|
Author
|
Topic: Constellation cancelled: NASA's new approach
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-23-2010 12:29 PM
   
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
I believe the planned "builder" of these craft, NASA, has a record of spacecraft design, fabrication, and operation.
NASA does not "build" spacecraft: commercial companies (i.e. contractors) have designed, fabricated and operated NASA's fleet of vehicles for decades.NASA will have the same role it has now with the new commercial crew services, at least at the start, only the space agency won't be bankrolling the whole project. After decades of cost-plus contracts, the companies will be investing in their own work. And please don't take offense, I am not discrediting your memory -- we all sometimes misremember what we read, especially when it is not critical to our lives -- and doing so is harmless. There are multiple factors that have played into Virgin/Scaled's development time line, not all of which are applicable to the COTS/CCDev contracts, above all of which they are setting their own schedule. NASA's contract, as proposed, would call for an initial operating capability (IOC) in 2015. |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 02-23-2010 12:49 PM
Sorry to repeat myself but I keep raising this point and finding no answer; and after the commercial LEO flights? Once we've reinvented the wheel yet again, how does the private sector business model replace the deep space manned exploration that NASA is abandoning?NASA is categorically being reinvented as a technology innovator & demonstrator rather than an agency that undertakes large scale manned exploration programs - so who is the customer in this picture? |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-23-2010 01:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
NASA does not "build"
That is why I put quotes when talking of NASA as the "builder." They obviously use contractors to build almost all of their hardware and software. If a Lockheed Martin or Boeing or other major contractor with the ability (both technical and capital) were to design, test, and fabricate a spacecraft, then you would not have an argument from me. However, as someone recently asked, the only customer is NASA. So how does this change anything? The only change would be that they (the contractor) would make an investment of their capital to see a profit. Again, the business model just is not there to make this work. This is why you will not see a press release tomorrow or the next day from Lockheed Martin or another major saying they will build and fly America's next generation manned spacecraft. To be sure, they, and others will "play the game" of getting money and doing studies and more studies and doing small scale development work in hopes of landing the "big fish", but when it comes to building the spacecraft, the "business" is not there unless NASA pays all or almost all the bills....they (the major contractors) will not risk the capital. For example, let's say a contractor does design/test/build a spacecraft for $5 billion (a number I believe to be super low). If it first flies in 2015, there will be 5 years left in the ISS life, which is the only thing they can base a return on investment. If the company is contracted for four manned/crewed flights a year to ISS, the contractor has at least $250 million in every flight just to try and recover development cost, not counting interest on development, etc. Then there is the recurring cost of launch facilities, cost of building the vehicle, etc., which is easily another billion dollars a year, probably closer to two billion than one. So if the contractor puts the money up, they will have to charge at least half a billion per flight to ISS before making a profit...and this is based on a lot of "ifs". The business model is not there. (Yes, I know SpaceX's projected cost....they are "low balling" the number by a significant amount IMHO.) |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-23-2010 03:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
This is why you will not see a press release tomorrow or the next day from Lockheed Martin or another major saying they will build and fly America's next generation manned spacecraft.
The reason you won't see a press release in the next day, week or month, is because the companies in question still have active Constellation contracts, but that doesn't mean that they aren't already putting together plans for a commercial service. quote:
...the only customer is NASA.
ESA, CSA and JAXA, all without manned launchers of their own (for now, at least) are potential customers (as is Roscosmos if you think about it). And even if you discount the orbital tourism market (Space Adventures still has a list of clients willing and able to pay $45+ million per seat but does not a spacecraft to put them on), you also have private-sector customers who have been without a manned capability since STS-51L restricted most of their payloads and servicing requests to ELVs. And let's not count out the Dept. of Defense either. The DoD has made good use out of commercial launch vehicles, there's no reason to think they wouldn't do the same with a crewed option. quote:
...there will be 5 years left in the ISS life
There will be five years left on the as-proposed U.S. budget but the potential lifespan of the ISS is projected out another 10 or so years beyond 2020 (similarly, the Mars Exploration Rovers were originally budgeted for only a 90-day mission but are still roving [or at least doing funded science] six years later). |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-23-2010 03:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
Sorry to repeat myself but I keep raising this point and finding no answer; and after the commercial LEO flights? Once we've reinvented the wheel yet again, how does the private sector business model replace the deep space manned exploration that NASA is abandoning?
BINGO!You won't see any (plausible) answers here anytime soon either because Obama's plan effectively (and in my opinion deliberately) takes America out of the manned deep space flight business... and NASA without a plan for manned deep space flight (coupled with only a commercial/private sector doing shuttle runs to the ISS for only a few more years) will soon enough be (conveniently for those who oppose it anyway) obsolete. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-23-2010 03:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
(and in my opinion deliberately)
Ah, a government conspiracy theory worthy of a moon hoaxer... (Laugh, it's meant to be joke... at least I think it is but alas I cannot find a smile.) I'd try to offer a "(plausible) answer" but I am afraid I'd just be accused of cheer-leading, insulting my readership and/or wearing rose-colored glasses. Sometimes I wonder why I even try... |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-23-2010 03:33 PM
Funny you should use the term moon hoaxer...Isn't that what this "new-direction" (as in head-fake) plan is? |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-23-2010 03:41 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I'd try to offer a "(plausible) answer" but I am afraid I'd just be accused of cheer-leading, insulting my readership and/or wearing rose-colored glasses. Sometimes I wonder why I even try...
I, for one, sincerely appreciate every bit of cheerleading you do, because I know your intent. And I have never felt insulted by anything you've written (condescended to sometimes...perhaps)...but definitely never insulted, again, for the reason above. Polaroids, however, would be a good switch from the rose-coloreds every now and then.  |
tegwilym
Member Posts: 2339
From: Sturgeon Bay, WI
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 02-23-2010 04:14 PM
Robert will keep us motivated and somehow keep the dream alive! 
|
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3604
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-23-2010 04:29 PM
Even Robert's optimism can't keep this dream alive. The dream is dead. On collectSPACE it has been the custom to signify the death of a much-admired astronaut or other space personality by the use of what most of you call a "period" and which some of us call a "full stop." Sadly, in this case, the British version is more descriptive. As a mark of respect for the passing of the dream: . |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-23-2010 04:37 PM
Until Congress weighs in, the period may be premature. Still possible for CPR to be administered... |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-23-2010 04:46 PM
THIS Congress??? Don't think so. Maybe the next one.But the dream isn't dead... just passed on... to China, Japan, etc... just not us. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-23-2010 06:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
But the dream isn't dead...just passed on...to China, Japan, etc.
China is planning to launch a space station, Tiangong, in the next 12 months. Japan is committed to the ISS. India has expectations of orbiting its own astronauts one day.But if they have dreams of going beyond LEO, they can only be realised in collaboration with the USA. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-23-2010 06:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
But if they have dreams of going beyond LEO, they can only be realised in collaboration with the USA.
Why will China need the US? Please read Aviation Week and Space Technology, Aerospace America, etc. The forecasts have changed significantly in recent years. If the current trends continue, most believe China will be on a technology par with the US by 2020, if not much earlier. They are not only rapidly advancing in astronautics, their aeronautic skills (fighter jets, commercial jets, etc.) will also be par with the US by 2020. Their economic power is probably advancing at a more rapid pace. I do agree with one point, the dream IS alive...it is just the US manned spaceflight program that is currently on life support. I keep watching this thread...and have yet to see anyone put forth a business plan/model that will support the Administration's end to NASA's flight programs. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 02-23-2010 11:36 PM
Just from reading the Orlando Sentinel today, I am suprised how Mr. Bolden and the President think they can dominate NASA's direction, without any imput from Congress. They need to be reminded that it is the country's space program, not theirs, or OMB's or the Augustine Commission's. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-24-2010 12:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Nothing is stopping them: SpaceX is building Falcon and Dragon with or without NASA. That Falcon 9 is standing on the pad right now is mostly without NASA funds.
I'm confused. In an earlier post you've stated: quote:
SpaceX contends it will be ready to fly crew three years after being given the go by NASA, at a per seat cost at more than half than what the Russians are charging.
Does SpaceX needs NASA funding, yes or no? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-24-2010 12:31 AM
Per my own understanding of course, I don't speak for SpaceX but that said: SpaceX does need NASA as a customer if it is to justify building Falcon 9-Dragon to meet NASA's own requirements for manned spacecraft -- the agency's requirements being more strict than what the FAA requires of commercial launch vehicles (manned or unmanned). So when I wrote that SpaceX is waiting to be "given the go" by NASA, I meant to build a version of Dragon that is specific to NASA's needs. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-24-2010 02:35 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
...a business plan/model that will support the Administration's end to NASA's flight programs.
Maybe Space X, Orbital and the rest will offer the public shares? |
minipci
Member Posts: 421
From: London, UK
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-24-2010 07:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
They are not only rapidly advancing in astronautics, their aeronautic skills (fighter jets, commercial jets, etc.) will also be par with the US by 2020.
You may be right, but somehow I doubt it very much indeed. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-24-2010 08:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
Does SpaceX needs NASA funding, yes or no?
Should have checked their launch manifest: 15 flights out of 26 though 2015 are NASA missions. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-24-2010 11:30 AM
Former NASA scientist Scott Hubbard makes a very good case for Obama's proposal. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-24-2010 03:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Former NASA scientist Scott Hubbard makes a very good case for Obama's proposal.
Mr Hubbard. was with Ames, which will see a significant benefit from the President's proposed end to US manned space flight. I think Mr. Hubbard is showing his support for his former place of employment, which is understandable.As I reply here, I am watching the hearing about NASA's budget. I am very encouraged by the remarks from Congress (if they would put the money where their remarks are). I find it remarkable (and very lucky) to be alive in an age when the Congress of the US is talking about a manned expedition to Mars. (Yes, I know it is still "just talk.") I am very discouraged by the remarks by the NASA Administrator. I believe him to be a very weak Administator, one who is "way out of his league". He may be an outstanding individual and a great astronaut, but in my opinion as Administrator he does not have a clue about what he (or NASA) is/will be doing. It was sad to watch. Nevertheless, I wish him well. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3415
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-24-2010 03:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by minipci:
You may be right, but somehow I doubt it very much indeed.
I don't doubt it at all. Their expertise at reverse engineering and access to Russian and Israeli technology, eg the fifth generation Sukhoi T-50, will see them being a credible economic, military and aerospace competitor. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-25-2010 12:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Former NASA scientist Scott Hubbard makes a very good case for Obama's proposal.
The article is titled "A better way to go where no one has gone before". But it doesn't explain anything; it just RESTATES the Obama plan.A better title for it would be "A better way to go nowhere." |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-25-2010 02:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
the President's proposed end to US manned space flight.
Once again this line is regurgitated without any basis in fact. It's supposition and (dare I say) anti-Obama in nature. So answer me this: Between 2015 (when NASA would have ended its participation in ISS) and the mid-2020s (when a lunar landing was scheduled according to Constellation timelines) where would US astronauts be launching to in the Orion CEV? I'm all for a Mars mission. So let these politicians put the money where their mouths are. It's all all hue and cry otherwise. |
minipci
Member Posts: 421
From: London, UK
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-25-2010 03:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by gliderpilotuk:
I don't doubt it at all. Their expertise at reverse engineering and access to Russian and Israeli technology, eg the fifth generation Sukhoi T-50, will see them being a credible economic, military and aerospace competitor.
In which case both Israel and Russia would be on a par with US by 2020, if not already, which overall they are not. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-25-2010 07:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Once again this line is regurgitated without any basis in fact. It's supposition and (dare I say) anti-Obama in nature.
Fact: The Shuttle Program, with the only operational manned vehicle for the US, is scheduled to end this year. Fact: The President's Plan cancels the Constellation Program. Fact: The Constellation Program's components - Ares, Orion, etc. - were the only planned manned vehicle replacements for the Space Shuttle. Fact: The President's plan has no replacement vehicle near or long term. This is an end to the US manned space program. Now there is a "hope" that a commercial company will do something they have never done in the past: build and operate a manned spacecraft and then flights will restart. Now, if you believe that the commercial companies will come through, where are the facts to support this? We now have Burt Rutan, the only person with a company who has done any related work without taking money from the Government (i.e., true commercial work), against the President's plan. Is he only saying he is againt the plan because he is "anit-Obama"? I will say no. Mr. Rutan, as well as many others, understand the difficulty and cost of manned spaceflight. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-25-2010 08:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
We now have Burt Rutan, the only person with a company who has done any related work without taking money from the Government (i.e., true commercial work), against the President's plan.
I'm amazed at Mr. Rutan's remarks. But there's a marked difference between his and Richard Branson's suborbital tourist flights and Elon Musk's orbital flights. If he feels that strongly, Rutan's company Scale Composites should join the firms committed to providing NASA astronauts flights to the ISS. I don't know Rutan's politics, but it's not as if President Obama said 'no more manned missions'. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-25-2010 09:07 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
It was sad to watch. Nevertheless, I wish him well.
At least you had the courage to watch it in full...  I liked the comments by Sen. Nelson asking Bolden what has been done with the $9 billion spent so far on Constellation (plus the $2 billion to shut it down, mind you - but these days, what's 2 billion? Oh a new orbiter  ) that could be used in the future. Answer: a new thermal protection system (to be used by Space X) and a launch abort system (that Space X was not aware of- do they follow NASA press releases?) - that was it. Then I gave up watching. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-25-2010 10:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
I'm amazed at Mr. Rutan's remarks. But there's a marked difference between his and Richard Branson's suborbital tourist flights and Elon Musk's orbital flights.
You are absolutely correct here: orbital flight is probably a minimum of two orders of magnitude more difficult than what Mr. Rutan has accomplished, and several orders of magnitude more expensive to accomplish. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-25-2010 10:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
You are absolutely correct here: orbital flight is probably a minimum of two orders of magnitude more difficult than what Mr. Rutan has accomplished, and several orders of magnitude more expensive to accomplish.
It is even more difficult when you try to build a reusable winged vehicle like Rutan is trying to do. It can be done, but the order of magnitude goes up even further. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-25-2010 11:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
It is even more difficult when you try to build a reusable winged vehicle like Rutan is trying to do.
I am not aware of Mr. Rutan and/or associates building a winged reusable Space Shuttle-like orbital vehicle. I am under the impression that his company and associates are building a high altitude passenger aircraft. Obviously if they are, I stand corrected. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-25-2010 12:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Once again this line is regurgitated without any basis in fact. It's supposition and (dare I say) anti-Obama in nature.
There has been nothing "regurgitated" here without a basis in fact.
So why must this thread be steered again, needlessly, in a political direction? It has been demonstrated enough times already that it is perfectly rational to draw certain conclusions without relying on one's "feelings" about the President. Yes, there are those here who have strong political leanings, but they aren't necessarily coloring conclusions drawn about the Obama plan. In my opinion, there's no need to keep turning this into a liberal-vs.-conservative or Democrat-vs.-Republican kind of issue. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-25-2010 12:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
I am not aware of Mr. Rutan and/or associates building a winged reusable Space Shuttle-like orbital vehicle.
Well, back when SpaceShipOne flew, Rutan did have a concept for a scaled up version intended for orbital flight (I believe he called it SpaceShipThree). Of course, naturally nothing for it has been built yet. But it was essentially a full scale up for the SS1 principle. Given the energy needed to accelerate and then decelerate back from orbital velocities though, there are quite a few variables to account for that I don't believe even Burt has figured out how to overcome yet.As for SS2 and SS1, they are a bit more challenging then a typical passenger plane. Granted it is an order of magnitude harder to go into orbit, but the X-15 program showed the challenges that needed to be overcome to at least get above the 50 mile or 100 km limit for space. Orbit is a different animal, but even sub-orbital isn't easy. The problem gets even more pronounced as weight increases. SS1 was light weight, X-15 was heavier, but still it was only a 1 man craft. SS2 is heavier then both as far as I know, so the stresses will be a little higher. Just because he isn't reaching for orbit yet doesn't make the task an easy one. |
Spacefest
Member Posts: 1168
From: Tucson, AZ
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 02-25-2010 12:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
China is planning to launch a space station, Tiangong, in the next 12 months.
I wonder where China is is going to buy their space station from? (Their manned capability was not developed on their own, they just purchased a Soyuz from Russia.) Sorry, not impressed. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1388
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 02-25-2010 03:10 PM
As a point of reference for how difficult it is to put design, build, test, then eventually operate a new manned spacecraft, this update on SpaceShipTwo was published on The New Space Journal: Stephen Attenborough provided considerable details about their plans to flight test SpaceShipTwo (SS2). Ground testing will continue until the end of this quarter, he said. The first captive-carry flight, with WhiteKnightTwo (WK2) carrying SS2 aloft but not releasing it, should take place by the end of this quarter. The second quarter of 2010 will be for captive-carry tests flights. The first drop test will be some time in the third quarter. Attenborough said he hoped first powered test flight of SS2 would take place by the end of this year. There would be “a lot” of powered test flights in 2011, he said. His “best case” scenario for beginning commercial operations would be the end of 2011 or the beginning of 2012, adding it would be entirely depending on the progress made during the test flights. So not until nearly EIGHT years after the success of SpaceShipOne will VG be able to deliver on its' marketing promises, and that is admittedly optimistic. Scaled has had development issues, though not uncommon, with the carrier aircraft, the new rocket motor, and even had a fatal accident involving a motor test, and they haven't even flown the spacecraft yet.And this is for the comparatively "easy" suborbital flight regime. Rutan and company clearly understand the great difficulty in doing such work, as well as the risks in over-promising on schedule. I'm not at all confident that some of the other players in this decision have such an appreciation for these issues. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-25-2010 04:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
...Obama's plan effectively (and in my opinion deliberately) takes America out of the manned deep space flight business
I don't want to give the impression that I'm singling out Chet to pick on here, but there was an interesting post on the NASASpaceflight.com forum by a user named Robotbeat that addresses this issue. Here's an excerpt: If Obama wanted to really cancel NASA's HSF program in a super-tricky, conspiracy-theory way, he would've let Constellation continue but very, very gradually reducing its budget and letting the Shuttle retire in 2010 (like he's doing), letting the ISS splash in 2015 (the opposite of what he's doing), decreasing funding for commercial crew and/or cargo (the complete opposite of what he's doing), and continue to cut advanced technology R&D for propulsion and human spaceflight (the opposite of what he's doing). He'd let Ares-I continue to suck the life out of NASA. Increasing the funding for NASA even by only $6 billion over 5 years is the opposite of what he would do if he was trying to kill NASA, and no amount of rationalization is going to change that. On edit: And here's some strong support for the proposed plan by Miles O'Brien: To the Moon? I think not, Alice... |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-25-2010 11:56 PM
If Miles O'Brien wishes to continue to tell the story of NASA (version 2.0) as he states at the end, then supporting the proposed plan seems mandatory...And I didn't know that he was an elected official and representative of the American people and thus speak in your names as to what you can/cannot and should/shouldn't support. I wonder why he was picked to testify. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-26-2010 12:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
I didn't know that he was an elected official... I wonder why he was picked to testify.
You needn't be an elected official to testify before Congress and as chair of the NASA Advisory Council Committee on Education and Public Outreach, O'Brien is qualified to address issues related to how NASA is perceived by the public. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-26-2010 12:51 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
I don't want to give the impression that I'm singling out Chet to pick on here, but there was an interesting post on the NASASpaceflight.com forum by a user named Robotbeat that addresses this issue.
The quoted post by "Robotbeat" may seem to contradict me about "doing away" with NASA, but this is of course only his/her view.Obama's NASA budget parallels in a way what's being done in the nuclear energy sector, where increasing funding, in fact, may be the best way to deflect criticism while choking off an agency or program via back door means. A cynical view? Perhaps. But that doesn't mean it isn't so. |
Topic Closed
advertisement