NASA and House Agree On Commercial Crew Downselect
Wolf Statement On Future Of Commercial Crew Program
“As part of this understanding, NASA and the committee have affirmed that the primary objective of the commercial crew program is achieving the fastest, safest and most cost-effective means of domestic access to the ISS, not the creation of a commercial crew industry. Additionally, NASA has stated that it will reduce the number of awards anticipated to be made this summer from the 4 awards made under commercial crew development round 2 to not more than 2.5 (two full and one partial) CCiCAP awards. This downselect will reduce taxpayer exposure by concentrating funds on those participants who are most likely to be chosen to eventually provide service to ISS.”
Folks:
“…the primary objective of the commercial crew program is achieving the
fastest, safest and most cost-effective means of domestic access to the
ISS, not the creation of a commercial crew industry.”
Excuse Me? Why can’t the creation of a commercial crew industry be the primary goal? Wouldn’t this be… better… for the long term strength of the American economy on the whole?
Lose this opportunity now and it’ll never come around again… because someone else will have gotten there first.
tinker
It depends on what the market is. If the market is solely to get their hands on tax payer dollars then corporate welfare would not be good for the American people. If their goal is to invest private capital in private ventures then that would be good for growth and for the American people.
Marcel F. Williams
“Why can’t the creation of a commercial crew industry be the primary goal?”
Why should it be the responsibility of the government to prop up commercial orbital crewed spaceflight? I mean this as a serious question.
Once not too long ago, I read a book about model railroad design that made a rather profound observation. Real railroads don’t run their trains around just for entertainment; every inch of track, every asset owned, and every mile driven has the purpose of either making money for the railroad, or supporting the assets that do. So it will be with commercial spaceflight.
I hear a lot of on this forum talking about the means of commercial spaceflight – Dragon trunks, Falcon cores strapped together, Bigelow modules, fuel depots – but I hear very little about applications. What will all these things do once they get on orbit? How will they make money for their users?
Realize that, in the commercial realm, companies aren’t interested in orbital spaceflight for its own sake. Companies need a reason to orbit; they’re interested in what an investment in orbital spaceflight will return. Furthermore, companies have to consider marginal cost: it’s not worth investing in orbital crewed spaceflight if the money would make a larger profit if spent differently.
I’ve heard plenty of folks say that the science aboard ISS is a waste of time, that it’s doing very little other than doing laps in LEO and performing the same experiments over and over again. If that’s the case, then what exactly do we expect commercial companies to do in space? What capabilities have we found for crewed orbital spaceflight that make it worth the investment, and that can’t be accomplished using cheaper technologies (parabolic flight, balloons, suborbital, etc.)?
Again, why should it be the responsibility of the government to prop up commercial orbital crewed spaceflight? What’s the business case?
Why should the government prop up arsenal system primes?
How many overpriced, late, ineffectual weapons systems must we invest in to pay off large companies to half a trillion dollars?
If we are going to be tight fisted, perhaps we start at the multi billion dollar ones first? Then we get a better return on our time in reducing deficit.
John Boehner wanted a $7.2 billion earmark for Joint Strike Fighter Alternate Engine. That’s not being anywhere fiscally sound. Don’t you think that Shelby and Hatch’s $15 billion for SLS won’t come under fire, because its the same thing?
Paying out more money to build a duplicate system to something we already have, simply as an earmark for Congressmen.
And just weasel words to defend it. Just like during the Bush Administration, when they couldn’t not vote for more pork, more earmarks for themselves.
Killing a $500M program to defend a $15B program, just draws attention to the $15B program’s waste.
And if you’re idiot enough to believe in “bipartisanship” in a polarized political climate during a presidential election, you’re simply … certifiable.
So, by all means, lets kill all the programs/projects. Equally.
NOOC, I actually agree with you. If you believe Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wik…, the US – the top military spender in the world – spends more on military than the next 13 highest spenders combined. I find it downright shameful when politicians claim we can’t cut our military budgets without causing grievous harm to our ability to defend our nation. What do we need to spend that much money on, exactly? Do we honestly think that China, Russia, the UK, France, Japan, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Brazil, Italy, South Korea, Australia, and Canada are going to to attempt to attack us simultaneously?
The problem is, though, that this is irrelevant. This doesn’t address my question. I never brought up DoD spending, and I don’t suggest taking money from commercial space for the purpose of applying it to defense budgets. Rather, I advocate judging commercial crewed spaceflight on its own merits.
What do we need to spend that much money on, exactly?
Force of habit.
I never brought up DoD spending, and I don’t suggest taking money from
commercial space for the purpose of applying it to defense budgets.
Nor do I. But that’s behind these moves.
Look, its really dumb, really stupid … but that’s what the battle is all about. It started with the stupid space race resulting in the conflating of national security and space.
Hard to undo the knot. But we must. Otherwise, bad – we get irrational space, which is a nuisance, and much worse, irrational weapons systems development – which is what really worries me.
You’ll never cut the knot completely. But we can kill the amplification effect of defense primes running up “cost plus” in space, only to apply it to successive weapons systems programs.
That’s where FFP and commercial space comes in. Having any success there puts out the fire on “cost plus”, because the primes are at a disadvantage. Wolf knows this. SHelby knows this. Hatch knows this. That is the battle.
I advocate judging commercial crewed spaceflight on its own merits.
But its not a level playing field. So you can’t judge the merits fairly. Look at all the crap ATK bills as its own with Liberty, which is simply half built CxP remnants they use to “lie up” a “commercial” offering out of.
Deleted by author.
ASFalcon13,
Tinker said “create,” not “prop up.” I see a big difference between the two. If a new industry is created and it survives on its own merits, then the country’s economy is improved, specially if it is an industry with export sales potential. If a new industry doesn’t survive, proping it up is a mistake, I agree. Besides, the government is broke because of repeatedly proping up “old” industries (auto makers, banks, etc.) that have been robbing us blind for decades.
I second your point about applications. It’s like the Moon vs. Mars debate; everybody has a preference for where to go and how to get there, but we don’t see much about what people will do if/when they get there. What and how without a why seems only half thought out.
Steve
“Why should it be the responsibility of the government to prop up commercial orbital crewed spaceflight?”
There are two parts to the question:
– Is it in the national interest to have a commercial space sector? If so, how much is it worth, and is it cost effective to have the govt stimulate that sector?
– Does the government have its own interests (in the legal sense) in space? If so, what’s the most cost effective way of realising those interests.
Tinker was essentially addressing the first question. Right now, the US has no commercial launchers. By
which I mean companies that launch commercial payloads. The entire
industry is “propped up” by mainly defence launches, and a few
science launches and NASA contracts. Europe, Russia, China, and
occasionally India carry the world’s commercial satellites to orbit, including US commercial satellites.
Once SpaceX actually starts flying its order-book, the US will have precisely one commercial launcher.
The second question is about NASA, science satellites, defence satellites, etc. If the US govt believes it has an interest in flying certain missions into space, civilian and military, manned and unmanned, then the issue is how to best achieve those goals. I think it’s clear that the current system is failing the US. It seems reasonable to use a small portion of the funds used in space to explore other models.
And politicians who defend the failed system, while endlessly attacking the attempt at a newer efficient system, can be safely assumed to be corrupt.
“Real railroads don’t run their trains around just for entertainment; every inch of track, every asset owned, and every mile driven has the purpose of either making money for the railroad,”
It’s a cute line, but it’s bullshit of course, the creation of the railroads were massively subsidised. At the very least by the gifting of public land (or publicly acquired private land). Same with roads. Same with most forms of transport and many other industries (too many, IMO).
NASA was formed from NACA, an agency set up to help create a competitive US aircraft industry to compete against European dominance. Was it worth the investment to create a domestic air industry?
Funny how other countries use government money to help their companies compete in the market place. And we Spend TONS TO NOT BE COMPETITIVE, are we CRAZY!!!!!
Building a Spacecraft industry/inner solar system railroad in some form is just a no brainer.
I wish I knew enough to make better cases for it. Spacex being our only competitive commercial launcher is a fact I forgot.
Anyway I wanted to respond to his post but was to chickens$&@ so thanks.
To me when you compare using gov. Money to build settle our way out there the whole concept of EXPLORATION looks like a circus stunt. Waste!
Both Boeing and Lockheed can and have launched commercial satellites. Therefore, there is in fact more than one commercial launch company in the US. QED
They have. But they have now surrendered the commercial market to Europe, Russia and to a lesser degree China. And they are not working to lower their costs in order to compete, they are happy to wallow, fat and dull, in the swamp of defence and NASA contracts.
This pretty much puts the fix in for the ULA/Boeing/Lockheed-Martin and ATK/Astrium with possibly a little money left over for Space X.
Since Space X claims that it can do almost anything with practically no money at all, that should be easy for them:-)
Marcel F. Williams
Wrong.
What will happen next is “kill Orion”, followed by “kill SLS”, then an attempt at “kill NASA” as a reprisal.
Under Wolf’s logic, you can say we will shortly have all we need.
Since the point is to spend the least on getting the most proven functionality, where Russia’s space program can be used as a model (since its been done by arsenal space – ironically Russian arsenal space), all you need is a) a Soyuz, b) a Progress, c) a HLV – something bigger than a Proton.
So a) Dragon is a capsule, good enough to function in place of a Soyuz, b) Cygnus does cargo/module delivery like Progress, and c) Delta/Atlas/Falcon Heavy does enough lift for a BEO program.
So the other side here will settle on “achieving the fastest, safest and most cost-effective means of domestic access” for HSF/LEO/BEO/other.
Like killing John Boehner’s alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. Wolf has shown the way to eliminating government waste – he want’s to shoot Commercial Space to save $0.5B while putting SLS/Orion in the gunsights to save $3-5B, sure, why not!
And then after we’ve cut all the programs back – planetary, all the others included … then you’ve got a choice. Either close down NASA, or run a rump HSF space program (including BEO) from what we’ve got on hand.
Possibly, but the issue of financial testing militates against these ideas.
Never try to use sane rationale on the insane.
So you think “kill Orion” will come before “kill SLS”?
Yes. Because Wolf provides the rubric.
With only 2 to 6 manned flights to the ISS from the US side, there’s not even enough traffic to the space station to support one or two manned spaceflight companies.
And why would Congress kill a program that both Democrats and Republicans created to oppose Obama’s– no beyond LEO program at all policy? Do they love Obama now for some reason? I don’t think so:-)
Marcel F. Williams
Because they are more pro deficit reduction than need HSF.
add:
Marcel – you reduce deficits by billions, not millions in reductions.
Millions to risk as ernest money for a potential new business that increases GDP/tax base. Verses billions as a marginal down payment on even more billions, as before with CxP, with marginal hope of ever landing one man on even the moon – they can’t even define the weight of a landing craft, let alone afford any prototype of design.
Shilling for arsenal space isn’t space exploration.
Trying to reduce a $14 trillion dollar deficit by eliminating a $3 billion dollar a year beyond LEO space program should only take nearly 5000 years:-)
Of course, since our investment in space actually produces a lot more wealthy than it consumes, then will actually lose trillions of dollars in revenue.
Marcel F. Williams
How is SLS a beyond LEO program? It’s a launcher.
If Congress wanted to preserve a BEO program, they would have saved Altair, not “the Big Rocket”.
Absolutely – a lunar program starts with a lander.
Otherwise its a make work (heh heh) slush fund for a big rocket to nowhere.
The first two missions for the SLS are slated for the moon. They will use the upper stge of a Delta IV rocket instead of the J-2x. The J-2x will be used in later missions.
No, they are slated for lunar orbit. Apollo 8 redux. No lander, no moon.
As I said, if Congress wanted to reject the President’s asteroid plan, they would have saved Altair.
The fact that they saved and defend to the death “the Big Rocket” (as Sen. Nelson only calls it, like a 4 year old), but ignore any actual mission hardware, makes it transparent that they see NASA as a job’s program for their states. That’s what gets everyone’s hackles up, the utter shamelessness of it all.
Americas Rump Roasted Human Space program lead by Spacex
Run a rump HSF space program from what we have on hand??
Dragon
Cygnus
Delta/atlas/falcon Heavy with falcon by far the cheapest.
Sounds like Spacex sits pretty good running rump roast space program.
What about FAR doesn’t that make it impossible for commercial provider space to take any government contracts???? So they have to choose???
Could Spacex team with the infants and win or does it have to run with the big boys or can it do both?????
House Republican’s continue defending pouring more $ into unproductive arsenal space, while blaming Obama for no HSF and a lousy space program, and denying him any benefit of the success of “commercial”. While yanking money from successful programs to feed unproductive ones, making them all unproductive. Then, gives up on NASA HSF because it can’t be done, govt doesn’t work …
Meanwhile, residual “commercial” goes forward at a slower pace, gradually accumulating the prestige and heritage that was the domain of “arsenal space”. Expect to see a rise in failures across the board in arsenal space, including EELV/Atlas, because the side effect of not celebrating success evenly across the board, results in a disregard for competence that is deadly (and highly infectious) in aerospace.
Having permanently lost its mojo, the US space program would slowly be eclipsed by first China and then an emerging “commercial” that would slowly grind away at a sporadically financed series of successes. The banter of US nationalism about space would resemble that of an ineffectual bully in long decline that would talk up its ability to “someday bloody someone’s nose by doing something eventually in space”, but it would all be on the schedule that suited multinational corporations, as it fit their needs to upset competition now and then by doing something “out of the box”.
Don’t however look to China or Russia for accelerating here – they have own crosses to bear with their own arsenal space legacies. Things slow down and are less relevant.
That’s the backdrop of the HR’s space decadence.
What would it take to fly private astronauts on dragon just to prove the point. A couple more falcon flights. Seats, air, a control panel
Seats easy
Air how hard is that???
Control panel? Isn’t that largely mounting computers and hard wiring in some???
Shouldn’t Spacex fly a few humans before 2014 within 18 months without An LAS system.
Time to be bold and show them again the future is with less expensive provider space.
NOT cowardly, corrupt congress/prime controlled and driven public space.
George,
Just my opinion, but there are different degrees of bold. The consequences if this should backfire are, in my opinion, much too potentially damaging given the current delicate situation with commercial space. There are far too many “Wolfs” ready to pounce on the least problem or loss that might occur, and attempt to use it to eliminate “our” space companies from the game. I would rather see Musk/SpaceX/Falcon/Dragon continue to do what they have been doing, which is playing to their strengths. Manned Dragon will come, but I think it must come at the right time or it will be seen as a stunt rather than progress.
Steve
Because all along it has been about parallel development. Orion/Dragon Dreamchaser,CST-100. SLS/Falcon Heavy, Delta 4 Heavy. NASA is working toward a parallel infrastructure that can be used in the event of a long term problem with their main systems (Orion SLS) either because of hardware or political will. NASA and members of the US government are not interested in building a commercial spaceflight industry.
… all along it has been about parallel development.
No.
It’s been about “my way or the highway”. They just didn’t believe “commercial” was a threat. COTS 2+ test proved otherwise.
Somebody needs to tell Elon to think real seriously about flying dragon around the moon on his first falcon heavy flight.
Name the capsule explanation point!
I’m sick of being RIPPED OFF by these fat cats!!!!!!!!!
Actually, I was thinking the same thing last week. He could even use one of the two he has already orbited.
They aren’t THAT historic. They are operational spacecraft that he claims are re-usable, and it would save him millions compared to the cost of a new capsule.
And if it makes a Lunar flyby after being first in orbit/first to ISS (depending on which one he uses) then it’s historical interest only increases. While if Falcon Heavy fails their historical value falls as well, to the extent that failure increases the chance that SpaceX fails.
Normally a commercial company develops things on its own, not depending on government handouts. The government can provide seed money to help development, but those companies should have a sound business model. Otherwise, they’ll end up like Solyndra.
Most medium sized businesses in the US have the government as their largest customer. It is a key part of their business model, in some cases 80-90%.
You mean that China will dump over 40 billion in commerical space to take the market away from the US like they did with solyndra? The US invests 3 billion in solar and the chinese give 41 billion and you are confused about what happened to solyndra?
John,
I think you have to think in terms of developing an industry, not a company (it’s not just SpaceX). Governments have subsidized and invested in new industries, to much benefit, all along, as well as being a customer to them. There are many examples; pick almost anything transportation related for instance.
Steve
Folks:
“This downselect will reduce taxpayer exposure by concentrating funds on
those participants who are most likely to be chosen to eventually
provide service to ISS.”
Mr. Wolf, have you properly poled your tax payers to find out whether they might be interested in America becoming a commercial crew leader?
“NASA also has stated that, after the CCiCAP phase, future program
funding will only come in the form of FAR-based certification and
service contracts.”
Mr Wolf, aren’t FAR contracts the main reason that taxpayers are disillusioned about strategic government investments like the F-35, for example?
tinker
A win for Wolf’s backers and K Street; a loss for everyone else. The financial test is an especially obvious way to move the old guard up to the trough, and FARs always make things more costly as NASA’s own studies show.
So much for the free market, competition, and affordable spaceflight.
The more I think about this, the more it looks like “Three strikes, and you’re dead.” The three-way combination of down-selection, financial purity testing, and FAR procurement could kill new space before it even gets on its feet.
I can’t even imagine the pain and anger the second-tier new-space companies must be feeling now, knowing that the game has just been rigged against them, shamelessly.
This letter, among other Congressional follies, makes it even more important that we somehow develop an HSF capability independent of federal funding.
There is a hidden advantage. If commercial providers provide HSF despite the Congress, and NASA continues on Russian capsules and billions in indeterminate government projects to compete with them, the tax payer will revolt.
It may take NASA with it though.
Dam right we will!!!!!!
Joe Taxpayer!!!!!!!!
But are they paying enough attention to know who to revolt against. It seems like US voters aren’t able to see the hypocrisy of those who block programs and then blame the proponents of the program for its failure.
(Hell, how many even here have used the delays in CCDev to defend the cuts in funding that caused the delays? How many even here scream about Obama “cancelling HSF” when he cancelled CxP?)
are they paying enough attention to know who to revolt against.
No.
Sow the wind …
“the tax payer will revolt.”
Mr. C,
Therein lies the rub. The people won’t revolt; they’ll just stay sitting in fromt of their TVs.
Steve
“the tax payer will revolt.”
Mr. C,
Therein lies the rub. The people won’t revolt; they’ll just stay sitting in front of their TVs.
Steve
Arsenal space is afraid of “commercial crew”. Kill the infant in the cradle.
A come to Jesus moment. They are as scared of Elon and his little rocket as that king was of christ when he killed all the babies. Lolol
Well, it’s obvious the primary purpose would not be the creation of a commercial space industry! But that never stopped air flight becoming the genesis for Air mail delivery! And when did NASA ever follow an individual Senator’s desires? C’Mon, Man!
“… not the creation of a commercial crew industry.”
Well we certainly wouldn’t want that. You know, private enterprise and exports and all that. That’s called “socialism”, right? Right.
Rep. Wolf sees HSF as a strategic conflict, so only weapons providers, and their subsidy in the form of hyperexpensive LV/SC, is appropriate because it collateralizes our arsenal system.
Eg he and his brethren believe they are investing in weapons capability of the US, under the guise of “space exploration”. In this light, its simply a means to evade view as an arms buildup (heh heh) through overpaying.
That is why is doesn’t matter if there is a unsuccessful, slothful, wasteful, low performance LV/SC – its even better, because you can shovel more money into it (heh heh), make it seem more grand, and thus only a great country that can service such a debt, could ever do such an … insane thing. Paraphrasing Khrushchev, “we will bury/outspend you!”. Which many have worked for USSR once, but not necessarily China now.
So sad. Competition is the way, and Congress wants no part of that!
Cut seed money back, so SLS/Orion can ‘win’. But I predict that will not work!
Correct. However, it is a poor gun that doesn’t shoot both ways.
My guess.
So for the full ones:
SpaceX on Falcon 9 – has flown so in the lead
DreamChaser on Atlas V – NASA likes the wings
and Blue Origin set as the partially funded award – the total outsider.
Andrew:
Not a chance and you know it. Someone(s) are really afraid of commercial crew as a free enterprise. I mean, think about it, just how can you control somebody once they reach orbit or beyond? How do you control their lives, their politics, their wealth (especially)?
It’s all about control… and fear of what can’t be.
tinker
I’m cynical about what will actually happen, but Andrew, yours is possible outcome… especially Since Dream Chaser is based on an old NASA Hl-20 design, right? My question is, since Sierra Nevada won’t even be doing ALT tests till later in the year, will that be soon enough to prove capability and keep Federal funding?
Speaking of wing-ish vehicles, Recently Boeing was also pushing the x-37 toward a larger “C” configuration for ISS access, featuring either a piloted or automated 7 astronaut capability. This vehicle may be part of the mix… after all, is anyone a huge fan of the CST 100?
I fear that Tinker may be right about Space X. I’m not quite as black and white, however, about motivations of all of those in power- as Space X would not have gotten this far without some NASA help and AirForce and NASA contract monies.
But it is true that disruptive companies have historically had a rough way to go with the powers that be. I am thinking of the early days of trucking vs the railroads, and there certainly are other examples. The tiny has to get to a certain size, to develop a constituency of its own.
Time for Space X to get serious about more development and employment in Texas, and maybe throw some more employment in Alabama too.
Then, to be totally cynical, maybe we can imagine Musk napkin sketching a FalconX with a few SRBs from ATK.
Oh, and as a PS, (Just found this on Space Politics . com… credit to Stephen C Smith for digging this up and noting it in the comment section)
In 2011-2012 to date, Wolf has received $6,000 from Lockheed Martin, $4,000 from Orbital Sciences, $2,000 from Boeing, and $2,000 from ATK. Nothing from SpaceX.
In the 2009-2010 election cycle, Wolf received $12,400 from Orbital Sciences, $8,000 from United Space Alliance, $7,000 from Lockheed Martin, $4,000 from ATK, and $3,750 from Boeing. Nothing from SpaceX
http://www.spacepolitics.co…
I think Boeing will get the biggest piece of the pie, followed closely by SpaceX. The smallest piece will probably go to SNC for Dream Chaser technology development work, more like a X vehicle. Blue Origin is too mysterious and not as active apparently (missing Congressional hearings, etc.) It is too frightening to even think about ATK winning with Liberty.
“So for the full ones: SpaceX on Falcon 9 – DreamChaser on Atlas V – and Blue Origin set as the partially funded award”
If NASA wanted to poke Senators like Wolf in the eye, then yes. (Oh god please yes!)
Politically, it’ll be Boeing/CST-100, SpaceX/Dragon/F9, and ATK/Liberty for the half.
The first and last to buy votes. SpaceX to hide the fact that they’re buying votes.
… Senators like Wolf …
Congressman Wolf!
Oops, the clue was in “House”… (Guess I’m used to only the Senators being individually named on this issue.)
gpurcell:
I have reason to believe that Spacex’s Falcon 9 v1.1 launch vehicle will be the platform they intend to make reusable. The numbers are there and if they succeed, launch cost will plummet. Not just from Spacex either. Companies that don’t emulate will fall, new ones unconstrained by ‘tradition’ will replace them.
tinker
Mr. Wolf:
If you think that stifling commercial crew will slow down or stop Spacex and it’s newspace ‘conrads’, think again:
SpaceX to Offer Trips to Private Space Stations (PC Magazine)
StratoLaunch
Mars One (And these folks aren’t even American.)
tinker
P.S. Whatever happened to ‘lasting legacies’?
Hey Tinker:
What about THIS?
http://www.buildtheenterpri…
Wrote this for the other thread I think some of it applies here to what my government should be trying to do.
Leo salvage
Jonathan
You said they launched 16 with at least 4 in orbit now, meaning 4 functioning ones?? Do you think there are any dead ones up there as space junk??? Or have they all been splashed!
Sure would have been, or would be nice if we had a big garage up there where these spy satellites could be safely reworked/recycled and put to civilian use after their tour of duty.
24 hubble telescopes looking up??
How much more expensive is it to operate 20 telescopes as opposed to one????
I’m guessing they were all splashed for national security reasons or not economical enough to repair in the old days.
Just looks like more shuttle tank burning to me, which could have and should be turned into opportunities for more future in space commercial businesses/salvage/repair with just a little more forethought. And more reason to create more human and robot LEO capability real soon!!!!!
Seems to me NASA is in the circus business always trying to put on a BIG show to justify it’s existence.
NRO does its job of spying. Reason they repeat a good design.
Doesn’t NASA need to do it’s job of helping to settle space and helping to make space affordable?
Junking 12 plus Hubbles with my tax dollars???
Why?????
Do we plan to junk all twenty four that fly as spies? Or is it possible to use them for science and to help build a space economy???
Imagine Goddard having a workshop in space or an on orbit mission program that jump starts salvage business in Leo coupled with a world program that keeps Leo clean and safe for future growth. I bet lots of people would love to start a space salvage business or work in space on telescopes.
Isn’t a Leo workshop / garage for Leo near ISS like a no brainer.
Isn’t this an example of how space settlement/cheaper Leo launch helps science?
Just another example of working together, not dividing up the budget pie, doing smart things that could used benefit all.
Am I reaching/dreaming/being silly here?
Or just being practical.
Joe Q
Tinker
I did see your recoverable 5 core falcon Heavy at the end of the other thread.
That sure looks like a cheaper big satellite garage/workshop launcher to me 🙂
Cancel SLS
Cancel JWST
Let’s use that money to settle space and study the heavens.
Looking up!!
We have no way of retrieving 12 ton satellites unless we used the shuttle and the shuttle was too expensive and potentially too dangerous to use. I think we retired the shuttle a bit too early until the commercial side was ready but that is just my opinion. That, and $5.00 will get you a mocha grande at Starbucks.
I like mocha 🙂
But a billion plus shuttle flight should be able to buy you lots of garage with newer cheaper space providers.
This is why we need a nonviolent revolution to replace the corrupt members in Congress with representatives of the people. Congressmen believe that being penny wise demonstrates fiscal prudence when all it does is raise the cost astronomically later. They garner a few headlines for their political benefit knowing they are skewering the taxpayers in the future. It’s time for real change in Washington, not just hope. Support the Justice Party and our efforts to overturn our small minded corrupt Congress. Support Rocky Anderson.
… a nonviolent revolution…
It’s called an “election”.
Can democracy survive complexity …
The amount for the year,for each will double.The next round will be for 2 years,but the funds are for 1 year.In what way can these companies spend 2x as much next year?
I am quitting so a little clean up.The Dragon pictures at LA port show that Dragon did not show as much burning and only one side.It looks like soot.Some of it has come off from handling.The heat shield material has a lot of carbon in it.I should not have worried about it,that I did in a post awhile back.They may have changed the reentry angle.So looks good.None of my ideas over the last 6 years has been used(except combining C2,C3),so I am spinning my wheels.Now some paranoia.I have been harassed by a local criminal group for 15 years.They have even come in my house.I finally put a combination lock on my door so they will have to do some damage to get in.They left some things that were out of place to show they had come in.If I don’t give them them anything,then they can’t use it.I will be as quite as possible.I will read the posts.Good job everybody.Keep dreaming.
Saturn13,
Best of luck to you. I hope things work out well.
Steve
Folks:
If you dig deeper into the documents you’ll find that not only will NASA be saddled with FAR contracts for commercial crew, the selected ‘winners’ would be put under severe financial scrutiny by (supposedly) NASA “…to provide confidence that these partners are capable of meeting their obligations under the program.”.
Hmmm… I can’t think of a better path to, say, ‘reverse engineer’ a process to see just how it all works, from tools to personal to parts to final product. Sounds like somebody is interested in ‘ground truth’ here.
Where will this financial data end up? Will it be used for more than just “…to provide confidence…”? The point here being… it could be.
tinker
The point is to be able to take over a project with another company when the first company who gets the contract fails for what ever reason, so as to protect the government’s investment in the project.
noofcq:
Thank you for being braver than I to state the obvious.
Also note the provision to constrain export of the ‘chosen’ company’s technology. Looks to me like they’re stifling innovation whatever happens. If Spacex decides that NASA has become a ‘burden’, some lawmaker will find a way to not only give them no business in America but none abroad as well.
As far as I’m concerned, the cat is out of the bag. A small company can and has built, launched and recovered a human capable spacecraft twice. It doesn’t matter how, who or when it happens, this feat will be replicated. I’m sure that this lesson will not be overlooked by many governments, companies and, yes, individuals.
tinker
Can you say ‘micromanage’?
I guess if you’re part of the US government then nobody’s business details or intellectual property needs to be respected. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,…”. Really?
The new politician’s working creed: We made the laws; we can break ’em!
I am not American, so I guess I really have no right to an opinion in this matter; but, my friends to the south, there are cracks showing along with the writing on the wall. I can’t help but feel that certain influential members of your Congress do not have the best interests of you and your families and friends at heart. They are feathering their own nests, much to your detriment. When one man can decide to destroy an industry in its infancy that would have greatly benefited current and future generations of Americans, and then, without opposition, take steps to make it begin to happen, then something it seriously wrong.
You have an election coming. This is your opportunity to vote out those political fossils in your Congress who are still living in the Cold War era. Some people in their 70’s have managed to acquire a certain amount of wisdom throughout their lives. Others just get bitter and greedy. Rep. Frank Wolf is one of the latter in my opinion. He is certainly not the only one in Congress.
The whole concept of democracy is based on the people of a nation making informed decisions about the issues that affect them all. The method of implementing democracy is elected representatives. Some of those who you have elected (and reelected) do not represent you; only themselves and those who enable them to retain their power. As far as I can tell, Frank Wolf makes NASA senior policy decisions, and there’s not a damn thing anybody at NASA can do about it, except either try to stay on Wolf’s good side (to avoid worse punishment), or resign which accomplishes nothing. Perhaps I may be exaggerating this situation, but if I am, I don’t think it’s by much.
It’s really none of my business, and we have some problems of a similar though less advanced nature here in Canada, but I offer my comments with the best of intentions. Please accept them in the spirit with which they are given, and perhaps pass the message on to those who don’t normally think about such things.
As the man says, “It’s YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work — for YOU.” Start by eliminating from power those who are working against you.
Steve
Folks:
What if NASA chooses Spacex and Sierra Nevada a full ‘winners’ and gives the consolation prize to Blue Origins? Outcry?
What if NASA gives SLS to Spacex? Scuttlebutt is they are making up a proposal.
As much as folks might think that a Spacex developed methane fueled rocket is hokum, I think it’s the way they’ll go. Liquid methane has a slightly better ISP than RP1, is easier to handle than liquid oxygen and is cheap and abundant (you’d can use methane to make liquid oxygen and compress more methane into liquid for flight). If Spacex can handle liquid oxygen, they can handle liquid methane too.
tinker
Tinker,
Methane, Mars, Musk. It all fits.
Steve
Steve:
You might as well call it a LNG/LOX engine. Well within the realm of possibility for decades but anyone working with cryogenic fuel in the past went with liquid hydrogen instead.
It also might be the reason why Musk has no interest in lunar bases or resources. If you check out the ‘Mars One’ folks architecture for their colony, though, it looks easily adaptable to a lunar scenario.
tinker
Tinker,
Yep. I’d say that Musk has clearly read Zubrin’s A Case for Mars and buys into the ISRU approach for consumables and return propoellants. It’s one of the few proposed technologies for Mars that has actually been tested (on Earth) and shown to work as advertised.
Steve
Steve, Tinkers correct again :). Seeing this junk early is fun lolol
Well Tinker, your really trolling the bottom for ideas now lol!!!
Methane lol
Merlin 2 on methane
What if Spacex does give NASA an SLS bid as they well might be.
Lol
Image
Elon instructing his project engineers/estimators working up the SLS development cost bid. lol
He tells them to put their estimate on his desk before he decides on the final number to turn in lol.
Maybe their cost figure is between three and four billion for the WHOLE thing lol. Or lower!!
So now Mr. Musk must decide how much money he wants to leave on the table compared to the current cost plus plan. 50 something billion lol.
Ok ELON how much you going to leave on the table!!!!!! Lol
Decisions decisions lololol
Better have few new spacers bid to keep him honest lololol
I would assume this bid would be a Cots type milestone agreement. Or does congress and NASA just want to turn Spacex into the NEXT PRIME like the dark Lord/force wanted to do with Luke Skywalker lolololol
(let’s give Elon a FAT juicy SLS Agreement And the keys to SLS and wait! Luke LLLLuke !!!!)
I know musk likes to work cheap let’s have him build the rockets as a subcontractor to us the great PRIME moon shoot builders, and we will handle the safety the management the lobbying the profit and overhead pork distribution keeping EVERYBODY HAPPY.
Anyway sure would be cool to see us doing a futuristic affordable heavy lift design.
Hummm I wonder if any Spacex employees read NASA watch??
I bet you wouldn’t mind your Tinker Tanker idea being full of S$&@.
A 7 core lifter which first generation has standard mixed fuel strap-on that become recoverable, looks likely to me.
Then tank sizes change to oxygen tugs and we are building little Tinker Tankers.
Hummm methane found on mars that could be from geologic sources. Think there are any vents on mars or places to drill for methane???
Or would we have to farm our fuel??????
Hummm I’m starting to smell a mars settlement plan out there somewhere 🙂
Holy S$&@ somebody might REALLY have a plan!!!!!!
Post Cot2+ Dreamer
PS. Did Mr. Wingo call Elon and get him to drop by the moon on the way, for some refreshments???
Steve I just saw the mars one video, I thought you said dragons would never go to mars??? :). Looks hopeful 🙂
DTARS:
For Dragon, powered landings on Mars would be easier than the same feat on the Moon. If Spacex masters powered landings on Earth with Dragon then landing on Mars should be no problem. You see, for both Earth and Mars, Dragon can shed most of it’s velocity through atmospheric drag. in both cases they end up at some sort of terminal velocity and can also use parachutes for stabilization and/or slowing down. Not so with a lunar landing. No atmosphere, no drag. So, for a lunar landing, all your velocity is shed by rocket thrust. Obviously more fuel is needed.
OK. here’s what you do. Make a Dragon trunk with landing legs and extra fuel tanks. Still use the Super Dracos on the capsule to land with (maybe you get dust plumes to the sides but at least there’s no torch under your vehicle). To go back to orbit or L1, use the trunk as a launch pad for the capsule. It doesn’t even get destroyed like the Apollo decent stages. Using the same engines for both the decent and accent phases saves weight and improves safety.
If accent is not necessary or the Dragon can be refueled on the surface, then you have a ready made cargo carrier. The Dragons trunk left behind could be a habitat (make it longer because it’ll be lighter) or it could be a squat heavy canister of fuel or other volatiles. If the Dragon can get refueled on the lunar surface then maybe a trunk won’t be needed, just the capsule, for crew ferry flights.
I think L1 would be the best transfer point for this type of lunar landing. It’s a straight dive down to any point on the lunar surface without the limitations of any particular lunar orbit.
So, the Moon could be within the grasp of anyone wanting to contract Spacex the way Mars One is thinking of doing.
tinker
Thanks