Senate Hearing on Partnerships to Advance the Business of Space
Prepared Statement by Wayne Hale
“Poised on the cusp of these new systems, we run the risk of being penny wise and pound foolish as we make the same mistake that doomed the space shuttle to much higher cost operations: starving a spacecraft development program in the name of saving a few pennies for today’s budget bottom line resulting in the compromised systems that, if they fly at all, will not be cheap enough to enable business in space.”
– Prepared Statement by Steven Collicott
– Prepared Statement by Patti Grace Smith
– Prepared Statement by Michael Lopez-Alegria
Great to hear Wayne Hale and Michael LA again.
All want more money for commercial space. None are willing to make the hard choice and say what should be cut. There is not, and will not be, enough money in the budget to support both Commercial Crew and SLS/Orion. The former will reduce the cost of spaceflight and build a market that will allow dozens, and ultimately hundreds, of Americans to live and work in space. The latter will limit us to one flight of four people per year for the foreseeable future. We can do one well or fail at both.
Isnt Spacex at the point in commercial crew where they can get it done without much government funding? Someone said that they maybe able to save money with their Las testing by using grasshopper instead of a throw away booster. While less government money may slow them down, I just don’t see them failing. So I don’t understand or i disagree with your statement “we can do one well or fail at both”. The weaned little piggy still survives. isn’t that success???
I don’t think an LAS test from atop a Grasshopper would be much more interesting, data-wise, than an LAS test from the ground. The real question you want an answer to is can the LAS get you away from the rocket safely when it’s at max-Q. That isn’t to say they have to throw away a F9 core to do the test; during Mercury and Apollo they built the Little Joe boosters to do the job.
As far as the future of DragonRider without NASA, I expect that SpaceX would continue its development on its own. It’s already developing FH and F9R without NASA contracts to do so, DragonRider would just become another in-house project, and take proportionately longer to complete. With or without NASA money, each project progresses at the speed of budget.
Wont grasshopper 2 that they will test in Mexico be able to get the dragon capsule to Max Q? I would think without the weight of second stage a dragon first stage with more than one engine could get you to Max Q pretty quick! How many engines will the grasshopper two have/ light?
I think that more important than any particular piece of hardware is the establishing and maintaining of a precedent whereby, as vulture4 says, the government both supports/funds some of the R&D and is the initial customer (and hopefully an on-going customer).
As we’ve seen, before the current aerospace company programs are completed, new programs are already being planned, designed, and in some cases have begun. Dragon is not finished, but we’re already making plans for newer SpaceX vehicles. F9 is not finished, but we’re already making plans for Flacon Heavy. And so on.
Developing all of these concurrently, I would think, is simply way beyond SpaceX’s own resources. They need either customer investment (NASA) or public shareholders (which would mean giving up control of the company’s activities and future).
So NASA “commercial” programs like those we’ve had so far would seem to be essential for Grasshopper, Falcon Heavy, etc. to be brought to completion.
Commercial space refers to the program structure, which is much less expensive than traditional government procurement. Commercial space still requires R&D funds and government customers until a commercial market is established. The administration request for CC was about $830M, a small fraction of what is being spent on SLS/Orion, however even this was cut in half by Congress. The government provided both R&D (NACA) and initial customer (US Mail) funding to the US civil aviation industry; both were considered critical in improving safety and reducing cost to the point at which a viable commercial market was possible.
Wayne Hale made it clear in his prepared statement as well as in the question and answer session which followed that low cost transportation to LEO provided by commercial space enterprises is a vital logistical link which will be needed to enable sustained missions beyond low earth orbit. Common sense would indicate that this being the case, crippling the former would also cripple and probably make impossible the latter. Possibly you are asserting that this type of common sense and ability to put two and two together by lawmakers should not be assumed. I certainly won’t try and argue against that point.
That being said, this particular hearing was primarily about confirming the need to continue funding commercial space enterprises, and what can be done by government to assist as opposed to getting in the way of commercial space transportation. I think the hearing brought out a lot of good information on this topic that most likely was not previously known by most lawmakers. Attacking SLS during this particular hearing by any of the witnesses probably would have been counterproductive.
I agree attacking SLS during this hearing would have created conflict since it has strong supporters. But Mr. Hale did not have to bring up SLS/Orion and suggest that NASA could continue to pursue two opposite strategies. The numbers don’t lie. To provide adequate funding for commercial crew either we have to either increase the NASA budget or cut something big. I don’t hear anyone in Congress advocating the former.
As to congress, their decisions have logic but are based on the desire for re-election and thus the need to satisfy lobbyists, contributors, and the public, not the actual accomplishment of goals in space. So to have any possibility of affecting the course of events space enthusiasts have to come to some sort of consensus on a realistic space policy and express it consistently.
Realistically, I don’t see how Mr. Hale could avoid bringing SLS into the discussion after the recent subcommittee statements by Shelby and his cohorts expressing their concern about the SLS budget request by NASA being to low for their liking.
Everybody’s current position, stated honestly, would be, “we should be doing [what I want], not [what you want].” But that would be entirely counterproductive. I think carefully presented diplomacy is the only way that any change might be introduced into the current situation.
The moment that the non-SLS faction either attacks, dismisses or ignores SLS in their arguments I think Congress will simply end all discussions and further considerations of this issue. That may seem heavy-handed, but they have the power to do it, so they will. From their perspective it would seem fully justified.
Certain members of Congress appear to believe that they are in full control of this situation, and given recent events it’s hard to argue that idea. I think this means that they have to be dealt with very carefully and tactfully.
Actually, the testimony did ‘attack’ SLS, stating that the” technology of the 70s did not provide reliable safe transportation on the cheap”, but it could be provided with “cost effective commercial space transportation”.
It was carefully presented diplomacy indeed, followed up by the Houston Chronicle article
http://blog.chron.com/scigu…
Wayne Hale: “But the technologies of the 1970s…resulted in a system that was only slightly less expensive than those that went before. Starving spacecraft development…resulted in compromised systems that, if they fly at all, will not be cheap enough to enable business in space. The most singularly vexing problem with space flight is the high cost of getting to LEO. The commercial systems will enable the deep space exploration initiative in substantial ways….cost effective commercial space transportation.”
I find Mr. Hale comparing SLS exploration to Lewis and Clark kind of a joke.
I never heard Wayne compare SLS exploration to anything. In fact, he pointedly said that exploration can proceed in many different ways forward.
It seems to me Wayne is implying we should not short-change developmental programs, i.e. Shuttle development in 1970s and lack of commitment successive programs. In another of Hale’s blogs he did not want his name listed on Augustine Commission II report because he protested OMB’s restriction that options presented cannot be more than $3B, and Wayne knows of many worthwhile options in space for the USA that may cost more than $3B [but not that much more compared to other govmint spending].
However, I wonder if all these presentations by techies to legislators tends to go flat (virtually all of congress, senate, and presidents all/were businessmen and lawyers). It’s like try to carry a conversation about your techie setup at Maker Faire in a party of sales and marketing types, it will not last more than 30 seconds unless they see a potential money making opportunity.