![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 16, 3:46*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
... When political reality collides with idealism, guess who wins? As things stand right now, SLS and Orion have the politics behind them. Musk doesn't. Simple as that. When he starts flying people and bringing them back safely, then he'll get the accolades that will be richly deserved. Until then, he's an amateur. At least Burt Rutan put someone into a sub-orbital flight. Until Musk goes further with a crewed demo flight (or two, or three)...he hasn't earned the trust that NASA has earned the past 50 years. Like the Commercial Space Federation said at their symposium last year: "Stop talking and Start Flying." I don't agree. Ariane does not fly manned flights but accounts for a large proportion of satellite launches. They are clearly a serious launch company. The most important accomplishment of SpaceX may turn out to be they showed in stark terms that privately developed spacecraft can be developed for 1/10th the cost of government financed ones. The importance of that can not be overemphasized. Think about it this way. Suppose someone wants to develop a new launch system, but under the usual NASA estimates it would cost $3 billion to develop. But on the other hand a privately financed one would cost $300 million. That would result in a major difference in the willingness to invest the funds in its development; $300 million is like pocket change to the major defense contractors. Here are some estimates for the SLS program: Space Launch System. "Program costs. During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18 billion through 2017, with $10B for the SLS rocket, $6B for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2B for upgrades to the launch pad and other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[12] An unofficial NASA document estimates the cost of the program through 2025 will total at least $41B for four 70 metric ton launches (1 unmanned in 2017, 3 manned starting in 2021). The 130 metric ton version should not be ready earlier than 2030." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_L...#Program_costs So just for the development costs alone for the interim 70 mT launcher scheduled to only make 4 launches, that's $4.5 billion per launch. For 70,000 kg payload that's $64,000 per kg, and that's not even including the production costs. If that larger $41 billion number is valid for the total costs that's $146,000 per kg. A common saying going around nowadays is "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." Building large launchers is *supposed* to result in reduced costs not larger: The SpaceX Falcon Heavy Booster: Why Is It Important? by John K. Strickland, Jr. September, 2011 "What amazes people is that SpaceX has broken the long-sought 1,000 dollars a pound to orbit price barrier with a rocket which is still expendable. 'How can he (SpaceX CEO Elon Musk) possibly do this?' they ask. The Chinese have said flatly that there is no way they can compete with such a low price. It is important to remember that this was not done in a single step. The Falcon 9 already has a large price advantage over other boosters, even though it does not have the payload capacity of some of the largest ones. The 'Heavy' will even this score and then some. At last count, SpaceX had a launch manifest of over 40 payloads, far exceeding any current government contracts, with more being added every month. These are divided between the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy." http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such vehicles is privately financed: OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM Elon Musk and the forgotten word. http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the...forgotten-word My opinion is also routine space flight can only be achieved by using reusable vehicles. SpaceX is the only orbital launch company with a dedication to that idea: 1 visionary + 3 launchers + 1,500 employees = ? Is SpaceX changing the rocket equation? By Andrew Chaikin "The insistence on reusability “drives the engineers insane,” says Vozoff. “We could’ve had Falcon 1 in orbit two years earlier than we did if Elon had just given up on first stage reusability. The qualification for the Merlin engine was far outside of what was necessary, unless you plan to recover it and reuse it. And so the engineers are frustrated because this isn’t the quickest means to the end. But Elon has this bigger picture in mind. And he forces them to do what’s hard. And I admire that about him.”" http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exp...tml?c=y&page=4 Bob Clark |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 18, 6:18*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:46*pm, Matt Wiser wrote: ... When political reality collides with idealism, guess who wins? As things stand right now, SLS and Orion have the politics behind them. Musk doesn't. Simple as that. When he starts flying people and bringing them back safely, then he'll get the accolades that will be richly deserved. Until then, he's an amateur. At least Burt Rutan put someone into a sub-orbital flight. Until Musk goes further with a crewed demo flight (or two, or three)...he hasn't earned the trust that NASA has earned the past 50 years. Like the Commercial Space Federation said at their symposium last year: "Stop talking and Start Flying." *I don't agree. Ariane does not fly manned flights but accounts for a large proportion of satellite launches. They are clearly a serious launch company. *The most important accomplishment of SpaceX may turn out to be they showed in stark terms that privately developed spacecraft can be developed for 1/10th the cost of government financed ones. The importance of that can not be overemphasized. *Think about it this way. Suppose someone wants to develop a new launch system, but under the usual NASA estimates it would cost $3 billion to develop. But on the other hand a privately financed one would cost $300 million. That would result in a major difference in the willingness to invest the funds in its development; $300 million is like pocket change to the major defense contractors. *Here are some estimates for the SLS program: Space Launch System. "Program costs. During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18 billion through 2017, with $10B for the SLS rocket, $6B for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2B for upgrades to the launch pad and other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[12] An unofficial NASA document estimates the cost of the program through 2025 will total at least $41B for four 70 metric ton launches (1 unmanned in 2017, 3 manned starting in 2021). The 130 metric ton version should not be ready earlier than 2030."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Program_costs *So just for the development costs alone for the interim 70 mT launcher scheduled to only make 4 launches, that's $4.5 billion per launch. For 70,000 kg payload that's $64,000 per kg, and that's not even including the production costs. *If that larger $41 billion number is valid for the total costs that's $146,000 per kg. A common saying going around nowadays is "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." *Building large launchers is *supposed* to result in reduced costs not larger: The SpaceX Falcon Heavy Booster: Why Is It Important? by John K. Strickland, Jr. September, 2011 "What amazes people is that SpaceX has broken the long-sought 1,000 dollars a pound to orbit price barrier with a rocket which is still expendable. 'How can he (SpaceX CEO Elon Musk) possibly do this?' they ask. The Chinese have said flatly that there is no way they can compete with such a low price. It is important to remember that this was not done in a single step. The Falcon 9 already has a large price advantage over other boosters, even though it does not have the payload capacity of some of the largest ones. The 'Heavy' will even this score and then some. At last count, SpaceX had a launch manifest of over 40 payloads, far exceeding any current government contracts, with more being added every month. These are divided between the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy."http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html *Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such vehicles is privately financed: OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM Elon Musk and the forgotten word.http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the...ommentaries/el... My opinion is also routine space flight can only be achieved by using reusable vehicles. SpaceX is the only orbital launch company with a dedication to that idea: 1 visionary + 3 launchers + 1,500 employees = ? Is SpaceX changing the rocket equation? By Andrew Chaikin "The insistence on reusability “drives the engineers insane,” says Vozoff. “We could’ve had Falcon 1 in orbit two years earlier than we did if Elon had just given up on first stage reusability. The qualification for the Merlin engine was far outside of what was necessary, unless you plan to recover it and reuse it. And so the engineers are frustrated because this isn’t the quickest means to the end. But Elon has this bigger picture in mind. And he forces them to do what’s hard. And I admire that about him.”"http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Visionary-Launchers-Empl... * Bob Clark Ariane's clearly serious, but not getting on the HSF bandwagon. Clearly, Musk has big things in mind and has the dinero to see if they work. But, at his most recent National Press Club event about HSF, he admitted that a fully reusable Falcon may not work out, but he wants to try anyway. If he pulls it off, he's changed the whole equation launch vehicles. But if he doesn't, and there are very serious technical obstacles to that, that's $500 mil of his own money out the door with nothing to show for it (other than possiblity of a reusable 1st stage). I do wish him luck, and best of luck when it comes to HSF. But he's not the Messiah when it comes to HSF, and he's not a god spaceflight in general. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 18, 6:18*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:46*pm, Matt Wiser wrote: ... *I don't agree. Ariane does not fly manned flights but accounts for a large proportion of satellite launches. They are clearly a serious launch company. *The most important accomplishment of SpaceX may turn out to be they showed in stark terms that privately developed spacecraft can be developed for 1/10th the cost of government financed ones. The importance of that can not be overemphasized. *Think about it this way. Suppose someone wants to develop a new launch system, but under the usual NASA estimates it would cost $3 billion to develop. But on the other hand a privately financed one would cost $300 million. That would result in a major difference in the willingness to invest the funds in its development; $300 million is like pocket change to the major defense contractors. *Here are some estimates for the SLS program: Space Launch System. "Program costs. During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18 billion through 2017, with $10B for the SLS rocket, $6B for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2B for upgrades to the launch pad and other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[12] An unofficial NASA document estimates the cost of the program through 2025 will total at least $41B for four 70 metric ton launches (1 unmanned in 2017, 3 manned starting in 2021). The 130 metric ton version should not be ready earlier than 2030."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Program_costs *So just for the development costs alone for the interim 70 mT launcher scheduled to only make 4 launches, that's $4.5 billion per launch. For 70,000 kg payload that's $64,000 per kg, and that's not even including the production costs. *If that larger $41 billion number is valid for the total costs that's $146,000 per kg. A common saying going around nowadays is "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." *Building large launchers is *supposed* to result in reduced costs not larger: The SpaceX Falcon Heavy Booster: Why Is It Important? by John K. Strickland, Jr. September, 2011 "What amazes people is that SpaceX has broken the long-sought 1,000 dollars a pound to orbit price barrier with a rocket which is still expendable. 'How can he (SpaceX CEO Elon Musk) possibly do this?' they ask. The Chinese have said flatly that there is no way they can compete with such a low price. It is important to remember that this was not done in a single step. The Falcon 9 already has a large price advantage over other boosters, even though it does not have the payload capacity of some of the largest ones. The 'Heavy' will even this score and then some. At last count, SpaceX had a launch manifest of over 40 payloads, far exceeding any current government contracts, with more being added every month. These are divided between the Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy."http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html *Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such vehicles is privately financed: OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM Elon Musk and the forgotten word.http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the...ommentaries/el... My opinion is also routine space flight can only be achieved by using reusable vehicles. SpaceX is the only orbital launch company with a dedication to that idea: 1 visionary + 3 launchers + 1,500 employees = ? Is SpaceX changing the rocket equation? By Andrew Chaikin "The insistence on reusability “drives the engineers insane,” says Vozoff. “We could’ve had Falcon 1 in orbit two years earlier than we did if Elon had just given up on first stage reusability. The qualification for the Merlin engine was far outside of what was necessary, unless you plan to recover it and reuse it. And so the engineers are frustrated because this isn’t the quickest means to the end. But Elon has this bigger picture in mind. And he forces them to do what’s hard. And I admire that about him.”"http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Visionary-Launchers-Empl... * Bob Clark Bob, he's most often described as an amateur when HSF is being discussed. Then his "retiring on Mars" nonsense (he won't, but his grandkids probably will), and daring NASA to buy his stuff only back when Augustine was holding its hearings rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 18, 9:18*am, Robert Clark wrote:
... *Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such vehicles is privately financed: OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM Elon Musk and the forgotten word.http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the...ommentaries/el... Some great points were made in this article such as this: Quote Each new administration wants to create its own space project, refusing to follow through on the plans of its predecessor. It is for this reason that I like to call Obama’s Space Launch System proposal the-program-formerly-called-Constellation. Obama canceled the heavy- lift rockets under Constellation so as to not have to build a program created under Bush. He is now following up with a heavy-lift rocket program of his own, renamed, redesigned, and restarted. Sadly, other than a vast amount of wasted time and money, the differences between these two projects isn’t really that much, when you think about it. All this history suggests quite strongly that it is insane for the taxpayer (or our representatives in Congress) to put any faith — or money — in any NASA-built shuttle replacement project. As skilled as NASA’s engineers might be, the politics of a government-built project make it impossible for the space agency to ever complete it. /Quote And then there's this: Quote Above all, what makes this private commercial space industry different from NASA’s past shuttle replacement projects is the multitude of parallel efforts. With NASA, we had one program at a time. When that program failed, there was nothing to fall back on except to start over with something new. With these new companies, the United States has redundancy, variety, and flexibility. Moreover, the competition between these companies encourages efficiency and innovation, if only to demonstrate that their product is better than their competitors. In addition, because these companies own their own products, they are not at the mercy of any specific administration or the whims of Congress. Instead, as administrations come and go they will live on, selling their product to whomever is in office. And if they need to cut their work force to save money, they are free to do so, unlike NASA which Congress owns and controls. /Quote The author Robert Zimmerman is a strong proponent of privatizing spaceflight. He will be interviewed on The Space Show, Wednesday, Dec. 21st, 7-9 PST. See the latest newsletter for this week for the show he http://www.thespaceshow.com/newsletterfinal.htm Links to hear the show live are he http://thespaceshow.com/live.htm It will also be archived a few days after broadcast on The Space Show web site: http://www.thespaceshow.com/ Bob Clark |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 20, 8:13*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On Dec 18, 9:18*am, Robert Clark wrote: *... *Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such vehicles is privately financed: OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM Elon Musk and the forgotten word.http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the...ommentaries/el... *Some great points were made in this article such as this: Quote Each new administration wants to create its own space project, refusing to follow through on the plans of its predecessor. It is for this reason that I like to call Obama’s Space Launch System proposal the-program-formerly-called-Constellation. Obama canceled the heavy- lift rockets under Constellation so as to not have to build a program created under Bush. He is now following up with a heavy-lift rocket program of his own, renamed, redesigned, and restarted. Sadly, other than a vast amount of wasted time and money, the differences between these two projects isn’t really that much, when you think about it. All this history suggests quite strongly that it is insane for the taxpayer (or our representatives in Congress) to put any faith — or money — in any NASA-built shuttle replacement project. As skilled as NASA’s engineers might be, the politics of a government-built project make it impossible for the space agency to ever complete it. /Quote *And then there's this: Quote Above all, what makes this private commercial space industry different from NASA’s past shuttle replacement projects is the multitude of parallel efforts. With NASA, we had one program at a time. When that program failed, there was nothing to fall back on except to start over with something new. With these new companies, the United States has redundancy, variety, and flexibility. Moreover, the competition between these companies encourages efficiency and innovation, if only to demonstrate that their product is better than their competitors. In addition, because these companies own their own products, they are not at the mercy of any specific administration or the whims of Congress. Instead, as administrations come and go they will live on, selling their product to whomever is in office. And if they need to cut their work force to save money, they are free to do so, unlike NASA which Congress owns and controls. /Quote *The author Robert Zimmerman is a strong proponent of privatizing spaceflight. He will be interviewed on The Space Show, Wednesday, Dec. 21st, 7-9 PST. See the latest newsletter for this week for the show he http://www.thespaceshow.com/newsletterfinal.htm *Links to hear the show live are he http://thespaceshow.com/live.htm *It will also be archived a few days after broadcast on The Space Show web site: http://www.thespaceshow.com/ * Bob Clark Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the way out. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the way out. the alternattives are a big budget bloated pork filled program that wouldnt get built because its not affordable or a smaller commercial launch system thats affordable...... when your home in in foreclosure you might buy a used vehicle....... but be unable to afford a spiffy new porsche with all the bells and whistles/ |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 21/12/2011 5:16 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:
Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the way out. Why? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Dec 20, 3:16*pm, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 21/12/2011 5:16 AM, Matt Wiser wrote: Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the way out. Why? Because, Alan, there are NO Congresscritters on record as supporting total privatization of HSF. The only national-level politicians who want that are both running for POTUS: Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul-and neither of whom will be POTUS. (It'll either be Mitt Romney or Mr. Obama gets reelected). Remember the fury over the "outsourcing" of LEO to commercial crew that that disaster for NASA known as the FY 11 Budget that was rolled out in a botched manner on 1 Feb 10 (among a lot of other stuff that drew Congressional fury)? Privatizing NASA would NEVER pass Congress, period. Cut and dry, that is it. The only Congresscritter who comes anywhere close is Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) who's pushing CCDev and COTS-but his motives are not completely pu Several Commercial Space (or NerdSpace, or ObamaSpace, call it whatever you please) outfits have facilities in SoCal (his district includes Hawthorne), and he's likely got constitutents who work at those firms. IF (and I do mean If) he'd been Chair of House Sci/Tech Committee, he'd be in a strong position to push his argument and try to influence matters. He's not, and that's that. The key members on the committees that deal with NASA are from "Space States", and they're the ones you have to convince. And the Commercial Crew folks haven't done a good job of that. They only got 45% of their requested funds for FY 12, and $100 mil of that is frozen pending NASA notifying Congress of firm exploration plans, missions, destinations, etc. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 21/12/2011 2:11 PM, Matt Wiser wrote:
Because, Alan, there are NO Congresscritters on record as supporting total privatization of HSF. Has anyone asked them? Is there any record of anyone saying they _don't_ want Human Space Flight to continue? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA, SpaceX Set First Dragon Launch To ISS | [email protected] | Policy | 136 | May 7th 12 04:20 AM |
SpaceX Dragon | Alan Erskine[_3_] | Space Shuttle | 1 | September 6th 11 08:40 AM |
SpaceX orbits Dragon breath? | David Spain | History | 2 | April 22nd 11 01:59 PM |
SpaceX Dragon | are | Policy | 6 | March 25th 07 12:19 PM |