Sigh:
Success would be a win for commercial backers, but wouldn’t answer serious questions surrounding the approach.
And while failure would provide opponents with ammunition, it’s common for new rockets to have trouble on maiden flights and become highly reliable mainstays.
Those factors point to why the White House and Congress should select a dual-track strategy that would OK commercial companies to move forward while also allowing NASA to continue testing a system involving the Ares 1 rocket.
Note that there is zero discussion of cost in this editorial. Note also the fallacy of the excluded middle.
Mike Griffin sort of made this argument as well, saying that he was hoping for commercial to succeed but needed to do Ares/Orion as an “insurance policy” against their failure. But this is insane. On my planet, you spend most of your money on what you consider most likely, and pay a much smaller amount for an insurance policy (provided by, you know, an actual insurer who writes lots of policies and is betting that your main strategy will work so he doesn’t have to pay out). This “dual-track” strategy is exactly the opposite. They are spending six billion on the primary option, and plan to spend forty billion on the “insurance.” That’s just crazy.
But OK, let’s play along. If you really want a “dual-track strategy,” how about making commercial (in this case, SpaceX) one track and give a cost-plus contract to ULA for the other? Because they’ve already said that they can get there within the six billion. Of course, that’s not fair to SpaceX (at least theoretically) because they would then have to compete with a government-subsidized competitor (though I’ll bet they could still beat their price). But regardless, it doesn’t justify continuing wasting money on Ares.
Oh, and then there’s this:
…experts say it could take a decade before the companies have rockets and spacecraft that are safe and capable enough to fly astronauts.
You can find “experts” who will say lots of things. This wording implies that there are no experts who would disagree with that statement. Or at least its implications. Sure it could take a decade. It could take two decades. It could also take only three years or so. What’s magic about a decade? Nothing, of course, except it gives them an excuse to say that we have to have a “dual-track” (read, pork for Florida) strategy.
The lack of a discussion of cost, IMHO, highlights what is wrong. Not just with the space program, but government in general.
This reminds me of when I moved from California to Arizona back in the early 90’s… I was getting quote from movers, and one had a mind-boggling option;
I could insure myself from damage caused by them (the deductible) for just $743 dollars. Pay that on top of their fees, and I wouldn’t have to worry about paying the deductible if they damaged or broke anything.
Here’s the kicker; the deductible (my maximum exposure) without the waiver was $500 under the terms of the contract they were offering. I pointed this out to the sales-idiot twice, but he could not seem to grasp why I thought it was preposterous to pay $743 to insure myself against a possible maximum loss of $500.
Needless to say, I took my business elsewhere; I had no desire to trust that kind of idiot (or crook) with my stuff.
Now I see the same sort of “math” being used to push the “Dual path” by keeping the 40 billion Ares project going.
I hope Falcon 9 does well. I know that having a successful initial launch is a dicey proposition, but I hope it happens, otherwise the talking heads will seize on that as proof it cannot work.
It’s good that most of this nonsense will go away in a few years once successes can be pointed to. Not the government ignoring costs… I mean ignoring options once they are an accomplished fact. Which makes it harder to ignore (though not impossible sadly.)
ken anthony wrote:
It’s good that most of this nonsense will go away in a few years once successes can be pointed to. Not the government ignoring costs… I mean ignoring options once they are an accomplished fact. Which makes it harder to ignore (though not impossible sadly.)
Sadly, your parenthetical is all too true. I’ve lost count of the number of people who insist Ares I is a flying launch vehicle and Atlas and Delta are Powerpoint fantasies.
It was much like the missile defense debate early in the W administration, where people were insisting things were impossible that had already been demonstrated.
Mike
It’s funny that someone that writes for Florida Today about space has no idea what’s going on in the space industry. It’s one thing to have political motivations, but it’s another to not do research and verification. Sigh…
I wish SpaceX well on their Falcon 9 test program, and I think they will spend the time to get it right, even if that means more than one test flight. I also think that they have crafted a very smart business plan, and that they are positioning themselves to be the least expensive provide of crew launch services.
However, ULA has two launchers that are available today, and are already proven. Last year, the CEO of United Launch Alliance (Boeing/LM) stated that they could man-rate Delta IV Heavy for $1.3B (launcher & facilities), and it would be available in 4.5 years. The cost to launch an Orion would be $300M/flight. He also said that a man-rated Atlas V would cost $130M/flight for commercial crew.
If I could wave my magic wand, I would want NASA to award a contract to man-rate Delta IV for ISS, and then put our an RFQ for a second crew launcher for ISS. This would not exclude a third or fourth provider offering services, and I would hope that NASA sets industry standards that everyone can use.
Ron, maybe we’ll hear something in response to the Commercial Crew Transportation RFI. There might be some actual progress then, but I doubt it.
How does the Delta/Orion crew capacity and cost per seat compare with the seven passenger Dragon?
ken anthony Says: May 24th, 2010 at 7:35 am
“How does the Delta/Orion crew capacity and cost per seat compare with the seven passenger Dragon?”
The ULA CEO quoted $300M to launch an Orion on a Delta IV Heavy, so that would be at least $50M/seat, assuming the 6-person configuration is used.
Elon Musk has stated that SpaceX would be able to offer crew transportation to LEO for $20M/seat. My back-of-the-envelope calculations show that they can be profitable with five paying passengers, and I’m assuming they will have at least one crew person, maybe two depending. I’m also assuming they are using the the single-core Falcon 9, and not the Heavy variant.
SpaceX would be cheaper overall, but it’s not apples-to-apples in comparison, since the Orion is a heavier vehicle, needing a more capable booster. Still, a Falcon 9 Heavy launcher would probably cost ~$150M, and if they delivered an Orion, it would be about $30M/seat.
I would still man-rate Delta IV first ($1.3B total & 4.5 years), since it’s a known quantity.