Nelson's Compromise Emerges

The one thing I agree with is that we can't be sure Boeing and Lockheed and ULA and Orbital and SpaceX will all succeed. Maybe a sixth or seventh backup is necessary.

A directly shuttle derived HLV that uses the 4-segment SRBs plus an EDS stage is all we need as far as heavy lift capability is concerned. And that shouldn't cost more than $2 to $2.5 billion a year over the next 4 to 7 years to develop.

And such a HLV could be used for a variety of missions and purposes: lunar base deployment, lunar sorties, deploying huge microgravity space stations with a single launch into LEO or the Lagrange points, launching large rotational artificial gravity space stations with just three or for launches, launching huge space telescopes, deploying large interplanetary lightsails at Lagrange points for asteroid missions and manned voyages to Mars, fuel depot launches to LEO and the Lagrange points.

An HLV would be an extremely useful tool!

Marcel F. Williams

One wonders whether those people doing the "reporting" have any idea of that which they speak! A compendium of jumbled comments which seem to contradict each other.

It's bad enough that everyone seems to have a different take on what the the new plan actually entails, but it also seems as if the actual term "Space Program" means different things to different people.

Nelson as an ex-Astronaut thinks purely in terms of manned spaceflight. But even manned spaceflight is limited to LEO. Only unmanned spaceflight goes beyond to GEO and the planets currently! I think he has the right idea: if we're serious about Mars.

Shotwell said $6 billion would be enough for NASA to fund between five and 10 efforts of the magnitude SpaceX intends to propose.

All that needs to be said. What is SpaceX intending to propose? I would wager super heavy lift. Since the COTS funding will be effectively wide open for the foreseeable future the proposals are going to be quite interesting.

“What would happen if Congress decided — since the Congress controls the purse strings — that we wanted to take the $6 billion projected by the president over the next five years and use that not for human certification of the commercial vehicles but instead to accelerate the [research and development] for a heavy-lift vehicle for the Mars program?” Nelson asked ...

US lawmakers seem to be suffering a vision deficit.

Why have hundreds of people in LEO, BEO excursions, a nascent space economy and the technology to live permanently in space, when you can shoot one enormous bolt and send a handful of people for a stroll on Mars instead. Another magnificent 12?

Democratic processes require huge faith at the best of times but I'll be impressed and amazed if anything rational comes out of this.

Lets hope that Rep. Nelson s ideas are included in the Space forum in April...I hope he is right, but I really dont think the leadership in Washington has much vision for pushing us forward in space.....

RC - I sense that you are being facetious. But, just in case: of course all of companies you listed don't have to succeed, just some of them. And some of them have already been successful for many years as suppliers of launch vehicles for some of our high value payloads. Some of them have been highly successful for years as partners with NASA in past and ongoing projects. In other words, some of them already have a proven track record of success.

There seems to be a continuing misconception that commercial involvement with NASA is both new in concept and practice. As an aside, note that all of NASA (nationwide) employs about 18,000 people (directly). In the Johnson Space Center area alone, there is a workforce of 12,000 contractor personnel that supports JSC efforts. That's four times the number of civil servants at JSC. [See: this.] With regard to crewed spacecraft and the launch vehicles that loft them, those have always been built by companies. NASA engineers and contractor engineers have worked together to design the vehicles that suit the specific mission that NASA is pursuing. There's little reason to expect that process would be much different if NASA instead purchases services to deliver crews to LEO.

But this path has been discussed time and again over the past quarter century in various U. S. space transportation policy documents. For instance, in the Report of the President’s Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy (The Aldridge Report, released in 2004), the recommendation was made that:

NASA recognize and implement a far larger presence of private industry in space operations with the specific goal of allowing private industry to assume the primary role of providing services to NASA, and most immediately in accessing low-Earth orbit.

We can go back further, however, to Pioneering the Space Frontier - The Report of the National Commission on Space (the Paine Report, released in 1986), which recommended:

That next-generation cargo and passenger transport vehicles be designed and developed to be readily operable by commercial firms after the operational phase is reached. The sooner the private sector can assume responsibility for design, specification, development, fabrication, flight test, production, and operation of space vehicles and launch and landing facilities, the sooner the United States can begin to pattern Earth-to-orbit transportation after commercial airline operations.

The formal U.S. National Space Transportation Policy (released in 2005) was explicit in its recommendations regarding commercial space transportation, stating:

The United States Government is committed to encouraging and facilitating a viable U.S. commercial space transportation industry that supports U.S. space transportation goals, benefits the U.S. economy, and is internationally competitive.

Looking to private enterprise to provide Earth to LEO crew and cargo delivery services is an idea for which the time has come. The concept has been well discussed for a long time, and the mandate that falls out of those discussions is always the same, but in implementation is always moved into the future because the potential providers of such services were not viewed as being ready. That mindset has got to change if we are ever to get out of LEO. We should have taken that route a few years ago.

Important to this all, however (and as has been mentioned by other commenters), is that we know where we are going, and when. The Vision for Space Exploration is still in effect as the "mission statement", as far as I can tell. When we decide just where we are going - and why - then we can tailor what follows to make the best use of our resources in getting there. Let's hope that is what follows out of Senator Nelson's efforts. I'd hate for all the current discussion to be seen as simply and solely for the purpose of saving jobs, when the real focus should be on defining a robust and vibrant path forward - that is, jobs should be an effect, not a cause.

A stripped down Orion on a single SRB booster was going to cost a billion dollars a flight. I wonder what an Orion on a 2 SRB + ET will cost ? And what will the mission for this Orion be? ...especially if any of the commercial suppliers come through - and Dragon is already further along than Orion.

Someone needs to be mapping out some strategy and its obvious that Astronaut/Congressman Nelson has not.

In the next five years, these are the goals that should be considered:
(1) IF we need an HLV to launch additional ISS elements, or elements of a BEO XM-like vehicle, or other military or R&D satellites, then using the existing Shuttle expertise and workforce to develop a Shuttle derived HLV makes sense. In this case it also makes sense to continue Shuttle until a replacement crew carrier is available.
(2) commercial capsules for LEO access to ISS makes sense.
(3) a next generation flying return vehicle based on what we have learned on Shuttle makes sense as a NASA led project.
(4) a free flying, BEO XM like vehicle based on ISS modules and systems makes sense.

Orion as an earth return capsule for lunar or Mars missions may never be required if we advance technology as NASA ought to be doing, or if we stayed with an Apollo style lunar mission might be needed in another decade or two. Its not needed in 5-10 years.

One real issue I see here is the lack of anyone, except Buzz Aldrin, strategizing what ought to be done. I thought that was NASA's job, but I guess NASA is more interested in being a regulatory agency now.

The engineers/managers in NASA seem to be saying: 'strategy and planning the future, not my job, just tell me what you want built and I'll go off and assemble an army and you can come back in a couple decades and we might have something for you'.

you be way too verbose to be anything but a politico:

"some of them already have a proven track record of success"... "There's little reason to expect that process would be much different if NASA instead purchases services to deliver crews to LEO."

au contraire...

no track records in successful hsf design or ops - that was North American Rockwell

Bottom Line:
it's about rocketizing solids vs. privatizing nasa for hsf

both are bold-game-changing-towards-loss&failure bad ideas

They seemed to be making it up as they go along. This is just chaos. Sticking with a somewhat flawed Constellation program is certainly better than this. Hey, an Ares rocket has already flown!
Does this sound familar.
"There ain't no rules here.., we make them up as we go along"
- Dem chair on health care.
Does this sound familar ?
Yes it does
at the very least you now admit Constellation is flawed.
now on chaos. yep this how we discover "new"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsdZKCh6RsU
We Dont Need No Stinkin Badges!
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogers-commission/Appendix-F.txt
Appendix F - Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle

by R. P. Feynman

Introduction

It appears that there are enormous differences of opinion as to the
probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life. The
estimates range from roughly 1 in 100 to 1 in 100,000. The higher
figures come from the working engineers, and the very low figures from
management. What are the causes and consequences of this lack of
agreement? Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a
Shuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could
properly ask "What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the
machinery?"

We have also found that certification criteria used in Flight
Readiness Reviews often develop a gradually decreasing strictness. The
argument that the same risk was flown before without failure is often
accepted as an argument for the safety of accepting it again. Because
of this, obvious weaknesses are accepted again and again, sometimes
without a sufficiently serious attempt to remedy them, or to delay a
flight because of their continued presence.

You don't like it? Go somewhere else! by Richard Feynman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDTcMD6pOw
Richard Feynman talks about the O ring
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qAi_9quzUY

Richard Feynman explains the feeling of confusion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lytxafTXg6c

AnObamanaut wrote: "au contraire... no track records in successful hsf design or ops"

United Space Alliance is heavily relied upon for HSF operations expertise.

AnObamanaut wrote: "no track records in successful hsf design or ops - that was North American Rockwell"

Please tell me where you think successful, proven track records do exist in HSF design and operations.

It's not about "privatizing NASA" at all, but about NASA being a customer where appropriate. The interpretation of "appropriate" is where a lot of disagreement is resting.

Senator Nelson suggests using 'the bits we have' of the Ares rocket to make an HLV. Well, what does the US have? Er... the ground-test version of 5-seg and pre-flight prototypes of Orion.

However, the US does have two fully-flight-proven rockets in approximatly the right payload range. It also has all the shuttle bits that could also be made to work together as some kind of ELV and likely be cheaper than Ares (maybe even comparable in cost with the EELV-heavies). If we learn nothing else from the Augustine Commission, it is the need for short development paths.

Still, moonman does have a valid point about the mission for this hypothetical launch vehicle. Practically, there is no mission beyond ISS support for perhaps as much as 10 years. Therefore, any SDLV/Orion idea must be ISS-focussed with the ability to move onto BEO without a major development program of a whole new LV to do so.

FWIW, I suspect that any initial non-ISS mission would likely be an Orion as a command/Earth return module for a mission with an ISS- of ATV-heritage mission module. Nonetheless, even taht would be late twenty-teens at the earliest.

Unless those who oppose the President's proposed direction get a few more reality-based ideas, then this new plan will go through by default.

ANY plan is better then the Obama/Garver fiasco.

It's a fatal plan.

It would be comforting if Sen. Nelson is really willing to take a leadership stance. The Obama plan's biggest flaw wasn't in creating incentives for commercial space flight, it was his abandonment of our experience base in developing beyond earth orbit exploration. There is nobody with any credibility who says Orbital and SpaceX can't get a reliable logistics delivery system to the ISS. It's just a matter of time and money. The only doubt is the business case which hasn't been reviewed by any independent reviewer with business cred (Alan Mullaly, Warren Buffet?). When Mr. Musk states he'll be happy if one of his next four Falcon 9's succeeds it tells us a lot. We as a nation don't share these low goals. We certainly shouldn't take this standard for those developing a heavy lift launch vehicle.

If Sen. Nelson can get full scale development fast-tracked on a HLLV and crew exploration vehicle he will move up the timeframe of any flexible exploration plan as well as preserve this nation's hard won space development and operations workforce. Maybe LEO is no longer the domain for this workforce (the jury's still out on that) but BEO exploration is a challenge and not for those willing to call a .250 batting average success. Let's get that super heavy, 100 tonnes to LEO with a EDS and crew capsule in place while we're working out the details of our missions. I still like the moon as a proving ground but Mars works. If SDLV can do the trick, let's stand it up and start evolving it. This toss everything out and start over every five years is just idiotic.

What for? It only means paying more money out for yet another possible failure. The answer is a penalty contract whereby failure means payback of all contract overruns within a specified time frame coupled to a re-award to another company:rather as they did on COTS with Kistler Aerospace and OSC thereafter.

This article accurately (mostly) characterizes the Florida KSC Shuttle-type perspective, so be prepared to listen up & answer Mr. Rahm:

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100321/COLUMNISTS0207/3210335/1086/Matt+Reed++Politicians+charting+a+confusing+course+to+space

Interestingly too, John Holdren is identified as the Great Deep Thinker of the privatizing NASA Very Bad Idea plan, instead of Garver.

Sorta seems to ring true because of his lofty academia thinker background - much like Griffin's Very Bad Idea to rocketize solids - and his former Clinton advisor status (during the Goldin years I presume?)

Regarding a destination for the HLV:

I believe NASA is already engaged in studies to look at what kind of science mission to put at L1 in order for a human mission to service it. This would also require a HLV.

"The answer is a penalty contract"

That wouldn't work. The company can go bankrupt or while we start over that would be many more years with no US HSF capability.

> abandonment of our experience base in developing beyond earth orbit exploration

> Let's get that super heavy, 100 tonnes to LEO with a EDS and crew capsule in place

This mass delusion is hurting everyone. Until people like you can reign in their expectations to match reality, nobody is going anywhere... unless they build the system themselves.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Do you understand that the only experience base in human BEO exploration is dead or retired? Do you understand that the robotic exploration experience base is being GIVEN MORE MONEY?

Do you understand that the most successful experience base in rocket development is at ULA and Orbital and SpaceX? Do you understand that the last 100 tonnes to LEO rocket was destroyed on purpose?

Where will the money come from to pay for your comic book fantasy? How many times will you fail before you change? Consider these rhetorical questions

well Mr. Angry-Meanie-obviously-a-Republican:

"Do you understand that the only experience base in human BEO exploration is dead or retired?"

Do You Comprehend The Fallacy?
besides the current hsf workforce, many of the still alive and well of the most valuable and best of the best "retired" types were "Early Retired" thanks to Goldin & subsequents (as well as some pretty sorry excuses for HR in Nasa & Contractors)?

What does "experience base" mean then, if 50 years later there is still an experience base?

I think it means "people who can replicate their previous effort or significantly help with a new one." And I don't think the remaining Apollo Army fits the bill. But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe Constellation has been spearheaded by 75 year-olds and I didn't know it.

Just want to say that if the Air Force was ticked that cancelation of Constilation would increase launch costs, and if these congress persons are so upset that the Obama plan would cause the loss
of jobs. Then USAF needs to come up with some money to help fund heavy lifter, abd some of the stimulus funds that were designated for these States and localities need to be diverted to NASA as a jobs program.

The only heavy lifting such a thing would do is keep thousands of NASA, ATK and other aerospace voters employed with busy work. Time to wake up and smell the Tang, boys, there's no money anymore for pointless luxuries.

Then USAF needs to come up with some money to help fund heavy lifter ...

Good, then you're advocating a heavy lift missile evolved from the Atlas or Delta missiles.

Which flavor do you prefer?

cancelation of Constilation

Are you an English Language Learner? If so, Obama needs to increase funding for your school system.

Well "Mr whiney-obviously-a-democrat", those people were phased out by a Democratic appointee! Whichever politician makes decisions - of whatever denomination - they always make the wrong ones - and appoint their own ramrods to make sure it happens that way. This time it's the PC "diversity" team who'll screw it up - but merely in a different way from the "Bushbaby" team. Either way it'll stay screwed up and head nowhere except for eventual cancellation: BAU on capitol hill(lower case intended). Welcome to "earthspace"...wait a minute, isn't that where we came from?!
vote INDEPENDENT, fellow spacers!

I see there are some real space historians out there. It must be tough trying to understand the events of a complex world when working with partial and wrong information. Let's discuss delusions, pretending we haven't been stuck in a bunker since the '60's. BEO exploration is far from a delusion since the technology was successfully demonstrated during the Apollo/Saturn V program. I hope we can all agree on that point. We can also agree that the program was ended on purpose. I think we start to depart when we say the technology disappeared. It didn't. North American Rockwell applied lessons learned from that to make the next generation Space Shuttle and Space Shuttle Main Engines. The KSC and Michoud infrastructure was used to launch and build significant parts of the shuttle, all of which were significantly technology advances of the moon program. Many of those people are still around and the sites continue to be used today in a manner consistent with BEO exploration.

The development expertise of ULA understates the contribution of the companies that really developed them, McDonnell Douglas/Boeing & Lockheed-Martin - both prime contractors in today's Constellation Program. Throw in Pratt & Whitney and ATK for engines/boosters for the Space Shuttle, EELV and, Constellation then maybe you have some technology continuity. I guess you missed that part too. I've never heard the argument from any reputable, knowledgeable source that stated the development capability of SpaceX and OSC know heavy launch better than our national defending champions, but good for you for making a strong case - Yeah you! Maybe it's just me and my comic book fantasies but it seems this nation launched a whole bunch of stuff into space just last year using the systems developed and operated by the Constellation contractors. SpaceX had one launch last year (quite a business model, I'm sure).

In short, NO, I don't see what you're getting at. Just saying stuff not based on fact doesn't make it so. There are an army of experienced developers armed with the entire tech base of Apollo/Saturn, Space Shuttle, Atlas V, and Delta IV who are working on making a super heavy and have been doing so for some time. Either that or I see dead people. Maybe just a delusion.

As for what we can afford as a nation, Constellation as proposed may be too much however nobody has identified a single technical issue with the Ares V. A simplified Ares V, Direct, SDLV are all within the realm of feasibility. All are affordable given the increased NASA top-line budget (if we don't blow $2.5B on contract shutdown costs) and all would produce a fine heavy lift capability allowing implementation of a flexible exploration infrastructure. As the Shuttle retires and construction of the ISS winds down a $19B NASA budget allows for a very robust exploration, particularly if we don't go down the rabbit trail of inventing all new technologies for the job.

I'm missing what part of this reality is hurting people. Is it the fact there are skilled space launch developers in this country who we shouldn't dismiss with ignorant comments? Is it that the technology exists and is being applied by those very people who developed them rather than chasing unobtanium? Is it the fact that the new NASA budget has sufficient funding to go forward in a robust way for BEO human exploration? We, as a nation, can do this. We as private investors cannot. There really is no business investment case for this type of heavily funded, long-term activity. Seems you need to get a grip on reality and maybe read a book or two.

@moonman said:

"especially if any of the commercial suppliers come through - and Dragon is already further along than Orion."

Seriously, where do you people come up with this stuff? How exactly is Dragon further along then Orion? Orion has spent 3 years developing a vehicle that can support humans. By support I mean, has an ECLSS system, has a launch abort system, has potable water and on and on and on. Orion has performed drop tests, water recovery tests, and yes even several parachute tests. Yes, two of the parahute tests failed, but not all of the parachute tests failed. Also, none of the parachute tests failed because of problems with Orion's parachute system, they failed because the test rigs failed to set up the test properly. The Dragon is a cargo vehicle at this point. They have done no real work to create a human rated crew *launch* vehicle. Yes, they have followed NASA requirements for human rating while docked to ISS. This does not account for launch loads, re-entry, recovery, or keeping your crew alive in a launch scenario, an abort scenario, a failed mission scenario or a less than nominal recovery scenario in any way shape or form. If you say because they are going to fly a Dragon mockup capsule on the first Falcon 9 launch, that's great. That's about the same as flying a fake Orion mockup on Ares I-X, so it looks like Orion beat SpaceX to that less than awe-inspring goal 5 months ago and counting. Orion has also performed multiple successful tests of the abort motors, the attitude control motors and the jettison motors on the Launch Abort System. SpaceX does not have a launch abort system. They say things like "all we have to do is add some seats and a launch escape system and we are good to go and the only thing of note is the launch escape system" - Yes, that is nearly a direct quote from Musk. So LAS that has gone through rigorous testing and review versus - "we just have to build one".

In summary: Orion is supposed to fly on Ares I. Dragon is supposed to fly on Falcon 9. Neither the Ares I nor the Falcon 9 has launched a single vehicle yet. However, Ares I-X did fly and for all the haters out there, sorry, but it was a very valuable test and it did test a whole new avionics suite as well as proving the concept of the Ares I/Orion flight dynamics and did use roll control for the flight (something shuttle did not do with the SRBs). Yes, the SRBs and the roll control motors were borrowed from another vehicle, but it still proved the flight dynamics. There has been a successful 5 stage SRB ground test and there have been succesful upper stage engine tests, these ground tests do exactly what Falcon has done. Prove the systems can work on the ground. Overall, advantage Ares. But, wait, I was focusing on Orion.

Orion has been designed since day one to carry crew and everything that entails. Dragon has been designed since day 1 to carry cargo and the very little that entails. Even seat design is far from trivial, if you want your crew to survive not only a nominal landing but a launch abort landing. Advantage: Orion (and a huge one)

Orion has a Launch Abort System that has been tested and is being readied for a full up Pad Abort flight test. Dragon has no launch abort system. Advantage: Orion.

Orion/Ares has a mobile launch tower that is already built and waiting at KSC and enables a crew to ingress and egress the vehicle. How exactly does the Dragon crew get in? More importantly, how do they get out in the case of a pad emergency? Looks like they will have to build a launch tower at some point for a crewed vehicle. It took Ground Systems 3 years to design and build their launch platform, but dont worry, it's trivial. Advantage: Orion

Just so we are clear, I have nothing against SpaceX and wish them all the success in the world, and I am indifferent towards Ares I, but your statement about Orion is based on pure fantasy or lack of knowledge. So again, how is Dragon ahead of Orion?

ROFL!) -although not my whine per se

the original point was that the article is the perception of the KSC Shuttle workforce, the intended audience of the upcoming Obama event there, and Holdren instead of Garver is the bad guy:

"This article accurately (mostly) characterizes the Florida KSC Shuttle-type perspective, so be prepared to listen up & answer Mr. Rahm":

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100321/COLUMNISTS0207/3210335/1086/Matt+Reed++Politicians+charting+a+confusing+course+to+space

agree that both sides have screwed it up for nextgen space

hmmmmm, so who's got something to gain from American HSF going nowhere for a decade or two - unmanned, colleges, defense contractors, DOD, all of the above??

Congratulations on the inaugural flight of the White Knight 2/Space Ship 2 today. Let's take a look at this to help explain where some of us are coming from. Space Ship 2, did not drop and go into a sub-orbital flight (was not planned to and they do not expect to before the end of this year). This was just a test flight. This is 5 and a half years after the last flight of Space Ship 1 won the X-Prize by sending a human to sub-orbital space (twice).

In 2005, Virgin Galactic said the space tourism industry would boom in 2008 because that is when Space Ship 2 would be ready to fly and they expected to fly 400 passengers that first year. 2000 passengers the next year. (Ref: New Scientist, "Space tourism company to fly in 2008", July 29, 2005) Here we are 2 years after that, and they are hoping they can launch their first customers by the end of 2011 or early 2012. That will be a minimum of 7 years after Space Ship 1 succeeded and a minimum of 4 years later than their initial claims. And this is for a suborbital vehicle. A vehicle that does not need to dock within anything, does not need to keep a crew alive for days and does not have to deal with re-entry heating. Why are they so far behind their original schedule? 2 basic reasons: Number 1, their original schedule was extremely overly optimistic. Number 2 - it isnt easy. Yes, that is being simplistic, but it is the underlying heart of it.

Let's close with a quote from the Commercial Director of Virgin Galactic:

"Speaking last month at a suborbital research workshop held in Boulder, Colo., Stephen Attenborough, commercial director for Virgin Galactic made clear that safety is the watchword of the undertaking.

"You cannot cut corners. Safety has to come first," Attenborough said. "The project has taken longer. It's more expensive...probably more complex than we thought it would be initially. But it's going very well," he said."

As always predicted, success will occur, just not on the overly optimistic timelines advertised, because it is more difficult, more expensive and more complex than people think it is.

I cannot help but wonder at times like this what would happen if we went back to the NACA model where money was given to NASA and they decided what was important to pursue. We would certainly have a lot more continuity and likely would accomplish more than changing direction every two to four years.

You believe Shuttle operations and Orion development count as BEO experience. I disagree because those hardware have not flown BEO and those staff have not operated BEO. Even the design of Orion is made to fly LEO with only the option of supporting BEO later with block upgrades.

You believe SDLV is affordable under the current budget. I disagree because the Augustine HSF review shows an additional $3,000,000,000 is needed to pay for heavy lift development. They also show that SDLV is more expensive to operate than heavy EELV, and more than one NASA review suggests choosing systems with lower operation costs.

Great post(s), nice to actually see someone with some real info vs. the empty sails typically seen.

How exactly is Dragon further along then Orion? Orion has spent 3 years developing a vehicle that can support humans. By support I mean, has an ECLSS system, has a launch abort system, has potable water and on and on and on.

Is the Oldsmobile Orion (TM) further along than the X-43? When is the Olds Orion scheduled for launch?

Secret Military Space Plane Primed For Test Launch
By Stephen Clark

posted: 13 March 2010
06:57 am ET

A secretive military spacecraft resembling a small space shuttle orbiter is undergoing final processing in Florida for launch on April 19.

The Air Force confirmed the critical preflight milestone in a response to written questions on Thursday.

The 29-foot-long, 15-foot-wide Orbital Test Vehicle arrived in Cape Canaveral, Fla., last month according to the Air Force. The OTV spaceplane was built at a Boeing Phantom Works facility in Southern California.

http://www.space.com/news/air-force-secret-space-plane-sfn-100313.html

...

... if we went back to the NACA model where money was given to NASA and they decided what was important to pursue.

In other words, give Congress no control over NASA, placing NASA beyond the reach of elected representatives of the American people. Great, just great.

"Is the Oldsmobile Orion (TM) further along than the X-43? When is the Olds Orion scheduled for launch?"

How many crew will be flying in the X-43 when it launches, huh?

"Orion has spent 3 years developing a vehicle that can support humans...has an ECLSS system, has a launch abort system, has potable water...has performed drop tests...water recovery tests...several parachute tests. The Dragon is a cargo vehicle at this point."

Actually they've been working on Orion for 5 years, not 3, and after 5 years they are just now wrapping up PDR, which in any other program is usually about the first 1 year. Augustine called it about right when they said it will be another 7 - 9 years before it flies.

Unfortunately it does not matter too much how far along the Orion is as it has no launch vehicle.

Dragon was designed from the outset as a manned vehicle and retrofit to being cargo only.

@moonman

No. Lockheed Martin won the Orion contract and began work as the lead contractor on October 1st, 2006. So technically 3.5 years ago. Also, Orion completed PDR in August of 2009, so that is less than 3 years between contract win and PDR.

Now you are correct, there was Crew Exploration Vehicle work going on before that. That was the multi-phase competing of the contract, which whittled it down to Boeing and Lockheed in the end and Lockheed eventually won. That process took 2 years. At the end of the first phase of that competition, Lockheed's vehicle was a lifting body. But Orion itself with Lockheed Martin as prime really started in October 2006.

This is an important point though. Because I have tried to explain this several times to people on here who think "well, there is money, so no jobs will be lost". It took 2 years for Lockheed to win that contract and after they won the contract is when they began hiring employees. Since there is nothing to even bid on yet, it will be March at the earliest before NASA puts out a single RFP for whatever the new newness is. Slap two years of compete on there and you are looking at 2013, 2014 before any contracts are won. This applies to spacecraft, heavy lift vehicles, propulsion systems, or any other "game changing" technology.

@moonman

forgot two points - first of all, in what world does PDR occur in the first year on a MAJOR project? Especially one where the program keeps changing the requirements? (And Orion has a launch vehicle if they want, its called Atlas V or Delta IV.)

Finally, correction, Dragon may have been "planned" as a manned vehicle, but there is no real "design" for a manned vehicle. That's the difference between actually designing stuff, building hardware, performing tons of analysis, and testing hardware and moving on to the next step as opposed to saying "we designed it to be a manned vehicle" with no design, manufacture, analysis or testing to support that claim.

For the DOD programs I worked on 3 years to reach PDR after contract award for a major program like Orion and ARES is pretty good. In fact in our acquisition classes we were taught that the average time from program start (start requirements development) to IOC for major aerospace programs was 15 years based on historical data.