posted 07-09-2010 02:06 PM               

I want the gap to be as limited as possible just like everyone here does. But this is a radical course which funnels Americans' money to companies that currently have not demonstrated the required capabilities.

Entrepreneureal means that you identify a need for a product, come up with an innovative solution and innovative ways to fund it's development at your own risk. If the U.S. Congress decides not to invest in these companies in advance, they are not stifling the spirit of the entrepreneur, they are merely putting the financial risk back where it belongs.

The technology is not new. These companies could have (and should have) developed these spacecraft years ago, but no one was willing to do that on the hopes of NASA buying the product while the shuttle was at it's peak. The simple fact is that most of them only got in the game when big handout from Uncle Sam materialized.

posted 07-09-2010 07:19 PM               

As for the "tens of billions," that goes to the various contractors related to shuttle, the occasional Atlas or Delta (and formerly Titan) used to launch NASA probes. Otherwise it is the DoD that funds most of that work. SpaceX also gets a little of that for COTS D development of Falcon 9 and Dragon. Of that money, no one contractor is getting all of it though. Boeing, Lockheed and ATK get their share for the related companies, then there is USA, which contracts for the direct shuttle support services. On the satellite side, the ULA guys get the funding to launch the boosters.

posted 07-12-2010 10:47 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
If and when SpaceX gets to the point where it is flying people, the price will be up there too (not as much as shuttle, but up there).

---

The historical data from the low Earth orbit Gemini Program, the human spaceflight project most similar to commercial crew, disproves this assertion. As the Augustine Committee stated, "Gemini is the closest historical program in scope to the envisioned commercial crew taxi. ... In GDP-inflator-corrected FY 2009 dollars, the DDT&E [design, development, test, and evaluation] cost of this program was about $2.5-3 billion, depending on the accounting for test flights." Since that time, technology for human spaceflight has benefited from 40+ years of technology advances and lessons learned. If Gemini were built today, it would likely cost even less to develop.

Cost prediction curves that use Apollo and Orion as key sources of data in estimating the cost of commercial crew are "comparing apples and oranges." This is because commercial crew capsules are serving a simpler mission (and thus will cost less) than the far more capable Apollo, Space Shuttle, or Orion vehicles. Commercial crew vehicles will transport crew to and from the International Space Station in low Earth orbit, but will not need the added capabilities needed for deep space missions to the Moon, asteroids, or Mars as Orion was designed to do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
So with SpaceX, depending on how the contract is worked, right now they are set up to develop and operate the hardware. Given time though (say a few years of manned operational use) NASA might put out bids for lower operations costs.

---

posted 07-14-2010 03:15 PM               

The 2011 budget request for NASA has generated much debate about the right course for America in space. You have raised the issue of safety as an indispensable component of any new plan for NASA, and we wish to express our appreciation for your leadership in ensuring that safety is at the center of this debate.

Both as astronauts and as citizens who care passionately about the future of human spaceflight, we write today to communicate our views on this critical issue.

Let us be clear: we believe that that the private sector, working in partnership with NASA, can safely develop and operate crewed space vehicles to low Earth orbit. We have reached this conclusion for a number of reasons:

• A simpler mission - Two fundamental drivers of safety are the simplicity of the system and the difficulty of the mission. By focusing on a simple spacecraft intended only to service low Earth orbit, commercial providers will avoid both the complexity of the Space Shuttle and the more extreme environments encountered by vehicles designed for exploration beyond. US industry has almost fifty years of experience with Earth Orbit operations, and experienced companies, such as the established firms whose engineers developed Mercury, Gemini, the Space Shuttle, and the International Space Station, will contribute those decades of knowledge to a commercial crew initiative.

• Demonstrated reliability - Because safety predictions can be an imprecise art, an important additional factor for the safety of human spaceflight is demonstrated reliability. Demonstrated reliability is a beneficial factor for safety. The Atlas 5 has had a perfect record of over 20 successful flights in a row, and Delta 4 has over a dozen. The Falcon 9 has already shown its ability to reach orbit and will have had numerous test flights before putting humans aboard. Under the new NASA program, no crewmember will ever fly on an unproven rocket.

• Trust of the national security community - The Air Force routinely depends upon commercial rockets to launch invaluable satellites that are critical to national security. The lives of the men and women in our armed forces depend on these launches. And every time a commercial rocket launches these national security satellites, or for that matter NASA science or cargo missions, these vehicles further prove out their systems and provide valuable data relevant to safe operations when carrying astronaut crews.

• NASA will exercise strong oversight - NASA's leadership has made clear that NASA will exercise strong insight and oversight throughout all phases of the Commercial Crew program. Through existing programs such as COTS and CCDev, industry has already begun working with NASA to design and develop vehicles that meet or exceed the safety levels stipulated in NASA's current human rating standards document, known as NPR 8705.2B. Industry is now working with NASA on a human-rating plan that will optimize safety and specify NASA insight and oversight, and we are confident NASA will finalize these human rating requirements in a timely fashion.

• A shared vision - Commercial space workers and managers care about safety just as much as those working at NASA. Many commercial space workers have come from our Nation's space program and have deep historical knowledge and understanding of the safety issues for human spaceflight, and former astronauts are deeply involved in the engineering, manufacture, and eventual operations of commercial crew vehicles. As members of the space community, they care strongly about safety, and they know that their goals of opening up the space frontier will not be realized without safe and reliable flights.

In conclusion, an analogue from earlier in the Space Age, of similar scope to Commercial Crew, may serve as a useful historical precedent. Almost 40 years ago, NASA's Gemini program human-rated a launch vehicle and developed a capsule for about $2.5-$3.0 billion in today's dollars, and each Gemini flight was completed safely. We believe it is reasonable that the private sector can also develop safe and simple crew transportation, especially with the benefit of almost a half-century of experience and safety improvements since Gemini.

The success of NASA's proposed Commercial Crew program is critical. By allowing the private sector to take on the transportation of crew to low Earth orbit, NASA will finally be able to direct its resources and focus on human exploration beyond, and we strongly feel this direction for the agency is the right one.

posted 07-14-2010 10:56 PM               

A Gemini can be built much faster and for far less money than other vehicles because the R&D has already been done. AIO-50 will begin construction of the Gemini(IR) in September.

posted 07-14-2010 11:07 PM               

Under Constellation, ISS involvement was to end in 2015, and then the U.S. and Russia were to explore ways to cooperate on a moonbase, but cooperation wasn't put in the critical path.

posted 07-19-2010 06:53 AM               

Later in the afternoon, the President will meet with Senator Glenn in the Oval Office to discuss the President's plan for an ambitious and achievable space program. This meeting is closed press.

posted 07-25-2010 12:36 PM               

By 1990, if not before, we will surely want to consider the desirability of establishing one or more large manned scientific stations on the moon. I would like to see this undertaken as an international project.