Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space, War Commentary

Over A Barrel

16 Comments

I’m as shocked as the rest of you to learn that the Russians are jacking up the price for ISS support again:

That’s $70.6 million per seat — well above the previous price tag of about $65 million.

Just your standard inflation, I’m sure. Bolden is right:

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said if Congress had approved the space agency’s request for more funding for its commercial space effort, the latest contract would have been unnecessary. He is urging full funding of the Obama administration’s 2014 budget request of $821 million for the commercial crew program.

“Because the funding for the President’s plan has been significantly reduced, we now won’t be able to support American launches until 2017,” Bolden, a former shuttle commander, wrote in a NASA blog.

It could take longer if Congress does not fully support the 2014 request, he said.

“Further delays in our Commercial Crew Program and its impact on our human spaceflight program are unacceptable,” Bolden said.

But they’ll keep wasting money on SLS.

Here’s what I write in the book:

What is nuclear non-proliferation worth to us? This shouldn’t be an issue of civil space policy, but it is. There is a U.S. law called the Iran/North-Korea/Syria Non-Proliferation Act (INKSNA), which states that we will not trade with any nation that supports any of those countries in the development of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Russia has been doing both for years, and in order for us to continue to utilize their services for ISS access and lifeboats, Congress has to continually waive the law, essentially rendering it toothless with respect to one of the most significant violators of it (in early January of 2013, they did so out to 2020). If (as earlier discussed) we were to start using Falcon-9/Dragon sooner, even without its abort system, we could stop depending on the Russians, and stop shipping money to a nation that is indifferent to our security, if not outright hostile to it. Why don’t we? Because we don’t want to risk the lives of an astronaut crew, even though the Falcon-9/Dragon is probably as, or more, reliable at this point than anything we flew in the 1960s. Same thing applies for the Atlas and the Boeing CST capsule.

I think that it’s “safe enough” right now to end our dependence on the Russians. Despite their stated desire for three nines of safety, I’d bet that most people in the astronaut office would agree, and if there are some who don’t, no one held a gun to their heads to be an astronaut. In our unwillingness to do this, we are saying that the life of an astronaut crew is more valuable than preventing Iran from getting nukes, or to be more precise, we don’t think that non-proliferation is worth risking their lives. I don’t think that’s the case, and I’d guess that few astronauts do, either, but in its continuing hyperconcern about safety, that is exactly the message that we are getting from Congress. Now obviously, we see many men and women willing to risk their lives for national security every day, in Afghanistan (and now in other places in the Middle East). If I were an astronaut, I’d be insulted that Congresspeople don’t think that I’d be willing to. But if it’s true, then maybe we need some new astronauts, because the current ones, if they’re demanding three nines, don’t have the Right Stuff.

But space isn’t important.

16 thoughts on “Over A Barrel”

  1. But they’ll keep wasting money on SLS.

    And Orion. Don’t forget the $5+ billion spent so far on Orion alone.

  2. Rand, a question; do you have an opinion, or even a guess, on how long it would take, and roughly how much it would cost, to get a manned F9/Dragon capability to ISS without the launch abort system?

    Here are my own (admittedly poorly informed) guesses for some issues; F9/Dragon (sans abort system) currently lacks a life support system, crew couches, and a flight control system. I’m pretty sure the crew couches would be fast , cheap, and easy to do, but I have no clue on the other issues (plus whatever else needs to be done that I didn’t think of).

    IMHO, if a manned (though no abort system) F9/Dragon capability could be achieved quickly and relatively cheaply, that alone, even if we don’t actually use it, would give us some cost leverage with the Russians and also protect us against an ISS access cutoff.

    Also, when we say “Dragon without the abort system” does that actually mean no abort capability at all? What I mean is, couldn’t a currently configured Dragon use its present Draco thrusters to boost free if the launch system wasn’t under acceleration and was high enough to allow parachute deployment? If so, all we’re really talking is a lack of a pad and low altitude and under-accel abort system, not the lack of any abort capability. (and as an aside, Shuttle had several non-survivable “black zones” during its ascent profile where loss of thrust resulted in loss of crew due to re-entry profile issues. )

    I also feel compelled to mention (in case anyone here is still unaware) that Shuttle didn’t have an abort system, so why are we requiring it for new launchers?

    1. I’m sure they could fly crew on the next flight if it was important. Couches exist, and a rudimentary ECLSS could be thrown together quickly. The vehicle is already capable of reaching ISS without crew intervention.

      1. Thanks.

        Personally, I’d like some sort of emergency manual control capability for a crewed version, but that could be as simple as a joystick and a few buttons patched into the current system.

        Hrmm, for short term (2 or 3 days) rudimentary life support, anyone have any ideas if could you get away with (Apollo 13 style) an O2 tank, some lithium canisters, and a circulation fan? Okay, a few pressure valves and a monitoring system too, but basically the O2 to recharge cabin atmosphere and the lithium for Co2 scrubbing? (not talking a pure o2 environment here – way too dangerous IMHO, as Apollo 1 demonstrated).

        1. For a short mission, a few scuba tanks and regulators might be sufficient. And actually, a pure O2 environment is only dangerous at a full atmosphere. With reduced cabin pressure it wouldn’t be a problem.

          1. Reduced pressure makes a lot of sense IMHO, and not just for pure O2. I’ve never understood the reason for pressurizing, say, ISS, to sea level nominal. We don’t pressurize aircraft to sea level (more like 7000 AGL equivalent for an airliner, so why not spacecraft?).

            Scuba tanks and regulators (great idea!) might work for SpaceX, but never for a NASA flight; there’s no such thing as a billion dollar scuba tank. 🙂

          2. They maintain full atmosphere in ISS because it makes it easier to keep equipment cool, and it provides a control for experiments on the ground at sea level.

        2. Why does it take 2-3 days to get to the station? Could it reasonable be shortened to a day or less?

          1. Yes, the Russians did it with the last Soyuz flight, but it has a performance penalty. With air launch it would be a breeze, as long as the carrier aircraft had sufficient range.

  3. Why is anyone surprised? They’ve been doing the same to any nation they have/had an arms sale contract with for decades now. Go ask India…

    1. I am not sure if it applies here, but wherever possible the administration will look to cut popular, effective programs over relatively low-key programs. At this point something like SpaceX going out of business could well be a political win. “Look, this popular company that has been in the news with its charismatic CEO was revolutionizing space prior to sequestration, and now it’s bankrupt because we couldn’t keep our promises.” I can’t blame them; being a political football is a risk you take when you go after government contracts.

      1. SpaceX isn’t ULA et al. De-funded ISS cargo/crew will slow Musk’s schedule, but not change his goals. And there are many more commercial sat launches on the manifest than NASA flights.

Comments are closed.