Here we go again. No one at this American Thinker piece, neither the author or any of the commenters, has clue one about the new policy:
Now, with the Obama administration’s new “plan” for NASA effectively ending nationally funded human spaceflight, we drop a torch others are grabbing.
Where do they come up with this nonsense? How can one sanely characterize a policy that extends ISS until at least the end of the decade, and that has billions of dollars budgeted to buy crew services, as “ending nationally funded human spaceflight”?
NASA has long been planning to cancel the Shuttle program, which is understandable, considering budget constraints and the priority of the Constellation program. But to cancel both programs leaves the U.S. with no viable human space transport. The International Space Station, which represents a $100-billion investment by U.S. taxpayers, will be unreachable by scientists and astronauts from the U.S. without hitching a ride on Russian or Chinese space transport. This is unacceptable.
Or from commercial American services, which will be available much sooner than Ares/Orion. And later, he finally gets around to discussing this:
With the ending of the Constellation program, there are no future human missions for the U.S., except those made possible in commercial spaceflight. While commercial spaceflight is tremendous in its future implications, it will progress only in areas that have demonstrated a possible fiscal return…and space operations are so expensive and difficult that it is highly unlikely that any true exploration would occur. Commercial space flight is space exploitation, not space exploration. For the foreseeable future, an entity like NASA — which is nationally funded and not constrained by profits and losses — and a project such as Constellation is the best way to extend our reach into and knowledge of space. Robotic missions are all well and good for certain applications, but one does not learn anything about putting humans in space by putting robotic vehicles in space.
Sigh…
Where to start?
Look. We are simply transitioning from a mode in which NASA develops and operates its own earth-to-orbit vehicles to spec, to one in which it purchases transportation services to LEO for crew from private providers, as it has been doing for years for satellites and probes. No one said that NASA was “getting out of the planetary exploration business” when it launched LRO and LCROSS on a commercial Atlas, and if they had they would have rightly been considered insane. Why is it any different for astronauts?
Exploration starts when we get into LEO, not at Cape Canaveral.
And you cannot simultaneously know anything about Constellation and state that it is “the best way to extend our reach into and knowledge of space.” Constellation was a fiscal disaster waiting to happen. It was unaffordable both in terms of its development costs, and its operational costs. There are many better ways to accomplish that goal. The new policy is one of them.
Jeebus crow.
Since the P&W refit its morelike a couple million preflight.
Hell I think the engines only cost about $80? Yeah.
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4379
Supposedly, as of 2006, there have been 42 SSMEs built and these have flown 348 times. At $80 million per SSME, that’s roughly $10 million per flight just due to the cost of the engine. Even if we assume, as you do, that each engine only takes $2 million to refurbish it after a flight (a cost which probably just counts inspection not refurbishment), that still leaves $36 million per Shuttle flight just due to the SSMEs. We still need to refurbish the SRMs, build the ET, and fund the massive logistics that makes the Shuttle the safest it’s ever been (theoretically).
I read the American Thinker article before I saw it linked here. It made me roll my eyes.
Actually, one commenter, N.S. Rajaram, does seem to get it:
1. > Coastal Ron Says: July 5th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
>> Kelly Starks Said: July 5th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
>>“That and the fact the current program for Orion was
>> 3-4 times what the L/M rep said the cost would be
>> if NASA took a hands off oversight role (which was
>> part of the above quote you left out.”
> I’ve read the article a number of times, and I don’t see
> any mention of added costs. ==
The article discussed how they could reduce costs to $5B ish. The previous GAO estimate was $15B-$20B – i.E. 3-4 times $5B ish.
>== For the Orion lifeboat, as I’ve already shown
> you previously, NASA has told Congress that they
> don’t know what the Orion lifeboat costs would
> be, and they don’t even know if they would use Orion. ==
Obama declared it, NASA’s opinion isn’t necessary.
Kelly Starks Said: July 6th, 2010 at 5:00 am
“The article discussed how they could reduce costs to $5B ish. The previous GAO estimate was $15B-$20B – i.E. 3-4 times $5B ish.”
Yes, I’ve read the GAO report (GAO-10-227SP), and they are talking about Orion for Constellation, not Orion-Lite for lifeboat duties. Apple & oranges.
Orion for Constellation needed an LAS for Ares I, Orion-Lite doesn’t (and may not at all if only launched empty).
Orion for Constellation needed TPS for return from the Moon, Orion-Lite doesn’t.
Orion for Constellation was being constantly changed by weight issues affecting Ares I, Orion-Lite won’t (use existing commercial launcher).
Ares I was the culprit for most of the changes, and part of the projected cost overruns were for creating two different qualification programs for Orion – one for crew to ISS, and the other for the Moon. How can you say that the Moon part of the Orion project has anything to do with Orion-Lite? Weird.
IF you had read the report you would have known this, but apparently you looked at the projected cost, and applied your “rule of thumb”.
Look, I know you have a “thing” for government run programs, but don’t make things up – you’re confusing people (and yourself).
> Coastal Ron Says: July 6th, 2010 at 7:39 am
>> Kelly Starks Said: July 6th, 2010 at 5:00 am
>> “The article discussed how they could reduce costs
>> to $5B ish. The previous GAO estimate was $15B-$20B
>> – i.E. 3-4 times $5B ish.”
> Yes, I’ve read the GAO report (GAO-10-227SP), and they
> are talking about Orion for Constellation, not Orion-Lite
> for lifeboat duties. Apple & oranges.
>
> Orion for Constellation needed an LAS for Ares I,
> Orion-Lite doesn’t (and may not at all if only launched empty).
>
>Orion for Constellation needed TPS for return from the
> Moon, Orion-Lite doesn’t.
> for Constellation was being constantly changed by weight
> issues affecting Ares I, Orion-Lite won’t (use existing
> commercial launcher).
Same difference. I might give you a billion for the LAS for Ares I (assuming they don’t argue for Orion as the Comercial crew craft (which Boeing was concerned about). TPS is a wash But it has all the same systems – some stressed differently, but the same – the same unique characteristyic related to long durration standby, etc.
Going from Lunar to ISS didn’t alter significantly the systems I worked no or knew abuot on it, doubt ISS, to ISS lifeboat only will change anything.
A biger one you missed could be droping Ares-I that drove so many structural and vibration issues.
>== How can you say that the Moon part of the Orion project
> has anything to do with Orion-Lite? =
Its actually closer to the moon version then the 6 man ISS version.
>== IF you had read the report you would have known this, ==
Don’t get like Rand.
Kelly Starks Said: July 6th, 2010 at 7:51 am
The point Kelly is you stated that with NASA involved, Orion-Lite would be $15-20B, and that if “NASA took a hands off oversight role”, the number would magically fall to the $4.5-5.5B that Lockheed Martin quoted.
Your whole point was that NASA involvement makes things “3-4 times” more expensive.
Of course you left out the fact that Orion for Constellation was a much larger effort than Orion-Lite. Now you’re backtracking and saying that a billion here or there is inconsequential. You have no clue how much each part of the Orion program costs, or what the level of effort is to descope the program.
Why do you hate NASA so much that you would make up this stuff? Did you have a really bad experience when you worked there as a contractor?
> Coastal Ron Says: July 6th, 2010 at 8:39 am
>>Kelly Starks Said: July 6th, 2010 at 7:51 am
>> The point Kelly is you stated that with NASA involved, Orion-Lite
>> would be $15-20B, ==
Thats what the GAO said, so stop suggesting its just me making things up
>>== and that if “NASA took a hands off oversight role”, the number
>> would magically fall to the $4.5-5.5B that Lockheed Martin quoted.
Thats what L/M said
> Your whole point was that NASA involvement makes things
> “3-4 times” more expensive.
down to 5 from 15-20 — that is 3-4?
> Of course you left out the fact that Orion for Constellation was a
> much larger effort than Orion-Lite. Now you’re backtracking and
> saying that a billion here or there is inconsequential. ==
No I aid other then leving off the launch abort system (which may or may no be left off) and relaxing vibration issues by dumping Ares-1, its the same.
> You have no clue how much each part of the Orion program costs, or
> what the level of effort is to descope the program.
I’ld certainly disagree given some common sense and past involvement in the program.
> Why do you hate NASA so much that you would make up this stuff?
> Did you have a really bad experience when you worked there as a
> contractor?
Now your not likeing the facts so your resorting to personal attacks – again.
Kelly Starks Said: July 6th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
“>> The point Kelly is you stated that with NASA involved, Orion-Lite
>> would be $15-20B, ==
Thats what the GAO said, so stop suggesting its just me making things up”
Well Kelly, you keep claiming that there is a GAO report, but you never say what it is. Do you have a name or number? How else can we know you’re not making this stuff up?
To support my position, I can reference the Feb. 2010 GAO report titled “Assessments of Selected Large-Scale Projects” (GAO-10-227SP), starting on page 53. This report came out before the talk about Orion Lite, so I know you’re not getting Orion-Lite comparisons off of this report.
“Thats what L/M said”
They only said that it “would require a “departure” from the agency’s standard supervisory role” – no dollars mentioned. You know what happens when you assume…
“I’ld certainly disagree given some common sense and past involvement in the program.”
Well there are a number of people that have used their common sense to disagree with you, and your past involvement as a systems engineer contractor at KFC doesn’t qualify you to know the actual Orion program cost details.
So Kelly, you got that Orion-Lite GAO info, or are you all hat, and no cattle? 🙂
1. > Coastal Ron Says: July 6th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
>> Kelly Starks Said: July 6th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
>>> The point Kelly is you stated that with NASA involved, Orion-Lite
>>> would be $15-20B, ==
>>Thats what the GAO said, so stop suggesting its just me making things up”
> Well Kelly, you keep claiming that there is a GAO
> report, but you never say what it is. ==
Sure I did, ame noe as you, and listed a URL, related articles – you even used it for ref – but said you figured it was a different more expensive config of Orion.
>> “Thats what L/M said”
> They only said that it “would require a “departure”
> from the agency’s standard supervisory role” – no dollars mentioned. ==
They listed $4.5-$5.5 with relaxed supervisory role.
>> “I’ld certainly disagree given some common
>> sense and past involvement in the program.”
>== your past involvement as a systems engineer contractor at KFC ==
I wasn’t at KSC, I was no Orion.
Kelly Starks Said: July 7th, 2010 at 6:09 am
“I wasn’t at KSC, I was no Orion.
So you weren’t at KSC, and you weren’t on Orion. Well that statement had no point.
“Sure I did, ame noe as you,”
Your drugs are scrambling your writing… or maybe you’re texting this?
Maybe you were some sort of engineer, but you have no idea how to gauge the difference between two proposals.
You must be a joy to go car shopping with…
Coastal Ron Says:
> July 7th, 2010 at 7:13 am
I said though typed badly, that I wasn’t at KSC, I was on Orion.
And that I did list and reference a GAO report – same one as you.
Really this is all going off on trivial side issues.
Bottom lining all this. So far Obama’s declared the replacement program includes $6 billion + Orion life boat which L/M said in the best case if NASA changes its ways would cost about $5B give or take. That comes to $11B so far, or $1.1 billion per commercial crew flight before any costs for the commercial crew boosters and capsules, or flight program costs, are included.
Since the total program costs per commercial crew have to include more then the above $1.1 billion – certainly more then another $100 million (each EELV launch alone costs more then that), and the total program cost per shuttle flights now runs $1.2 billion, each commercial crew flight will have to cost more then each current shuttle flight. We can debate how much more, but once yuo agreed to $6B adn $4.5B-$5.5B, your over shuttles cost.
Kelly Starks Said: July 7th, 2010 at 9:30 am
“That comes to $11B so far, or $1.1 billion per commercial crew flight
Except that Orion is not commercial, it’s government. You’re talking about taking a government program that was going to the Moon, and descoping the capsule part of the program for government LEO use. For the same reason Ares I changes drove up the cost of the do-everything Orion (LEO + Moon), changing Orion to be an LEO-only will also add non-value added costs.
Compare that to a purpose-built commercial crew capsule like Dragon or CST-100, which have specific and limited functionality, and already know what the capabilities of their launchers are. Commercial crew capsule programs will be far less expensive than Orion. SpaceX will not need $5B to upgrade Dragon from cargo to crew.
If NASA clean-sheeted the Orion requirements today for LEO lifeboat duty (with an upgrade path to crew launch), the total program cost would be more in the range of a few Billion. Higher than commercial, but much lower than the rudderless Orion program of today.
Kelly Starks Said: July 7th, 2010 at 9:30 am
“So far Obama’s declared the replacement program ”
President’s say the darndest things, but there is a difference between what they propose, and what is decided and funded.
NASA has already testified in Congress that Orion Lifeboat is something they are considering, but they also said that they don’t know how much it would be, or if they would ultimately proceed with it. Since it would be an add-on to a budget that was already asking for more money, many people (including myself) saw the offer as a negotiating ploy more than a serious attempt to salvage Orion.
Political sausage making is never pretty…
> Coastal Ron Says: July 7th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
>> Kelly Starks Said: July 7th, 2010 at 9:30 am
>>“That comes to $11B so far, or $1.1 billion per commercial crew flight
> Except that Orion is not commercial, it’s government. ==
It still may be the commercial crew capsule, and as I said Orion Lifeboat was part of the deal proposed for the commercial crew. which made sence beyond the pork aspect since Ares/Orion was supposed to also handel the lifeboat function.
> You’re talking about taking a government program that was going
> to the Moon, ==
Orion was always deigned both for the Moon and ISS. It used to be 6 person craft for ISS but it was downscoped to 4.
> Coastal Ron Says: July 7th, 2010 at 1:40 pm
>> Kelly Starks Said: July 7th, 2010 at 9:30 am
>> “So far Obama’s declared the replacement program ”
> President’s say the darndest things, but there is a difference between
> what they propose, and what is decided and funded. ==
Hey if your going that way – the whole commercial crew proposals pretty much DOA.
Boldens Al-Jezeera interview likely burned more bridges on all of this.
Right now the mutter seems to be that Constellations dead, commercial crews not even getting talked about, so does HLV or shuttle extension get funded.
Kelly Starks Said:
“It [Orion] still may be the commercial crew capsule”
I don’t think you understand the definition of commercial.
Orion is a government owned project, and unless a commercial firm buys it from the government (have to be a BIG discount), it will never be commercial. The government may buy a commercial launcher to send it to the ISS, but even if they sell rides on it Orion is still not commercial.
“Hey if your going that way – the whole commercial crew proposals pretty much DOA.”
The difference of course is that commercial crew is part of the FY11 budget proposal, and Orion is not. Orion was a political bone that Obama/Bolden was throwing out to the Constellation lovers, and not because NASA needs it. Now the Constellation lovers need to find the funding to make it part of the NASA budget.
There is also the pressure that Orbital and Boeing will bring through their politicians and lobbyists to keep Lockheed Martin from getting the Orion Lifeboat no-bid contract. Orbital has already commented publicly, and you can bet Boeing will not be shy about making noise, especially since they have a competing product (Orion would take away potential government business).
This will all play out in the background of a much larger budget war, and I think the NASA budget will be affected as much as every other department. I also think Orion only survives if a political compromise is needed to keep the overall NASA budget fairly intact.
Commercial crew will survive in the budget, even if it is cut back, and I think enough will survive to give a boost to both SpaceX and Boeing capsules (Dream Chaser too maybe).
Plenty of time to watch this political sausage being made…
> Coastal Ron Says: July 7th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
>>Kelly Starks Said:
>> “It [Orion] still may be the commercial crew capsule”
> I don’t think you understand the definition of commercial.
> Orion is a government owned project, and unless a commercial
> firm buys it from the government (have to be a BIG
> discount), it will never be commercial. ===
I don’t think you understand the commercial crew program and NASA. They can interpret what “commercial” means as much as they want. Plus of course since no one besides Russia ever flew a officially paying passenger – no ones got a established passenger service to bid – even if NASA didn’t want to add in things like lifeboat needs etc.
Why do you think Boeing was saying they couldn’t be expected to compete no a firm fixed price for their CC capsule against Orion developed under a gov cost plus and just deemed avalible? Why do you think the L/M rep was talking about if NASA would lower their oversight then Orion could be completed for only about $5B. If it’s to be treated like a commercial product – the costs would be down because NASA acting like a prime contractor etc would be down, if not they are a cost plus with all the overhead. Given some in NASA were all but declaring Orion as they commercial crew capsule, these weer not unreasonably views of L/M and Boeing.
Commercial crew is not like NASA going to go down and book tickets with PanAm to orbit..
>> “Hey if your going that way – the whole commercial
>> crew proposals pretty much DOA.”
> The difference of course is that commercial crew is part
> of the FY11 budget proposal, and Orion is not. ==
But Orion is has actual authorized appropriated funds for this year and next. Commercial crew doesn’t.
Internal rumblings from in NASA etc is Constellation and commercial crew seem dead in DC. the debate seems to be between shuttle extension or HLV.
Kelly Starks Said:
“ Why do you think the L/M rep was talking about if NASA would lower their oversight then Orion could be completed for only about $5B.”
Let me put it this way – cost is irrelevant. Billions have already been sunk into Orion, and even if LM could finish Orion for $1, it would still be a government owned spacecraft.
The future being debated is not whether NASA can build and operate another transportation system after Shuttle (the government can do anything), it’s whether the government should compete with private enterprise in transporting people to space.
NASA no longer competes with commercial companies when it wants to launch a satellite, and the same principle for human transportation to LEO is the core issue.
We currently have a nationalized transportation system for HSF – there are no commercial principles by which it operates. If you are lucky enough to be chosen to fly to space, you don’t pay for the actual cost of the trip, even if it is on Soyuz. Conversely, even if you’re a Billionaire, you can’t buy passage on the government system.
The budget part of the battle is related to how much money the government would use to help the commercial marketplace create a commercial transportation system.
Any money spent on Orion is only funding a dead-end product – who honestly thinks they are going to go into serial production with it? It’s too expensive to compete in the marketplace against other capsules like Dragon and CST-100, so any money the government puts into it is only delaying the emergence of a real commercial transport system.
Sometimes you just have to cut your loses…
1. > Coastal Ron Says: July 8th, 2010 at 7:51 am
> Let me put it this way – cost is irrelevant. Billions
> have already been sunk into Orion, and even if LM
> could finish Orion for $1, it would still be a government
> owned spacecraft.==
This is a BIG political plus for it. Otherwise about $9B went down the hole with nothnig to show for it.
A businessman would just look at the return on investment of more money in more profit from plowing on or cutting losses – a politician looks at amounts of votes gained or lost related to actions like admitting you threw away $9B.
>= The future being debated is not whether NASA
> can build and operate another transportation system
> after Shuttle (the government can do anything), it’s
> whether the government should compete with private
> enterprise in transporting people to space.
No the debate is where should NASA go and do? The “more shuttle and LEO” folks lost out to the “don’t go around in circles, go back out” folks. But Obama canceled the go farther out program, and now effectively said he doesn’t want NASA to go farther out ever again. So NASA (whose public “brand” is being the leeds in manned space flight), is about to lose all its manned space flight capabilities – and any future manned flight abilities – except hitch hiking to go around in circles for a few more years then nothing.
P.S. on relaetd political issues.
Due to the oil spill (which Obama could stop) adn the failed clean up (which Obama seemed more to foul up adn stall then facilitate) the fishing and tourist industries are trashed. Obama’s attempts to shut down drilling across the Gulf (against all safety recommendations from the experts he picked) will crater much of the oil industry across the south. Now the shuttle adn Constellation shut downs will close out 10’s of thousands of aerospace jobs. These are the bulk of the industries across the gulf coast.
Bad political mojo.
Kelly Starks Said:
“But Obama canceled the go farther out program, and now effectively said he doesn’t want NASA to go farther out ever again.”
For someone that is so hung up on what politicians say, you of all people should remember why he said “been there, done that” for the Moon. He said it to focus NASA on going beyond the Moon. Obama said that publicly, whereas your assertion “he doesn’t want NASA to go farther out ever again” contradicts the public record.
Selective hearing again – you know your doctor can look at that…
“A businessman would just look at the return on investment of more money in more profit from plowing on or cutting losses – a politician looks at amounts of votes gained or lost related to actions like admitting you threw away $9B.”
And yet history is strewn with mult-billion dollar programs that got shut down, so there is precedence. The sign of a good politician is when they decide on the merits of a program, not the investment. Constellation was not succeeding, and the only part worth saving, Orion, may not be worth the cost.
The other thing about Orion that is missed, is that besides paying to finish it off, the administration would have to allocate funds to launch and maintain it, and decide on how many units to produce. If they did finish it, and only built one, then it’s a jobs program. I can’t see them building more than two (for rotation), which still means that it’s a dead-end product. At no point does it become a robust and viable product, so it’s better to kill it off now than suck up more U.S. Taxpayer money. I want ROI with my tax dollars, and you should too.