AirSpaceMag.com

Sidemount broke my heart. It was the way to go throughout the shuttle program but was never funded. Instead we have tin cans going in endless circles and a HLV still years away.

Not only the Shuttle, but the decision to forgo any wet workshop development. One External Tank has far more interior space than the ISS. With a little more push (money), one afternoon would have seen a huge crew compartment in orbit.

Now the Moon is being ignored- after the critical resource to enable a self-sufficient colony is discovered. It makes one wonder if it really is all about campaign contributions and pork. If so, it is not NASA that is broken- it is democracy.

There is little doubt this administration is going to continue (I am voting for him), but their space policy is my new heartbreaker.

Comment by GaryChurch — July 2, 2012 @ 12:32 pm

Lori Garver, NASA deputy administrator, is still talking about using the SLS/MPCV to send humans to a NEO asteroid by 2025 and to Mars orbit in 2030s. So the Obama administration still refuses to acknowledge the value of a lunar outpost at one of the lunar poles for the near term utilization of the new launch system. But whether Obama wins or loses the election in 2012, his administration will definitely be gone by 2016, a year before the first unmanned version of the SLS goes into operation.

But the SLS/MPCV is really Congress’s baby since the Obama administration really never wanted the SLS/MPCV to be built in the first place. So its really up to Congress, IMO, to decide how it should be utilized.

And even if Romney is elected President, I don’t think he has the will or even the interest in NASA to oppose Congressional will on this matter– as long as NASA’s annual budget does not increase beyond current levels!

It is obviously not in the long term economic and strategic interest of the United States for foreign powers such as: China, Russia, Japan, India, or Europe to lead in establishing a permanent human presence on the lunar surface years if not decades before the US is able to do the same. And if such an event, or events, does occur, it would be one of the greatest strategic and economic blunders in the history of the United States!

But I think the days of strong Presidential leadership in space are gone! And they may have really disappeared as far back as the early 1970s after Nixon terminated NASA’s heavy lift capability and authorized the development of the Space Shuttle. And this will especially be true with the rise of private commercial space launch companies. So its going to be up to Congress, IMO, to decide where NASA goes and how involved or uninvolved private space flight companies will be in such government ventures.

Now is the time, IMO, for advocates for establishing a lunar outpost to clearly make the case to their local Congressman that the the SLS should be used to return humans to the Moon by 2020 (a year after the 50th anniversary of America’s first moon landing) to begin to establish a permanent outpost at one of the lunar poles for the exploitation of lunar ice resources and as a vital stepping stone towards a permanent human presence on the surface of Mars.

But it is extremely important that lunar advocates also point out to their Congressman that this can be done well within current NASA budget levels– if the NASA budget prioritizes the Moon as NASA’s primary goal over the next 15 years. And the $8.4 billion a year manned spaceflight related budget that President Obama inherited from George Bush is clearly more than enough to return America permanently to the surface of the Moon!

Marcel F. Williams

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — July 2, 2012 @ 2:21 pm

“-his administration will definitely be gone by 2016″

I guess you have to fight pork with pork. Get the Nuclear Industry interested in a moon base is one path that might put some money in the right pockets. Other than, I do not see any big players throwing in. Space Solar Power is not going to happen after the treasure we spent on those tin cans going nowhere. The DOD has all the cash and putting them on the spot for planetary defense and a survival colony would work if we had something bad happen with a rock or a plague. The trouble is something really bad might just do us all in. Ed Lu’s organization is supposedly going to put an infrared scope to detect threats. That’s something anyway- but definitely not leadership from the top.

Comment by GaryChurch — July 2, 2012 @ 2:36 pm

“a permanent human presence on the surface of Mars.”

Mars is a rock with a deep gravity well. Everyone seems to think it is “just close enough” for chemical propulsion. I doubt it. And if you are going to build an Atomic Spaceship (and we would have to have a moonbase to launch a nuclear mission) you might as well go someplace really interesting.
All those places are in the outer solar system.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120628190006.htm

Comment by GaryChurch — July 2, 2012 @ 2:42 pm

It all started when Kennedy made that famous announcement to go to the Moon. Since then each President has carried NASA’s direction. Its time for the US to change that so NASA can have some consistency. China whether you like or agree with how they do it, have that consistency and while they may not have reached what NASA did at their height, they will. And soon!

Comment by James — July 2, 2012 @ 5:40 pm

“The oft-quoted 30-year, $600 billion cost of SEI, repeated by the media to denigrate the effort…”

And the funny thing is, the $600B number of the time may have been right, or it may have even been low. That’s the thing, NO ONE KNOWS. No one was able to counter with an authoritative number because aerospace programs are notoriously underbid and over-spent.

The key thing though is that absent the short life of the Constellation program, Presidents and Congress have been leery of massive HSF programs. The Congress that killed the Constellation program would not have allowed it to die if there was true enthusiasm for it’s goals, but there wasn’t.

So the key takeaway is that HSF missions beyond LEO need to come down further in cost, and the amount of time needed to launch the first mission elements must be soon enough so Congress sees progress.

“President Bush did not “retire” the Shuttle – he ordered that it first be brought back to flight status (so that ISS construction could be completed) and then transitioned and replaced with new human spacecraft capable of journeys beyond LEO (which became the now-cancelled Project Constellation)”

Michael Griffin would disagree. He stated:

“Administration policy is to retire the space shuttle in 2010 and purchase crew transport from Russia until Ares and Orion are available.”

“One doesn’t assume or retain the mantle of leadership by fiat or declaration – it must be earned and exercised.”

Indeed. Which is exactly why I don’t see a big concern about China’s efforts in space. Their only firm announced goal is to have their space station operational by 2020, and they don’t even have anyone in space right now. Dreams of a race to the Moon are just that.

Comment by Coastal Ron — July 2, 2012 @ 8:06 pm

It’s a nice article by Paul but it’s worth looking a bit closer at why Constellation was canned.
Constellation was more than just 2 rockets, the Ares I and V. It was a complete system. rockets, Orion, CEV, Lander, surface habitats. The whole deal. But bit by bit all the extras were cancelled. Habitats, Altair lander, CEV. At the end the only things left were the rockets – Ares I and Ares V – and they were slipping to the right at the rate of a year per year.
So Obama appointed Norm Augustine and a committee to see what could be done. Studied were commissioned. Sally Ride (on the committee) reported the results, and videos of her presentations are all on the internet and make illuminating viewing. Dozens of architectures were examined and professionally costed by aerospace experts. None were found affordable within the existing budget. (One of the boundary conditions of the Committees work.)
In the end Augustine went way beyond his presidential mandate. He offered several options that could be actually afforded with an extra $3B a year. But without that extra $3B there were no landers, no habitats, indeed no surface missions to anywhere and most tellingly, no heavy lift.
NASA just wasn’t getting enough money.
So after Augustine, Obama proposed a budget with an extra $1B.
Congress voted it down.
But congress, knowing NASA did not have the budget to actually do it insisted NASA build a heavy lift (SLS) anyway.
But Congress did not provide the money that Augustine said would be needed.
Bolden, being a good marine has set out to do what congress has directed. Build SLS, but sensibly has chosen to cover his rear. The Booz Allen report into the affordability of SLS shows that there are holes in the budget in the 4 to 5 year time frame what will probably kill SLS.
Why?
Because at thew end of the day it’s all about the funding.
NASA doesn’t have enough money to do the things asked of it.
NASA is never going to get the extra money it would need.
Magical thinking, and belief in the tooth fairy just doesn’t cut it.
Look at the historical budget figures for NASA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget
NASA’s budget peaked during Apollo program at 4.4% of GDP. By 1975 the NASA budget was down to less than 1% and has remained essentially flat ever since gradually declining to about half a percent now.
This has been the case through all trpes of administrations. If you think it’s going to suddenly change now you’re sadly mistaken.
So can we get to the moon? I believe yes. But we need to find a cheap way to do it. Expecting a magical budget increase to full fund SLS AND fund all the other necessary infrastructure – landers, surface habitats rovers, CEVs, you name it – is magical thinking. And to repeat myself, magical thinking, and belief in the tooth fairy just doesn’t cut it.

Comment by Fred Willett — July 2, 2012 @ 11:38 pm

The long term value of Mars is the fact that it possesses all of the elements capable of sustaining human life– if it turns out that its low gravity is not inherently deleterious to humans.

I think salt (sodium chloride) and nitrogen might be potentially valuable exports from the Martian surface to cis-lunar space and even too the lunar surface.

But the real economic value of Mars is in its moon’s since water could be manufactured on Phobos and Deimos and transported to cis-lunar with relatively low delta-v requirements, especially if solar sails are utilized.

Mars orbit could also be a place for storing small NEO asteroids for the exploitation of water and hydrocarbons for eventual export back to cis-lunar space.

While NEO meteoroids (objects less than 10 meters in diameter) could be safely transported directly back to cis-lunar space, transporting small asteroids (thousands of tonnes in mass) to cis-lunar space might be too potentially dangerous to Earth for such commercial ventures.

Marcel F. Williams

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — July 3, 2012 @ 1:13 am

Fred,

A couple of responses to your comments:

Augustine went way beyond his presidential mandate. He offered several options that could be actually afforded with an extra $3B a year. But without that extra $3B there were no landers, no habitats, indeed no surface missions to anywhere and most tellingly, no heavy lift. NASA just wasn’t getting enough money.

You are correct that this was the conclusion of the Augustine committee — a wrong one. The committee was presented with plans for an affordable heavy-lift vehicle and lunar return, which was (and still is) possible under their assumed budgetary profile. They chose to ignore both of those options.

NASA doesn’t have enough money to do the things asked of it. NASA is never going to get the extra money it would need.

It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish. In regard to the VSE, the agency didn’t really know what the objective was, even after it had been spelled out for them on numerous occasions. The current budget for NASA ($17-18 billion per year) is enough to accomplish a great deal, if it is spent wisely.

Magical thinking, and belief in the tooth fairy just doesn’t cut it.

I guess you mean the “magical thinking” of the New Space crowd, who believe in launch costs of $100 per pound, $500K seats to Mars in 20 years, and that a human mission to an asteroid creates new space faring capability.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — July 3, 2012 @ 8:56 am

James Webb understood, as modern NASA managers do not, that you rarely get in trouble for delivering a system for less than the projected cost. It is ironic that the James Webb Space Telescope is more than a billion dollars over budget, with another three billion to follow.

As for the shuttle, you seem to have forgotten the speech he gave when Bush43 announced his Vision for Space Exploration:
“To meet this goal, we will return the Space Shuttle to flight as soon as possible, consistent with safety concerns and the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The Shuttle’s chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the International Space Station. In 2010, the Space Shuttle — after nearly 30 years of duty — will be retired from service.”

You are, however, correct about the need for NASA to be given a consistent, long-term plan and the funding needed to execute that plan. It is scandalous that every single new administration since Johnson has significantly changed NASA’s mission. Nixon killed Apollo (with Johnson’s help) in order to fund the Space Shuttle. Carter slowed shuttle delivery. Reagan stopped Shuttle development to build Space Station Freedom. Bush41 killed Freedom to pay for his mission to Mars. Clinton killed the Mars mission (and the SSC) to pay for the ISS and the X-33. Bush43 killed the X-33 and retired the Space Shuttle to pay for Constellation. Obama killed Constellation to pay for a trip to the asteroids. And whomever is next in office will surely kill that plan in order to fund going someplace different.

You can’t drive from NYC to Los Angeles if you change direction every ten miles, and you can’t build a sustainable space program if you change goals every four years. We need a fixed, bi-partisan, long-term goal for NASA, and we should demand it of our Congressmen, our presidents, and ourselves.

Comment by JohnD — July 3, 2012 @ 9:13 am

JohnD,

you seem to have forgotten the speech he gave

I haven’t forgotten it — my point was Bush did not “retire” the Shuttle and replace it with nothing. He retired it and replaced it with a next generation spacecraft.

We need a fixed, bi-partisan, long-term goal for NASA, and we should demand it of our Congressmen, our presidents, and ourselves.

We had one — the Vision for Space Exploration, which was endorsed in two Congressional NASA Authorizations (2005 and 2008) by overwhelming bi-partisan majorities and under the leadership of the two different parties. That long-term space goal was terminated by simple, executive fiat, without any national discussion or debate, during Obama’s speech at KSC in April, 2010.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — July 3, 2012 @ 9:45 am

Constellation was terminated by the crushing weight of heavy lift, which is utterly unnecessary and only feeds jobs programs. The only way to go forward is to cancel SLS completely over the dead bodies of congressional porksters.

Comment by Pete Zaitcev — July 3, 2012 @ 10:54 am

Comment by Coastal Ron — July 2, 2012 @ 8:06 pm

“And the funny thing is, the $600B number of the time may have been right, or it may have even been low.”

Or (as people who actually worked on the project know) it could have been significantly lower, which was the articles point.

“The key thing though is that absent the short life of the Constellation program, Presidents and Congress have been leery of massive HSF programs.”

Unless, of course, you count the Space Shuttle and Space Station programs.

“The Congress that killed the Constellation program would not have allowed it to die if there was true enthusiasm for it’s goals, but there wasn’t.”

Congress actually fought Constellations cancelation as hard as they could (in a bipartisan coalition); it was the Obama Administration that cancelled the program.

“…and they don’t even have anyone in space right now.”

But they did only a few days ago. Moreover they put those people in space with their own capabilities. The folks we have up there are placed (and returned from) there by our paying a foreign power to deliver them. A foreign power that could cut that service off at their discretion if they were to decide other issues were more urgent.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=31720

“Dreams of a race to the Moon are just that.”

So you say, but they are saying different.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/China_set_to_launch_bigger_space_programme_999.html

Comment by Joe — July 3, 2012 @ 10:56 am

Paul,

That’s what the word “retire” means – to remove from service. And that is exactly what Bush43 did. He removed the Space Shuttle from service, knowing full well that there would be a gap of several years between the end of its service and the earliest possible start of Constellation.

As for its putative replacement, Constellation was firmly fixed on going beyond LEO; Bush43 even defunded the ISS starting in 2016 in order to pay for his plan. had Bush43 instead kept the funding for the X-33, then we would not have had the “launching gap” that we now suffer and would have been able to afford both the ISS and cislunar exploration.

And the Vision for Space Exploration was never funded at the level necessary to make it anything more than a vision. That is a large part of why Constellation lagged so badly behind schedule and so far over budget (as Carter demonstrated with the Space Shuttle, the easiest way to increase a program’s cost is to drag it out).

Finally, what you dismiss as “executive fiat” was a reasoned attempt to save the program. The Augustine commission looked at all of the alternatives, including keeping Constellation. As they pointed out, unless Constellation’s funding were to be increased significantly, there was no way that the program would ever work. They provided a number of possible solutions and the president selected the one that gave the US the shortest launch gap and the most flexibility in choosing a destination. Unfortunately, the current plan for NASA is being badly compromised by pork barrel politics and the insistence on the Senate Launch System.

Comment by JohnD — July 3, 2012 @ 11:46 am

Pete,

Constellation was terminated by the crushing weight of heavy lift,which is utterly unnecessary and only feeds jobs programs.

No it wasn’t. There was an affordable HLV option (Shuttle side-mount, discussed here). If “heavy lift” is so “unnecessary” why is SpaceX doing Falcon Heavy?

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — July 3, 2012 @ 11:50 am

John,

what Bush43 did. He removed the Space Shuttle from service, knowing full well that there would be a gap of several years between the end of its service and the earliest possible start of Constellation.

Constellation was always meant to be a trans-LEO space system. The requirement that it also accommodate ISS crew rotation was added later, after the VSE was formulated.

And the Vision for Space Exploration was never funded at the level necessary to make it anything more than a vision.

Your interpretation, not a statement of objective fact. Several approaches were identified to make the VSE fit under existing budgetary limits.

The Augustine commission looked at all of the alternatives, including keeping Constellation. As they pointed out, unless Constellation’s funding were to be increased significantly, there was no way that the program would ever work.

You’re just flat wrong on this. Both an HLV and a lunar return approach that was affordable was presented to the Committee — they ignored that input. They were preoccupied with finding a way to give high cover to the administration to cancel the VSE.

the current plan for NASA is being badly compromised by pork barrel politics and the insistence on the Senate Launch System.

Well, don’t worry — Elon will have us on our way to Mars in 20 years anyway — at $500K per seat.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — July 3, 2012 @ 11:57 am

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — July 3, 2012 @ 8:56 am

“I guess you mean the “magical thinking” of the New Space crowd, who believe in launch costs of $100 per pound, $500K seats to Mars in 20 years, and that a human mission to an asteroid creates new space faring capability.”

To Fred’s point, at least there is progress on reducing costs thru non-NASA transportation systems. When was the last time the $/lb came down with a government system? Where is the incentive to lower the costs for the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket? If anything the incentive is to increase costs.

Our inability to sustain large long-term human exploration programs may be because they are truly unsustainable at this point. The only model we have that has worked in the past is the Apollo program, and that was borne of a political desire to catch up and surpass the Soviet Union in space. Cost was not the primary consideration then, but since then, without a recognized urgent need to go beyond LEO, money has been a very important.

Regarding your “magical thinking” comment, most likely you’re meaning SpaceX, since they are the only U.S. launch company focused on lowering costs (at least publicly). And compared to what other launch systems cost, they have been doing that. For instance, NASA recently purchased an Atlas V 401 for their MAVEN Mars probe at the price of $187M (includes some non-launch services). The Falcon 9 price for the same payload is advertised for $54M. No magic necessary to save $100M, and what do you think NASA could do with an extra $100M?

Congress has shown again and again that it will cancel large programs, NASA included. And we can complain that there is a lack of focus in our leadership, but there is a lack of consensus in the space community too – Spudis for the Moon, Zubrin for Mars, etc., etc.

We can complain about the present situation, or we can find ways to adapt and continue forward. I think that way includes focusing near-term on lowering the cost to access space, since that is the first major hurtle that has kept us from leaving LEO.

But I think any plan or program that doesn’t provide immediate and tangible results is truly “magical thinking”, especially if it doesn’t address the perception that space is too expensive – they will suffer the same fate as the many failed programs that have come before it.

Comment by Coastal Ron — July 3, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

Several approaches were identified to make the VSE fit under existing budgetary limits.

All of which required ridiculous assumptions in order to make them work.

Both an HLV and a lunar return approach that was affordable was presented to the Committee — they ignored that input.

No, they didn’t. They found the assumptions in the presentations to be unrealistic.

They were preoccupied with finding a way to give high cover to the administration to cancel the VSE.

Your interpretation, not a statement of objective fact.

Well, don’t worry — Elon will have us on our way to Mars in 20 years anyway — at $500K per seat.

Given that he’s already launched his rockets three times for less than a third of what just one launch of the Ares 1 would have cost, I’d say that he is on a much more sustainable path than NASA ever was. Or are you against being parsimonious with the taxpayer’s dollar?

Comment by JohnD — July 3, 2012 @ 12:33 pm

Comment by JohnD — July 3, 2012 @ 11:46 am

“As for its putative replacement, Constellation was firmly fixed on going beyond LEO; Bush43 even defunded the ISS starting in 2016 in order to pay for his plan. had Bush43 instead kept the funding for the X-33, then we would not have had the “launching gap” that we now suffer and would have been able to afford both the ISS and cislunar exploration.”

Bush43 did not have the option of “kept the funding for the X-33”. The X-33 program was canceled by the Clinton Administration primarily due to the failure of the complex Tri-Nodal Composite Tank in a pressure test.

Comment by Joe — July 3, 2012 @ 12:43 pm

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — July 3, 2012 @ 11:50 am

“If “heavy lift” is so “unnecessary” why is SpaceX doing Falcon Heavy?”

Because they are going after the Delta IV Heavy / Ariane 5 / Proton market. The extra capacity they offer (80-117,000 lbs to LEO vs 50,000 lbs) is a byproduct of their rocket design, not because the market is demanding 100,000 lb payloads to LEO.

At $128M/launch, Falcon Heavy is a bargain when compared to Delta IV Heavy (~$450M), even if you don’t use the extra capacity. And if they are able to perfect reusability with just their Falcon Heavy boosters, their price could drop even more.

SpaceX has identified existing commercial markets that will respond to significantly lower launch prices. The byproduct of their commercial capabilities is that it also lowers the cost to do government-funded exploration missions, which in the future could mean more money for exploration hardware (or better able to do any exploration on a smaller budget).

Comment by Coastal Ron — July 3, 2012 @ 12:44 pm

Comment by JohnD — July 3, 2012 @ 12:33 pm

“Several approaches were identified to make the VSE fit under existing budgetary limits.

All of which required ridiculous assumptions in order to make them work.”

Your interpretation, not a statement of objective fact.

“Both an HLV and a lunar return approach that was affordable was presented to the Committee — they ignored that input.

No, they didn’t. They found the assumptions in the presentations to be unrealistic.”

I have read the reports fairly carefully. I did not note any point where they said “the presentations” are “unrealistic”. Could you provide a link to support that statement?

“Well, don’t worry — Elon will have us on our way to Mars in 20 years anyway — at $500K per seat.

Given that he’s already launched his rockets three times for less than a third of what just one launch of the Ares 1 would have cost, I’d say that he is on a much more sustainable path than NASA ever was. Or are you against being parsimonious with the taxpayer’s dollar?”

Your interpretation, not a statement of objective fact.

Comment by Joe — July 3, 2012 @ 1:28 pm

Comment by Coastal Ron — July 3, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

“For instance, NASA recently purchased an Atlas V 401 for their MAVEN Mars probe at the price of $187M (includes some non-launch services). The Falcon 9 price for the same payload is advertised for $54M. No magic necessary to save $100M, and what do you think NASA could do with an extra $100M?”

The Falcon 9 price you quote ($54M) appears (as near as can be determined – since they do not specify) to be launch cost only.

You say the Atlas V price you quote ($187M) “includes some non-launch services”.

What are these “non-launch services” and what are the equivalent “non-launch services” costs for the Falcon 9?

When those are taken into account, what would be the savings (if any) for NASA (or any other customer)?

Comment by Joe — July 3, 2012 @ 1:49 pm

I read all of the comments, and it seems that many commentators wish to make accusations about who is to blame for the program being shut down. To me, it is all about the money, or lack of money for this space program. We are in the Great Recession. A simple solution is to modify the budget so that 2% of the military budget is applied to the space program. Reduce military spending by 2% and create a positive 2% for space exploration. What are our priorities in this country? War or peace?

Comment by Howard Johnson — July 3, 2012 @ 2:00 pm

Your interpretation, not a statement of objective fact.

that appears to be your catch-all dismissive term today. I’ll take just one, easy example to show that you are the one talking out of your hat: Falcon 9 costs.

The Falcon 9 cost $300 million to design and fly three times. The Ares 1 would have cost $1 billion per flight. $300 million is less than 1/3 of $1,000 million. Thus, my statement stands as correct.

Now let’s examine one of your assertions, that “Both an HLV and a lunar return approach that was affordable was presented to the Committee — they ignored that input.”. Here is the statement from the final report that you claim to have read carefully: “The Committee further finds that it is possible to conduct a viable exploration program with a budget rising to about $3 billion annually in real purchasing power above the FY 2010 budget profile. At this budget level, both the Moon First and the Flexible Path strategies begin human exploration on a reasonable but not aggressive timetable. The Committee believes an exploration program that will be a source of pride for the nation requires resources at such a level.”

And Joe, the X-33 was cancelled on March 1, 2001, under the Bush43 administration.

Comment by JohnD — July 3, 2012 @ 2:01 pm

President George H. W. Bush announced SEI, Clinton cancelled SEI

President George W. Bush announced VSE, President Obama terminated the VSE

What, if anything, is to be learned from these two sequences of events?

Obviously, don’t have your major NASA program be announced by a president named Bush!

Comment by Bob Steinke — July 3, 2012 @ 2:02 pm

X-33 collapsed due to technical failure – once the most complex designed packed with as many new technologies as possible was picked, this was inevitable.

In the end it would have been unable to be even Single-Stage-To-Montana.

The original DC-Y would have been a simple scale up of the DC-X, with reduced airframe weight. It might or might not been able to get to orbit as an SSTO (no payload). If it couldn’t, then either the final Delta Clipper would have been modified or would have been modified to be a TSTO with a small pop-up first stage.

This was too boring for NASA – a literal statement made by a rather well known NASA figure.

Too boring.

Comment by Malmesbury — July 3, 2012 @ 2:42 pm

Comment by JohnD — July 3, 2012 @ 2:01 pm

“Your interpretation, not a statement of objective fact.

that appears to be your catch-all dismissive term today. I’ll take just one, easy example to show that you are the one talking out of your hat: Falcon 9 costs.”

I borrowed it from you (when you were being dismissive of Dr. Spudis), glad you like it.

“The Falcon 9 cost $300 million to design and fly three times. The Ares 1 would have cost $1 billion per flight. $300 million is less than 1/3 of $1,000 million. Thus, my statement stands as correct.”

I was referring to the part of you statement (that you left out) where you said (to Dr. Spuids not me):” I’d say that he is on a much more sustainable path than NASA ever was. Or are you against being parsimonious with the taxpayer’s dollar?”. And my statement stands as correct.

“Now let’s examine one of your assertions, that “Both an HLV and a lunar return approach that was affordable was presented to the Committee — they ignored that input.””

Actually that was Dr. Spudis assertion not mine, but I agree with it.

“Here is the statement from the final report that you claim to have read carefully: “The Committee further finds that it is possible to conduct a viable exploration program with a budget rising to about $3 billion annually in real purchasing power above the FY 2010 budget profile. At this budget level, both the Moon First and the Flexible Path strategies begin human exploration on a reasonable but not aggressive timetable. The Committee believes an exploration program that will be a source of pride for the nation requires resources at such a level.””

But as Dr. Spudis noted the committee never considered the versions of the program involving the use of the Shuttle Side Mount Dual Launch Architecture (much less use of Lunar Resources). So there is nothing in the report that says those options are unrealistic.

“And Joe, the X-33 was cancelled on March 1, 2001, under the Bush43 administration.”

And John, the skids had been greased for the X-33 cancellation since the failure of the Tri-Nodal tank on November 3, 1999. That it takes a while for that kind of thing to wind its way through the system is no surprise.

As of March 1, 2001 Bush43 had been president about one month. If you want to assert he should have dived that far down into the details (to reverse a Clinton Administration decision on a relatively small project) go ahead, but that is expecting quite a bit.

Comment by Joe — July 3, 2012 @ 2:53 pm

Comment by Malmesbury — July 3, 2012 @ 2:42 pm
“X-33 collapsed due to technical failure – once the most complex designed packed with as many new technologies as possible was picked, this was inevitable.”

Absolutely correct.

“The original DC-Y would have been a simple scale up of the DC-X, with reduced airframe weight. It might or might not been able to get to orbit as an SSTO (no payload). If it couldn’t, then either the final Delta Clipper would have been modified or would have been modified to be a TSTO with a small pop-up first stage.”

The McDonnell Douglas competitor in the X-33 competition was basically the DC-Y, but was passed over for the far more challenging Lockheed Venture Star (which failed). I actually put some time in working with the DC-X people in the early 1990’s. I also doubt it could have made the required mass fraction to achieve SSTO. However its VTVL configuration would have allowed the addition of Hydrogen Drop Tanks that might have allowed it to become a good Stage and a Half to Orbit Vehicle.

Comment by Joe — July 3, 2012 @ 3:03 pm

Comment by Joe — July 3, 2012 @ 1:49 pm

“You say the Atlas V price you quote ($187M) “includes some non-launch services”.”

What are these “non-launch services” and what are the equivalent “non-launch services” costs for the Falcon 9?”

Here is what NASA said:

“The total cost value for the MAVEN launch service is approximately $187 million. This estimated cost includes the task ordered launch service for the Atlas plus additional services under other contracts for payload processing; launch vehicle integration; mission unique launch site ground support; and tracking, data and telemetry services.”

As to how much it would cost to buy the same services from SpaceX, you’ll have to ask SpaceX.

However since the Spudis-Lavoie plan assumes a price of $150M for an Atlas 401, my estimation of a $100M price difference between Falcon 9 and Atlas V 401 looks close.

As a point of interest, three years earlier that same Atlas V 401 service cost NASA $124M. And per a Spaceflight Now article last year:

“Lynn Cline, deputy associate administrator for NASA’s space operations mission directorate, told an agency advisory panel last month the cost of the Atlas 5-401 is expected to rise by 17 percent over MAVEN’s $187 million contract value for launches in 2016 and 30 percent for missions in 2018.”

NASA’s exploration ability isn’t being degraded so much by lack of budget as it is by rising costs.

If NASA changed over all their launch services to SpaceX, they could afford to fund a couple of new missions within the same budget. That won’t happen – yet. But the trend is clear, and ULA is accelerating the eventual abandonment of any orders from NASA. Why spend $100M extra to launch a mission if you don’t have to? And likely NASA won’t have to for much longer.

If ULA’s horrendous yearly price increases are not an indicator for why we haven’t been able to afford new space exploration programs, I don’t know what is.

Comment by Coastal Ron — July 3, 2012 @ 4:10 pm

“To me, it is all about the money, or lack of money for this space program- Reduce military spending by 2% and create a positive 2% for space exploration. What are our priorities in this country? War or peace?”

I agree completely. One of my favorite talking points is that we can train our young people to clear buildings with automatic weapons or we can train them to build spaceships; either way the money will get spent.

Private space advocates rely on a few worn out arguments that do not hold true. The first being that the NASA budget will never ever go up. That is an article of faith with them that the cheap and small private space program is all that matters and everything else is the enemy.
I am so tired of it.

Take a look at military spending increases and tell me federal budgets cannot go up. And there IS a valid DOD mission BEO and BELO (Beyond Earth and Lunar Orbit).

Comment by GaryChurch — July 3, 2012 @ 4:59 pm

“And if they are able to perfect reusability with just their Falcon Heavy boosters, their price could drop even more.”

truly “magical thinking”

Infomercial hype aside, the falcon “heavy” and Delta IV are not HLV’s. This misinformation deceives the public and makes the average citizen think the hobby rocket is a Saturn V.

At a thrust of around 100,000 pounds each it would take 72 merlins to equal the thrust of one 5 segment solid rocket booster. That would be a Falcon “heavy” with 144 merlins just to equal the SRB’s on the SLS, not counting what the 4 liquid hydrogen engines also produce- with much greater efficiency than Kerosene.

If SpaceX wants to decorate the sea bottom with 144 engines every time they launch more power to them. I will go with Heavy Lift components evolved and proven over a quarter century that will do the job within a few years.

Comment by GaryChurch — July 3, 2012 @ 5:14 pm

I was referring to the part of you statement (that you left out) where you said (to Dr. Spuids not me):” I’d say that he is on a much more sustainable path than NASA ever was. Or are you against being parsimonious with the taxpayer’s dollar?”. And my statement stands as correct.

Sorry, Joe; I thought that you were Spudis, based on the similarity of verbiage.

Based on your clarification, let’s check the logic. Musk has demonstrated that his rocket can carry cargo to the ISS, and has done it for less than what NASA spent in three months on Ares-1 and done it well before the first Ares cargo flight was scheduled to be launched. Thus, he has demonstrated that his path is both more affordable and faster than the Constellation path. In the real world, that makes it more sustainable. Given that my statements are backed up by facts, they are hardly merely my personal opinion.

But as Dr. Spudis noted the committee never considered the versions of the program involving the use of the Shuttle Side Mount Dual Launch Architecture (much less use of Lunar Resources). So there is nothing in the report that says those options are unrealistic.

And you are simply wrong here. From the report (p. 12): “The Shuttle-derived family consists of in-line and side-mount vehicles substantially derived from the Shuttle, thereby providing greater workforce continuity. The development cost of the more Shuttle-derived system would be lower, but it would be less capable than the Ares V family and have higher recurring costs. The lower lift capability could eventually be offset by developing on-orbit refueling.” (emphasis added)

And from the report (p. 15):
“Over many missions, a small colony of habitats would be assembled, and explorers would begin to live there for many months, conducting scientific studies and prospecting for resources to use as fuel.” (emphasis added)

As these passages demonstrate, the Augustine Commission did consider the two alternatives.

Comment by JohnD — July 3, 2012 @ 5:21 pm

Comment by Joe — July 3, 2012 @ 1:49 pm

“You say the Atlas V price you quote ($187M) “includes some non-launch services”.”

What are these “non-launch services” and what are the equivalent “non-launch services” costs for the Falcon 9?”

Here is what NASA said:

“The total cost value for the MAVEN launch service is approximately $187 million. This estimated cost includes the task ordered launch service for the Atlas plus additional services under other contracts for payload processing; launch vehicle integration; mission unique launch site ground support; and tracking, data and telemetry services.”

As to how much it would cost to buy the same services from SpaceX, you’ll have to ask SpaceX.

However since the Spudis-Lavoie plan assumes a price of $150M for an Atlas 401, my estimation of a $100M price difference between Falcon 9 and Atlas V 401 looks close.

As a point of interest, three years earlier that same Atlas V 401 service cost NASA $124M. And per a Spaceflight Now article last year:

“Lynn Cline, deputy associate administrator for NASA’s space operations mission directorate, told an agency advisory panel last month the cost of the Atlas 5-401 is expected to rise by 17 percent over MAVEN’s $187 million contract value for launches in 2016 and 30 percent for missions in 2018.”

NASA’s exploration ability isn’t being degraded so much by lack of budget as it is by rising costs.

If NASA changed over all their launch services to SpaceX, they could afford to fund a couple of new missions within the same budget. That won’t happen – yet. But the trend is clear, and ULA is accelerating the eventual abandonment of any orders from NASA. Why spend $100M extra to launch a mission if you don’t have to? And likely NASA won’t have to for much longer.

If ULA’s horrendous yearly price increases are not an indicator for why we haven’t been able to afford new space exploration programs, I don’t know what is.

Comment by Coastal Ron — July 3, 2012 @ 6:53 pm

Comment by JohnD — July 3, 2012 @ 5:21 pm
“Based on your clarification, let’s check the logic. Musk has demonstrated that his rocket can carry cargo to the ISS, and has done it for less than what NASA spent in three months on Ares-1 and done it well before the first Ares cargo flight was scheduled to be launched. Thus, he has demonstrated that his path is both more affordable and faster than the Constellation path. In the real world, that makes it more sustainable. Given that my statements are backed up by facts, they are hardly merely my personal opinion.”

Musk has yet to demonstrate that he can reliably deliver cargo to the ISS at a fixed cost, therefore your statement that “I’d say that he is on a much more sustainable path than NASA ever was. Or are you against being parsimonious with the taxpayer’s dollar?” is still an expression of faith not one of fact.

“And you are simply wrong here. From the report (p. 12): “The Shuttle-derived family consists of in-line and side-mount vehicles substantially derived from the Shuttle, thereby providing greater workforce continuity. The development cost of the more Shuttle-derived system would be lower, but it would be less capable than the Ares V family and have higher recurring costs. The lower lift capability could eventually be offset by developing on-orbit refueling.” (emphasis added)”

No you are wrong here. I am talking about the specific scenarios discussed in the commission’s analysis. They were presented with a detailed lunar return scenario (given by John Shannon) that was the most conservative in that Shannon and his team were dealing with hardware that they had literally decades worth of experience with making work. The commission did not cost the specific Side Mount SDHLV dual launch architecture presented by Shannon (they played with the Side Mount in some three launch concept – for some reason, but they never coordinated that with Shannon and his team or explained why they felt a need for three launches) but they never worked on or costed the concept that their technical experts presented them for whatever reason.

“Over many missions, a small colony of habitats would be assembled, and explorers would begin to live there for many months, conducting scientific studies and prospecting for resources to use as fuel.” (emphasis added)”

Again you are in error. Saying “prospecting for resources to use as fuel” is in no way the same thing as saying you are going to use lunar resources and the use of lunar resources was never considered in the commissions costing.

“As these passages demonstrate, the Augustine Commission did consider the two alternatives.”

Your two passages in fact demonstrate precisely the opposite of what you assert.

Comment by Joe — July 3, 2012 @ 7:20 pm

Comment by GaryChurch — July 3, 2012 @ 5:14 pm

“Infomercial hype aside, the falcon “heavy” and Delta IV are not HLV’s.”

Depends on whose definition you use. The minimum threshold for Super Heavy Lift Vehicles (S-HLV) defined in the Augustine report of 2009 is 50,000 kg to low-Earth orbit.

So the SLS would be a S-HLV, and Delta IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy would be HLV’s. Falcon 9 and the smaller variants of Atlas V are Medium-heavy lifters.

Generically I have called the SLS an HLV – who really cares? The public sure doesn’t.

“If SpaceX wants to decorate the sea bottom with 144 engines every time they launch more power to them. I will go with Heavy Lift components evolved and proven over a quarter century that will do the job within a few years.”

Funny how you deride the efforts of SpaceX to attempt reusability, but you’re OK with “decorating the sea bottom” with the 100% non-reusable SLS.

The more we throw away, the more it costs us to explore. If we don’t start figuring out reusability, both in transportation and space hardware in general, then we’ll never be able to afford to go very far.

Comment by Coastal Ron — July 3, 2012 @ 7:42 pm

Comment by Joe — July 3, 2012 @ 1:49 pm

“You say the Atlas V price you quote ($187M) “includes some non-launch services”.”

What are these “non-launch services” and what are the equivalent “non-launch services” costs for the Falcon 9?”

Here is what NASA said:

“The total cost value for the MAVEN launch service is approximately $187 million. This estimated cost includes the task ordered launch service for the Atlas plus additional services under other contracts for payload processing; launch vehicle integration; mission unique launch site ground support; and tracking, data and telemetry services.”

As to how much it would cost to buy the same services from SpaceX, you’ll have to ask SpaceX.

However since the Spudis-Lavoie plan assumes a price of $150M for an Atlas 401, my estimation of a $100M price difference between Falcon 9 and Atlas V 401 looks close.

As a point of interest, three years earlier that same Atlas V 401 service cost NASA $124M. And per a Spaceflight Now article last year:

“Lynn Cline, deputy associate administrator for NASA’s space operations mission directorate, told an agency advisory panel last month the cost of the Atlas 5-401 is expected to rise by 17 percent over MAVEN’s $187 million contract value for launches in 2016 and 30 percent for missions in 2018.”

NASA’s exploration ability isn’t being degraded so much by lack of budget as it is by rising costs.

Comment by Coastal Ron — July 3, 2012 @ 11:09 pm

“If we don’t start figuring out reusability, both in transportation and space hardware in general, then we’ll never be able to afford to go very far.”

Reusability is a myth- there is no cheap. If we don’t start accepting that we will not go very far. Funny how you deride the “senate Launch system” and call it “hideously expensive” when the fuel depot miracle is decades away (if ever) and the Falcon has zero ability to send a worthwhile payload BEO. That is not going very far.

Comment by GaryChurch — July 3, 2012 @ 11:14 pm

“HSF missions beyond LEO need to come down further in cost, and the amount of time needed to launch the first mission elements must be soon enough so Congress sees progress”

Yes, so we need a plan which has a low overall cost, multiple inexpensive steps, is technically viable, is making undeniable progress, and which is bringing real value. Previous efforts have failed in one or more of these areas.

If the SLS begins slipping too far in budget or schedule, there will be both a crisis and opportunity. Many will seriously question whether-or-not America has the ability any more to do great things in space if we cannot complete a reduced cost, legacy-derived, government HLV without even the expense of additional hardware such as a lander. An alternate path of another new government HLV will not be an option at that point.

The Flexible Path, a manned mission to an asteroid, Phobos, Mars, all of this would necessarily be on the chopping block. It could be a real crisis in confidence with a lot of soul searching.

Even with this scenario, America will not easily give up its HSF leadership. True, NASA’s budget would still be large and much could be accomplished if it were spent wisely. So such a moment ripe for a fundamental transformation in America’s space program. America would be fighting for it’s reputation vis-a-vis it’s space program and preserving jobs or even preserving former HLV capability will not cut it any more. But given the likely budgetary environment, the country will be reticent to increase NASA’s budget.

At that moment, it will matter whether SpaceX will have successfully launched the Falcon Heavy and a manned F9 mission to the ISS. If so, the launcher question will be decided. Two Falcon Heavies give enough capability for manned BEO missions at a fraction of the cost of the SLS.

Then what will matter is what strategy should that capability be put towards. I believe that the apparent answer will be a Spudis-Lavoie-like program but at reduced cost.

Comment by DougSpace — July 4, 2012 @ 2:17 am

Paul,
Thanks for your response. I agree with some of what you said. Yes, $17B or so is a lot of money and spent wisely it is more than enough for a really good lunar program, but no, I don’t think new space is engaged in magical thinking. Their steps are small, but they have business plans all based on the power of the market. If they guess right about the market they make money and go on. If they get it wrong they go out of business. There’s nothing magical about the power of the market. This is the process that has made the US great and it is reasonable to suppose that the same market processes might be enough to get us out into space in a serious and sustainable way.
The magical thinking is, I believe, by those who think Heavy Lift – by itself – is somehow a panacea that cures all ills. If we just build our big rocket (SLS or whatever) then, somehow, “magically” we will be setting up shop on the moon, Mars and points beyond. Without directing a fair proportion of the budget to lunar infrastructure the rocket, by itself, achieves nothing. This, unfortunately, is the program we have at the moment from NASA.
All rocket. No infrastructure.
As The Augustine committee observed:
“NASA’s fundamental budgetary conundrum: Within the
current structure of the budget, NASA essentially has the
resources either to build a major new system or to operate
one, but not to do both. This is the root cause of the gap in
capability of launching crew to low-Earth orbit under the
current budget and will likely be the source of other gaps
in the future.”
What NASA needs is a budget plan that includes both rocket and infrastructure. If the rocket is so big that it eats all the infrastructure budget then what’s the point? The current budget reality is that there is no prospect of a budget increase for infrastructure. Therefore NASA’s plan (big rocket only) involves magical thinking.
Another form of magical thinking is to believe that after decades of gradually declining budgets NASA might suddenly get an increase in its budget to 2% of GDP.
But as you said $17B is a lot of money. Let NASA work on a sensible program that,
1/ Fits in its budget.
2/ Gets us somewhere.
The ULA architecture for example uses existing EELVs puts people in bases on the moon and does it within existing NASA budgets.
see http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
that’s a good place to start.

Comment by Fred Willett — July 4, 2012 @ 4:11 am

Musk has yet to demonstrate that he can reliably deliver cargo to the ISS at a fixed cost, therefore your statement that “I’d say that he is on a much more sustainable path than NASA ever was. Or are you against being parsimonious with the taxpayer’s dollar?” is still an expression of faith not one of fact.

So you assert that Falcon, which has demonstrated its ability to deliver to the ISS and LEO is not proven, but that NASA’s new rockets which haven’t even made it to space are proven? What an unusual way of defining “sustainability”.

Here’s how the rest of the world defines it: a project is sustainable only if it works and it costs less than what you currently use. Falcon 9 works and it will delivery 13,000 kg to LEO for $27 million ($950/lb to LEO). If the SLS ever flies, it will cost a minimum of $8,500/lb to LEO . Given that the NASA program is ten times more expensive than the private one and that the private program has already flown while the NASA program is at least five years away from launch, my statement stands as correct.

No you are wrong here. I am talking about the specific scenarios discussed in the commission’s analysis.

I find it interesting that every time your assertions are shown to be erroneous, you change your statement to make it different. The claim that you made was that the Augustine Commission “never considered the versions of the program involving the use of the Shuttle Side Mount Dual Launch Architecture (much less use of Lunar Resources)”; the quotes provided show that they did indeed consider those possibilities. That the two options never made it into the final list of scenarios indicates that the Augustine Commission felt that neither Shuttle Side Mount Dual Launch Architecture nor Lunar Resources provided sufficient advantage to be in the final list. You may feel that they were in error on this, but it does not mean that they didn’t do their homework. Indeed, if you were to check their homework, you would see that they did detailed investigation of both the Shuttle-derived vehicles and lunar resources.

Again you are in error. Saying “prospecting for resources to use as fuel” is in no way the same thing as saying you are going to use lunar resources and the use of lunar resources was never considered in the commissions costing.

So now you claim that lunar resources don’t need to be found? Or are you claiming that fuel is not a resource? In either case, you are simply wrong once more.

Comment by JohnD — July 4, 2012 @ 11:53 am

“If we just build our big rocket (SLS or whatever) then, somehow, “magically” we will be setting up shop on the moon,”

Yes, that is pretty much how it works. Without the SLS we are not going anywhere except in circles. The only place we can go with chemical propulsion is the moon- where we can prepare nuclear missions outbound.

The big rocket IS the magic.

Comment by GaryChurch — July 4, 2012 @ 1:50 pm

“Two Falcon Heavies give enough capability for manned BEO missions at a fraction of the cost of the SLS.”

That might happen in a couple decades at the rate they are going; SLS is a few years away. The ULA architecture has the same problem as the cheaper smaller SpaceX advertisements; it will not work. It did not work in the 1960′s, it did not work with the shuttle, and it is not going to work now. There is no cheap and there is no substitute for a HLV with hydrogen upper stages.

Comment by GaryChurch — July 4, 2012 @ 4:38 pm

“One doesn’t assume or retain the mantle of leadership by fiat or declaration – it must be earned and exercised. Perhaps the real issue is not whether NASA is up to the task but rather, whether we as Americans are blind to the truth, unable to recognize that by having our nation withdraw from this arena, that we are retreating from our position, thereby ceding our prosperity, leadership and greatness to other nations who do have the will and the vision to press forward.”

Well you favored SLS. I don’t think SLS is the droids we looking for.
What NASA needs to do is re-organize it’s robotic program.
That should be it’s highest priority.
But in terms of robotic missions in general, NASA is doing fairly well [in terms of global leadership]. The priority would be direction and focus of robotic missions, and increased funding as it becomes more orientated towards lunar exploration [and asteroid and Mars, but mainly lunar near term].
In terms Manned, NASA should still focused on ISS, and longer term have a path to hand over ISS to *not NASA*.
And in terms of manned human and ISS, NASA is showing global leadership.

In terms manned lunar exploration. First exploration is about gaining knowledge. Exploration leads to scientific and technology *evolution*. NASA needs to get better with how deals with information. This should not be costly, though will take time and effort- and leadership.
Next, need to establish operational capability in regards to fuel depots. My guess is SLS is politically interfering with this. And because the fuel depot architecture is regarded as a threat to SLS program. It’s not excuse but I think it’s a factor, which should pushed thru despite any political push back.
Perhaps manned should looking get robotic on board in terms being the necessary steps before lunar manned.
So need manned lunar exploration funding, but first part this manned program is the robotic aspect, and having robotic as part of manned thru completion of manned program.

Comment by gbaikie — July 5, 2012 @ 5:54 am

gbalkie,

Well you favored SLS.

I have taken no position whatsoever on SLS. I favored development of the Shuttle side-mount as the quickest, cheapest route to a useable heavy-lift launch vehicle.

But in terms of robotic missions in general, NASA is doing fairly well

Tell that to the planetary science community, who are currently looking at a 20% reduction over the next five years. The James Webb telescope currently costs $8 billion (and climbing), hardly a testimonial to the “wellness” of the robotic spaceflight program.

need to establish operational capability in regards to fuel depots. My guess is SLS is politically interfering with this. And because the fuel depot architecture is regarded as a threat to SLS program

Fuel depots are simply an implementation choice, not a panacea for all space transportation problems. The value of depots largely manifests itself with propellant supply from off-Earth sources, either the Moon or asteroids. A propellant depot supplied totally by Earth-based launch is either a solution for trans-LEO missions (if you don’t have a heavy-lift vehicle) or cache station if “commercial” launch becomes really cheap. The best launch cost today is about $5000 per kg to LEO. Despite the New Space propaganda, I doubt that number will decline very much, perhaps by a factor of two or three, but certainly not by an order of magnitude. At such Earth-to-LEO launch costs, an SLS delivery could probably beat the cost of a depot supplied by smaller (Falcon 9-class) propellant suppliers, certainly for a human Mars mission and perhaps even for a lunar one.

but first part this manned program is the robotic aspect, and having robotic as part of manned thru completion of manned program.

That is exactly what we have been proposing.

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — July 5, 2012 @ 9:53 am

The big rocket IS the magic.

Could you expand on this, please? What specifically is the “magic” that makes the much higher price tag for the SLS worth it?

Comment by JohnD — July 5, 2012 @ 10:15 am

Comment by JohnD — July 4, 2012 @ 11:53 am
“So you assert that Falcon, which has demonstrated its ability to deliver to the ISS and LEO is not proven, but that NASA’s new rockets which haven’t even made it to space are proven?”

No I assert that they have yet to demonstrate that they can routinely duplicate the feat within the fixed cost they have signed on to. There is a difference and unless/until they can do so your statement is one of faith not fact.

“What an unusual way of defining “sustainability”.”
“Here’s how the rest of the world defines it: a project is sustainable only if it works and it costs less than what you currently use. Falcon 9 works and it will delivery 13,000 kg to LEO for $27 million ($950/lb to LEO). If the SLS ever flies, it will cost a minimum of $8,500/lb to LEO .”

If by “Falcon 9 works” you mean it (once – on a test flight which it received considerable NASA software support to achieve) delivered 1,200 lbs. (at undisclosed total cost) to the ISS you are correct. The rest of your statement that “will delivery 13,000 kg to LEO for $27 million” is a statement of faith not fact. By the way Space X is currently advertising the cost of a Falcon 9 launch as $54M, so I do not know where you got the $27M figure.

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/22/153308652/although-private-spacex-still-involved-with-nasa

“I find it interesting that every time your assertions are shown to be erroneous, you change your statement to make it different. The claim that you made was that the Augustine Commission “never considered the versions of the program involving the use of the Shuttle Side Mount Dual Launch Architecture (much less use of Lunar Resources)”; …”

My original statement was (as you quote): The Commission “never considered the versions of the program involving the use of the Shuttle Side Mount Dual Launch Architecture (much less use of Lunar Resources)”. I changed nothing. The commission (for whatever reason) never costed the Dual Launch Architecture and nothing in the quotes you selected shows anything different.

“So now you claim that lunar resources don’t need to be found? Or are you claiming that fuel is not a resource? In either case, you are simply wrong once more.”

No, I am saying that the Commission never costed any scenario involving the use of lunar resources. They did not, and nothing in the quotes you selected shows anything different.

Comment by Joe — July 5, 2012 @ 10:42 am

“No I assert that they have yet to demonstrate that they can routinely duplicate the feat within the fixed cost they have signed on to. There is a difference and unless/until they can do so your statement is one of faith not fact.”

They are bound by contract to NASA for ISS delivery. They cannot raise prices post contract. They can only go bankrupt if they miss estimate or increase prices in future contracts. You may question their launch tempo, but so far Falcon 9 is 3 for 3 and they seem to have rendezvous solved.

Comment by pathfinder_01 — July 5, 2012 @ 12:13 pm

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — July 5, 2012 @ 9:53 am

“The best launch cost today is about $5000 per kg to LEO.”

Falcon 9 v1.1 (flight #6 and beyond), which has been purchased by many customers, offers $4,106 per kg to LEO. Falcon Heavy, which a commercial customer has purchased, drops that down to about $2,400 per kg to LEO.

“I doubt that number will decline very much, perhaps by a factor of two or three, but certainly not by an order of magnitude.”

Considering that ULA has been upping their prices by double digits (see comment #33 above), I’d say that reducing prices by a similar rate is cause for celebration.

As to how quickly prices need to drop, I’d say no one knows. What would the market response be if launch costs were half of what they are today?

Would commercial satellite owners build larger satellites or pocket the savings?

Would it allow NASA to do more missions, or is the cost of the mission hardware plus the operations costs really what is keeping us from affordable exploration?

Ignoring the merits of the various plans and “visions”, the common thread for why they were eventually ignored, killed off or cancelled was because they were perceived to be too costly. Ignoring that as one of the primary reasons for “Failure To Launch” syndrome will only lead to more heartache.

That is why I celebrate and support those companies that are making progress lowering the cost to access and do things in space. Not all may succeed, but those that do will likely lead to dramatic reductions in cost and leadtime for future space exploration – and I don’t see any such leaps in improvement coming out of Congressionally-controlled NASA programs.

Comment by Coastal Ron — July 5, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

“ The best launch cost today is about $5000 per kg to LEO. Despite the New Space propaganda, I doubt that number will decline very much, perhaps by a factor of two or three, but certainly not by an order of magnitude. At such Earth-to-LEO launch costs, an SLS delivery could probably beat the cost of a depot supplied by smaller (Falcon 9-class) propellant suppliers, certainly for a human Mars mission and perhaps even for a lunar one.”

Actually Falcon 9 is at 4,100ish per kg and FH is estimated to deliver at $2,000 per kg. At 130MT it would take 14 falcon 9 current version, 10 ver. 1.1, or about 2FH plus one more launcher to match an SLS.

At $54 million it would cost $756 million bucks to lift 130 tons today using Falcon 9.

At $59 millon(rumored price of future launches…inflation) it would cost $590 million.

At 128 million(current offing price of FH) it would cost 384 million and you would have an extra 20 tons to spare.

SLS is estimated to cost about $1.5 billion a launch:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1979/1

And launch 1-2 times a year at most:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/07/preliminary-nasa-evolved-sls-vehicle-21-years-away/

oh and all three launchers are either ready now, will be ready next year(ver. 1.1), will be ready no later than 2014(FH). SLS will not reach 130 tons till the 2020ies. Even if you double all the prices for spacecraft development(doubtful) you would still be ahead.

Comment by pathfinder_01 — July 5, 2012 @ 12:46 pm

“What specifically is the “magic” that makes the much higher price tag for the SLS worth it?”

LEO is not space exploration. It is not space travel. It may have qualified as space flight at one time but not anymore. It is endless circles at very high altitude. If any achievement deserves the “been there” scoff it is LEO.

Human beings left Earth at 24,200 mph (38,938 km/hr) in December of 1968. In December of 1972 we returned and have not gone back. We did continue Heavy Lift launches with the Space Shuttle- but the STS did not launch humans beyond earth orbit. Due to lack of funding the Shuttle regrettably launched a hundred tons of wings, landing gear, and never full cargo bay over one hundred times so they could come right back. What little stayed up there at very high altitude going in circles is that higher price tag you are talking about.

To expand the human race into the solar system requires nuclear energy. We will not be assembling, testing, and lighting off any nuclear systems in LEO. We do however have a human rated capsule with a powerful escape system almost ready that is suitable for transporting fissionables directly to the Moon- where we can assemble, test, and light off nukes. To send that capsule directly to the moon, and the human beings to construct a base that can support a nuclear mission, we need an HLV with hydrogen upper stages. The hydrogen upper stages are what made Apollo successful by making a heavy payload go fast. That vehicle is a few years away and sooner with more money.

The DOD has vast resources it expends on weapons that do not protect us from two clear and present dangers; impacts and plagues. I often give examples on this site of “cold war toys” that are “hideously expensive” and do not seem to work right or do anything magical. That big rocket is the magic that will open the solar system to human colonization. Private space efforts are not capable of making any of it happen. This is why I consider the whole “new space” movement as being essentially rich hobbyists selling tourist trips.

My thoughts on this “narrow and inflexible path” are based largely on the work of Freeman Dyson and Eugene Parker- and the discovery of millions of tons of water on the Moon. Dr. Spudis disagrees with much of my reasoning but posts my opinions- which I greatly appreciate.

Comment by GaryChurch — July 5, 2012 @ 12:56 pm

Comment by pathfinder_01 — July 5, 2012 @ 12:13 pm

“They are bound by contract to NASA for ISS delivery. They cannot raise prices post contract. They can only go bankrupt if they miss estimate or increase prices in future contracts. You may question their launch tempo, but so far Falcon 9 is 3 for 3 and they seem to have rendezvous solved.”

They “solved rendezvous” with a considerable amount of NASA help (especially in the flight software area) at unknown additional cost.

As far as their going bankrupt if they “miss estimate or increase prices in future contracts” is concerned. Will they really? If they have eliminated all other domestic competition (which certainly seems to be their goal) then what happens to the rest of the American Program. Won’t they have become – Too big to fail.

Comment by Joe — July 5, 2012 @ 1:13 pm

“ As far as their going bankrupt if they “miss estimate or increase prices in future contracts” is concerned. Will they really? If they have eliminated all other domestic competition (which certainly seems to be their goal) then what happens to the rest of the American Program. Won’t they have become – Too big to fail”

Nope, one of the joys of capitalism. If there are profits to be made, competition will arise. ULA may lower its prices to respond. Orbital isn’t barred from either lowering its prices or building bigger rockets. A good example might be the model T. Gm acquired Chevy and set it to be the Model T’s completion. The barrier to enter is low enough that even a billionaire with little rocket experience managed to enter this market. When you prop up companies or old ways of doing things(see NASA launcing) is when they become too big to fail, but often too big to fail means too over bloated to succeed. [See British layland ]

I don’t think we should hand the whole market over to Space X, but the one of the advantage is that with a prop depot(or just going commercial in general) is that others could enter and bid for the work (which would give Space X, a taste of its own medicine and lower prices further). ULA for instance offered to launch Orion for 300 million a pop in 2008(after 1.5 for man rating) if NASA would commit to nine flights.

Anyway if going depot centric you would bid but not give all flights to one company. So you would do 1 Delta launches at 25T each, and you would do 2FH launch at 50tons, Five tons you could give to Orbital. If ULA or Orbital lowers their price per amount delivered they gain more launches(i.e. take 1 from ULA or Space X give to Orbital).

Comment by pathfinder_01 — July 5, 2012 @ 2:30 pm

path,

At $54 million it would cost $756 million bucks to lift 130 tons today using Falcon 9. At $59 millon(rumored price of future launches…inflation) it would cost $590 million. At 128 million(current offing price of FH) it would cost 384 million and you would have an extra 20 tons to spare. SLS is estimated to cost about $1.5 billion a launch:

All these numbers are rough estimates, not real operational costs because neither Falcon Heavy nor SLS yet exist. Moreover, “space access” costs are not simply dollars per kilogram for launch, but also must include integration costs on the ground and/or in orbit. Scheduling and logistics of handling 10+ Falcon 9 launches are formidable.

In short, I do not accept your analysis because nobody really knows the true costs of a depot-based Falcon 9-supplied architecture. Both Falcon Heavy and SLS are paper rockets at the moment (except that SLS has more flight heritage.)

Comment by Paul D. Spudis — July 5, 2012 @ 2:38 pm

Comment by pathfinder_01 — July 5, 2012 @ 2:30 pm

““ As far as their going bankrupt if they “miss estimate or increase prices in future contracts” is concerned. Will they really? If they have eliminated all other domestic competition (which certainly seems to be their goal) then what happens to the rest of the American Program. Won’t they have become – Too big to fail”

Nope, one of the joys of capitalism. If there are profits to be made, competition will arise. ULA may lower its prices to respond. “

What would ULA be responding to, Space X new higher prices? Is so why are they not lowering their prices now in response to Space X current lower price claims?

Additionally, will there still be a ULA after a few years of Space X claims winning them contracts they may not be able to deliver on.

I really wish (you have no idea how much) that the space market were large enough to fir into the neat simple ECO 101 law of supply and demand you are trying to use on it, but it just is not.

Comment by Joe — July 5, 2012 @ 2:45 pm

Comment by Coastal Ron — July 3, 2012 @ 6:53 pm
“What are these “non-launch services” and what are the equivalent “non-launch services” costs for the Falcon 9?”
- payload processing
- launch vehicle integration
- mission unique launch site ground support
- tracking, data and telemetry services

As to how much it would cost to buy the same services from SpaceX, you’ll have to ask SpaceX.”

That is lengthy list. I can tell you from Shuttle experience that payload processing and launch vehicle integration are not trivial. The real question is does Space X supply these services at all or do they expect the customer to provide them from some other source and at what cost.

“However since the Spudis-Lavoie plan assumes a price of $150M for an Atlas 401, my estimation of a $100M price difference between Falcon 9 and Atlas V 401 looks close.”

How do you know your estimation “looks close” when you just acknowledged you do not know what ULAs costs are or what Space X cost might be. I could take your suggestion and “ask Space X”, but we both know that is a facetious comment as they are not going to tell anyone (assuming they know themselves).

“NASA’s exploration ability isn’t being degraded so much by lack of budget as it is by rising costs.

If NASA changed over all their launch services to SpaceX, they could afford to fund a couple of new missions within the same budget. That won’t happen – yet. But the trend is clear, and ULA is accelerating the eventual abandonment of any orders from NASA. Why spend $100M extra to launch a mission if you don’t have to? And likely NASA won’t have to for much longer.

If ULA’s horrendous yearly price increases are not an indicator for why we haven’t been able to afford new space exploration programs, I don’t know what is.”

Really? Suppose those alleged rising costs are in the area of the ancillary services you so cavalierly dismiss? Then what?

Comment by Joe — July 5, 2012 @ 3:20 pm

Space X has a $1.6 billion contract to haul cargo to the ISS in 12 flights. The Falcon 9 lifts approximately 10.4 tonnes of payload per flight. So Space X is charging NASA $1.6 billion to place about $125 tonnes into orbit. That’s $12.8 million per tonne.

We don’t know what a 130 tonne SLS will cost because we don’t know what the advanced side mounted boosters are going to be. The only SLS configurations we know about are those that use an upper stage with the core stage and two 5 segment solid rocket boosters which should be able to carry about 118 tonnes to LEO with an upper stage.

SLS launches will depend on how frequently its used. Launching it only twice a year cost about twice as much per launch as launching it 6 times per year.

According to NASA, a four launch scenario for the side mount cost about $800 million per launch (non commercial) with an upper stage, $550 per launch, commercial. NASA estimated that an SLS configuration would increase launch cost by 110% ($880 million per launch). So the SLS would be able to place about 118 tonnes into LEO using 5 SRBs and an upper stage for about $880 million per launch (non commercial). That’s $7.4 million per tonne. However, a six launch scenario would reduce cost per launch to $660 million. That’s only $5.6 million per tonne.

Two manned lunar missions alone would probably require four SLS launches per year until a reusable LOX/LH2 lunar lander could finally utilize fuels manufactured on the lunar surface. Perhaps only six SLS launches (5 manned and one unmanned (reusable lunar lander (used 5 times)) over two and a half years. Lunar base machinery and habitats would probably add at least two to four launches per year.

So lunar outpost missions would require a high demand for SLS launches which should result in low recurring cost. And the annual recurring cost should be well within NASA’s $8.4 billion a year manned spaceflight related budget.

References:

Deep Space Operations Enabled By A Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle – SpaceOps 2010 Conference

Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle Study – National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2010

Marcel F. Williams

Comment by Marcel F. Williams — July 5, 2012 @ 3:30 pm

“Fuel depots are simply an implementation choice, not a panacea for all space transportation problems.”

Fuel depots are a panacea.

“The value of depots largely manifests itself with propellant supply from off-Earth sources, either the Moon or asteroids.”

Fuel depots are further enhanced by off-earth sources.
Fuel depots are step towards off-Earth sources. Establishing fuel depots are a step towards creating a market, and already having this market, makes investing in lunar water mining more plausible.
The biggest barrier to lunar water mining is the lack of enough market. Having some Fuel depots by themselves are not enough market, but they are non-zero market, which could possibly be increased.
Fuel depots are land line phones to the cell phone market- at least people know what a phone is.
Having some fuel depots, the question isn’t can you refuel spacecraft, the question becomes what is the cheapest source of rocket fuel.
Or the cost of rocket fuel in space, doesn’t matter much at this point, what matters is the availability of any rocket fuel in space.

“A propellant depot supplied totally by Earth-based launch is either a solution for trans-LEO missions (if you don’t have a heavy-lift vehicle) or cache station if “commercial” launch becomes really cheap.”

The major significant of “propellant depot supplied totally by Earth-based launch” is it is the cheapest way to start a rocket fuel market in space. In terms of CATS, it’s about acessible rather than cheap. It would be cheaper, but not as important as accessible.

Or not having fuel depots is an unreasonable way to explore space. Or not having fuel depots is an unreasonable way to operate a satellite market. Not having fuel depot is an unnecessary challenge of operating anything in the space environment.
We may be accustomed to this shortcoming, but that no reason to continue in the direction of not having fuel depots.

“The best launch cost today is about $5000 per kg to LEO. Despite the New Space propaganda, I doubt that number will decline very much, perhaps by a factor of two or three, but certainly not by an order of magnitude.”

It’s not about how cheap you make rockets and/or how good you are at making rockets, cost of launch is dependent on size of launch market.

“At such Earth-to-LEO launch costs, an SLS delivery could probably beat the cost of a depot supplied by smaller (Falcon 9-class) propellant suppliers, certainly for a human Mars mission and perhaps even for a lunar one.”

Apollo was the cheapest way to land humans of the Moon, this doesn’t mean one should repeat Apollo.

It’s this way, everyone knows the ultimate goal in regards to space exploration and everything NASA does is getting to the point where there are more markets in space.
The argument is how to get to this point.
Or Moon and/or Mars colonies are markets. A settlement is a market. That someone could get a job doing something on moon is a market.
We already have one market is space, it’s the satellite market. The Economist made the wrong conclusion, when it said that the satellite market is all which really important about space. But not wrong about the importance of the satellite market.
“The future, then, looks bounded by that new outer limit of planet Earth, the geostationary orbit. Within it, the buzz of activity will continue to grow and fill the vacuum. ”
http://www.economist.com/node/18897425

But in regard to moon or mars, starting a markets is usually seen as last stages, “market come later”.
Which is wrong.
The focus from beginning should be on starting markets- that “tells you” where to start. And it’s why we should start with the Moon.
But before the Moon, we need rocket fuel depot market.

Comment by gbaikie — July 5, 2012 @ 5:06 pm

“-the advantage is that with a prop depot”

Besides that first worn-out argument of screaming it costs too much and that the HSF spaceflight budget will never ever go up, the second most often used prop to private space arguments is the propellant depot. Such a thing does not exist, unlike the HLV has never existed, and is as far away as nuclear propulsion from being created. The difficulties with storing and transferring liquid hydrogen in space are…..extremely understated.

Using storable propellant depots results in Battlestar Galactica Earth Departure Stages. Any kind of Rendezvous is not going to help a BEO mission succeed; relying on transferring fuel and a rendezvous is completely inefficient compared to the original and best solution- an HLV with hydrogen upper stages.

I think is interesting that what all these SpaceX fans are arguing for is not going to the moon- which is what this forum is about. They are all about their own fantasy of going on a space station vacation to the playboy mansion in the sky with Elon.

Comment by GaryChurch — July 5, 2012 @ 5:44 pm

-But in terms of robotic missions in general, NASA is doing fairly well

“Tell that to the planetary science community, who are currently looking at a 20% reduction over the next five years. The James Webb telescope currently costs $8 billion (and climbing), hardly a testimonial to the “wellness” of the robotic spaceflight program.”

The NASA “robotic” program is not correctly focused. Webb is like the Hubble. People like the Hubble. People are wrong.
The main problem with Hubble or Webb is the telescope are too dinky. I could support a bigger telescope, but not at this point in time, there are higher priorities.

Now, if instead NASA spent 8 billion on lunar related robotic exploration, that would certainly be better than Webb.
One could say that the NASA robotic program has lost focus, because of the failure of the manned program going in the right direction.
So NASA has screwed up over the last 20 or 30 years- that is a given. But if one makes the the assumption that the direction of robotic program is the general direction desired, then NASA has done quite well in terms of it’s robotic program as compared with the world.
The tiny effort that defense department made with Clementine, has resulted in much current interest of the Moon by NASA and other countries. I think Chinese would not going to the Moon, without US leadership in terms of it’s robotic program.
One say that Japanese paid attention to America and British efforts in regard to using aircraft in naval warfare. The Japanese paid more attention. Same with China, they correctly paying attention to Clementine, and Prospector, etc than US is.

Comment by gbaikie — July 5, 2012 @ 5:55 pm

Comment by Joe — July 5, 2012 @ 3:20 pm

“I can tell you from Shuttle experience that payload processing and launch vehicle integration are not trivial.”

No doubt, but a Falcon 9 is not the Shuttle, which was a jack-of-all-trades vehicle. And I doubt the Shuttle payload processing and launch vehicle integration processes were the epitomes of efficiency when compared to pure commercial ones.

Don’t you think that if SpaceX were gouging the customer for incidental costs like payload processing and launch vehicle integration that someone would point that fact out publicly? You’re not the only one that is a SpaceX devils advocate – you know that, right?

“How do you know your estimation “looks close” when you just acknowledged you do not know what ULAs costs are or what Space X cost might be.”

There is certainly a lot of opaqueness to launch prices in the launch industry, and ULA has been criticized for not even being able to explain their costs to government, much less their pricing. That’s why SpaceX advertising the basic price of their rockets is so refreshing.

So what to do. Ignore launch costs? No, they are too expensive to ignore. So what I do is to try and find apples-to-apples comparisons where possible, but where they are not clearly defined I’ll use the generic launch price quoted.

But really Joe, are you complaining that using Falcon 9 instead of Atlas V-401 will only result in $50M in savings instead of $100M? Gee, only $50M. For some people, that’s real money too.

Comment by Coastal Ron — July 5, 2012 @ 6:14 pm

“Space X has a $1.6 billion contract to haul cargo to the ISS in 12 flights. The Falcon 9 lifts approximately 10.4 tonnes of payload per flight. So Space X is charging NASA $1.6 billion to place about $125 tonnes into orbit. That’s $12.8 million per tonne.”

And 12,800 per kg. One is buying a program. And launch cost is fraction of that cost. The dragon capsule costs as much as the launch. Usually the payload costs more than the launch vehicle. One is also allowing return cargo to earth.
One is also getting to the point where is is safer to send crew. So in sense part of the 1.6 billion is paying for the development of vehicle that deliver crew to ISS.
So 10.4 tonnes minus crew total crew weight gives 7 crew plus some cargo.
In addition you could buying 7 crew lifeboat. The russian is 3 crew. So dragon uses one docking port for 7 crew, whereas soyuz has 3 crew. This means one could have more crew staying at ISS. More crew allows more science.

Obviously as replacement for shuttle it is much cheaper.

“We don’t know what a 130 tonne SLS will cost because we don’t know what the advanced side mounted boosters are going to be. The only SLS configurations we know about are those that use an upper stage with the core stage and two 5 segment solid rocket boosters which should be able to carry about 118 tonnes to LEO with an upper stage. ”

Well, it’s costing 3 billion a year with it not launching, if launches, it will cost more than 3 billion per year. And what they building now 70 ton which evolves to 130 ton. Far as I see it, the money spend already to get the 130 vehicle decade of more into the future, is too costly if they were instead launching it next week. Basically the development of rocket- before gets any hope of one launch of 130 ton rocket [and cost of rocket launch should fraction of program total cost], is more than the entire cost of a manned lunar program should cost.

“SLS launches will depend on how frequently its used. Launching it only twice a year cost about twice as much per launch as launching it 6 times per year. ”

6 times a year is hopeless unrealistic. It depends of congress seeing the light, throwing endless amount of money at NASA.

“According to NASA, a four launch scenario for the side mount cost about $800 million per launch (non commercial) with an upper stage, $550 per launch, commercial. NASA estimated that an SLS configuration would increase launch cost by 110% ($880 million per launch). So the SLS would be able to place about 118 tonnes into LEO using 5 SRBs and an upper stage for about $880 million per launch (non commercial). That’s $7.4 million per tonne. However, a six launch scenario would reduce cost per launch to $660 million. That’s only $5.6 million per tonne. ”

Times it by 10 and you get an more accurate estimate-
56 million per ton or 56,000 per kg. Or around the cost a shuttle launch per kg.
And of course we completely not including the decade or more of costs before we get a launch.

Comment by gbaikie — July 5, 2012 @ 7:11 pm

“At a thrust of around 100,000 pounds each it would take 72 merlins to equal the thrust of one 5 segment solid rocket booster. That would be a Falcon “heavy” with 144 merlins just to equal the SRB’s on the SLS”

You people have to learn to check my math.

Comment by GaryChurch — July 5, 2012 @ 11:29 pm

It would take 72 merlins to equal the SRB’s on SLS. Not nearly as absurd as the 144 I quoted but then 27 sounds ridiculous to me so, who cares? The public sure doesn’t.

Comment by GaryChurch — July 5, 2012 @ 11:32 pm

“Both Falcon Heavy and SLS are paper rockets at the moment (except that SLS has more flight heritage.)”

Except that NASA is spending more than one and a half billion dollars on SLS every year and getting 0 tonnes to orbit for its money.

Except that Falcon Heavy will be more quickly fielded. Its first launch will be in the next two years.

Except that NASA doesn’t have to buy Falcon Heavy flights until it has exploration payloads waiting to launch, so it can allocate its budget to developing those payloads, and by the time that it does the Falcon Heavy will have a track record that far surpasses what SLS would achieve in the next two decades. NASA gets to take advantage of other customer’s money in establishing and maintaining the Falcon line through their purchases.

Except that the reliable EELVs exist, and NASA only buys Falcon Heavy if it can prove it can beat EELV. If not, they can fall back on the EELVs.

“Scheduling and logistics of handling 10+ Falcon 9 launches are formidable.”

That’s part of the launch price. When you pay for a rocket launch the money goes somewhere, into work. Buying another rocket means paying for tens of millions of dollars worth of additional work.

Other launch systems routinely launch around 10 times a year, like the Proton and R-7. The R-7 in the early 80s launched at a 60 a year pace.

The logistics of launching one of the largest rockets ever built are formidable, which attributes to SLS’ extremely high costs.

Comment by libs0n — July 6, 2012 @ 12:04 am

“What would ULA be responding to, Space X new higher prices? Is so why are they not lowering their prices now in response to Space X current lower price claims?”

Because ULA is only interested in government launches, it has little to no competition till Space X FH flies and even then DOD and NASA have payloads booked until 2018. In short it is like expecting your cruise company to lower the price after you bought the ticket and some other company put up an ad that is plans to lower its price. Once FH flies and starts pulling DOD launches then expect lower prices, or bankruptcy at ULA.

“I really wish (you have no idea how much) that the space market were large enough to fir into the neat simple ECO 101 law of supply and demand you are trying to use on it, but it just is not.”

It is large enough. It just is that until 1984 there was no such thing as a commercial launch company in the US and NASA itself was not forced to go commercial till 1990. That is just over 20 years worth of innovation. If rocket were like commercial aircraft, the DC3 had yet to be invented. Even in the case of the computer, the P.C. had yet to be invented.

Even then in terms of launch costs it is cheaper per pound today than it was in the 60ies or frankly any point till now. In addition the merger of Boeing and LM to make ULA created a monopoly. Monopolies are not known for lowering prices. Anyway ULA is also seeking ways to lower its costs:

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/04/16/major-upgrades-planned-for-aging-centaur-upper-stage/

In addition things like the shuttle and SLS starve commercial of some launches (i.e. the very small market you complain about). Giving the industry fewer launches to spread its costs over and start ups less incentive to try to break in.

Comment by pathfinder_01 — July 6, 2012 @ 1:11 am