AIAA Panel: Cost and Affordability of Future Systems
AIAA Propulsion and Energy Conference Panel: Cost and Affordability of Future Systems, with Michael D. Griffin, Frank Culbertson, Mike Hawes, Lee Monson, and Mark Sirangelo
Marc’s note: SpaceX, the one company driving costs down now isn’t on the panel. Maybe they we’re too busy to attend. Also, Blue Origin,a future player, isn’t on the panel either. Neither are some of the new unproven entrants like Rocket Labs. I would think a conversation such as this would include more players.
Moderator: Michael D. Griffin,Chairman and CEO, Schafer Corporation (Moderator)
– Frank Culbertson, President Space Systems Group, Orbital ATK
– Michael Hawes, Vice President and Orion Program Manager, Lockheed Martin Space Systems Company
– Lee Monson, Vice President Sales – Middle East and Americas, Boeing Commercial Airplanes (ret.)
– Mark Sirangelo, Corporate Vice President Space Systems, Sierra Nevada Corporation
You’re surprised that there are few “New Space” players attending? I’m not: Moderator: Michael D. Griffin,Chairman and CEO, Schafer Corporation (Moderator)
Surprised, no.
Frankly, I’m surprised Dr. Griffin allowed *anybody* on the panel. I assume he’d prefer to lecture to 4 cardboard cutouts of himself.
Why do people continue to listen to Mike Griffin when he has been WRONG since 2007? Mike, you created something with every intention of it dying (COTS).
It is the giant echo chamber where everyone in the room spews the same stuff and agrees while in reality, they are being left behind.
Same reason that people keep listening the to the middle east hawks, or listening to the austerity nuts (I’m thinking Kansas).
Searching for facts in support of a personal predilection and without the sense to separate one’s internal prejudices. Pretty straightforward human behavior.
Your second paragraph is a pretty good description of the demonstrated mindsets of many scheduled participants in this rather farcical AIAA session.
Unfortunately, it’s also a pretty good description of your own apparent mindset as indicated by the analogies you draw in your first paragraph. SLS and Orion are, to be sure, malignant tumors on the body of NASA HSF. But they pale in comparison to the extensive national damage already inflicted by the current administration’s flagrant pusillanimity in the face of our national enemies and the profligate borrowing and spending that careens the nation ever nearer to irretrievable fiscal disaster.
Blue Origin is so low-key that I’m not surprised they aren’t there. SpaceX is a bigger omission, though.
So much for saying there is no old and new Space.
Seems the divide grows greater.
Somehow after reading this article, I found this paper:
http://www.researchgate.net…
Economic Assessment and Systems Analysis of
an Evolvable Lunar Architecture that Leverages
Commercial Space Capabilities and Public-
Private-Partnerships
ARTICLE · JULY 2015
Study Team
Charles Miller, NexGen Space LLC, Principal Investigator
Alan Wilhite, Wilhite Consulting, Inc., Co-Principal Investigator
Dave Cheuvront
Rob Kelso
Howard McCurdy, American University
Edgar Zapata, NASA KSC
This paper is quite an interesting read. it comes as no surprise that the advice of this paper seems to be to ditch Orion and SLS in favor of commercial crew vehicles and COTS launches (e.g. Falcon Heavy and Falcon 9).
NASA’s own cost models have shown that commercial development of launch vehicles, cargo vehicles, and even crewed vehicles is on the order of 1/8th of the cost of a similar NASA run development program. Also interesting was a chart which showed the projected reoccurring cost of CST-100 and Dragon 2.0 (both to LEO) are predicted to be about 1/3rd the cost of Orion (to Cis-Lunar and beyond).