The Orlando Sentinel, like me, is concerned about politics dragging out decisions on the new space policy. A couple points, though. Retiring the Shuttle isn’t “Obama’s plan” — that decision was made over six years ago, by the Bush administration. Similarly, this seems like a strange criticism:
Mr. Obama’s plan also calls for abandoning NASA’s next manned program, Constellation, and its goal of reaching the moon by 2020 for a new program that would aim for farther destinations. But the best the president has promised is that astronauts would be reaching asteroids sometime in the mid-2020s, and flying around Mars sometimes in the 2030s.
Those goals are so distant, they’re almost meaningless. Such a time lag would put at risk America’s legacy of leadership in manned space exploration.
Let’s see… 2020 for the moon minus 2004 when it was announced: sixteen years. 2025 for an asteroid minus 2010 when it was announced: fifteen years. The Obama plan seems to be a slightly less distant goal than the VSE. Did they complain then?
A resolution may not come till the end of the year, when lawmakers give final approval to the 2011 budget.
That’s far too long for space policy to be in limbo. There’s room for a reasonable compromise — perhaps keeping Constellation with a different rocket, or moving up the timeline for a new manned program.
I wouldn’t assume that there will even be one by the end of the year, and there may be a whole new set of lawmakers involved in the final 2011 budget. In fact, we know that Alan Mollohan won’t be committee chair next year.
And what does “keeping Constellation with a different rocket” mean? The Ares was one of the defining features of Constellation. Do they mean restoring the lunar goal? Or what?
[Update a while later]
A commenter asks:
What is there to Constellation but the rocket and the capsule? I didn’t know anything else existed.
A lot of people are in that boat. A lack of understanding of what Constellation is (and isn’t) is one of the sources of the policy confusion. I’ve actually written an article about that, that I hope will be published soon at Pajamas Media. But briefly, Constellation was all of the elements needed to get astronauts back to the lunar surface, but most of them were scheduled to be developed years from now. Only “the rocket and the capsule” are/were under current development.
They are reporters Rand, they know nothing.
No one can engineer a train wreck like the Congress!
The reporters take one or two facts and warp them to fit their preconceptions of what is right and we’re off to the races with half-truths, lies and a lot of taxpayer’s money to argue over and with.
Maybe common sense – that most uncommon attribute – will eventually prevail but there is no knowing how much really expensive damage will have been done by then.
Actually it was President Obama not including key Congressional leaders in his decision making that has created a large part of the chaos. You don’t roll out a major change like this by just releasing a new budget. The debate taking place now is what should have happened last fall.
After the Augustine Committee report and before the budget was when President Obama should have announced his policy proposal. Then folks could have debated and the budget would not have been the “surprise” it was.
What is there to Constellation but the rocket and the capsule? I didn’t know anything else existed
My personal fear is that congress, in its infinite wisdom, will seek to split the difference; fund some but not all of constellation. That way, we get the expensive parts but lose the actual use for them. I hope I’m wrong.
In my opinion, the only part of Constellation that might be worth looking at saving (for use on something else) is the escape system for the capsule. (Caveat: I’m no engineer, and I don’t know the price tag, so this system may well be utterly beyond salvaging, I simply do not know).
Actually, there might be one other component worth looking at (And I’d love to hear someone knowlegable weigh in on this) worth looking at saving; the reentry control system on the Orion capsule (assuming they’ve even developed that component yet). The reason is that on a lunar mission, Orion would need to do a skip reentry to reach the planned Utah touchdown point. As I recall, they were looking at some kind of flap system for lift adjustment. If that was developed, it might be worth looking at, so the money already spent might be partially salvaged from that small aspect of the program.
I honestly can’t think of any other parts of Constellation that might be worth saving.
Actually, there might be one other component worth looking at (And I’d love to hear someone knowlegable weigh in on this) worth looking at saving; the reentry control system on the Orion capsule (assuming they’ve even developed that component yet). The reason is that on a lunar mission, Orion would need to do a skip reentry to reach the planned Utah touchdown point. As I recall, they were looking at some kind of flap system for lift adjustment. If that was developed, it might be worth looking at, so the money already spent might be partially salvaged from that small aspect of the program.
Just out of curiosity, did the people who came up with Constellation ever consider:
(1) Using a lifting body or delta wing design for the Orion craft?
(2) Using two different types of crew capsules, one for Earth-LEO and LEO-Earth crew transfers and one for lunar return?
A friend just informed me that Kay Bailey Hutchison stuck Constellation funding into the Afghanistan war funding bill. Another (former Columbia astronaut) indicates that there’s going to be at least one more mission for Atlantis after this one.
Things just keep getting murkier…
I don’t see how that survives a conference with the House. Or even a Senate floor vote.
No, in fact the ESAS groundruled an Apollo CM moldline since that shape was already known to work for lunar re-entry and NASA had an extensive aero database on it, so it was felt to be the path with the lowest development risks.
No, because it was assumed that NASA would not get funding for multiple capsule types (would that they had applied that logic to the LVs as well!), and you might as well test the lunar-return capsule in LEO missions.
We know Obey won’t be chairing House Appropriations either. And we know Bennett won’t be representing Utah in the Senate.
The compromise is going to have a fairly different shape depending on whether it’s finalized before or after the new Congress is seated.
However, NASA maintained the capability to extend the program – they were required by law to do so at least until April 30, 2009. So the original decision was not irreversible. Once Obama decided not to exercise that option, he took ownership of the decision just as much as Bush.
Nemo, considering that 4/30/2009 is only 3 months after Obama took office, and the economy was still in the tank, and he didn’t have a NASA Administrator nominated until 5/23/09, I don’t think you can blame him for much.
Let’s remember that your representatives in Congress could have made this an issue, but I doubt they did. Or the previous Congresses could have pushed for it too, but they were too busy underfunding the Constellation program.
Personally, I’m OK with it ending now (wasn’t at first). It is poor timing for those that don’t have a follow-on job, but that’s the reason we have to speed up the commercial sector.
Rand: “And what does “keeping Constellation with a different rocket” mean? The Ares was one of the defining features of Constellation.”
Gee Rand, take a WAG why don’t you? You know like WAG you make by asserting that Elon is the second coming. O’h sorry Elon Muad’Dib on his way to show all us simpletons the way to space at a tenth of the cost using ‘existing’ technology and approaches. Hopefully he will share some of the spice you are smoking as well.
Still confused? Why not ask Neil Armstrong?
“A heavy lift rocket derived from the Shuttle (SDHLV) has often been suggested as a useful vehicle and could be produced in far less time than that proposed in the 2010 plan, The technology and hardware, for this development is already largely available and would not require five years of study to implement.”, May 12, 2010 – Senate Hearing
Feel free to come back from being counted among Obama’s useful idiots at any time. At least Bob Walker made some serious money supporting him which makes his ‘support’ understandable and unfortunate but not idiotic, what are you getting again?
When people who don’t give a hoot about launchers talk about Constellation, it’s a fair bet they mean the Moonshot.
O’h sorry Elon Muad’Dib on his way to show all us simpletons the way to space at a tenth of the cost using ‘existing’ technology and approaches.
Mission priorities aside, why is it so hard to believe that a non-ULA vendor can deliver…say…Soyuz quality spacelift at Soyuz prices?
O’h sorry Elon Muad’Dib on his way to show all us simpletons the way to space at a tenth of the cost using ‘existing’ technology and approaches.
BZZZ! “SpaceX is the only alternative to the United Space Alliance” fallacy.
Mr Metschan,
Wow. Dude. Obsess much?
Take your blood pressure medicine. Please. It sounds like you’re making this rather personal.
…politics [is] dragging out decisions on the new space policy
The gist of space policy since NASA founding has been almost exclusively politics and diplomacy, but diplomacy has long since faded. The man-bites-dog story is that the new space policy is making headway.
I can and I do. The GAO identified shuttle transition as one of the 13 most urgent issues facing the Obama transition team. Yes, the economy was still in the tank, but Obama had a huge transition team and there is this thing called “delegation of tasks”, in case you didn’t know.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=26876
They weren’t looking for a firm decision on shuttle extension or new architectures that soon, just a straight up-or-down “do we keep shuttle extension on the table as an option or not”. Lack of an administrator is a red herring; the GAO issued this report before Obama made the decision not to retain Griffin; besides, the decision to keep the shuttle option on the table was one that could have been implemented through the acting administrator had Obama chosen to do so.
And as a final note, shuttle extension is still an available option, though it would be considerably more expensive now (and will involve a gap until new ETs can be readied) than it would have been if Obama and his transition team had heeded the GAO.
By not addressing the GAO’s report, Obama made a decision by default. Therefore he owns it. Period.
You know like WAG you make by asserting that Elon is the second coming.
When did I ever make such an assertion? Are we supposed to take anything you say seriously after this?
in its infinite wisdom, will seek to split the difference
I’m constantly amazed that splitting the difference, in so many aspects of life, is considered wisdom. My stepdad, before he died, used to always tell me I had to learn how to “split the loaf.”
Constantly you see judges being lazy and splitting the difference, all the while thinking they have the wisdom of Solomon.
No. No. No. The wisdom of Solomon was that he did not split the baby in half and is part of the reason he was considered the wisest man alive.
Give half the funding so we waste money and have nothing to show for it would be another good example of a lack of wisdom.
When I hear of “splitting the difference” or “meeting in the middle” I’m reminded of the thief that comes to steal all you have. Letting him have half your possesions is not “meeting in the middle” or “splitting the difference”. It is all wrong. Consider it of the same familly as splitting the difference with an axe murderer so he only dismembers half your body.
Compromising with evil is evil.
So now NASA is a Thief? Or is Evil? Just because not everyone has “faith” that Commercial Crew will work? Whatever happened to tolerance for different informed opinions in this nation? Why is it necessary to demonize those who have a different viewpoint?
Remember COTS, which is what commercial crew is based on, is STILL an experiment. And will be one until one of the firms selected actually completes the final mission required. What is the plan if neither SpaceX or Orbital Science completes it successfully? Or is that something that is now believed to be impossible?
To base the entire future of American HSL on an ongoing experiment, with no road back if it fails is very risky. And unnecessary.
I think a reasonable compromise for HSL would be Orion-lite on EELV using traditional funding as well as Commercial Crew using fixed price, which was to go ahead anyway as COTS-D, if COTS was successful. The six billion allocated should be enough for both options since firms like SpaceX claim they only need a fraction of that amount to succeed.
This way there is a high probability of the HSL gap being closed one way or another.
BTW, for the record, even under the old POR there was a commercial option which seems to be forgotten in this discussion. The only difference is under the new program its the ONLY option which is why what opponents of the new policy object to.
Yes, another fable comes to mind of the fox who with an egg in his mouth passes a stream. Seeing another fox (his reflection) in the stream he lets the egg go to grab the one the other Fox has. Of course he ends up without any egg at all.
Yes, the next Congress, likely elected on an Anti-Obama ticket, may simply allocate 100% of the funding to Orion-lite with EELV, or even the Ares I, in a crash program to close the “spaceflight gap President Obama created” and Commercial Crew will get nothing since its would be seen as the center piece of President’s Obama’s space policy.
Better to hang on to the egg New Space is getting then going for a bigger one that may not exist.
Remember COTS, which is what commercial crew is based on, is STILL an experiment. And will be one until one of the firms selected actually completes the final mission required. What is the plan if neither SpaceX or Orbital Science completes it successfully? Or is that something that is now believed to be impossible?
If not impossible, it’s certainly extremely unlikely. SpaceX has the hardware to do it now, and they’ll be testing it this year. What do you imagine will go wrong with it such that it cannot be done?
Remember COTS, which is what commercial crew is based on, is STILL an experiment. And will be one until one of the firms selected actually completes the final mission required. What is the plan if neither SpaceX or Orbital Science completes it successfully? Or is that something that is now believed to be impossible?
The real question is whether this is any riskier than any other approach. I’d have to say, for example, that it appears less risky (that is in terms of reliability and the chances of failure to complete) than either Shuttle continuation or relying on Ares I launches to service the ISS.
Rand,
[[[If not impossible, it’s certainly extremely unlikely. SpaceX has the hardware to do it now, and they’ll be testing it this year. What do you imagine will go wrong with it such that it cannot be done?]]]
Having hardware to go and meeting all of the COTS commitments are two different things. What happens if their is an anomaly and NASA, in this supercharged environment, is not allowed to extend their contract again? Ditto for Orbital Sciences in their test flights. Then where is station resupply left?
Even the Soyuz had problems on its early test flights. But under the political pressure resulting from the new policy there is no longer any slack for failure on test flights, unfortunate in my view, but the new reality. Basically will Congress give them the chance to let them do it?
That is why a compromise, with a NASA option based on the EELV/Orion-lite is really needed, to take the pressure and spotlight off of private firms. And human rating the EELV for the NASA option would payoff dividends for other commercial options that might use EELV.
Having hardware to go and meeting all of the COTS commitments are two different things. What happens if their is an anomaly and NASA, in this supercharged environment, is not allowed to extend their contract again? Ditto for Orbital Sciences in their test flights. Then where is station resupply left?
That would be a result of government stupidity, not those companies. I thought you were saying that they wouldn’t be able to do it technically.
Rand,
No, the technology is the easy part, its merely a function of money. If you have the money then you have the engineers you need to build it. And Elon Musk has the money, as does Orbital Science.
But unfortunately the political environment the new policy has created means that NOW more then mere money is needed. Luck is also needed since they have been pulled into the chaos of the political fight and any weakness will be exploited fully by those that wish commercial crew to be a failure.
That is the tragedy of the new policy, that because of it the outcome which was assured under the old policy, commercial crew to ISS becoming the sole means to get there when Constellation failed to meet its goal, may not happen at all now because SpaceX especially is now the de facto post child for the new policy.
To some extent this is also true for Orbital Sciences, but they are experienced enough with the Washington game to have kept a low profile and stay under the radar so as to stay out of the fight. With luck they won’t get dragged in but with the chaos going on that may not be possible.
Thomas, can I have some of whatever you’re drinking?
What is the plan if neither SpaceX or Orbital Science completes [COTS] successfully?
You keep moving forward or aren’t occasional failures allowed?
To base the entire future of American HSL on an ongoing experiment, with no road back if it fails is very risky. And unnecessary.
You have a plan with no risk? You have a plan that has a track record so it’s not an experiment? Give me a swig of that one.
The six billion allocated should be enough for both options since firms like SpaceX claim they only need a fraction of that amount to succeed
You doubt there claim? Tell ya what. I have no credentials, but give me six billion and I’ll get it done without any government involvement beyond red tape… and I’ll still have a few billion for myself after it’s done.
Better to hang on to the egg New Space is getting then going for a bigger one that may not exist.
What?!? Your saying the new congress is going to reinstate a waste of money and cut ‘new space’ out? That’s ridiculous when hardware exists and the price tag is known.
Having hardware to go and meeting all of the COTS commitments are two different things.
Yes they are. However, SpaceX has passed every test and there is no reason to believe they won’t continue. They don’t have to be perfect as you seem to be implying. They simply have to continue forward doing what they’ve shown they are capable of doing throughout their existence.
What happens if their is an anomaly?
They continue passed it. Rockets have blown up before. SpaceX rockets even. Not the big deal you imply. Adults know that people die sometimes when they take risks. That’s no reason to stop and they will not.
Plus, SpaceX in not the only game in town. They just happen to be a very impressive player which many (including both of us… I know you’re a softy at heart) are rooting for.
But under the political pressure resulting from the new policy there is no longer any slack for failure on test flights, unfortunate in my view, but the new reality.
That is just not true. Saner heads would prevail if anyone claimed that test flights have no risk. Test flights are all about risk. That’s the point. Politicians are idiots but they do have to respond occasionally to their bosses (constituents.)
…to take the pressure and spotlight off of private firms.
Not a bad thought, but at what price? It’s a proven waste. We can do better.
…the outcome which was assured under the old policy
Not from where I’m standing. You have faith that enough money will get the job done. I have faith that there is no limit to how much money a government can waste.
Ken,
[[[Adults know that people die sometimes when they take risks.]]]
[[[Saner heads would prevail if anyone claimed that test flights have no risk.]]]
You under estimate just how charged the current space policy environment is in Washington.
[[[That’s the point. Politicians are idiots but they do have to respond occasionally to their bosses (constituents.)]]]
Space policy is not that important for most constituents, even space advocates. Even in Flordia and Northern Alabama its more about jobs then space as New Space advocates are always saying…
Tell me, how many times have you voted based on a candidates space policy alone? Will you commit to voting for President Obama in 2012 based on his great space policy?
Sorry, there are issues like Social Security someone will be voted out for, but space is just not one of them, so there are no real bosses for Congress in that regard.
[[[That’s ridiculous when hardware exists and the price tag is known.]]]
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, that is not how the real world of procurement works… Just look at the recent USAF tanker deal. Or an attempt by Boeing to sell the USAF B747 to replace the aging C-5 fleet…
Or the U.S. Coast Guard seeking to spend billions on a new fleet of cutters while U.S. Navy frigates that could perform the same job are sitting in storage and will likely be given to foreign navies cheap.
[[[the outcome which was assured under the old policy
Not from where I’m standing. You have faith that enough money will get the job done.]]]
Why do you believe COTS-D would have failed under the old plan and will succeed under the new? The opposite is more likely as NASA will be much more conservative in who it picks under the new plan, which means it will probably be Old Space firms. The likely winners will look little different then what NASA would have gotten under the OSP. The only difference will be who signs the checks of the pilots and pays for launch related liabilities…
SpaceX had a much better odds of getting COTS-D and making a commercial breakthrough then they will have getting Commercial Crew.
Why do you believe COTS-D would have failed under the old plan and will succeed under the new?
When did I take any position on that?
There’s something about this phrase… the real world of procurement
People buy things. The government procures. People are forced to live in the real world. The government lives in bizarro world. Yup. That’s it.
Ken,
As I noted above…
[[[the outcome which was assured under the old policy
Not from where I’m standing. You have faith that enough money will get the job done.]]]
The outcome was that COTS would become COTS-D with SpaceX one of the winners since the old space firms were busy with Constellation. And you indicated your did not see that happening – “not from where I’m standing”…
Yes government procurement is different because of 200 years of experience being cheated by contractors, so in order to make sure the taxpayers get fair value for there tax money the various procurement regulations were developed. Each and everyone is based at some commercial firm cheating the government at one time or another, from selling meat with maggots, to defective weapons, to using 2 lb padlocks on a 1 lb bag of airmail and charging for 3 lbs of airmail flown…
And yes, the pendulum has gone too far in the opposite direction, but that is another story.
The outcome was not assured since “what the government giveth, it can taketh away.” Hmm… this being an example. That’s why it is not assured. It has nothing to do with SpaceX and their ability to meet any requirements or not.
Ken,
Yes, the but government had less, indeed, no reason to taketh away under the POR….
But time will tell.
BTW did you see this article?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/science/space/17rocket.html?hpw
May 16, 2010
Busy Schedule for Rocket Obama Wants Scrapped
By KENNETH CHANG
Wouldn’t it be a hoot if Constellation is flying astronauts to the ISS in 2014 while commercial crew is still waiting for their first flight 🙂
Yes, this soap opera may be taking some strange twists, especially if you get a Republican Congress next year…
Thanks for the NYTimes link.
I’m guessing that’s just because of the current lack of budget and continuing resolution situation (as far as I can tell.) SpaceX already has a contract for cargo and dragon is pretty much the same vehicle for crew. I see Elon putting crew in orbit even without a customer (although I’m sure he’d figure out how to get somebody to pick up the tab) just for test purposes.
So it’s going to be pretty easy for congress critters to see a side by side cost comparison and that should be very motivational (some against and some for based on districts as always.)
Ken,
[[[(although I’m sure he’d figure out how to get somebody to pick up the tab)]]]
He doesn’t have to figure it out. Bigelow has been waiting on Elon Musk for years to get Falcon 9 flying so he may finally get his station up, and paying customers to it. But he has to wait for SpaceX to take care of his COTS commitments first since NASA is paying up front.
But Thomas, your whole point is commercial crew may die. Now you assure us, not to worry. Which is it?
Why can’t SpaceX do both? It has certainly geared up production enough to be within range of doing so.
G Clark,
watching the United States once again destroy a perfectly adequate heavy-lift launch system and decimate a talented workforce in order to once again put all our eggs in one basket in the hope that some yet unproven or even unknown ‘low’ cost advanced technology will save the day;
And we are also to put our faith (as Rand foolishly does) in significant reductions in cost from already tried and failed contracting models;
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1619/1
And ironically we are to go right back to the same technology (ie serial stage Kero/LOX booster, LH2/LOX 2nd stage) that we foolishly destroyed the last time around because it was too low tech and too expensive. You can’t make this stuff up. An approach that NASA has already found will cost almost $30 Billion dollars in their Nov 2009 HLV study. If we can’t afford $8 Billion now for a true SDHLV (ie also in the same NASA HLV study) how are we going to ever afford $30 Billion dollars five years from now? How in the heck are we going to carve out starting in 2015, $3Billion/yr for ten years after all these little science fair projects are actively up and running the PhD program of nearly every University in the country?
Again I think Rand knows what I write above concern the HLV approach under Obama is 100% spot on but he foolishly (because he has never designed a satellite in his life) doesn’t understand the importance of payload density to cost. As such he doesn’t think we need HLV, so the situation above is feature to him not a bug.
All the above is just insane with a capital I.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Yah, maybe I can get a little emotional when we are about to destroy a $40 Billion dollar HLV industrial base, walk away from $10 Billion dollars of progress already made on the PoR, and decimate a workforce that has provided America access to Space for thirty years. All in order to chase the Obama pipe dream. An industrial base and workforce that the fiscal situation in front of use will never provide the funding need to recreate even a tenth of its capability in our life times.
See what we in the ‘actual’ space community, you know the ones that actual launch stuff into space, see as a bug (ie the decimation of American based HSF) Obama and John Holdren sees as great feature. The American HSF program is among the crown jewels of American Exceptionalism. This is an abomination for any true Progressive who believes that this American mindset prevents them from ‘transforming’ America and “progressing beyond the Constitution”. As long as American’s believe that our successful history and constitutional system of government are intertwined they cannot change the government towards true Progressivism. So step one is too make America lesser country in all areas which includes HSF. Obama bowing to heads of state is no accident but a deeply held eternal belief system that in order for equality of outcome to be achieved the successful must be brought down.
And Rand is providing needed cover for their efforts.
Considering how spot on he is on other issues on this board it continues to amaze me how easily he as been distracted by the shinny new toy dangled in front of him by Obama and paid for beltway bandits that they incorrectly call ‘commercial’ space because its little more than a variation of a failed government contract model, no more, no less.
So Rand, if Elon isn’t the second coming, what is going to be achieved under your plan that is worth the destruction to the America’s HSF program described above again?
Again I think Rand knows what I write above concern the HLV approach under Obama is 100% spot on but he foolishly (because he has never designed a satellite in his life) doesn’t understand the importance of payload density to cost.M
Ignoring the rest of your continuing irrational hysteria, how do you know I’ve never designed a satellite?
Ken,
[[[But Thomas, your whole point is commercial crew may die. Now you assure us, not to worry. Which is it?]]]
First Bigelow is not commercial crew, he’s a Real commercial customer.
Second, its clear you have no idea of the media storm that will result from a problem on the test flight now that SpaceX is the poster boy for the new policy. A problem that would have been shrugged off under the only policy when COTS was merely an alternative option for cargo to ISS.
[[[Why can’t SpaceX do both? It has certainly geared up production enough to be within range of doing so.]]]
Why don’t you ask Elon. My guess is its simply a case of money talks.
NASA is giving SpaceX money up front for milestones completed even if they are just paper reports. Real commercial customers only pay After the service is performed – i.e. the payload is in the correct orbit and has not been damaged due to the launch.
So who would you give priority to? Someone paying for millions to just show progress or someone who will pay you only after the work is done?
NASA is giving SpaceX money up front for milestones completed even if they are just paper reports.
There is hardware to back up those “paper reports.” Do you think that huge facility in Hawthorne cranking out rocket parts 24/7/365 is a “paper report”? Do you think that vehicle, sitting on the pad at the Cape awaiting final approval from range safety is a “paper report”?
This is nutty.
Rand,
No, its the difference between a government contract and a true commercial one. A commercial contract wouldn’t pay until the hardware flies successfully.
By contrast COTS pays when you are able to show in a report that it should work, based on simulations, tests, whatever.
How many commercial customers pay you to design develop your product? Airlines don’t pay Boeing to design airlines, they only pay Boeing when the airliner is delivered and passes the acceptance inspection.
Thomas, this latest fallacy of yours is called “the excluded middle.”
Ignoring your non-answers to good questions above (as usual), I’ll none the less answer yours.
A ‘real’ spacecraft designer would understand the important role packing density plays in the time and cost to design and build spacecraft. When confronted with a launch system limitation you have two choices, either pay the price or reduce your scope, there is no third option if constrained to existing technology.
While I fully support research funding (something PoR foolishly decimated) in order to keep open the option that one day we may find a truly ‘changing the rules of game’ technology (not to confused with minor variations to past failed attempts at improving government contracting) this shouldn’t come at the expense of continuing to use what works. The key is balance.
Mike Griffin represents one extreme and now the Feb 1st plan (which you support?) represents the other extreme. So in summary I think you two are both wrong for the same reason, lack of balance. One can have too much of a good thing after all.
Ignoring your non-answers to good questions above (as usual), I’ll none the less answer yours.
That your questions are good, and worthy of the time it would take me to respond to them (like the notion that I’ve never designed a satellite) is not an undisputed fact, regardless of your desire to imagine it so.
However, I will take the time, since you seem to think them so important, if you want to compensate me for it.
Rand,
Sorry, but I am just calling a spade a spade. There is nothing commercial about Commercial Transportation to Space (COTS) that anyone in a real commercial industry would recognize. Its merely a new type of government contracting model, which may or may not work. No one will know until the experiment runs its course and you have a final product, or not.
Sorry if the Emperor is buck naked, but he is.
I don’t care what you call it. All I care about is that it has a much higher probability of reducing cost, and achieving useful results, than a cost-plus Constellation. If you think that playing semantic games changes that reality, I can’t help you.
When one of the general contractors I do work for builds a house or commercial building, they get draws. There is a draw for permitting before the first blade of grass is removed from site. Another at slab pour when there are no walls even started. A third draw when the building is dried in, that is tarpaper on plywood and no windows. And so on. This is standard through the building industry. Large jobs all have performance payments throughtout the job. It is only small projects that are lump sum at the end.
Rand,
Its not a semantic game. its about using words correctly when talking about markets and economics. Its a problem I find common among New Space advocates and it muddies their thinking. It also makes it hard for people in the business world to communicate with many of them, which I suspect is one reason so many business plans get rejected.
A government market is a government market and the purchase process is different then in a commercial market or a consumer market. Its that simple.
And fixed priced government contracts are not new, but go back to the beginning or government contracting. And even today the majority of government contracts are still fixed price. You just happen to work in a segment of the federal market were they are not that common and for good reason, the inability to estimate costs for projects that radically push the technological envelope, which COTS does not do.
And one basic characteristic of government markets is that economics factors are often secondary to other factors when making the purchase decision, unlike commercial markets where they are dominate.