45 thoughts on “A Declaration Off Space Independence From The Russians”

    1. Hrrmph. Yet another site that assumes everyone who might comment is on Facebook.

      Someone who is might want to pass this along in response to Whittington’s incorrect assertion:

      SLS will be an “essential part” of Mars exploration only if its supporters in Congress succeed in declaring it so by law, as they’re currently trying to do.

      Until then, it’s a rocket in desperate search of a mission, any mission, because it’s looking like ending up far too expensive to fly anything on. Ten to fifteen times equivalent commercial costs tends to limit the number of customers for anything.

      1. Yes, I refuse to register with FB.

        Mark R Whittington: The “internal study” Rand refers to (singular and not plural) was one that suggested that deep space missions could be accomplished with many multiple launches of commercial rockets. The problem is that it would take six per lunar mission and nine per asteroid mission. Mars would be flat out impossible, The scheme would also limit us to three or maybe four deep space missions in an entire decade.

        Mark ignores the FH and other vehicles in the works at SpaceX (nine Raptor on a 10m core will be a sight to see.)

        Will SpaceX leave everyone else so far back in the dust that no competitor could catch up? That would not be good.

          1. Yep, he is. SLS – if the space fairy provides cost-free landers and other currently missing items – can maybe do a Moon run every other year, but it can’t get to Mars on a single launch – probably not even on two. “Three or maybe four deep space missions in an entire decade” would look pretty good compared to what SLS could manage on any kind of rationally expectable NASA budget.

  2. Not a single mention of RD-180 ? Far higher immediate impact than ISS threats

    The solution: force break up of ULA, and let LM and Boeing compete again, if they so choose.

  3. Superb article, Rand.

    Regarding the dowselect though; my guess is it’s even worse than you portray. I agree that dowselecting is a bad idea for the reasons you state. However, while that’s bad enough, the most likely option here IMHO is that they’ll downselect to Boeing, which is three years from an unmanned first flight, and has the, ahem, “added feature” of relying on the Russian RD-180.

    I hope like heck I’m wrong.

    1. Well, with respect to the last, Boeing would say that they have designed it to launch on all existing launchers in the class, including Falcon 9. Then the pressure would be on SpaceX to provide launches to the winner (while they lost…).

      1. Hrmmm. Assuming CST-100 can use an F9, that would be… interesting. I wonder what SpaceX would do if asked to provide F9 launches for CST-100 after being wrongfully axed from CCP?

        I’ve heard it argued that SpaceX is in the business of selling launches, so of course they’d sell launches to Boeiing for CST-100. IMHO, it’s nowhere near as simple as that.

        Let’s see, this is the same Boeing that owns half of ULA… and I think it’s fairly safe to say that there’s no love lost between ULA and SpaceX. Therefor, SpaceX might not be willing to pull Boeing’s chestnuts from the fire. There’s also the very real business issue of helping a competitor. So, my guess is they’d merely refer Boeing to all the guaranteed-access-to-space promises ULA made, and suggest that they go find an engine.

        SpaceX would also have the option of completing Dragon 2 themselves (it sounds like they are very close) and simply telling NASA; if you want to fly buy seats from us, or buy CST-100 from Boeing for a nice lawn ornament, because it’s got no way to get off the ground.”.

        Heh, they could always fly it on the non-human-rated Delta IV, if only NASA would relax its human-rating rules. . 🙂

        1. My guess to what will happen? They will fund SLS Orion, which won’t be ready on time, and the Boeing CST-100 capsule, which won’t be ready on time either. Then SpaceX launches Dragon on its own dime and they backpedal and hire them.

          1. Nah, too sensible. My guess is that SpaceX will be flying people into space on a regular basis while the Old Space capsules are years behind schedule, but NASA will justify waiting for them because Dragon isn’t ‘man-rated’.

          2. Not much question that Shelby would like to see this. Not sure he has enough allies to pull it off. And his coalition has taken a recent big hit, though it is not yet widely appreciated. What seems to be missing in the domestic political analyses of recent events is the Orbital-ATK merger. It’s, technically, a merger of equals, but the former ATK CEO stayed with the part of ATK that didn’t go to Orbital. Orbital’s management is intact and the new ATK troops are subordinates. Orbital now calls the shots for the part of ATK of concern to space cadets like ourselves.

            Given that Orbital is a key member of the ISS caucus, ATK is now one too, by marriage. This will be especially so if, as reported, Orbital decides to go with an ATK-engineered solid first stage for Antares 2.0.

            Orbital also has an effective veto over any real future SLS might have. If they decide to have their new ATK division abandon the starvation-level SRB production slated for SLS, then SLS is toast. At a minimum, Orbital won’t let ATK participate in any more sub rosa scheming against ISS by SLS partisans.

            So SLS faces new political limitations and a possible existential threat and ULA faces a comparable threat due to Russian counter-sanctions. Life is not good for Richard Shelby and his in-group cronies these days. It’s quite likely to get a lot worse real fast.

        2. In the hypothetical event of a Commercial Crew downselect to CST-100 coupled with a Boeing decision to fly it on F9, I expect SpaceX would treat Boeing/NASA as just another customer.

          A customer with very exacting paperwork and procedural requirements, that will be reflected in the F9 price.

          A customer not, however, entitled to any sort of non-compete rights regarding crewed Dragon.

          These things have a way of sorting themselves out.

          1. Hrmmm.

            If SpaceX is the only ride in town, perhaps they would sell F9 launches for CST-100 at a bargain rate. Say, a million less than a full up Delta IV Heavy (including all subsidies, of course). Call it half a billion per F9 (I have a hunch that SpaceX wouldn’t mind).

          2. “A customer with very exacting paperwork and procedural requirements, that will be reflected in the F9 price.”

            Wouldn’t surprise me at all if Space-X told them to shove their paperwork and procedural requirements. S-X has the leverage – go with us or CST-100 doesn’t go at all.

            It’s all that paperwork and procedural folderol that helps drive prices through the roof.

            Besides, S-X is building their own crew vehicle. And they can fly it with their own procedures and paperwork. I’m sure those will be streamlined.

        3. If I were SpaceX, it would look like this:

          F9 launch with -our- Dragon and seven crew, $100 million.(ish).
          F9 launch with your whatever-it-is-on-top, $90 million + $10 million insurance against your widget taking down my rocket.

          And the ‘test payload’ for FH would be ‘Pod 1 of Space Station Beta’.

          That’s the “Yeah, if you -insist- on your module, we’ll play it that way, but it will cost you (even though we’ll -still- be the cheapest method).” And add the “And we’ll make our own place-to-go.”

    3. If they downselect and exclude SpaceX, it’ll probably accelerate the first manned Dragon flight by two years. My guess is Elon only would hold back from first manned flight next year to avoid embarrassing a major cash customer. If the anti-commercial faction within NASA decides to no longer be a major cash customer, well, serves ’em right.

      1. Pretty much how I see things going if the powers that be are really arrogant and stupid enough to ace SpaceX out of CCtCap. Elon unchained would simply move Dragon 2.0’s and Bigelow’s schedules up by two years and render the whole thing moot by 2017 – or 2018, or whenever the teacher’s pets are supposed to be flying.

        1. Which is all the more reason to kill NASA funding for Commercial Crew, since it seems to be delaying firms like SpaceX from developing the commercial market for orbit, not accelerating it.

          As I said before, without COTS/CCP there would have already been a SpaceX served BA330 in orbit, earning true commercial money from true commercial customers, not NASA. The customers and Mr. Bigelow a just waiting on spacelift.

          1. If SpaceX is down-selected for CCtCap that will effectively kill Commercial Crew. If the Forces of Darkness in Congress can ace out SpaceX at this late date, and in spite of Russian counter-sanctions, then they’ll be able to take most, and probably all, remaining CCtCap funding for SLS. If Shelby, et al, are actually able to do this and make it stick, then matters will likely proceed as predicted anent BA 330 and 2015 initial crewed test and operation of Dragon 2.0. The joker in the deck is still Orbital. They now have it within their power to gut SLS with a single stroke. If a putatively successful SpaceX exclusion move is made and the SLS caucus next turns its sights on ISS, I think they will. Interesting times.

  4. Just for the record – he doesn’t get a lot of credit for all the work he did – Tim Kyger was the one who came up with the phrase “Midnight Basketball for Russians”.

    1. Although he actually said “Midnight Basketball for Russia”, now that I think about it.

  5. Hey Rand, I hope that members of congress will read your article. But do any members of congress read your articles? Have any of them contacted you? it’s not that congress dosen’t think that space is important, but how much does the average congress member know about new space? How many know that Elon Musk plans to build a colony on Mars? Or that Robert Bigelow is going to build a manned space station, and plans to build a base on the Moon? Mitt Romney thought that it would cost over $100 billion, to build a colony on the Moon. I think what we need to do, is to email congress, and tell them about the new space companies.

    That there are alternatives to Boeing, and other old space companies. Also need to tell congress, that more can be done in space, besides science, and exploration.

    1. Oh, I think Congress knows about New Space. The trouble is, some of them would prefer to strangle it in its crib.

  6. Am I’m missing the pun of the “off” or is it a typo? I’m not one to speak, as my posts are usually poor in grammar with dropped words in editing along with typos, but anyway just read the title carefully this time.

  7. Slightly off topic, but yesterday another Russian Proton-M exploded, destroying an advanced European satellite that cost $275 million. It seemed to have been a pressure drop in a third-stage engine about one minute from cutoff.

    Daily Mail article
    Defense Tech article

    Their commercial workhorse has a 7 percent failure rate.

    1. George, saying “exploded” is unduly harsh, isn’t it?

      Isn’t it kinder to say “SHED” (Spontaneous High Energy Disassembly)?

      But, if the engine shut down, then there was no kaboom at all, it’s merely a premature shutdown resulting in a lower-than-anticipated perigee (in this case, below sea level). Also know as a SOD (Sub-orbital Diffusion) leading to a WUD (Wet Unplanned Destination).

      🙂

    2. Imagine the insurance premiums. On NSF it was speculated to be in the ballpark of $80M just for the insurance – and it will go up.
      Now imagine something like JWST which is going to be north of $10 billion at the time of the launch on top of on an expendable rocket. Say Ariane has maybe 1-2% failure rate ( and not a high confidence level ) – that’s still an insane level of financial risk to take.

      1. US government launches are self-insured by us taxpayers. They know they can always hit us up for more money when there’s a failure.

  8. Another great article Rand. This to me was key…

    using typical socialist arguments (from Republicans and Democrats alike)

    It’s an outrage that our education system and media aren’t changed to remedy this. We are no longer the land of the free. I flinch every time I hear this expression. We are still home of the brave but without a direction. We may need martians to set a better example for us. There are none on earth to point to.

    Marxism must die. It is killing us but in too invisible a way. That’s where we need to shine the brightest light.

  9. Good op-ed. I need to stop reading the comments though – where do these comment trolls come from? I hope that ostrich impression about both Russia and the risks of space travel are not representative of this country’s opinions, or we’re never going to get off this rock.

  10. PPS – SpaceX seems to have the best system going right now, but I agree that having a competitor is always nice. Contrary to government acquisition cost-plus-sole-source orthodoxy (which is all kinds of stupid), if you have competitors, you have options, and that means the price is never “everything you’re willing to pay and then some”.

    Why were we ever dependent on Russian engines in the first place? Does anyone know why our main launch companies decided to make their main launch vehicles dependent on engines from a country that, until ~25-30 years ago was an enemy? We *have* our own rocket scientists, we’ve *done* our own engine development in the past. What gives?

    1. A few reasons on that:
      – EELV was conceived in the heady 90s, when the Cold War was over and everyone was our friends
      – As with ISS, this was viewed as a way to keep Russian engineers busy…otherwise, they might sell their technology to bad guys
      – The engines were available at a relative steel compared to any US-built option
      – EELV was meant to serve the then-predicted HUGE commercial market for launchers, where high flight rates and the accompanying low prices were expected to be the norm
      – The backup plan was that the US would build an onshore capability to build the engines as time went on. Somehow, that just never happened…

    2. After the Cold War, it was naively assumed on the part of the policy establishment, both military and civil space, that Russia was now a reliable partner and part of the “world community.”

      1. The left assumes it can talk anybody into their position or at least outmaneuver them. The concept that others will look out for their own interests is foreign.

  11. From Rand’s article:

    ” NASA has comforted themselves with the knowledge of how much pride Russia has historically taken in its space activities. The agency has repeatedly insisted that deteriorating relations on the ground wouldn’t extend into orbit, and reportedly, they haven’t done so yet.”

    But from the Independent we read:

    “The dispute began in April, when a leaked Nasa memo revealed that the agency would be suspending all contact with the Russian government because of the country’s “ongoing violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”.”

    If that’s true (leaked memo) then we have a bit of duplicity going on here. And perhaps NASA (and of course the White House) brought it on themselves:

    “Although the involvement of the US government was not explicit, the space agency’s decision was widely assumed to have involved the White House and State Department. Subsequent export restrictions – more specifically, “high technology defence articles or services” – confirmed the US’s intent to punish Russia’s struggling space industry.”

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/ukraine-crisis-in-space-us-takes-on-the-russians-only-this-time-its-over-the-international-space-station-9391334.html

  12. Thanks for the article. It would be extremely embarrassing for NASA if SpaceX is flying their own crews to space next year, while NASA is still contracting rides to the ISS from the Russians.

    Bob Clark

Comments are closed.