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle using the NASA-Air Force Cost Model (NAFCOM). NAFCOM is the primary cost estimating tool NASA uses to predict the costs for launch vehicles, crewed vehicles, planetary landers, rovers, and other flight hardware elements prior to the development of these systems.
NAFCOM is a parametric cost estimating tool with a historical database of over 130 NASA and Air Force space flight hardware projects. It has been developed and refined over the past 13 years with 10 releases providing increased accuracy, data content, and functionality. NAFCOM uses a number of technical inputs in the estimating process. These include mass of components, manufacturing methods, engineering management, test approach, integration complexity, and pre-development studies.
Another variable is the relationship between the Government and the contractor during development. At one end, NAFCOM can model an approach that incorporates a heavy involvement on the part of the Government, which is a more traditional approach for unique development efforts with advanced technology. At the other end, more commercial-like practices can be assumed for the cost estimate where the contractor has more responsibility during the development effort.
For the Falcon 9 analysis, NASA used NAFCOM to predict the development cost for the Falcon 9 launch vehicle using two methodologies:
1) Cost to develop Falcon 9 using traditional NASA approach, and
2) Cost using a more commercial development approach.
Under methodology #1, the cost model predicted that the Falcon 9 would cost $4.0 billion based on a traditional approach. Under methodology #2, NAFCOM predicted $1.7 billion when the inputs were adjusted to a more commercial development approach. Thus, the predicted the cost to develop the Falcon 9 if done by NASA would have been between $1.7 billion and $4.0 billion.
SpaceX has publicly indicated that the development cost for Falcon 9 launch vehicle was approximately $300 million. Additionally, approximately $90 million was spent developing the Falcon 1 launch vehicle which did contribute to some extent to the Falcon 9, for a total of $390 million. NASA has verified these costs.”
Link to full report at: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=37002
“Your will not acheive that with slightly improved ICBM technology.”
They’re not the same technology. For reasons of storability, practically all modern ICBMs are solid-fuel rockets. The Falcon 9 referenced above and the Atlas V that other commercial providers plan to use are both LOX/kerosene rockets. It’s like comparing a steam motor to an internal combustion engine. They may perform the same function, but they’re very different beasts.
“The goal is rather limited as well, delivering crews to the ISS.”
Each Space Shuttle mission to the ISS cost US taxpayers about $1.5 billion (wiht a “b”).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7341/full/472038d.html
By contrast, NASA’s ongoing COTS contract with SpaceX, which is scheduled to culminate in a SpaceX Dragon docking with the ISS in April, is valued at $278 million (with an “m”).
“How long will the ISS be in operation?”
Another 8-16 years.
“Iam not oppossed to commerial space, far from it, but this being done on the cheap and won’t be very successful.”
Expensive developments do not correlate with low-cost operations.
SpaceX did a press confrence announcing…
SpaceX has been blowing their own horn. I’m shocked. They never do that! Did you swoon?
LEO we are paying the Russians about 63 million
Cheap at twice the price considering we are blowing $3 billion a year on ISS! Really. What sense does it make to fly a cheap manned spacecraft to an orbiting Taj Mahal with an 8 year life expectancy.
Dream Chaser is also scheduled for 2015.
Crewed Dragon is scheduled for 2014.
Both lack Boeing’s credibility.
“Both lack Boeing’s credibility.”
Boeing today or Rockwell 35 years ago?
It’s been a long time since Boeing or its predecessor companies developed a human space transport vehicle. No one has current experience with that except for the Chinese.
I have no doubt that Boeing can get CST-100 done if commercial crew is funded and they stay dedicated. But SpaceX has a leg up on them in terms of cost (ULA workforce is 3-4x SpaceX workforce with consequently higher costs for Atlas V launches) and current, proven reentry capsule success. Boeing may not be competitive on cost over the long-run or may fall out if they stumble on the first orbital tests.
“We need to get Americans into space on American spacecraft, and the quickest way you can do that is the path we’re on now,†said Mike Leinbach, a former NASA shuttle launch director who joined United Launch Alliance earlier this year.”
Need? You mean want, Herr Leinbach. And you should have considered that when you were part of the sloppy managment and budget control team operating a ‘reuseable’ space shuttle at $750 mil – $1 billion/launch– a managment team, in case you need reminded– whose negligence killed 14 astronauts, lost two very expensive shuttle orbiters and brought on, when tallied up, years of delay over the 30 year history of the space shuttle program. The last thing NASA and the Congress needs is advice on ‘what next’ to do from shuttle era managers. If Leinbach wants to wave a flag– go to a parade.
“Commercial crew is a high priority for me, and a high priority for the administration,†said Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), the ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee….[he also] said, “it will be an opportunity for the country to think clearly about when it is that we want to have the capacity, an American capacity,†to send astronauts to the ISS. “The quickest way for us to get there is through commercial crew, and the worst way to proceed along that line is by undercutting the funding.â€
No, the quickest wat to ‘get there’– there being the doomed-to-splash ISS– already exists, a seat on the Soyuz. And the smartest way to press on to bigger and better things is to terminate all commerical crew funding– especially in austere times, when the U.S. already has several space programs competing for dwindling resources– and get going on BEO operations.
Subsidized fledgling commercial HSF firms to access LEO is not a ‘goal’ for America’s space program at all. That’s the government trying to do what the private sector won’t do on it’s own. That’s no space program–and it’s short-term thinking. Space exploitation is not space exploration. And LEO is a ticket to no place-as three decades of going in circles has shown. Syphoning off dwindling resources in the Age of Austerity to subsidize LEO commercial HSF with existing civil and DoD space programs competing for the same resources is a waste. The place for private enterprised firms to source capital investment is the private capital markets, not the U.S. Treasury.
Dark Blue Nine wrote @ March 9th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
“Boeing may not be competitive on cost over the long-run or may fall out if they stumble on the first orbital tests.”
NASA Administrator Bolden was quoted in NASASpaceFlight in response to a question from Senator Hutchison about down-selecting Commercial Crew:
“If I had made an earlier decision to go with one of the two companies that were believed to be competitors for Commercial Crew, Boeing would not be in the competition right now,†responded the NASA head, adding that he had to change the acquisition strategy due to the funding levels.
The company that is the furthest along, that has the most capable system, and that has the lowest cost proposal – SpaceX. So through the actions of NASA Administrator Bolden, he is fighting to keep Boeing in the running even though they clearly have a less capable vehicle for a higher cost. Why? Because American needs a redundant and competitive crew transportation capability.
I like Boeing, but I think they could still lose the #2 spot in the competition to the Dream Chaser if Sierra Nevada can hit all of their goals on time. But that’s the beauty of competition, in that it brings out the best in the competitors. And that is something that apparently a socialist Republican like “amightywind” can’t understand…
If US Congress isn’t interested then take it overseas. A number of sovereigns have the wealth and infrastructure to make this happen once it reaches a certain stage; China, India, Saudi Arabia…
“Both lack Boeing’s credibility.â€
Boeing is on the Dream Chaser team and built most of the structure for the Dream Chaser test aircraft.
Boeing has stated multiple times that they would like to launch their CST-100 spacecraft on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket to lower launch costs and to increase their flexibility.
“Cheap at twice the price considering we are blowing $3 billion a year on ISS! Really. What sense does it make to fly a cheap manned spacecraft to an orbiting Taj Mahal with an 8 year life expectancy.”
so you wouldn’t drive up to the taj mahal in a cab or a cheap compact car you would only do it if you could spend a couple hundred thousand dollars on a Royals Royce Silver Shadow.
Ya that makes sense, the only way to get to a high priced hotel is by buying the most expensive vehicle possible,
Do you really understand how silly you sound when you post those soundbites?
Could Boeing end up just selling the capsules like they do airplanes? Sell them to countries that have a domestic launch vehicle like to Japan, India, ESA etc. They would have to be reusable but they could sell a few of those I would imagine.
Anom wrote:
Boeing has stated multiple times that they would like to launch their CST-100 spacecraft on a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket to lower launch costs and to increase their flexibility.
Source? Link?
Personally, I’ve never heard Boeing say they want to fly CST-100 on Falcon 9. They have always been committed to Atlas V.
I think the #1 spot will go to boeing unless they mess up. Less risk and Boeing has greaer political connections. While I like dragon depending on Space X for both crew and cargo carries risk too. I think the #2 spot is between Space X and Dreamchaser.
I also agree with Bolden that if he had to narrow down to one at this point, it wouldn’t be boeing.
“operating a ‘reuseable’ space shuttle at $750 mil – $1 billion/launch”
No, it was $1.2-1.5 billion per launch.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7341/full/472038d.html
“And the smartest way to press on to bigger and better things is to terminate all commerical crew funding– especially in austere times, when the U.S. already has several space programs competing for dwindling resources– and get going on BEO operations.”
If you can’t get people and cargo to Earth orbit reliably and affordably, you can’t support operations beyond Earth orbit.
Even if you have an airplane to fly you to Antartica, you still need a car to drive you to the airport.
“That’s the government trying to do what the private sector won’t do on it’s own.”
That sentence is the very definition of a market failure, which, if it’s critical to the nation (like ISS intergovernment agreements or future exploration operations), is used to justify government intervention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure
Vladislaw wrote @ March 9th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
“Could Boeing end up just selling the capsules like they do airplanes?”
I think once the vehicles are proven, and there is a market beyond the initial Commercial Crew transport contract, the manufacturers would be glad to sell vehicles to approved buyers. I’m sure they would give them a package deal on launches too.
“And the smartest way to press on to bigger and better things”
It isn’t clear how or why we shoudl or even can “press on” to BEO spaceflght if we cannot sustain infrastructure in LEO, from both a cost and a value perspective. Costs will be at least an order of magnitude higher on the moon, and “exploration” in the sense of simply discovering what is there is obviously more practical with robotic systems.
As for the ISS crashing, obviously it will never do so as long as appropriate orbit boosting is accomplished. The structure is quite modular and can be replaced or expanded indefinitely.
On the other hand, the enthusiasm for the Dream Chaser puzzles me. Like all lifing bodies it has an L/D vastly inferior to winged entry vehicles like the X-37, which apparently traces its configuration back tot he great Max Faget. Althouugh theoretically just barely possible, there is no evidence that the Dream Chaser or any lifting body with a realistic flight weight has landed on a runway unpowered. Who would give up an immense advantage in touhdown speed and maneuvering reserve if there was no reason to do so? It is certainly no better than the X-37 in volumetric efficiency, while the flattened pressure hull will be a significant problem to fabricate.
The lifting body was proposed in the Sixties as a solution to the lack of a material that could tolerate the heat of a sharp leading edge. That problem was solved more than 30 years ago. Yes, it is (just barely) possible to fly without wings. But why?
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ March 9th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
See this BBC news article from July 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14043099
They very craftily gave Atlas V, Delta IV and Falcon 9 as their launch vehicles. The other spacecraft firms only gave one.
Commercial Space is NOT going anywhere! NOT getting us anywhere, anytime soon!! Subsidizing them is like trying to get pigs to fly. Some of the other commenters here, particularly DCSCA, have stated the obvious: Without the ISS, there is NO mission for Commercial Space providers! With a Lunar base, you would have no complications of the space facility having an orbit that will decay. The Lunar surface installation would simply stay & remain on Luna firma, readily reclaimable by intermittent crews, after any hiatus in cislunar flights. Again, why does the space interest community not come to the defence, when a politician like Newt Gingrich calls for a deeper national commitment to the high frontier? All those court jesters who jeered him, for having a definite coherent vision of what a great nation ought to be doing in space—-instead of going around in circles over & over again—-those jeerers & mockers annoy the hell out of me! What in heaven’s name do they want?—-For space exploration to be permanently relegated to science fiction movies & shows??! At least with Mr. Gingrich, we would get the Moon, settled with Antarctic-type bases. With the present-day President, we would get NOTHING but more LEO activities, on board further dead-end orbiting leviathans. B.O. is clearly the Low Earth Orbit President. Which future course would you all prefer?
“the manufacturers would be glad to sell vehicles to approved buyers.”
No, they will operate them and sell the services.
DCSCA talks out of both sides of his mouth.
On one side, he says that only the gov’t can do HSF
on the other, he mocks those in the gov’t that have done HSF.
He will probably counter that the DOD can do it, but their programs are just as or even more mucked up than NASA’s. And even more so, the DOD has less hands on experience than NASA’s.
Notice he doesn’t bring up the idiotic idea of NASA going under the DOD? Which is now even more ridiculous since the DOD is scaling back space research (see closure of Space Test Program). Protective wing? nonsense.
Also, notice how castro has changed his tune. He has said in the past that the next president (which he said will be after the next election) will undo what Obama has done. Now he realizes that the viable GOP care even less than Obama about space.
“space interest community not come to the defence”
Because the space interest community does back an incoherent policy.
@Chris Castro
“Commercial Space is NOT going anywhere! NOT getting us anywhere, anytime soon!! Subsidizing them is like trying to get pigs to fly.”
I think you ought to be a little more hysterical and fanatical!!!!!
AW –
Musk is a businessman.
Thus he has hired some really good engineers to design his launchers.
His plan is to deliver low cost launches – at prices so low that they are below China’s.
It’s his and his investors’ money,
All that he and they want is a level playing field and no obstructions.
That does not seem to be unreasonable.
Rick Boozer wrote @ March 10th, 2012 at 9:31 am
“I think you [Chris Castro] ought to be a little more hysterical and fanatical!!!!!”
That’s our Chris. He’s like a geyser that erupts once a month or so and then goes dormant. Even his posts come out in one long release of mental thought, with no paragraph breaks to make his missives easier to read. Maybe if he posted more often he’d be more readable…
Musk is pushing forward rapidly but also cutting some corners that could bite him,such as cutting back on test flights. We need at least 10-12 unmanned F9 launches before I would feel safe putting people on it; almost every launch vehicle reveals some serious problems during early flights and letting them slide until it is man-rated tends to freeze the design.
Chris Castro wrote @ March 10th, 2012 at 5:41 am
“With a Lunar base, you would have no complications of the space facility having an orbit that will decay.”
Keeping the ISS in a stable orbit is not the major cost of keeping a human occupied outpost in space. Suppling the outpost is, and moving that supply line 1000X further away makes it far more expensive.
“The Lunar surface installation would simply stay & remain on Luna firma, readily reclaimable by intermittent crews, after any hiatus in cislunar flights.”
Here’s a little exercise for you to do at home Chris, and I would hope that you would share your results:
1. What vehicles will be used to move a lunar crew from Earth to the lunar outpost. Specifically, detail out for us what rockets and spacecraft (real or imagined) that make up the transportation system.
2. What vehicles will be used to supply the lunar outpost? Provide the same level of detail.
3. This one may be too hard for you – What would be the cost to develop all of the vehicles you described, and what would it cost to run such a transportation system at the rate you think would be needed?
We’ll ignore the whole “who is willing to pay for a lunar outpost” issue, and just focus on the “how” and “how much”.
United Launch Alliance has already done such a study, which you can find here, so you can compare your assumptions (which likely are low) with what professionals predict.
If you do the study right (i.e. include everything you should), you’ll find that supporting a lunar outpost will be very expensive. Regardless if the ISS exists or not, that lunar outpost will cost far more to build and maintain than the ISS. And if you haven’t noticed, Mars exploration has much more political support in Congress than the Moon, so don’t blame Obama and the ISS – it’s been that way for a long time.
Let us know when you’re ready to announce your results.
Tom Billings said: — when people start making phone calls to investors from NASA offices with competing programs, dissing the engineering of a private effort, —
Astounding. Who are these people making the calls????
vulture4 wrote @ March 10th, 2012 at 11:03 am
Musk is pushing forward rapidly but also cutting some corners that could bite him,such as cutting back on test flights. We need at least 10-12 unmanned F9 launches before I would feel safe putting people on it;>>
I’ve talked to a reasonably number of test pilots; journalist and others some of whom might actually be asked on a ride…and the consensus which I agree with is that with four (4) uncrewed launches AND a proven LAS…they would ride the vehicle. Clearly with the run of the Dragon resupply it is hard to see Falcon9 as not “human rated”.
A typical “test card” for an unproven airplane is on about the fourth or fifth engine start (ie ground test, high speed taxi, lift and drop…) you go fly. Its not more then just around the patch…but you go fly RGO
vulture4 wrote @ March 10th, 2012 at 11:03 am
I don’t see where you think they are “cutting back”.
SpaceX has 18+ Falcon 9 launches on manifest through 2014, including seven Dragon ISS resupply flights and a Dragonlab mission.
Add to that the 2 successfull test flights already made and you have a minimum of 20 launches before 2015 even starts, well comparable to ULA’s rockets.
To paraphrase SGU’s Col. Young, “How is that not close enough!?”
The first part of your statement is true, you should’ve left it at that because the second one doesn’t make sense (to me, at least).
Letting “serious problems” with your rocket slide is a bad thing regardless of what you launch with it.
The only manned vehicle I can think of where problems were frozen into the design was the STS, and that wasn’t a problem of “letting things slide”, it was bad design.
It’s sure as hell nothing a commercial launch provider can afford doing.
Chris Castro wrote @ March 10th, 2012 at 5:41 am
At least with Mr. Gingrich, we would get the Moon, settled with Antarctic-type bases. With the present-day President, we would get NOTHING but more LEO activities, on board further dead-end orbiting leviathans>>
Maybe, maybe not.
Mostly maybe not.
The weakness in the argument that people like you make over and over again is that you assume that “we build a lunar base” and somehow it becomes sustainable at a price that is affordable doing something that is useful…and by the later “useful” people like you seem to think that it is the start of a great lunar migration.
reality is now however that there is nothing period in human spaceflight that justifies and until that happens “the next logical step” is always going to be pretty small in terms of what it does…and very very expensive.
I think that a “President Gingrich” (which is not going to happen his campaign will be over shortly) would try and make an effort to go back to the Moon and he would try and do it “cheap”…I think that it can be done for 20-30 billion over 10 years…but I dont see a think that will be done there which will justify the 1-4 billion (or more) a year it will take to keep them there.
ISS certainly is not RGO
I’ve talked to a reasonably number of test pilots; journalist and others some of whom might actually be asked on a ride…and the consensus which I agree with is that with four (4) uncrewed launches AND a proven LAS…they would ride the vehicle.
You could find people who would fly even without the LAS. It doesn’t add that much safety to be worth the wait if someone wanted to make history. But at least, unlike the Orion LAS, it likely reduces the hazards rather than increase them.
@vulture4 wrote @ March 10th, 2012 at 11:03 am
“Musk is pushing forward rapidly but also cutting some corners that could bite him,such as cutting back on test flights. We need at least 10-12 unmanned F9 launches before I would feel safe putting people on it; almost every launch vehicle reveals some serious problems during early flights and letting them slide until it is man-rated tends to freeze the design.”
Revisit Mercury-Atlas. Two of the first five test flights encountered problems. MA-5 flew a chimpanzee. So Glenn’s MA-6 orbital mission, as Gene Kranz noted, would be the fourth success or the third mishap in an era when missile technology had a 60% success rate, per Chris Kraft’s memoirs but then the calculated risks were accepted by volunteers- professional military test pilots, not paying passengers. Assuming missile reliability has improved over the past fifty years (inspite of STS-25 & STS-107, which were really managerial failures,) the risk today for commerical is counterbalanced by the pressures common to quarterly driven, commercial enterprises to kept to schedule and contractual obligations and be profitable as well. The Mercury astronauts beleived at least one or two of their group would be lost in flight test, but pressed on. Commercial HSF cannot absorb that kind of anticipated loss and sell itself in the face of a limited market with minimal to no ROI. That’s why governments do it.
.
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ March 10th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
“I’ve talked to a reasonably number of test pilots; journalist and others some of whom might actually be asked on a ride…and the consensus which I agree with is that with four (4) uncrewed launches AND a proven LAS…they would ride the vehicle.”
Except its a managment/corporate decision based on engineering data and market conditions and not the decision of the passengers- aka ‘test pilots,’ ‘others,’ and especially ‘journalists’ to make. There were people who swore ‘New Coke’ tasted great ans was a sure winner after test marketing. It was a fiscal disaster. Good grief. There were people who wanted to ride Bob Truax’s private rocket as well back in the early 80s. No shortage of thrill & fame seekers willing to risk their life & limb– and the property of others– to seek fame, make a buck — or get in the Gunniess Record Book.
As a ‘private enterprised’ firm with much more riding other than their resolve to fly or ‘make history’ as Comrade Simberg notes, there are the common contraints and requirements of all quarterly driven commercial enterprises to weigh. The ‘jockstrap and scarf’ mentality doesnt apply to commercial HSF because the goal is to stay in business and make a profit, not make ‘history.’ That’s why governments do it. And have done it fairly well for half a century. Commerical HSF, not so much.
“Clearly with the run of the Dragon resupply it is hard to see Falcon9 as not “human rated—. <– Another press release. There has been NO Dragon 'resupply run' at all. It has never carried a crew.. Just a wheel of cheese.
@Rand Simberg wrote @ March 10th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
"You could find people who would fly even without the LAS."
You can find fools who'll go over Niagara Falls in beer barrels or strap themselves into lawn chairs attached to helium balloons, clutching BB guns to risk their lives- and others- for jaunts up to 10,000 feet, too. But your preference for hardware over crew safety is well docmented on this forum. And has no place in any rational discourse on HSF.
DCSCA wrote @ March 10th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
“But your preference for hardware over crew safety is well docmented on this forum. And has no place in any rational discourse on HSF.”
And yet all the Shuttle flights except the first four flew with out a Launch Abort System. That disproves your theory.
NASA also never had a problem filling seats for flights, and though the passengers and flight crew may have been thrill-seekers at heart, they were being paid to do work in space. And no one forced them to go. Again, that disproves your theory.
Coastal Ron wrote @ March 10th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
Inaccurate. Shuttle had RTLS abort in its boost phase flight profile- and the trans-Atlantic aborts sites to target for emergency landing land as well– such as it was- beyond the four flight w/ejection seats. Post Challenger the ‘bail-out’ pole was added but mostlty as a sop for PR. The ‘fail-safe’ systems designed and approved in the engineering when shuttle was built are what they are. And in 20/20 hindsight, clearly not as ‘fail-safe’ as sold. But within the parameters of the system, what truly brought down both Challenger and Columbia was bad managment- as the engineering flaws in both cases were known and deemed acceptable flight risks or bumped down the list as work atrounds by NASA management. Don’t blame the system as designed and engineered. Blame the people who accepted it and managed it.
“Blame the people who accepted it and managed it.”
and you say gov’t HSF is a better model than commercial HSF. Commercial HSF is self correcting. It can’t afford mishap because as you say “because the goal is to stay in business”
Your posts are nothing but conflicting logic.
BTW, I am still waiting for my job to be transitioned into a DOD one. Or that I will be out on the street. Do you have any other predictions? Share them so I can go and bet on the opposite.
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 10th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
You could find people who would fly even without the LAS. It doesn’t add that much safety to be worth the wait if someone wanted to make history. But at least, unlike the Orion LAS, it likely reduces the hazards rather than increase them.”
Yes…RGO
DCSCA wrote @ March 11th, 2012 at 1:26 am
“Inaccurate. Shuttle had RTLS abort in its boost phase flight profile..”
The crew and passengers of the Shuttle knew that throughout their flight there would be times that if something went wrong, they were screwed. For instance, the period during the flight when RTLS was not an option, or if the fuel tank they were attached to blew up. Yet they still flew on the Shuttle, which proves you wrong.
And as Byeman pointed out, bad companies will go out of business – think of it as “evolution in action”, which over time improves the system. Government screws up? They go back to Congress for more money. Which transportation system would YOU want to risk your family on?
You and a lot of others are being rather shortsighted on this subject. You have to look and see where the two choices we’re presented with will take us in the future:
A. A government only Earth-to-space transportation system – Shuttle didn’t lower costs, and it’s design was too expensive to evolve into safer versions. The only government transportation option the government is planning is a non-reusable capsule that only holds four people. Only launches approved by Congress will occur.
B. Two or more commercial crew companies offering transportation to LEO for a far lower cost than what the government can provide with SLS/MPCV. As governments and companies take advantage of the lower costs, the market expands beyond just ISS support, which allows NASA to save money on crew transportation costs and focus more funds on BEO activities.
I like the future of “B” far more than the limitations of “A”. If you ever want to get back to the Moon, and stay there, “B” is more likely to support it than “A”. In fact relying on the government-only route for getting back to the Moon has only produced 40 years of disappointment. Albert Einstein once defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Let’s stop the insanity.
Das Boese wrote: Letting “serious problems†with your rocket slide is a bad thing regardless of what you launch with it.
Of course I agree, but the problem with SRB joint leakage was noted early in the Shuttle program and a redesign was slowly working its way through the system, past all the elaborate reviews needed to change a man-rated design, when the Challenger was lost. The problem with foam damage to the TPS was also noted within the first few flights but again a change in the system seemed too expensive and the design was “man-rated” which meant it was safe, so we lived with it. So far SpaceX has shown no reluctance to modify their vehicles “on the fly” but once they are accepted for NASA Commercial Crew it will be a different matter.
RGO: I have heard 4 test flights deemed acceptable by psychology but prefer statistics. There may be something more recent but the best analysis I have seen based on real operational history (as opposed to the smoke and mirrors of fault tree analysis) is “Space Launch Vehicle Reliability” by Chan. He makes some interesting observations, i.e. the only consistent predictor of reliability is launch experience, and even though it did not experience a contingency, STS-1 was the most dangerous manned flight in the US space program (and should be all rights have been lost). I have limited faith in LAS because they protect only against a very narrow spectrum of contingencies which should be easy to foresee and thus prevent.
However I agree that most likely there will be enough experience on the Falcon before people are put on top. Ironically, however, this doesn’t appear to be true of the SLS/Orion.
The problem with foam damage to the TPS was also noted within the first few flights but again a change in the system seemed too expensive and the design was “man-rated†which meant it was safe, so we lived with it.
No, Shuttle was never “man-rated.” And “man-rated” doesn’t mean that it is “safe.”
Will this myth never die?
@ vulture 4:
“We need at least 10-12 unmanned F9 launches before I would feel safe putting people on it…”
We may well get that, if you accept F9 launches without any version of Dragon, as part of the experience base.
This is why many people already feel comfortable with the prospect of humans on EELVs. You’ll change ascent profiles and add fault-detection and other hardware, of course, but we already have a good sense of how they behave, from launching other payloads. And SpaceX has a pretty good backlog of payloads to fly.
As opposed to, say, the Saturn V, which flew nothing that wasn’t related to Apollo. (SLS supporters, be mindful of that. There will be no non-NASA payloads to add to your pre-manned launcher experience, either…)
vulture4 wrote @ March 11th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
“Of course I agree, but the problem with SRB joint leakage was noted early in the Shuttle program and a redesign was slowly working its way through the system, past all the elaborate reviews needed to change a man-rated design, when the Challenger was lost. The problem with foam damage to the TPS was also noted within the first few flights but again a change in the system seemed too expensive and the design was “man-rated†which meant it was safe, so we lived with it.”
Yikes. I share some of Simberg’s chagrin over that statement…sadly in large measure I think you have captured in that paragraph why NASA should never be in charge of any crewed vehicle approach to safety again.
Both incidents (and the Aili tank cracks and a whole bunch of other things) show a very caviler toward safety that in any other complex technical operation of the US government and private industry gets you fired these days almost immediately.
The instant “blow by” was noted or “foam coming off the vehicle” was found the shuttle system by definition was “unsafe” and no longer “man rated” (whatever that last term is thought to have meant. In both instances the vehicle was now flying out of good engineering specs, the specs NASA itself had written…and to disregard them was to move from sound engineering to the roulette where random chance was now the key player.
NASA HSF did this effortlessly. And no matter what lies they tell now, they all from the Chief Astronaut down to the GS 12 level participated in it effortlessly. I’ve talked with an astronaut who will remain nameless but who has tried to “educate” me on the O ring blowby and his line was “we didnt know it was that bad”…but they admit it existed and that was out of spec adn someone should have said “stop”.
“s “Space Launch Vehicle Reliability†by Chan. He makes some interesting observations, i.e. the only consistent predictor of reliability is launch experience,”
I’ve read that ….
STS 1 should be looked at for what it was…a TEST FLIGHT of a previously unflown design.
That statement puts all the risk and problems etc into perspective…sometimes despite the best planning you have…well dual compressor stalls on takeoff in your new two motor jet or worse.
That is test flying.
Test pilots have either left or died in planes that are on test hops, some the first time and had far worse issues then STS 1 did.
It doesnt take much launch or flight or operating experience to get safety…if the experience you gain with every “operation” is following your model…confidence grows quickly. That doesnt mean “some daemon doesnt lurk” but it does mean you have a good handle on a lot of things.
The O ring erosion should have told them quickly to stand down until they fixed it…because it proved that they did not understand things, things which could kill them…and yet they kept on going.
Musk ought to get a few more flights of the 9 and two or three more of the Dragon…and then he could probably fly people with “reasonable” risk…he could send “test pilots” now and do it with far more “assurance” then STS 1 did. If he has even a modest flight rate by 2014…he should be in good shape…particularly if he finds things he doesnt expect…and fixes them.
RGO
Frank Glover wrote @ March 11th, 2012 at 4:42 pm
This is why many people already feel comfortable with the prospect of humans on EELVs.>>
Yes you seem to understand safety. There is probably far more risk now with Atlas and Delta by dicking with the design to “add safety” then there is to simply start flying humans. RGO
Coastal Ron wrote @ March 11th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Bad managment brought down Challenger and Columbia. The engineering is what it is when the STS system was brought up to speed. The systemic engineering flaws were discovered, managment alerted and it chose to ignore same. As to ‘B’– LEO is a ticket to no place, as three decades of same has clearly demonstrated. You’re just crankin’ to crank.
@Byeman wrote @ March 11th, 2012 at 9:39 am
“and you say gov’t HSF is a better model than commercial HSF.”
Commercial HSF has faile to accept the risk and fly. When the Mercury team was assembled, they fully expected to lose one or two of the seven in flight test when missile technology had a 60% reliability. Presumably it’s better today, and commercial HSF has not launched orbited and safely returned anyone. And based on comments posted hy Comrade Simberg, hardware has a higher priority than crew safety in his SpaceX world because they want ot fly and ‘make history’ not profits. Good grief. So yes, NASA shulttle managers killed 14 astronauts and lost two shuttle orbiters because of neglegence and sloppy managment– not because the engineers didn’t attempt to alert mamagement.
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 11th, 2012 at 4:32 pm The problem â€Will this myth never die?’
Based on your well-documented prefernce for hardware over crew survivability in HSF operations, its clear trhat myth will pass when SpaceX tries to fly crews.
DCSCA wrote @ March 11th, 2012 at 6:05 pm
“Bad managment brought down Challenger and Columbia.”
Bad “Government” management you mean. And you want to depend on them for the future of our space program?
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
“You’re just crankin’ to crank”
This is a good metaphor for just about anything you write. You’re using words from the English language, but you use them in ways no one understands. Again, I point you to the definition of insanity…
DCSCA wrote @ March 11th, 2012 at 6:05 pm
“The systemic engineering flaws were discovered, managment alerted and it chose to ignore same.”
Just wanted to add a new report from the NASA IG – you can find it here on Florida Today. Here is an interesting summary:
“The Lessons Learned Information System provided NASA with a tool where mistakes could be recorded for the historic record, in a form that had the potential of helping prevent the kinds of repeat mistakes that have plagued the agency throughout its history.
One problem: The inspector general says most NASA project managers are not using the system. The majority are not submitting any lessons learned to the system and few are searching the system for lessons that they might apply to their own work. That’s created a situation where the database is of “diminishing and questionable value,†the inspector general’s report said.”
So every time you try to explain away NASA’s failures in running a transportation system, you’ll know how wrong you are. NASA may be filled with lots of smart, well meaning people, but forcing them to run a transportation system is literally forcing them outside of their areas of competence.
You already rely on commercial companies to transport you around the world, yet you think NASA has some inherent safety advantage when we leave the atmosphere. You are truly delusional.
From Wiki:
“In November 2011, Greg Mango, the agency head of the NASA Commercial Crew Program (CCP), gave an extended interview on the new NASA requirements for human rating of spacecraft that will fly to the International Space Station (ISS).[2]
The NASA CCP human-rating standards require that the probability of loss on ascent is no more than 1 in 500, and that the probability of loss on descent is no more than 1 in 500. The overall mission loss risk, which includes vehicle risk from micrometeorites and orbital debris while in orbit for up to 210 days is no more than 1 in 270.[2] Maximum sustained G-loads are limited to three Earth-standard g’s.[2]
It is noteworthy that the development of the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station pre-dates the NASA Human-Rating requirements. After the Challenger and Columbia accidents, the criteria used by NASA for human-rating spacecraft have been made more stringent.[3]”
“Safe” is a relative term. Some people will never jump out of a perfectly good airplane to skydive, some will never climb a mountian past all of the dead bodies still there that didn’t survive the trip. People will not scuba dive, paraglide, et cetera, just because they do not consider it safe enough for them.
And that is the point, SAFE ENOUGH, as defined by each individual that are making informed consent decisions on what they are willing to do with those measures they believe are safe enough.
DCSCA wrote @ March 11th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
“Presumably it’s better today”
Presumably? So you’ll speak with authority on the subject, yet you have no clue what the facts are. Why are we not surprised?
Here’s an assignment for you – look up the launch record of the Atlas V (i.e. facts) and report back to us…
“Commercial Space is NOT going anywhere!”
Falcon 9 has been to LEO, twice, and Dragon, once.
Antares is scheduled to go in June, and Cynus in the fall.
“NOT getting us anywhere, anytime soon!!”
Dragon is scheduled to get the U.S. back to the ISS in April and Cygnus in the winter.
NASA is currently studying missions that would use Dragon to get to Mars.
“Subsidizing them is like trying to get pigs to fly.”
When it comes to aerospace, anyone with an IQ above 40 is going to take a pig that has flown, like Dragon, to a pig that has yet to fly, like Orion.
“Some of the other commenters here, particularly DCSCA,”
Not exactly a ringing endorsement.
“Without the ISS, there is NO mission for Commercial Space providers!”
NASA’s own report states otherwise.
http://spacebusinessblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/nasas-commercial-crewcargo-market.html
“With a Lunar base, you would have no complications of the space facility having an orbit that will decay.”
If simplicity is your measuring stick, then bringing propellant up to a station a few hours away is much easier than resupplying a base on another planetary surface three days away.
“The Lunar surface installation would simply stay & remain on Luna firma, readily reclaimable by intermittent crews, after any hiatus in cislunar flights.”
Not if it lost power, thermal management, seals, or any dozen of other potential failures that would render the base uninhabitable.
Vladislaw wrote @ March 11th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
From Wiki:
“In November 2011, Greg Mango, the agency head of the NASA Commercial Crew Program (CCP), gave an extended interview on the new NASA requirements for human rating of spacecraft that will fly to the International Space Station (ISS).[2]
The NASA CCP human-rating standards require that the probability of loss on ascent is no more than 1 in 500, and that the probability of loss on descent is no more than 1 in 500.>>
Greg is an idiot if he believes those numbers RGO
@Dark Blue Nine wrote @ March 11th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
“Not if it lost power, thermal management, seals, or any dozen of other potential failures that would render the base uninhabitable.”
Plague makes for better fictional excuses- see 2001. All of which would have to be perfected to a ‘fail-safe’ level of engineering in cis-lunar space before using what was learned and launching out on a manned expedition to Mars.
“Falcon 9 has been to LEO, twice, and Dragon, once.”
Another press release. Dragon carried a wheel of cheese. That’s all. It is not an operational system for crew/cargo supply to the ISS. It has no operational/independenly verified ECS to sustain human life or an operational independently verified LAS.
“Dragon is scheduled to get the U.S. back to the ISS in April and Cygnus in the winter.” More press releases. Bottom line- nothing is operational. Nothing is flying– especially if it interferes w/a film premiere.
NASA is currently studying missions that would use Dragon to get to Mars.
NASA studies a lot of things. That’s gingrich’s chief complaint against NASA in case you haven’t noticed.
“If simplicity is your measuring stick, then bringing propellant up to a station a few hours away is much easier than resupplying a base on another planetary surface three days away.”
Not necessarily. Lunar rocks are a source for elements- incliding 02, as is the recent discovery of water on Luna. You have a closed mind.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ March 11th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Why don’t you– but broaden your search to include all LVs and missile system and the reliability of same over time. Here’s some help- Kraft agrees that they’re beter now than in 19562. But don’t limit yourself to just American rocketry. You might learn that modern rocket technology- advances and setbacks et al., – arent just the province of the USA. =eye-roll=
“You already rely on commercial companies to transport you around the world…”
Yes and gow was that reliability established– by FLYING people, accepting the risk and, yes crashing and killing passengers and losing hardware– AND through government oversight/regulation, making it as safe as possible.
“… yet you think NASA has some inherent safety advantage when we leave the atmosphere.” No, you said that– but the fact is, their crews know and accept the risk– particularly in the beginning when they were volunteers/ professional military test pilots, not paying passengers. =eyeroll= And it’s false equivalency for you to even try to compare as commercial HSF has failed to launch, orbit and return anybody.
Byeman wrote @ March 11th, 2012 at 9:39 am
“Blame the people who accepted it and managed it.â€
and you say gov’t HSF is a better model than commercial HSF. Commercial HSF is self correcting. It can’t afford mishap because as you say “because the goal is to stay in businessâ€
Your posts are nothing but conflicting logic.
@Byeman wrote @ March 11th, 2012 at 9:39 am
“BTW, I am still waiting for my job to be transitioned into a DOD one.”
It is already– you just don’t realize it, as an undercurrent rationale for NASA to even remain in existence these days is claimed as one of ‘national security.’ And if NASA was a private firm, it would be running closer to the margin with a tight overhead than you could possibly envision- and you wouldn’t have to worry about ‘your job’ as it most likely would be outsourced.
@Das Boese wrote @ March 10th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
“SpaceX has 18+ Falcon 9 launches on manifest through 2014, including seven Dragon ISS resupply flights and a Dragonlab mission.”
More press releases. Nobody flies. No cargo, no crews. Little wonder Bowersox wisely punched out.
@Tom Billings wrote @ March 9th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
“But for me, the key is establishing that Americans without a NASA badge can operate crewed spacecraft in LEO and beyond.”
Aside from the fact that LEO is a ticket to no place, nothing is stopping commercial HSF but the nature of the marketplace commerical wants to service- limited market and minimal to no ROI. That’s why governmnents do it.
Robert, do you mean that commercial carries will not be near 1 – 500?
Do you think there will be a loss of crew a couple times per 100 flights?
Just posted on Spaceflight Now …
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1203/11spacex39a/
SpaceX and NASA are in advanced discussions for the private space firm to use Kennedy Space Center’s pad 39A, one of the spaceport’s Apollo and space shuttle launch sites, as the Florida base for its Falcon Heavy rocket, officials said.
NASA and SpaceX are studying how to assemble and launch Falcon Heavy rockets from pad 39A, including adding a facility to horizontally integrate the launcher’s core stage, two strap-on boosters and upper stage, according to William Hill, assistant deputy associate administrator for NASA’s exploration systems division.
So let’s hear from the guy who a few weeks ago told me I didn’t know what I was talking about …
Vladislaw wrote @ March 12th, 2012 at 3:21 am
Robert, do you mean that commercial carries will not be near 1 – 500?
Do you think there will be a loss of crew a couple times per 100 flights?>>
I am saying that there is no way on the creators earth or his heavens that
“The NASA CCP human-rating standards require that the probability of loss on ascent is no more than 1 in 500, and that the probability of loss on descent is no more than 1 in 500.” can be anything more then a planning excersize designed to keep some people busy.
There are statistical performance data that is based on actual operational experience and there are statistical performance data that is based on “analysis” and the later is not worth much.
On “paper” things mostly always look better then they do in real life performance. Why? because real life performance is almost impossible to reduce to paper; particularly in a system which has no real statistical base to map out the analysis on.
One of the things “I DO” is help people and corporations buy airplanes…I am very very good at it. One of Gulfstreams more popular “used” airplane is a GIVSP. They are hot sellers and Gulfstream keeps up the mods to keep them “young”.
If the airplane has flown 5000 hours, On paper the 6 tube CRT arrangement will have suffered exactly 1 one failure…that is what Honeywell and the manufactor of the plane both predicted…yet the failure rate is ACTUALLY 2.5 per 5000 hours…why? In the real world not every tube gets the rated CFM of cooling every minute, in the real world there is dust in the cockpit which changes heat exchange…in the real world…
(this is one reason Honeywell and G are doing a good brisk business with the “new cockpit” LCD replacement.
At NASA HSF safety is buried in statistics. Almost none of which are based on real life operational experience…if they were then even a 5th gradere would have connected the dots on the orings and foam hitting the ice and gone “HOLLY MACKREL”…
so here comes along someone and babbles a 1 in 500 chance…everyone should have just broken out in laughter.
Someday in the future hopefully human spaceflight systems will be excersized enough so that real operational stats can be gathered…and then some reasonable regulations concerning performance requirements can be written based on “chances” and operational technology.
The FAA in its long history is pretty good at this. Any fool can look at an airplane (or anything) design and see the “once in a lifetime chance problem” that will simply wipe out all the safety measures…but we neither design for that nor regulate to it in reasonably operational systems. V1, V2, the departure segmented climb etc…all were not simply pulled out of thin air; there was/is operational data to base those on.
Until that happy time comes in HSF the best one can do is treat it for what it is…at first a test flight environment…then well a “homebuilt” environment, and finally some barnstorming time…at some point we will get to “commercial”. The Russian rocket that carries the Soyuz, that version of it…is the closest to this transition. The Delta II is close…Atlas and Delta have just entered the “homebuilt” stage.
I feel comfortable predicting that in the next 100 launches with Humans on them from the US at some point we will have some malfunction; and at some point in the next 100 missions we will have some ‘crew” event on launch. Any person who thinks otherwise is simply not playing with a full deck. That might not happen…but…
RGO
DCSCA wrote @ March 12th, 2012 at 2:15 am
“Not necessarily. Lunar rocks are a source for elements- incliding 02, as is the recent discovery of water on Luna. You have a closed mind.”
And you live in a fantasy world. But I diverge.
In the past you’re been critical of the amount of time ISS crew members spend doing maintenance, even though you’ve admitted that don’t know how much of their time is consumed doing it.
Nevertheless, now you imply that lunar outposts, which are 1,000x further away than the ISS, will be maintenance-free because they’ll extract everything they need from rocks. This is what you think?
So the need to provide fresh food & provisions, consumables, replacement parts and new equipment will be taken care of by picking up lunar rocks? Do tell us more…
And based on comments posted hy Comrade Simberg, hardware has a higher priority than crew safety in his SpaceX world because they want ot fly and ‘make history’ not profits.
Only Comrade Idiot Troll would think that my views are those of SpaceX.
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ March 12th, 2012 at 9:27 am
In fact, this reinforced what Gingrich kept saying- NASA spends all its time studying and talking about space. Still if the budgets evaoprate it probably makes sense to make a buck off them and put the hardware to use rather than have them rusting away.
@Rand Simberg wrote @ March 12th, 2012 at 3:14 pm
Except it is your view of SpaceX is per your own comments on this thread:
@Rand Simberg wrote @ March 10th, 2012 at 2:37 pm
[In response to Oler’s comments on riding the Falcon/Dragon stack] “You could find people who would fly even without the LAS. It doesn’t add that much safety to be worth the wait if someone wanted to make history.”
Ever the shill. Your preference for hardware over the safety of the crews/passengers which would ride it is well documented on this forum. And disturbing.
Meanwhile, Americans are treated to the latest piecve of video from the ISS… up on the $100 billion dollar facility, Don Petit is flying toy birds… yep, there’s a guy doing some hardcore scientific ‘research.’
Pathetic. And expensive. What a waste.
DCSCA wrote:
“Meanwhile, Americans are treated to the latest piecve of video from the ISS… up on the $100 billion dollar facility, Don Petit is flying toy birds… yep, there’s a guy doing some hardcore scientific ‘research.’
Pathetic. And expensive. What a waste.”
So what you saying is, when a researcher goes to a base, no matter where it is, to conduct research, they are obligated to work around the clock 24/7. They do not get time off to sleep, or sit around watching a movie or building a flying toy to show their kid. They are instead, hooked up to the traces and are required to work from can see to can’t every day.
No time off EVER. No down time EVER. It is only work for 16 hours per day for six months with only 8 hours off for sleeping. And NEVER be caught doing anything else, except work and sleep. Makes sense I guess, because we really do not want people in space to do anything other than what a robot does, and that is work.
Gosh who wouldn’t just die for that opportunity, work like a slave for 6 months of 16 hour days with only time off for sleeping.
sounds like you are crankin’ to crank … AGAIN.
“Plague makes for better fictional excuses”
These are not “fictional excuses”. Plastics, rubbers, and silicones all outgas in vacuum environments and grow brittle in UV environments, leading to failed seals. Dust accumulates on solar and thermal arrays, electronics short, and single-event upsets scramble software routines, leading to failed power, thermal management, and life support systems. Without regular maintenance and a reactive human presence, these failures can leave an uninhabited or underinhabited space station, lunar base, or other long-duration crew system in a permanently uninhabitable state.
You clearly know nothing about space systems.
“All of which would have to be perfected to a ‘fail-safe’ level”
If you knew anything about engineering, you would know that there is no such thing as “fail-safe” in engineering. Ask Japan’s nuclear industry.
“Another press release… More press releases… NASA studies a lot of things.”
Any idiot will take a press release about a successful space capsule demonstration (Dragon COTS 1) or a space capsule demonstration that will launch in a couple months (Dragon COTS 2/3) over an article about yet another year-long delay for a space capsule (Orion TBD).
And any idiot will take a study about a capsule being employed in a Mars EDL mission (Dragon) over a capsule that can’t even be considered for such a mission due to its choice of TPS (Orion).
You must not be any idiot.
“Not necessarily. Lunar rocks are a source for elements- incliding 02, as is the recent discovery of water on Luna.”
In fact, you are a blithering idiot.
Producing LOX on Earth, where it’s been done for decades, and transporting that LOX to LEO is orders of magnitude easier that designing, developing, testing, building, and transporting all the equipment and infrastructure necessary to produce LOX in a lunar environment that no one has ever produced LOX in before.
Except it is your view of SpaceX is per your own comments on this thread
To repeat: Only an idiot would conflate my views with those of SpaceX. But I repeat myself.
Could someone please explain the term ‘crankin to crank’. Sounds pretty derogatory but then it could mean absolutely nothing. I’d like to think it’s the latter and the term’s used when the poster can think of no logical response.
@Dark Blue Nine wrote @ March 12th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
“Plague makes for better fictional excuses†It does.
And you like those SpaceX press releases promising everything but doing nothing, dontcha. What’s the latest schedule slip for SpaceX…May, June… July… You’re a technician and not really prone to big picture thinking when it comes to space policy development.
@Vladislaw wrote @ March 12th, 2012 at 10:17 pm
No. The video piped out via the news media to the general public paying the freight simply reinforced to anybody giving the ISS a thoguht that they’re goofing off and not doing any substantaive research worthy of continued funding. But if you think an astronaut playing around does, fine.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ March 12th, 2012 at 1:50 pm
“…you imply that lunar outposts, which are 1,000x further away than the ISS, will be maintenance-free because they’ll extract everything they need from rocks.”
No, you said that– which actually betrays you own fantasies about it. It is a resource availible to source, though. But if you want to pitch the lack of O2 in lunar rocks or that lunar pole H20 doesn’t have it, go for it.
BeanCounterfromDownunder wrote @ March 13th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
“Could someone please explain the term ‘crankin to crank’.”
It’s a made up phrase by DCSCA, and he/she/it uses it when he/she/it has no retort to facts and logic. Every time you see it written you know he/she/it has lost an argument.
BeanCounterfromDownunder wrote @ March 13th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Don’t tell me you haven’t noticed their tendency to obsessive-compulsively repeat certain, meaningless catchphrases?
“Tick-tock”, “ticket to no place” are other examples.
DCSCA wrote @ March 14th, 2012 at 12:08 am
Really, DCSCA? Are we at the “NO YOU’RE DUMB” level now?
A resource that can not be economically exploited as compared to the alternatives is useless. This is very much the case for all lunar resources right now, and it sure as hell isn’t going to change under a purely government-operated space program.
And we’re back to “No you said that”
“‘Plague makes for better fictional excuses’ It does.”
You’re quoting yourself, you idiot.
“And you like those SpaceX press releases promising everything but doing nothing, dontcha.”
No, I prefer a company and government programs that actually get their launch vehicles and space capsules to orbit, like SpaceX and COTS have, over ones that spend billions of taxpayer dollars only to slip their schedule year-for-year, like Orion.
“What’s the latest schedule slip for SpaceX…May, June… July…”
The COTS 2/3 flight to ISS was just confirmed for April 30 yesterday.
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20120313/SPACE/120313021/SpaceX-targeting-April-30-launch-Dragon-ISS?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CHome%7Cs
You can’t get anything, right, can you?
“The video piped out via the news media to the general public paying the freight simply reinforced to anybody giving the ISS a thoguht that they’re goofing off and not doing any substantaive research worthy of continued funding. But if you think an astronaut playing around does, fine.”
With over a hundred experiments going on at any one time the media has ample opportunity to provide news segments towards the science but we both know that news outlets are rarely interested in the hard sciences, unless it can be offered up in a sound bite.
My point was towards DCSCA and his endless misrepresentations. The idea that anyone on the ISS never gets any down time but should be working every waking minute is silly.
I have no faith that the media is really interested in anything other than how can a story increase the eyeballs to the station/website.
@Vladislaw wrote @ March 14th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Well, that depends on the media outlet. It’s not a matter of misinterpretation but lousy PR by NASA– which once was pretty good That kind of footage just reinforced the wrong perceptions. When somebody asks what they’re dooing up there on a $100 billion space station, they show footage of Petit and his angey bird. Wrong stuff, not thev right stuff. . We tried to lobby the news division to carry more science based reports. At one point memos went out suggesting they run Hubble images every Friday behind the closing credits of the nightly news but executive producers resisted.
@Dark Blue Nine wrote @ March 14th, 2012 at 8:31 am
April 30– May 1– depends on yuor time zone, fool- but you don’t get anything right, do you. But you do love those SpaceX press release, don’t you.
Governmnt managed and operated space programs have been flying payloads into orbit since 1957 and humans into space for half a century.
And in case you need reminded SpaceX has flown nobody. And they’ve orbited a wheel of cheese. IF they ever do manage to fly some cargo up to the ISS they’ll be repeating what Progress has been doing for thirty years. April 30 means everything to you– but nothing to the rest of the business community. Just another date to miss on a SpaceX press release which updates another scheduled dated slipped. Very poor managment not being capable of keeping to schedule– something the marketplace expects from well run, commercial, for profit ‘free enterprised’ firms.
“April 30– May 1– depends on yuor time zone, fool-”
No, it doesn’t. During the scheduled launch window, it will not be May 1 anywhere in the world. It will be April 29 in the far east, but nowhere will it be May 1.
“but you don’t get anything right, do you.”
I’m not the one who doesn’t understand how time zones work. That would be you.
“But you do love those SpaceX press release, don’t you.”
I prefer government space programs and space companies that actually get into space, like COTS and SpaceX, over ones that suffer year-for-year delays for more than a half-decade, like Orion. I strongly prefer the former when it costs a fraction of the latter.
Neither has anything to do with press releases.
@Dark Blue Nine wrote @ March 16th, 2012 at 3:19 pm
“I prefer government space programs and space companies that actually get into space, like COTS and SpaceX..”
More false equivalency. In case you need reminding, SpaceX has failed to launch, orbit and return anybody safely from space. They are not operational and have yet to service the ISS w/cargoed flights. . They have flown a wheel of cheese.
Government space agencies have been flying payloads into orbit since 1957 and humans for over half a cerntury since 1961– including nine trips out to the moon with six landings.
Government space programs have nothing to prove. They have assumed the risk and earned credibility. Commercial space fims like SpaceX have everything to prove because they have failed to take the risk. A risk w/o the crutch of government to socialize that risk on the many to benefit a select few.
“More false equivalency.”
No, it’s not. Falcon 9 has launched to orbit successfully twice. Dragon has been to orbit and back. All for less than the cost of one Ares I-X suborbital test flight.
Contrast that with NASA’s record over the last decade (2000s), where Ares I never got past a suborbital test, and Orion slipped year-for-year. SLS and MPCV are now doing the same.
Or contrast it with NASA’s record over the 1990s, where X-38/CRV, X-33/VentureStar, SLI/OSP, and CTV all wound up in non-orbiting and mostly non-flying programmatic and technical dead-ends.
It’s “false equivalency” to claim that NASA has the same track record over the past two decades as SpaceX. They don’t. NASA has nothing but failures to show for tens of billions of taxpayer dollars. SpaceX does not.
“Government space programs have nothing to prove.”
The old NASA has nothing to prove. But today’s NASA does. NASA hasn’t successfully developed a new space transportation system (manned or otherwise) in 30 years.
If NASA still wants to be in the human space transport game, then it has to prove that it can develop a new human launch vehicle, or at least a capsule, through at least unmanned orbital tests and do so affordably and on a useful schedule. If they don’t, then by definition, they won’t be in this game any longer. Despite being given multiple mandates to develop a new human space transport system, tens of billions of US taxpayer dollars, and 20-odd years, NASA has failed to do so. Repeatedly.
When it comes to space transportation, today’s NASA has everything to prove. Apollo and Shuttle were great, but the NASA organization and the people that developed those systems are long gone.
I don’t claim that I’m a soldier because my grandfather fought four combat engagements in the Pacific Theater in WWII. I’m not. I’m a civilian.
Same goes for NASA. We shouldn’t claim that today’s NASA is a successful human space transport systems development organization just because the NASA of two generations ago developed Apollo. Today’s NASA organization, management, and workforce has failed for 20+ years just to get a new space transport system to orbit. SpaceX has not.
DCSCA wrote:
“More false equivalency. In case you need reminding, SpaceX has failed to launch, orbit and return anybody safely from space.”
That is total nonsense.
Microsoft has not launched a human into space either, Why are not riding them? They are not spending anything trying to send someone into space today, and they have not said they are trying to launch anyone soon. But that shouldn’t matter you should chew them out just like SpaceX.
SpaceX has not said they would launch anyone soon, they are not spending trying to put someone in space tomorrow, but you say a company not trying to do something, at all, should be launching people.
So you should start chewing out every company in the United States that is not currently spending money on trying to launch humans even if they say they are not currently trying to launch someone.
your logic …. defies logic.
In case you need reminding, SpaceX is not trying to launch anyone yesterday today or tomorrow.
Guess what?
SpaceX does not plan on launching anyone for YEARS.
So to imply they should be launching YEARS before they say they will… is bat shit crazy.
That is total insanity on a bun.
I could use your same insanely twisted logic and say you to you:
DCSCA still has not launched anyone into space … tick tock tick tock,
Do you see how insane that looks when I write that? Thats how insane you look saying SpaceX has not launched anyone yet. Either has Microsoft. Stop acting like you are insane.