Hearing on FAA Commercial Space Budget

1.  Just saw some good comments on a crew looking forward to the new commercial ships coming while they are there at ISS.Strange that they do not say that all the vehicles are made by private companies.Why single out Dragon and Cygnus?
    My 2D to 3D converting brain did a good job on the crew patch.It placed ISS closest,then letters,the star by the letters a little farther back.The 5 sisters,Pliedes,Subaru stars where farther back with the one on the left close,far,close,far.The supposed track of ISS to Pliedes looked good also.Boy it really took a stretch to come up with that track.   3DSam

2. I am trying to remember my government classes of 50 years ago,so bear with me.Government will use the taxpayers money in the most efficient way possible.Conservative.The most efficient way would be China.State owned.The other extreme is complete privatization.No NASA.A law is passed saying we wish to go to Mars.Give us a bid.Then comes Ideology.What activity does the State wish to encourage?NASA wants to encourage private space travel.It costs a whole lot more.Will it be more efficient in the future?So that more money spent now,is saved in the future?What about self gratification?If NASA can do it faster,is it not better to hire them?Plus the bonus of doing it cheaper.Better does not enter in since State and Private are equal.
   How about national pride? Would citizens be more happy to know that some of their money is sending one them to Mars?Elon thinks that people would be more thrilled if he,a private company did it.Would citizens like the secrecy involved or would they enjoy the required open access of NASA?Where is the balance point?Is the cut off point of a launcher and spacecraft to encourage metal suppliers or aero space companies?I go with self gratification.NASA can have different size SLS systems going in 3 years.The price of materials is so low and 80 years of making launchers,shows how easy it is.

   1. What planet are you living on? There is no way, shape or form in which NASA will be able to develop a launch vehicle cheaper or faster than what is being done through the Commercial Sourcing model (purchasing services rather than cost plus procurement of equipment). NASA has demonstrated again and again and again that it cannot effectively manage the cost plus approach in developing new launchers (every project since the Shuttle has been an unmitigated disaster). SLS is shaping up to be a boondoggle that will not fly for at least 10 years.

      In comparison SpaceX has developed the Falcon 1, Falcon 9 and Dragon for less than a single Shuttle launch.   

       NASA has become a political pinata that is a shadow of its former self. Not only does it need substantial additional funding, it needs a complete overhaul of the the organization and management. Unfortunately no President since Regan has been willing to spend any political capital on NASA and the only one on the horizon who might (Gingrich) was mocked by the media and pundits for even bringing up the topic

      1. I suggest you read my posts for the last month.Perhaps this is your first time here.If you are referring to 3DSam.Sorry,it is true.Doctors have told me they have seen it,but for short periods.My brain converts all 2D to 3D.Even drawings.I have had the ability for 7 years.Too bad you don’t have the ability.It sure is nice.NASA did not build any of the launchers or spacecraft in their history.They just checked on them.(except HST,they did not check at all on that)They did launch and control them.They did a fair job on Ares-1X.The electronics was done by L-M and Jacobs.This probably cost more than the rest of the mission.The dummy second stage jack knifed and 2 parachutes failed.I still think that they are worth hiring.Again, NASA has all the facilities,people, equipment needed to build a launcher and spacecraft.Raw material is next to nothing compared to what the aerospace companies charge.This is what SpaceX does.Ares-1X showed they could get something done in a hurry.3 yers ,I think.I also suggest that the complaining science people build their on launcher and spacecraft and do something,instead of just complaining.Maybe they could get an intern to do the welding.Certainly would not want a bored scientist.They are responsible for securing a launcher.This would stop the ridiculous way of having a NASA and L-M control room.They were both trying to control and lost a Mars spacecraft.

         1. Technically NASA did build the first S-I stages before turning it over to Chrysler. However historically NASA has used the typical “cost-plus” procurement process for its vehicles. NASA develops an initial design (such as the MSC-040 design used for the Shuttle) and a detailed set of specifications. They issue an RFP and select a winning contractor who then charges NASA the actual cost of development plus a profit margin. If the price of development rises, NASA is on the hook, if the project fails the contractor still collects their money. There is rarely any incentive to deliver a project on budget or on time.  This is fundamentally different from how SpaceX and Orbital have been contracted. These companies are paid a fixed fee based on achieving specific milestones, if costs escalate then the company is on the hook, if they fail then they get nothing. It’s the difference between the USAF buyng an F-35 and booking a flight on United.  

            While NASA does own several facilities (such as Michoud) the people and equipment belong to its contractors. Plus the vast majority of the cost of building a launch vehicle or spacecraft isn’t the raw metal for the tanks, it is engines, avionics and above all, salaries.     

            1.  You are correct.Build the engines, they are very simple.You have made my point.NASA salaries are the same no mater what they do.Reassign and delay or terminate other programs they are on. Since you do not argue or will not revue my postings,I will repeat my theory.I think it beats Elons theory of low cost access to space.His is  correct for private. companies,I bring in the government.Is the stir welding that I see NASA doing,does NASA own that machine?I think heliarc would be better.Stir welding takes a lot pressure to hold the pieces together.Heliarc can be automated.I suggest mounting the tank on tracks and move the tank as wire is fed.Rotate the tank for the other seam.The welder could also be mounted on the tank and use sensors to keep the correct distance.Elon claims that stir welding does not need X-rayed.I read that the friction may not create enough heat and there is a void.Instead of end domes it may be possible to make it flat and pressurize it.There will be a dome then.Good old soap and water may still work for leak checks. Engine is mostly welding and a car maker robot could do that.Bolden said something about composite tanks however.NASA gets bored if there is not something new or hard to do.Avionics are cheap and easy.I think that NASA is working on the software for a Pegasus launch right now.They could use the same people.So I have eliminated all of your objections.I suggest the NASA launch system be called Goddard.Naming a center after him is not enough.He came up with the heatshield theory in 1923 after seeing the crust on a meteorite.

3. In reply to Saturn13:

   “Avionics are cheap and easy.“

   Saturn13,

   I respectfully suggest that you spend some more time thinking about that statement. Spacecraft avionics systems are not like aircraft avionics systems, where a whole lot of identical planes get the exact same system installed. Spacecraft avionics systems are mission dependent, and every spacecraft, therefore, has unique avionics systems which require a one-off test and troubleshoot program — very extensive, time-consuming and expensive.

   Steve

   1. Even new aircraft avoinics systems are expensive and difficult. Just about every recent major areospace project has under estimated the avoinics (A380, 787, F-35, SpaceX) 

      I won’t comment on building engines being “easy” (turbo machinery anyone) or that friction stir welding is industry standard for tank construction (Shuttle ET, Delta IV, Atlas V) mainly because you can’t arc weld Al-Li 

Comments are closed.