AirSpaceMag.com

Great article, Paul. I might dicker here and there about the chapter in our nation’s history of “internal improvements,” Lewis and Clark, maybe the C & O Canal, and such, but little else.

Comment by Joel Raupe — May 15, 2012 @ 4:57 pm

Hi Paul,

Great article and I could not agree more.

One quibble, however:

“If things go according to plan Saturday, the world will witness SpaceX launch its first Dragon cargo supply mission to the International Space Station.”

It is a test flight, not an operational cargo mission.

Joe

Comment by Joe — May 15, 2012 @ 4:59 pm

All I can say is yeah verily yeah.

Comment by Mark R. Whittington — May 15, 2012 @ 6:39 pm

Many proponents of Space X and other commercial crew companies tend to view the emergence of commercial crew capability as a battle between the inefficient Federal government vs good ole free enterprise. Of course, even Elon Musk recognizes that Space X wouldn’t even exist if weren’t for the hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars invested in space technology over the past 60 years.

Since practically all space technology is built by private industry, private industry has had the ability to have private commercial manned space craft for decades. Plus private investors are currently sitting on over two trillion dollars worth of money. Less than 1% of such funds would be needed to support commercial crew development. So why hasn’t billions of these private investment dollars been pouring into companies like Space X?

That’s easy! There is no business case for commercial crew development for NASA. Manned launches to the ISS from the US side will probably only require 2 to 6 launches per year. That’s only enough traffic to barely support one or two launch companies. Plus the ISS is probably going to be decommissioned just four years after commercial crew flights start to begin.

The real business case is in space tourism to private space stations and eventually to hotels on the Moon.

But many of the commercial crew advocates are so obsessed with tearing down NASA, an entity that’s actually providing many of these private companies with significant amounts of tax payer dollars, that they’ve lost site of the real purpose of commercial crew development.

The purpose of commercial crew development should not be to cripple or destroy the government space program. That’s killing the goose that’s laying the golden eggs!

The primary purpose of commercial crew development should be to make a profit by transporting private customers into space. There are nearly 100,000 people (100,000 potential customers) in the world rich enough to afford a $20 to $25 million flight into to a private space station.

These companies need to stop whining to Congress for money and start making their business case to private investors and also start advertising to the tens of thousands of super wealthy individuals on this planet who can actually afford such trips.

The only thing these companies should be asking Congress for is for Congress to establishment of a space lotto system so that billions of people around the world can risk a dollar or two for a chance to travel aboard a private American spacecraft to a private American space station– or maybe even to the Moon!

Marcel F. Williams

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 15, 2012 @ 11:32 pm

I think that part of the problem is one of semantics. If “commercial” mean 100% commercial then COTS/CRS/CCDev, etc has never been “commercial”. Rather, the SAA approach is a type of public-private development which is different than the FAR approach. To be fair, one should make note of the NASA study showing that the development of the Falcon 9 cost NASA about 1/3 of the cost than had a FAR approach been used. This is significant to take into account when considering the so-called “commercial” or “New Space” approach.

Secondly, let’s all admit that the main reason why competitive commercial HSF has not yet brought down costs through competition, innovation, etc is that there is currently an insufficient market demand for it, and at the same time, the risk to the first mover is great and perhaps even letal. OK, but what this also means is that NASA can’t purchase flights to LEO at competitive commercial prices. This is really bad for America’s space program and has been holding us back for decades. So, if the SAA approach can bring prices down, then this will be good for America’s space program regardless if it was 100% commercial or 30% commercial. It would seem as though the alternative would be the SLS which has (to me) every appearance of being, once again, very expensive and shares little to none of it’s financial costs with any market.

Because of how the SAA approach works, funding is relatively low (compared to an FAR approach) it requires these commercial companies have some of their own skin in the development. They need to figure out how they will be able to turn a profit and so will look for what non-government markets they can take advantage of. SpaceX is developing a launcher which is squarely targeting the commercial satellite market and it’s Falcon Heavy is targeting DOD payloads which, although also government funding, will help spread the cost burden for NASA.

Let’s not get bogged down with ideology. If SpaceX has a good launch this Saturday, and especially if it successfully launches the Falcon Heavy, it will only be a good thing for America’s space program. And that is what ultimately matters.

Comment by JohnHunt — May 16, 2012 @ 7:18 pm

“Even as we hope for a successful SpaceX launch-”

Not me. I make no apologies for hoping the hobby rocket blows up on the pad. It has been a bad deal from the beginning- for the taxpayer and for the cause of space exploration. It is essentially a internet whiz kid’s hobby project subsidized by tax dollars gained through political contribution. It uses a cluster of low thrust motors and obsolete propellants to lift a combination crew and cargo vehicle with an escape system that is not an escape system. I could go on and on but what’s the point? The most powerful and evolved launch hardware on earth sits idle while this junk sucks up billions. It is becoming quite clear that the goal of the company is space tourism for the the ultra rich. Endless circles at very hi altitude going nowhere for the next quarter century.
Paid for by NASA and the U.S. taxpayer. What a deal.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 17, 2012 @ 2:11 am

I welcome wealthy investors trying to add new options to the mix.

One thing that bothers me is the disrespect new-space fans have for the players that have been around for awhile. ULA’s propellant depot architectures could provide enough market to keep several providers afloat. And developing these propellant depots now would give them a better TRL when in situ propellant comes online (as advocated by you as well as Planetary Resources)

Musk is shooting for a reusable 1st and 2nd stage. If his Grasshopper video is an indication, he hopes to mitigate the extreme conditions of re-entry by using reaction mass as well as aerobraking to shed re-entry delta V. This adds to his delta V budget and gives him an even more difficult mass fraction. I don’t give him even odds.

But given propellant in LEO from the moon (or NEAs), I would give Musk better than even odds for recovering his second stage.

Elon should be endorsing ULA’s lunar architecture as well as Planetary Resources goals. But up to this point, he still seems fixated on Zubrin’s dead-end disposable BFRs to Mars.

If various players were on the same page, an inexpensive space transportation network could come to pass. But forming a consensus sometimes seems as futile as herding cats.

Comment by Hop David — May 17, 2012 @ 12:10 pm

The author said:

“The word commercial has been re-branded.“, then said “Because it’s not “run” by the government, this form of government-sponsored crony capitalism is now deemed “commercial.””

This is not true – I think you’re trying to rebrand the term “crony capitalism”, which in the dictionary definition describes a close relationship (i.e. personal) between business people and government officials. The COTS, CRS, CCDev and CCiCap contracts have been open competitions, and as a reminder, Michael Griffin’s NASA awarded SpaceX their COTS and CRS contracts, not Obama’s NASA. The SLS on the other hand…

I would agree that the term “commercial” has different meanings for different people. The way I see it, the word commercial for NASA means that they are buying services versus buying & operating their own hardware.

“At least with the VSE, the nation knew where, when and why we were going.”

Where maybe. Why, not really. When, no (the 2020 date was an illusion). And the most important part you left out was that Congress deemed that the Moon effort had become too expensive, so really all it produced (as you like to say) is “pointless viewgraph engineering”.

Your point about Commercial Crew and Cargo ignores the obvious, which is that NASA doesn’t get enough funding to go the Moon using todays cost structures. By lowering the cost to resupply cargo and rotate crew, that means we can afford to do more in space with the same budget. And since no one in their right mind would assume that NASA is getting a budget increase, everyone should be rooting for ways to enable us to do more in space with the same budget.

Comment by Coastal Ron — May 17, 2012 @ 12:24 pm

John,

I think that part of the problem is one of semantics. If “commercial” mean 100% commercial then COTS/CRS/CCDev, etc has never been “commercial”.

And COTS/CCDev HAS never been commercial. Those programs provide a government subsidy to advance the development of some capability the government needs. This is not space exploration; it’s check-writing. And it is not simply “semantics” — it is fundamentally dishonest to contend that something is “commercial” when it isn’t. It’s just a government-paid program operated under different rules.

Let’s not get bogged down with ideology. If SpaceX has a good launch this Saturday, and especially if it successfully launches the Falcon Heavy, it will only be a good thing for America’s space program. And that is what ultimately matters.

I am not getting “bogged down.” A government subsidy for a launch company is being presented and portrayed to the public as a “new direction” for the space program. It is not. It is not even “new” much less a “direction.” The current American space program has no strategic direction. Like much in modern America, fake achievement and pseudo-accomplishment is being fobbed off as the real thing.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 17, 2012 @ 2:49 pm

[...] blogs.airspacemag.com – Today, 1:36 PM [...]

Pingback by The Flight of the Dragon | The Once and Future Moon | The NewSpace Daily | Scoop.it — May 17, 2012 @ 3:37 pm

“The real issue with commercial human spaceflight is the existence of a market. Right now, such a market does not exist.”

Not true. NASA has a need to get ISS personnel to the ISS. That is the whole reason for the Commercial Crew program. That need is currently satisfied by Russia using their Soyuz, and the need exists until at least 2020, likely beyond.

“It will take years of successful commercial launches (and safe returns) for the creation of a genuine commercial market.”

Markets are not created by the availability of a service. There has to be a need (i.e. demand) for a service. The ISS needs supplies and the ability to rotate crew. That is what’s known as market demand, and in the case of the ISS it is known in my world (manufacturing operations) as firm demand. If NASA can’t get the supplies or crew they need, the ISS will not operate. You can’t get more firm demand than that.

In my line of business we will also commit company resources to what’s known as “forecasted demand”, which for commercial crew would be what Bigelow Aerospace is working on. They have signed MOU’s with seven countries, and they have signed agreements with both Boeing and SpaceX to provide transportation services. I don’t think anyone thinks they will make much profit (if any) on cargo & crew services for the ISS, but that it is the initial demand for a market they think will eventually become profitable. Pretty typical in the commercial world.

Comment by Coastal Ron — May 17, 2012 @ 6:56 pm

The ISS should bee decommissioned in 2016 so that NASA can use those funds to establish a manned lunar outpost at one of the lunar poles. Using the ISS as a $3 billion a year make-work program for commercial crew companies is extremely costly and inefficient. Three more years should be enough time for the ISS to complete its research so NASA can move on. And if private industry wants to do more microgavity research beyond 2015, they can knock on Bigelow’s door.

NASA could subsidize a national space lotto system at just $1 billion a year (40 to 50 passengers per year at $20 to $25 million per passenger) and get a lot more commercial crew traffic (and more companies) into orbit to private space stations than spending $3 billion a year to get humans to the ISS. The other $2 billion should be used for the lunar program.

Marcel F. Williams

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 18, 2012 @ 2:18 pm

GaryChurch said: Not me. I make no apologies for hoping the hobby rocket blows up on the pad. It has been a bad deal from the beginning- for the taxpayer and for the cause of space exploration. It is essentially a internet whiz kid’s hobby project subsidized by tax dollars gained through political contribution.

Thanks for verbalizing what the “dark side” of some of us have been feeling but dared not admit.

And thanks to Paul for another insightful article, this time looking at the naked emperor of fake privatization.

Comment by John — May 19, 2012 @ 9:59 pm

@Gary Church; Mister, you are right on the mark!! I too, revile commercial space! All this hobby rocket crusade does is keep humanity trapped doing more endless circles ’round the Earth, and gives us NOTHING with regard to human deep space capability. I despise the fact that Project Constellation was scrapped, so that these rank amateurs could now take center stage, and launch billionaires on ISS tourist joyrides! It has been one gigantically-awful raw deal!

Comment by Chris Castro — May 20, 2012 @ 8:23 am

I think the term “crony capitalism” is… unfortunate. And it misses a point, think.

For both COTS and Commercial Crew incorporate one feature that has not been given its due in this article. Competition. If SpaceX fails on COTS, OSC will have their opportunity to step up to the plate. For Commercial Crew, Boeing (CST-100) and Sierra Nevada (Dream Chaser) are on an equal footing with SpaceX.

Failure is an option. It needs to be acknowledged. For too long government programs have been run on the Too Big To Fail plan – if we invest even more billions in the one, perfectly chosen basket, our eggs our safe.

You speak of a subsidy – but there is surely a difference between paying for delivered milestones, and the paying of billions to keep firms and capabilities in existence? The later has been a millstone around the neck of space endeavours since the beginning. On do you contend that nothing bought by the government can be spoken of as commercial?

Comment by Malmesbury — May 20, 2012 @ 2:27 pm

I think the term “crony capitalism” is… unfortunate.

I think the current lack of real goals in our national civil space program is a more “unfortunate” situation than the choice of words to describe the current mess.

You speak of a subsidy – but there is surely a difference between paying for delivered milestones, and the paying of billions to keep firms and capabilities in existence?

A difference only in degree, not in kind. In both cases, the companies cannot survive on their own in a completely free market without federal money. If important national needs are being served (and right now, transport to low Earth orbit qualifies), such may be excusable. What I object to is that it is being characterized as “direction” and “private enterprise” — it is neither.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 21, 2012 @ 10:40 pm

From The Cypress Creek Mirror in Texas;

“Under President Obama’s leadership, he said, “the nation is embarking upon an ambitious exploration program that will take us farther into space than we have ever traveled before, while helping create good-paying jobs right here in the United States of America.

“We’re handing off to the private sector our transportation to the International Space Station so that NASA can focus on what we do best — exploring even deeper into our solar system, with missions to an asteroid and Mars on the horizon.”

If it were only true.
The Moon is the gateway to the solar system- it is the starting gate. “Missions” to asteroids and that too deep gravity well that everyone seems to think is “just close enough” are not worth the trouble.

And neither is the Albatross ISS and private taxis to and from. LEO is a dead end.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 22, 2012 @ 10:40 pm

Do you all see any benefits to SAA vs FAR contracting? From the above, I see no recognition of any benefits of SAA. I have mentioned the NASA study showing an example (in the case of F9) of SAA being 1/3 the cost compared to FAR yet no comment about it. If we stop calling it “commercial space” but continue this SAA approach, would that be positive for America’s space program? If the SAA approach gives NASA more bang for its buck, then might this new approach (if applied to the development of lunar resources) increase the likelihood of bringing a cis-lunar infrastructure to reality?

Comment by JohnHunt — May 23, 2012 @ 12:02 am

I would suggest that the COTS program is one part of the current space program that *is* tightly focused on specific goals.

Redundant access to the ISS for cargo at a lower price than Progress.

Both SpaceX and OSC (who deserve more than to be ignored, I feel) have built their systems at a fraction of the cost to NASA that the “normal” way of doing things. If they screw up or their costs double they will lose out when the next round of result contracts are let. Failure is an option…

The contrast with the Orion/SLS program is enough to make you weep. Orion will cost more to build per article than the development cost to NASA of a COTS competitor. Re-usability and land landing gone in the weight cuts for Ares I getting sicker and sicket before it died. 1 SLS per year maybe. Probably 1 every 2 years. And we are just trying started on the usual cost spiral.

It isn’t te engineers. It isn’t the pyramid at NASA. It isn’t the president. It isn’t congress. It isn’t the senate. It’s all of them together. In a world where the primary function of government spending is dispensing jobs and hence power doing the job for a non insane price is a bad thing.

I am currently in the UK – I’m a dual UK/US citizen. The government considered changing the new aircraft carriers to the CTOL version of the JSF. Industry responded by saying that installing catapults would cost £2 billion. The government said no – it should have cost 10x less. There was a row because industry and their “sponsored” members of parliament thought that it was a done deal (hence the crazy price)….

Comment by Malmesbury — May 23, 2012 @ 5:33 am

“We’re handing off to the private sector our transportation to the International Space Station so that NASA can focus on what we do best — exploring even deeper into our solar system, with missions to an asteroid and Mars on the horizon.”

This is complete BS. The ISS is costing NASA $3 billion a year and will continue to a burden NASA and the tax payers as long as it exist. NASA is also spending several hundred million dollars annually trying to help finance the Commercial Crew efforts.

As long as the ISS continues to exist,there will be no serious money for manned beyond LEO missions.

Marcel F. Williams

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 23, 2012 @ 12:43 pm

Do you all see any benefits to SAA vs FAR contracting?

My point is that having a space program whose principal attraction is the discussion of different federal contracting mechanisms is a poor substitute for either “exploration” or “development” of space.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 23, 2012 @ 2:17 pm

I would suggest that the COTS program is one part of the current space program that *is* tightly focused on specific goals. Redundant access to the ISS for cargo at a lower price than Progress.

The lower cost has yet to be demonstrated. We already have redundant access to ISS, via the Russians, the Europeans and the Japanese. My main point is that logistical servicing ISS has become the principal focus of the civil space program. No one is thinking broadly about using ISS to support future trans-LEO exploration goals.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — May 23, 2012 @ 2:21 pm

Paul, there’s a connection between contracting mechanisms and specific plans. Time and again there have been plans coupled with monster rockets so expensive that the plans have come to naught as cost over-runs have maxed out the budget apparently mandating that the plans be cancelled after significant expenditure. I urge you to consider that your plans for lunar development won’t be accepted by Congress until the budget-straining SLS is cancelled. Only when that happens will there be a window of opportunity for considering small incremental steps in the development of cis-lunar space. Your plan doesn’t require a heavy-lift rocket yet doing it with the numerous smaller Atlases will still cost about $87 billion. It matters that SAA has been demonstrated to have cost 1/3 of the development costs compared to the cost-plus approach. It gives reason to believe that a cis-lunar development program can be achieved at well within future, perhaps lower, budgets. The SAA approach should be applied to a “Lunar COTS” with exactly the development plan you recommend. SAA should not be limited to LEO but extended to cis-lunar development.

Comment by JohnHunt — May 23, 2012 @ 10:24 pm

Comment by Hop David — May 17, 2012 @ 12:10 pm

“But given propellant in LEO from the moon (or NEAs), I would give Musk better than even odds for recovering his second stage.”

You do realize that the current Falcon 9 engines run on RP-1 fuel, which is kerosene? Are there plans to make hydrocarbon fuels on the Moon?

Regardless, it’s cheaper to lift fuel from the Earth to LEO than it is to build and support a factory on the Moon to mine it, process it and ship it to LEO. I’m sure Musk would agree.

“Elon should be endorsing ULA’s lunar architecture as well as Planetary Resources goals. But up to this point, he still seems fixated on Zubrin’s dead-end disposable BFRs to Mars.”

Musk has stated that he thinks humans should be a multi-planetary species, but he does show a clear bias to Mars over the Moon, and why not? Double the gravity of our Moon, and at least some semblance of an atmosphere. Sure it’s further away, but he’s a transportation guy, so the transportation part of the journey won’t be a barrier.

But this just highlights the schism that exists in the space community – the “Mars First” versus the “Moon First” debate. Like everyone else, Musk doesn’t exclude the Moon from being settled or stripped mined for water or He3, but it’s just not his priority. He wants to go to Mars, and I’m sure he’d be glad to drop you off at the Moon on his way.

In any case, it won’t be for lack of transportation that keeps us from going to Mars, it will be because we don’t know how to keep people alive and healthy in space for long periods of time – and that includes the Moon. Until we put some time, effort and money towards solving that, no one is going very far from Earth for any extended period of time.

Comment by Coastal Ron — May 23, 2012 @ 11:28 pm

“-a space program whose principal attraction is the discussion of different federal contracting mechanisms is a poor substitute for either “exploration” or “development” of space.”

As I have stated before IMO the only events that are going to change the discussion is a fairly spectacular impact or close call or a plague that highlights the danger of extinction our species is facing. THEN the discussion about spaceships and survival colonies would be pre-empting dancing with the stars.

“No one is thinking broadly about using ISS to support future trans-LEO exploration goals.”

I would say that is because it is incapable of leaving orbit. It has no radiation shielding, let alone a propulsion system capable of getting it anywhere. Several hundred tons of shielding would be necessary to safeguard a crew from solar events above LEO and several hundred more for long term protection from the heavy nuclei component of cosmic radiation. And then there is the problem of zero G debiliation. The ISS structure does not look very adaptable to any artificial gravity modifications. A space station is not a good spaceship but a spaceship is always the best space station.

“In a world where the primary function of government spending is dispensing jobs and hence power doing the job for a non insane price is a bad thing.”

I think your mistake is putting public works projects- like the golden gate bridge and the moon shot- into the same market place as cars and military hardware. Only vast governmental resources can accomplice infrastructure projects that can allow commerce to profit. At the minimum a moonbase and a fleet of interplanetary spaceships is the prerequisite for any investment for private development of separate interests. That’s just how it is. This circus sideshow of hobby rockets and tincans going in endless circles has little or nothing to do with actual space travel and exploration.

“As long as the ISS continues to exist,there will be no serious money for manned beyond LEO missions.”

Actually, I would say that as long as funding cuts to cold war toys like the F-22, F-36, and V-22 are continually voted down then we will never see enough money for spaceflight. The ISS is a drop in the bucket compared to DOD programs. Not that I like the ISS.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 24, 2012 @ 12:30 am

http://news.investors.com/article/612327/201205221804/capitalism-commercializes-space.htm

Stand by for a tidal wave of ridiculous hype.
Unbelievable

Comment by GaryChurch — May 24, 2012 @ 6:10 am

> You do realize that the current Falcon 9 engines run on RP-1 fuel, which is kerosene?
The plans are for Raptor to be hydrolox. But it appears that a recoverable second stage would use a heat shield for most of its deceleration, and not having been refueled in orbit, so I don’t understand the original comment.

> Regardless, it’s cheaper to lift fuel from the Earth to LEO than it is to build and support a factory on the Moon to mine it, process it and ship it to LEO.
How about to L1 and how about lunar production using only telerobotics and how about scaling up the lunar robotic workforce using insitu metals?

> the only events that are going to change the discussion is a…close call
I hope you are wrong but fear that you are right. If, however, there were a lunar telerobotic workforce producing water and oxygen and there were a small human base to support the repair and construction of those telebots and if that included the production of metals and glass then the base would be close enough to a minimalist self-supporting colony to make it tempting for the government to fund the last steps.

> I would say that is because it is incapable of leaving orbit.
I don’t think that’s what he was necessarily saying. Rather, using the ISS as a staging ground to assemble, fuel?, and launch BEO activities.

Comment by JohnHunt — May 24, 2012 @ 11:31 am

Comment by JohnHunt — May 23, 2012 @ 10:24 pm

“Time and again there have been plans coupled with monster rockets so expensive that the plans have come to naught as cost over-runs have maxed out the budget apparently mandating that the plans be cancelled after significant expenditure.”

There have been only three actual programs that have involved HLVs:
- Apollo. Cancelled after the “race to the moon” (as it had been politically sold) was won, not because of the cost of the Saturn 5.
- The Shuttle (if you accept the Shuttle as an HLV). Cancelled after 30 years of operational use and then only with a new program in place that also involved an HLV.
- Constellation Systems. Cancelled in a questionable political environment, where a change in Presidents caused a massive (to say the least) change in policy.

Any other plans that involved HLVs were studies only and simply never became accepted programs in the first place.

Three actual programs (one of which produced landings on the moon and one of which ran for 30 years producing the current ISS among other things) hardly justifies over the top statements like: “Time and again there have been plans coupled with monster rockets so expensive that the plans have come to naught as cost over-runs have maxed out the budget”.

Comment by Joe — May 24, 2012 @ 12:57 pm

Comment by JohnHunt — May 24, 2012 @ 11:31 am

“How about to L1 and how about lunar production using only telerobotics and how about scaling up the lunar robotic workforce using insitu metals?”

L1/L2 are not that far energy-wise from LEO, so water and propellant from Earth is still the least expensive option.

I have always thought that autonomous or telerobotic exploration & exploitation of the Moon is a great idea. There is a lot we could do on the Moon to prepare for resource extraction without sending a human. In fact, I think it’s the focus on sending people to the Moon that has slowed down efforts to start lunar resource extraction.

Once you send people to the Moon to do resource extraction, the costs go way up, which means the business case for lunar water and LOH/LOX propellant is not there, especially if the costs of getting mass to LEO from Earth keep dropping.

The problem is money though. NASA has a big enough budget to fund a robotic exploration effort on the Moon, but not with the SLS crowding out everything else. Regardless who is elected President later this year, I think the SLS will be cancelled by next year. Then we can get back to beefing back up our robotic exploration, along with getting ready to leave LEO again with humans using existing rockets and capabilities.

Comment by Coastal Ron — May 24, 2012 @ 2:09 pm

Comment by Joe — May 24, 2012 @ 12:57 pm

“- Apollo. Cancelled after the “race to the moon” (as it had been politically sold) was won, not because of the cost of the Saturn 5.”

All the history I’ve seen says that the program was ended short (missions 18-20 were cancelled) because of the high cost of running the program. The Saturn V, being the most expensive hardware component, surely contributed to that.

Remember also that the single large launch vehicle concept was chosen because it was deemed the most expedient, not the most cost-efficient. Maybe we would have continued going to the Moon if we could have afforded it, but that wasn’t the case.

“- The Shuttle (if you accept the Shuttle as an HLV). Cancelled after 30 years of operational use and then only with a new program in place that also involved an HLV.”

After the Columbia disaster, the consensus was finally realized that the Shuttle never truly became “operational”. It was always flying on the edge of danger, and Bush made the right call to end the program after it’s final job, which was constructing the ISS.

During the 30 year Shuttle program, no one ever went back to see if the primary tenets of the Shuttle program were being met – that it could be a frequent, low-cost way to access space. We would have known after the first ten years of flying that it was not going to meet either of those goals, and we’ll never know if we could have built a better government transportation system that would have been not only much safer, but able to meet the original goals of the Shuttle program.

As it was, we averaged $1.5B per flight over the life of the program – way too expensive for missions that only moved cargo or swapped out crew.

“- Constellation Systems. Cancelled in a questionable political environment, where a change in Presidents caused a massive (to say the least) change in policy.”

Maybe being massively over schedule and far behind schedule doesn’t mean much to some people, but it apparently meant a lot to Congress. If Constellation would have been on schedule and on budget, there wouldn’t have been a reason to question the program. Key point here – money matters.

Regarding Ares V, it was not a “replacement” for the Shuttle, as it was just a dumb mass mover. We already have dumb mass movers that can move the same mass to orbit that the Shuttle could (Delta IV Heavy, Ariane V, Proton), so Ares V did nothing to replace the Shuttle. It was just the next transportation system NASA was stuck with operating.

And if you look, the two true HLV’s (Apollo and Ares V) were not chosen because they were the least expensive option, but because they were the most expedient option. Many studies have shown that we can accomplish the same exploration goals without a new government-owned/government-run mega-rocket, and we can do it quicker and for less money.

There are no studies that justify the SLS on the basis of fiscal affordability, which should scare every sane taxpayer.

Comment by Coastal Ron — May 24, 2012 @ 4:24 pm

Coastal Ron: “You do realize that the current Falcon 9 engines run on RP-1 fuel, which is kerosene? Are there plans to make hydrocarbon fuels on the Moon?”

You do realize that most of the oxygen/kerosene mass is oxygen? So lunar oxygen alone exported to LEO would add substantially to the reaction mass available to the Falcon to help with re-entry delta V.

As it is, the Falcon must achieve ~9 km/s to reach orbit and then shed 8 km/s via aerobraking for re-entry. Typically this 8 km/s is shed over an hour subjecting the vehicle to extreme temperatures. This makes reusable vehicles very difficult. I don’t given Musk even odds for achieving his goal of a reusable 2 stage vehicle.

In contrast, a tanker delivering propellant from EML1 to LEO could have less than a 5 km/s round trip. Aerobraking would be about 3 km/s over several drag passes. Within these much less severe constraints, a reusable vehicle is far more doable.

Comment by Hop David — May 24, 2012 @ 7:04 pm

Concerning Elon Musk and his nifty plans;

“-he does show a clear bias to Mars over the Moon, and why not?”

The answer to that question is fairly obvious. We have the hardware to soft land effective payloads on the moon and it is sitting idle- we have nothing that can get to mars. Unless you think the falcon 9 is going to do the job. Even the Falcon “heavy-that-is-not-heavy” will have trouble getting anything worthwhile to the moon, let alone Mars. There is no substitute for an HLV with hydrogen upper stages.

“-but he’s a transportation guy, so the transportation part of the journey won’t be a barrier.”

Really?

“-but it’s just not his priority. He wants to go to Mars, and I’m sure he’d be glad to drop you off at the Moon on his way.”

Puh-leez

“-because we don’t know how to keep people alive and healthy in space for long periods of time – and that includes the Moon. Until we put some time, effort and money towards solving that, no one is going very far from Earth for any extended period of time.”

Actually we do know exactly how to to keep people healthy- by creating an environment as close to earth gravity and radiation levels as possible. And to date the best solutions are the massive water shield (which the ice on the moon makes practical) and tether generated artificial gravity (tested during Gemini and originating all the way back to the late 1930′s).
The problem is propelling this mass without contaminating the Earth’s magnetosphere with fallout from a nuclear propulsion system (chemical propulsion is essentially useless for deep space travel).

The Moon is the answer. Hobby rockets and business plans based on tourists and tin cans going in circles are not.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 25, 2012 @ 4:26 am

What does Space X have to do with beyond LEO missions. They haven’t even put a man in orbit yet.

Their cost are going to be highly dependent on demand. And two to six manned flights to the ISS a year amongst three or more private space companies isn’t a lot of demand.

Marcel F. Williams

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 25, 2012 @ 1:34 pm

Comment by Hop David — May 24, 2012 @ 7:04 pm

“You do realize that most of the oxygen/kerosene mass is oxygen? So lunar oxygen alone exported to LEO would add substantially to the reaction mass available to the Falcon to help with re-entry delta V.”

If I needed to purchase LO2 to fill up a vehicle in LEO, and I was presented with these two choices:

1. Source it from Earth, which is 200 miles away, has multiple launch providers, and LO2 costs about $1.00 per gallon.

2. Source it from the Moon, which is 200,000 miles away, there would be an unknown number of vehicles available for delivery, and the cost of the LO2 would be substantially higher than an Earth source because of the need to recoup a $100B investment.

Why would I buy LO2 from the Moon? Maybe I think too much like a businessman (which I am), and money matters to me.

Sure I get that it would be nice to figure out if we can “live off the land” on the Moon, but I see no economic advantages to sourcing LO2 or LH2 from the Moon for the foreseeable future. What buyer in their right mind would pay such a premium if they didn’t have to?

To me, the Dragon demonstration flight, which is now docked at the ISS, shows what can be done when attention is paid upfront to lowering the overall cost of doing something. With spaceflight being hideously expensive already, we need to be looking for ways to lower our overall costs, not raise them for artificial reasons.

Money matters, and money is what has been holding us back from leaving LEO for that past 40 years. Lower the cost to leave LEO, and we’ll be able to afford to visit the Moon, asteroids and eventually Mars. Don’t focus on lowering costs, and we will stay trapped in the same paradigm that has kept us trapped in LEO for the last 40 years.

Comment by Coastal Ron — May 25, 2012 @ 6:16 pm

> Their cost are going to be highly dependent on demand.

SpaceX’s launch manifest to 2017 includes the launching of 40+ F9 cores between NASA, other sovereigns, and companies. If the other “commercial space” companies follow suit, NASA’s costs will be shared by others. Although I agree that the public-private programs are nowhere close to being purely commercial, there are enough commercial dimensions (investment, design, control, ownership, no cost-plus contracts, sharing of costs with other customers) that the commercial aspect and implications should be acknowledged. Perhaps “semi-commercial” would be more accurate.

> What does Space X have to do with beyond LEO missions. They haven’t even put a man in orbit yet.

In January 1969, what did NASA have to do with a Moon program? They hadn’t put a human on the Moon yet? It is unfair and unhelpful to deny potential when that potential is reasonably possible. We cannot advocate helpful directions unless we acknowledge reasonable possibilities. I believe that it is reasonable to expect that SpaceX will master manned flight to LEO. I also think it reasonable to expect they will master the Falcon Heavy too. It is also reasonable to expect that they will be able to dock two Falcon Heavy payloads in LEO. Given that reasonable future capability, I think the honest and fair person will consider the value and implications of such capability to America’s space program. I believe that it is particularly relevant to what we all want which is the permanent opening of the solar system by the establishment of a cis-lunar infrastructure based upon lunar ice.

Comment by JohnHunt — May 25, 2012 @ 8:47 pm

“If I needed to purchase LO2 to fill up a vehicle in LEO, and I was presented with these two choices:

1. Source it from Earth, which is 200 miles away, has multiple launch providers, and LO2 costs about $1.00 per gallon.

2. Source it from the Moon, which is 200,000 miles away, there would be an unknown number of vehicles available for delivery, and the cost of the LO2 would be substantially higher than an Earth source because of the need to recoup a $100B investment.”

That you believe distance is a more important consideration than delta V shows a profound lack of understanding.

Give a 9 km/s delta V budget and a 8 km/s re-entry via aerobraking, reusable rockets are extremely difficult if not impossible.

Given rockets half a billion each, reusable vs expendable, the reusable would pay for an $100B base over 200 launches.

Comment by Hop David — May 26, 2012 @ 3:21 am

Well Space X can master what they want with their own private dollars. But NASA’s focus should continue to be on its beyond LEO architecture. And traditional NASA vendors like Boeing and Lockheed have a lot more experience in that area.

Comment by Marcel Williams — May 26, 2012 @ 4:19 am

“To me, the Dragon demonstration flight, which is now docked at the ISS, shows what can be done when attention is paid upfront to lowering the overall cost of doing something. With spaceflight being hideously expensive already, we need to be looking for ways to lower our overall costs, not raise them for artificial reasons.”

There is no cheap; spaceflight is inherently expensive. A hobby rocket to LEO and constructing a moonbase and spaceships are not comparable. Nuclear propulsion, HLV’s and a flight rate higher than the shuttle in it’s best year is what is required- so private space sycophants might not want to trumpet a “new era” too loudly; true BEO operations require funding far beyond hobby rockets and blow up tents in orbit.

Musk talks alot about reusability and going to Mars but those very things (and his juvenile name-calling) are just hype to get the gullible interested in a free lunch that does not exist. He wants to fly tourists on the taxpayers dime and that has been his whole game all along.

“In fact, I think it’s the focus on sending people to the Moon that has slowed down efforts to start lunar resource extraction.”

I think it is a fact that private space advocates will say anything to justify NOT funding BEO. They want their space station vacation with Elon and anthing that distracts from that is automatically no good. They will scream about fiscal responsibility till they are blue unless it has to do with the ISS and their agenda- then they sing a different tune entirely. So transparent.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 26, 2012 @ 4:30 am

And to get back to John;

> I would say that is because it is incapable of leaving orbit.
I don’t think that’s what he was necessarily saying. Rather, using the ISS as a staging ground to assemble, fuel?, and launch BEO activities.

An HLV is the best way to get to the moon. Physics have not changed since Apollo and the depot miracle will not happen for a very long time (I do not think ever). The only staging ground is the Moon for outbound nuclear propelled missions.

LEO is not really space flight anymore- it is more like “space falling.” The radiation environment above LEO makes the lower altitudes a separate sphere; LEO is just endless circles at very high altitude.

The American public is really unaware of what LEO is. They keep getting told by private space that it is spaceflight and space travel and space exploration. I would have to use Dr. Spudis’ decriptor on this; “And it is not simply “semantics” — it is fundamentally dishonest to contend that something is”- when it is not.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 26, 2012 @ 6:17 am

Comment by Hop David — May 26, 2012 @ 3:21 am

“That you believe distance is a more important consideration than delta V shows a profound lack of understanding.”

I stated facts, but did not rank them. And, of course, you ignored the other factors I listed, which are far more important than delta V.

Distance plays into the cost equation because Distance = Time, and Time = Money

And in logistics, a source that is hours away is more advantageous than one that is 3 days away, especially is the price is the same.

“Given rockets half a billion each, reusable vs expendable, the reusable would pay for an $100B base over 200 launches.”

You’ve forgotten to add in the cost of the lunar base into your assumptions. An Earth-based propellant delivery company doesn’t need to invest in propellant manufacturing facilities, launch infrastructure, or any of the infrastructure it takes to keep their employees alive and happy. A lunar based propellant delivery company needs to not only compete based on how much it costs to extract, refine and ship propellant from the Moon, but they also have to add in their overhead for their entire operations.

And you are assuming that reusable transportation will never be perfected from the surface of the Earth to LEO. There is money and effort going into that, and if it becomes successful then the economic justification for supplying water from the Moon gets that much harder.

The biggest hurdle that a lunar water/propellant supply company has to overcome is that the everyone needing water or propellant in space will already be sourcing from the Earth. Anyone competing with sources from the Moon (or even asteroids) has to overcome not only the price advantage that Earth supplier have, but also customer inertia in changing over to an unknown, unproven supply source. Sound familiar? That’s the debate going on today with “NewSpace” in taking over the logistics supply line for the ISS. And if you don’t think that has been hard (i.e. convincing people the new companies can do it), then you haven’t been reading this blog very long.

And lunar extraction will be it’s own version of “NewSpace”, and will have to overcome the same perception challenges. Who will be your version of Elon Musk? Who will take the idea or theory, and make it into reality with technical competence and business savvy?

Comment by Coastal Ron — May 27, 2012 @ 12:45 pm

Comment by Marcel Williams — May 26, 2012 @ 4:19 am

“But NASA’s focus should continue to be on its beyond LEO architecture. And traditional NASA vendors like Boeing and Lockheed have a lot more experience in that area.”

re: Experience

That used to be said about launching med-heavy rockets, and then it was said about recoverable full-sized spacecraft. Those predictions proved to be wrong (i.e. that only large aerospace companies can do those things), and there are a number of companies that could prove that SpaceX was not an anomaly, but a new norm. I’m sure we’re all hoping that’s true, right?

Having worked for large and small hi-tech DoD contractors, I can say one of the most important assets a company can have are their employees. But employees can be hired away, as SpaceX has also shown, so I don’t see that as a barrier for beyond LEO hardware.

That being said, there is not much call for beyond LEO hardware right now, and Congress has shown no interest in funding anything to sit atop the SLS except for the MPCV. And once the MPCV flies a successful mission on a Delta IV Heavy, if the SLS hasn’t been cancelled by then that should be the final nail in it’s coffin since NASA, Boeing and ULA have proposed a number of reusable space hardware architectures that are modular enough to fit on existing rockets – no SLS needed.

I think when we look back on this year, it will be recognized as a tipping point towards lower cost spaceflight, which is what we need in order to leave LEO without a big boost in NASA’s budget. Time will tell.

Comment by Coastal Ron — May 27, 2012 @ 9:55 pm

“Distance plays into the cost equation because Distance = Time, and Time = Money”

Trip to the moon is about 3 days. LEO is hours.

So save 60 or 70 hours trip time, you’d throw away a half billion dollar vehicle?

“You’ve forgotten to add in the cost of the lunar base into your assumptions.”

You are right — I left out operating expenses. If revenues exceeded operating expenses, the 100B would eventually be recouped, how long would depend on how much it exceeds.

If revenues meet operating expenses, the 6 billion per year tax payer investment would come to an end. Unlike the open ended status quo. The existing paradigm is to keep blowing taxpayer money for eternity doing flags and footprints publicity stunts.

“And you are assuming that reusable transportation will never be perfected from the surface of the Earth to LEO.”

Not quite.

I believe the 9 km/s delta V budget plus the 8 km/s re-entry via aerobraking makes reusable too difficult.

However, a 9 km/s delta V budget plus orbital propellant to help with re-entry makes TSTO reusable vehicles quite possible, in my opinion. I said this in comment number 7.

And it was comment number 7 you responded to saying it’s cheaper to supply the second stages with propellant from earth.

Let me get this straight. In order to re-use the 2nd stage you would deliver propellant to orbit with *expendable* stages? If you’re throwing a vehicle for each reuse of your upper stage, you’re not saving any money.

Comment by Hop David — May 28, 2012 @ 5:11 pm

“And lunar extraction will be it’s own version of “NewSpace”, and will have to overcome the same perception challenges. Who will be your version of Elon Musk? Who will take the idea or theory, and make it into reality with technical competence and business savvy?”

Actually what I hope to see is retrieval and use of extra-terrestrial propellant. I happen to believe the moon is the best bet. Planetary Resources seems to believe NEAs are. Don’t know if you’ve heard of Larry Page, Lewicki et al. Try Googling them. I can assure you they have some business savvy and technical competence.

Comment by Hop David — May 28, 2012 @ 5:18 pm

Comment by Hop David — May 28, 2012 @ 5:11 pm

“So save 60 or 70 hours trip time, you’d throw away a half billion dollar vehicle?”

$500M is the price of a Delta IV Heavy when you buy one of them. If, per your example, we needed the equivalent of 200 of them (or some steady supply), the price will be driven down by a combination of volume pricing and competition.

And don’t forget that SpaceX is currently selling their Falcon Heavy for $128M, which can put double the amount of mass into LEO than Delta IV Heavy. That’s 1/9 the price/lb compared to Delta IV Heavy. If SpaceX can perfect reusability for just their 1st stage, their price drops even more.

Full reusability is the ultimate goal, but overall price is really what will drive the market for propellant, water and other space-mined resources. Just as the laws of physics don’t change when we leave the Earth, the four basic laws of supply and demand won’t change either.

Comment by Coastal Ron — May 29, 2012 @ 2:28 am

Who will take the idea or theory, and make it into reality with technical competence and business savvy?”

John Shannon proposed the shuttle derived heavy lift launch vehicle in 2009 to the Augustine commission. That proposal was IMO the golden opportunity to, using Dr. Spudis’ terms; reform our space policy and determine our strategic direction. The policy being one of pursuing BEO human spaceflight with an appropriate vehicle and the strategic direction being toward the Moon. Sadly, for reasons that will probably remain forever concealed behind closed doors this true new era, not a faux tourist slogan, was rejected. SLS is the next best hope for U.S. spaceflight. The billions poured into commercial crew are a complete waste. It is so Orwellian to read new space slogans like “rocket to nowhere” and “Space Xploration” when it is actually the junk hardware and taxpayer rip off based company that is going nowhere and definitely not exploring space.

“Full reusability is the ultimate goal, but overall price is really what will drive the market for propellant, water and other space-mined resources. Just as the laws of physics don’t change when we leave the Earth, the four basic laws of supply and demand won’t change either.”

Who says it is the ultimate goal? Reusability is a myth well known to anyone familiar with the rocket equation- despite the knee deep hype to the contrary. And what market? There is no market out there until vast governmental resources build spaceships and create colonies. The only market is for ultra-rich tourists who wish to display their obscene spending habits. The four basic laws of supply and demand have nothing to do with physics no matter how much infomercial peddlers would like to connect the two.

The private business plan for ultra rich zero gravity vacations to playboy mansions in orbit is being played to the U.S. taxpayer as something else entirely. It is NOT space exploration or space travel and it is questionable if it even qualifies for space flight anymore. It is a flim flam that will go down in history beside the weekly shuttle launches that would make it all so cheap.

There is no cheap.

Comment by GaryChurch — May 29, 2012 @ 2:07 pm

I’m a strong supporter of commercial crew development for private commercial profit based ventures. The commercial satellite industry is a perfect example of private industry taking advantage of technology originally developed by governments for government and scientific purposes.

Unfortunately, many of the advocates of commercial crew development seem to look at it as a means to destroy government space programs in order to create some sort libertarian paradise in space.

Dreams of a plutocratic solar system is not going to happen:-) Where ever people go in space, governments of the people, by the people, for the people will exist and will never tolerate a solar system ruled by plutocrats. Sorry!

Marcel F. Williams

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 29, 2012 @ 11:23 pm

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 29, 2012 @ 11:23 pm

“I’m a strong supporter of commercial crew development for private commercial profit based ventures.”

Something in common. There is hope!

“The commercial satellite industry is a perfect example of private industry taking advantage of technology originally developed by governments for government and scientific purposes.”

That’s like saying that Orville and Wilbur Wright were responsible for the Boeing 747. You’re leaving out all the contributions that have been made by the commercial world – contributions that were not primarily driven by the government.

To me, you tend to think that all innovations come directly from the government, or government funded projects. Having been in the private sector my whole life, I can tell you that is not the case. If anything, the government benefits more from the innovation in the private sector more than it drives innovation. Just look at the size of our private sector economy versus government spending in medical and technology fields. Not even close.

“Dreams of a plutocratic solar system is not going to happen:-)”

It could be argued that we already have that here in the U.S., but I digress.

517 humans from 38 countries have gone into space, and only seven (7) were millionaires that paid for their seats. Space has been, and will continue to be, a place of work for the foreseeable future – absent the few paying tourist that are allowed in LEO, and the customers of sub-orbital flights (technically reaching space). The need to form a government somewhere in space is so far in the future that it’s not worth debating.

Comment by Coastal Ron — May 30, 2012 @ 10:11 pm

Great point, Marcel!! You should re-state that one on the Spacepolitics web-site! The commercial space advocates seem to believe that they are “breaking a government monopoly”; as if the U.S. federal government has been blocking their way from flying space-craft this whole time. Trust me boys, if the commercial entities had had the ‘right stuff’ for the last thirty years, a for-profit space-flight revolution would’ve been a fait accompli ages ago! If you really stop to think about the plausible ‘history-of-the-future’, you’d realize quick that the optimum time for human spaceflight to become the domain of private corporations has just NOT arrived yet! Manned forays into space—-even to mere low earth orbit—-are just way too complex & high-risk ladened, to be handed over & trusted to the private sector. GOVERNMENT MUST LEAD THE WAY. That is why NASA still needs the Orion CEV spacecraft, and eventually the Altair L-SAM lander craft. This over-rated ‘flight of the Dragon’ is merely one of the things that could wed us to LEO exclusively for dozens of years to come: the policy-makers might now be deluded into thinking that private sector craft are now all that the country will need. This over-confidence in commercial space has its hazards.

Comment by Chris Castro — May 31, 2012 @ 6:59 am

”
THURSDAY, MAY 31, 2012
1656 GMT (12:56 p.m. EDT)
Elon Musk says recovery boats are now approaching Dragon to attach cables to the spacecraft
”

Yes!

Comment by Ron Menich — May 31, 2012 @ 1:21 pm

@Chris Castro

I believe in Commercial Crew Development. And I believe that the government should help contribute money for Commercial Crew Development. I just don’t believe that the Commercial Crew industry should be dependent on tax payer dollars for their financial survival such as using the ISS as a work-fare program for commercial crew companies.

I don’t even believe that manned spaceflight is all that expensive. We spend $30 to $70 billion a year in the US just protecting the Persian Gulf oil routes.

There are already nearly 100,000 people on the planet that could afford a $25 million flight into space. That’s a lot of potential customers that could dramatically increase demand and reduce the cost for manned spaceflight.

The problem with CCD is not that the government doesn’t believe in it, its the fact the private investors don’t believe in it and won’t invest the billions needed for commercial manned spaceflight to be truly successful beyond government needs! And these are investors that are sitting on two trillion dollars of potential investment dollars.

Marcel F. Williams

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — May 31, 2012 @ 11:13 pm

Excellent article as always Paul, with one exception:

“The word commercial has been re-branded. Previously, in most entrepreneurs’ way of thinking, “commercial” enterprise meant that a person or group drew up a business plan, raised private capital and shouldered the financial risk in an attempt to make a profit by providing a product or service. The understanding of the term “commercial space” has been stretched to encompass a business plan where a start-up company requests (and expects) government subsidies on their promise of future delivery of a product and/or service.”

The Federal government, state governments, county governments, townships, cities and towns, ALL these governments, from the almost day one in America, want businesses in their area.

The idea that almost any single business is doing it 100% on there own just does not match up with the reality of American business.

We have, in all levels of government, from federal to a towns, have given:

* Land
* Tax breaks
* Matching funds
* Free resources (timber, gravel, water et cetera)
* Labor
* Research
* Grants
* Subsidies

and the list goes on and on and this is not a new thing but has been around since we founded our Nation.

It is MORE rare that a company does every single solitiary aspect of their business on their own dime then a business that has had some sort of help along the way from some level of the governmental systems we have.

Right now businesses are hiring vets because they get a break, does that now mean any company hiring a vet is no longer commerical? How about the speedy depreciation breaks? Any company taking that break is now no longer commercial? The list of breaks for business at the Federal, State, County, city and town are so absolutely wide spread and the competiton for jobs, since the downturn, so high amoung states, you would be hard pressed to find any american company, from the mom & pop to the multinational that is not getting something.

Are all these millions of businesses no longer commercial?

Comment by Vladislaw — June 1, 2012 @ 9:19 am

> Are all these millions of businesses no longer commercial?

Or there could be the flip-side. In the past, NASA’s spacecraft have been built by non-government employees of companies who have other lines of business which are largely commercial such as launching communications satellites. So are these government or commercial companies?

In these discussions, there have always been disagreements about terminology. Endless debates have people using broad paint strokes to emphasize that nearly all space companies are in some way commercial or alternately, nearly all companies are on the government dole. The truth is that most of these companies are partly both. Yet to make no distinction between those that are more commercial versus more government dependent is to be unfair and unhelpful. There are real differences which are practically.

Whereas it is true that about half of the Falcon 9 development costs have come from NASA such that this last COTS 2/3 mission should rightly only be called “semi-commercial”, none-the-less, the fact that it was developed at about 1/3 the normal cost, didn’t involve large budget overruns (which have been common otherwise), likely will have market sustainability and hence lower ongoing costs, and shows a reasonable path forward towards heavy lift, then, whatever we may call it, we should acknowledge that this new approach is fundamentally changing access to space and likely to the rest of the solar system. Some may reject this progress based upon the government money received or the wealth of the developers or some of the future users. Regardless, we are probably seeing the beginning of lower cost access and movement through space and this should be cheered as a benefit to all space advocacy concepts. My $0.02.

Comment by JohnHunt — June 1, 2012 @ 2:17 pm

Comment by Vladislaw — June 1, 2012 @ 9:19 am

You asked the question of Dr. Spudis, but I will give you my version of an answer.

“Are all these millions of businesses no longer commercial?”

Hypothetically (and I mean hypothetically only) accepting your assertion that there are “millions” of such businesses, then those businesses are not purely commercial (didn’t any of your teachers ever tell you that just because everybody does it doesn’t make it right?)

Personally I have no objections to subsidies (even ones I might think are counterproductive) if they are done in an open above board manner. In the case of COTS (as opposed to Commercial Crew) I believe they were properly handled and I actually support the goal.

What I object to is the strident libertarian rhetoric that makes up most of the support for Commercial Space on the internet.

Marcel phrased it well in post 46 (above):
“Unfortunately, many of the advocates of commercial crew development seem to look at it as a means to destroy government space programs in order to create some sort libertarian paradise in space.”

That I consider to be dangerously counterproductive.

Comment by Joe — June 1, 2012 @ 3:38 pm

Agreed Joe, I believe that since around the 1920′s and the Robber Baron era government, at various levels, have slowly moved away from the creative destruction of capitalism as those jobs, and the economic activity and the tax base they represented, became make it or break it for some communities. Give aways to keep the local factory going was widespread.

Only in some areas and the move towards free trade has the creative destruction came back with a fury, in areas like textile mills et cetera as they moved overseas. Creative destruction usually mean’t unproductive domestic firms being replaced by domestic innovators but now labor costs, pollution costs, and regulations are the determiner.

For me, I am not about destroying government, just allowing commercial firms to handle the transportation. Like it does with every other form of transportation we utilize.

Also, it is about including outer space into our sphere of economic activity.

It is a growth area that is pretty much borderless.

Comment by Vladislaw — June 1, 2012 @ 4:21 pm

I have discussed from a NewSpace angle some of the points made here by Dr Spudis in my Astronautical Evolution blog at:
http://www.astronist.demon.co.uk/astro-ev/ae083.html

Interesting to see the term “hobby rocket” used by some of the commenters above. Though it is clearly intended to be insulting, I am sure SpaceX, Boeing, SNC, Virgin Galactic and other companies would feel honoured to be numbered among such non-space-agency “hobby” engineers as Robert H. Goddard, Wernher von Braun, and indeed the Wright brothers.

Stephen
Oxford, UK

Comment by Astronist — June 7, 2012 @ 9:43 am