Erecting barriers to entry for upstart competition–one of the more destructive features of crony capitalism.
Looking at that chart what I get is that SpaceX demonstrated the capability to launch to orbits that cover like half the payloads ULA launched. Of course that chart only focuses on orbit not actual payload mass.
As for having a bigger track record to lean upon. Sure. They are the incumbent after all. Plus if SpaceX don’t get a chance to launch more payloads they won’t get more of a track record either making this a catch-22.
Why did ULA put all their vehicles on their side of the chart yet they compare only against the Falcon 9 v1.1 and don’t even include v1.0? That would double the number of SpaceX datapoints.
In other news, buggy whip manufacturers point out that horseless carriage owners do not buy many buggy whips (when they do they seem to use them in basements rather than outdoors?!)
“Don’t try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Lock Mart. Your sad devotion to that ancient mode of procurement has not helped you conjure a mode of crew transport, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the intent of Congress… ”
(chokes Elon with projection of mental force)
“I find your lack of faith . . . disturbing.”
I’ve contempt for people using the logic in the ULA graphic, it’s the same logic that some dictatorial thugs use: I’m the only one who’s been in power so I need to stay in power because no one else can show that they’re competent a my job (putting aside the thugs already demonstrated lack of competence).
This “scorecard” illustrates that ULA has completed far more launches than SpaceX.
So? The Russians have completed far more launches than ULA. What’s their point?
People frequently ask why it costs so much and takes so long for the military to buy things. Take a look at this JCIDS Process Diagram and you’ll see why. As one general from Air Force Space Command said, “I couldn’t get a paperclip through this process in less than two years.”
Tha sad thing is this isn’t include all the hoops you have to jump through on a major acquisition.
If you think that chart is bad, take a look at this.
Yeah, that will certainly ensure humanity’s future in space. 🙂
Good. Grief.
I’m speechless.
Looks like a mask design for a chip.
This is why FAR and cost-plus contracting need to be done away with wholesale. This bureaucratic growth of kudzu makes it impossible for the DoD to buy anything either quickly or cheaply. Ditto for NASA. It has to go.
This is why FAR and cost-plus contracting need to be done away with wholesale.
As desirable as that might be, it ain’t gonna happen.
A more realistic alternative is to look for ways of going into space that are *not* dependent on government as the sole (or primary customer).
What we used to call “commercial” space or “private enterprise” — before ISS huggers like the SFF redefined those words to mean government contracting.
Where we would we be today if the space movement had rallied around SpaceShip One, instead of the Bush Vision of Space Exploration, for the last 10 years? Can you honestly say we would be any worse off than we are now? And there’s a chance that free-enterprise stuff might actually work the way economists say it does.
The displacement of NASA/legacy space by commercial space seems reasonably well underway.
The next “waypoint” will be the reconciled version of the NASA budget bill. If it emerges without Sen. Shelby’s poison pill language it will be an indication that commercial space is strong and adroit enough politically to begin getting the weather gauge on business as usual and holds out hope that the ossified ways of doing things in the military/space industrial complex may be capable of being supplanted.
The waypoint just beyond is the decision about which competitors go forward in Commercial Crew. Outcomes of these two waypoint decisions of varying likelihood can be ranked from best to worst.
I rate the best outcome as that where the poison pill fails to stick, SpaceX and Sierra Nevada are selected to continue in Commercial Crew and Boeing is cut. This would mean SpaceX sticks to NASA’s schedule so Dragon V2 probably carries people later than if any of the combinations where SpaceX is cut from Commercial Crew come to pass. But Sierra Nevada would be in for a full share and would reach operational capability earlier than under any other scenario. Thus, this choice gets us to two competitive heterogeneous commercial crew solutions quickest.
I rate the worst outcome as that where the poison pill sticks and Boeing is selected to proceed alone in Commercial Crew. No more competition (at least within the program), the latest probable capability of carrying crews to orbit (again, within the program) and no more heterogeneity of vehicles.
The combination of Shelby’s poison pill and a Boeing-only conclusion to Commercial Crew would signal that the rot is so deeply set as to justify the pessimism widely expressed about the possibility of ever reforming NASA/defense procurement.
But any outcome in which SpaceX is cut from Commercial Crew also frees Elon to pursue his own muse at his own maximum speed. He’s already moving at many times the speed of NASA and legacy aerospace. The prospect of further acceleration by Hawthorne has me fairly sanguine about the ultimate ability of commercial space to prevail regardless of what NASA decides or legacy firms do. Therefore, Dragon V2 would fly even sooner than if it remains under NASA auspices, but the other Commercial Crew competitors would be slowest to actually produce anything capable of taking crews to orbit.
Sigh. Are you you’re deliberately misunderstanding me? I went out of my way to make it quite clear I was talking about what *used* to be called commercial space — private companies selling goods and services to private customers — not what is now called “commercial space” — which we used to call “government contracting.”
You talk about “the displacement of NASA,” but you can’t get past government contractors, selected by NASA, carrying NASA astronauts to NASA’s space station as the only possible market? That’s the “best outcome” you can imagine?
Let me try one more time. Instead of following the “Orphans of Apollo” down the BVSE path, suppose the space movement had heeded the politically incorrect “dinosaurs” like G. Harry Stine who advocated policies that incentivize private markets? Tax credits, technology prizes, regulatory and liability reform, space property rights, etc. I know, that’s “Old Space” thinking, but humor me for a moment — how would you be worse off than you are now, or even in your “best outcome” scenario?
No, I didn’t misunderstand you. So let me further explain my views on these matters.
My best case scenario grows out of government contracting, specifically, out of Commercial Crew. I deemed it best because it appears the fastest road to a competitive crew-to-LEO transport market with heterogeneous vehicles whose “ecological niches” don’t fully overlap.
Scenarios in which SpaceX is aced out of Commercial Crew this Fall and left to pursue matters on their own I rated slightly lower because all but the scenario in which the poison pill fails and Boeing and Sierra Nevada are chosen to continue in Commercial Crew would materially slow or even prevent Sierra Nevada from providing Dreamchaser as heterogeneous competition for Dragon V2. That would be the downside of these scenarios.
Their upside is that it would unleash SpaceX to pursue its Matula-tastic agenda largely unhindered by NASA strings. Falcon Heavy’s initial launch would likely move up, perhaps even reverting back to Vandenberg as launch site if LC-39A can’t be readied in time. Bigelow would get the thumbs up to ready the first BA 330 for launch. Dragon V2 would accelerate its test schedule. The first private space station would be on-orbit and accepting visitors by as early as 2016.
The worst case scenario of a Boeing sole-source Commercial Crew victory would delay U.S.-based crew transport to ISS – at least from within the sad remains of the Commercial Crew program – and delay or kill competition from Dreamchaser. This is another of the scenarios in which SpaceX gets to accelerate Dragon V2’s schedule on their own dime. As Boeing is furthest from being flight-ready of the three currently funded Commercial Crew competitors, SpaceX might conceivably make NASA an offer it couldn’t refuse and wind up with a crew transport contract anyway, once it has actually flown Dragon V2 to orbit and back successfully with crew aboard. But that is hardly a cinch bet.
Should SpaceX continue in Commercial Crew, the initial market for crew-to-LEO transport will be NASA and ISS. But I’m increasingly dubious of the ISS lasting much beyond 2020. Meanwhile, the Falcon Heavy will fly next year and Bigelow will be able to start planning for its first LEO hab to go up about the same time Dragon V2 first flies for NASA in 2017. I think Bigelow will soon have an increasing number of BA 330’s up, in single and multi-hab configurations. The crew-to-LEO transport market will then begin to transition in a Bigelow-centric direction. Even if ISS lasts beyond 2020, the total Bigelow presence in LEO is likely to quickly exceed the ISS in volume. A few years after that it will exceed ISS in mass as well.
One thing to remember about Bigelow is that, by your definition, his part of the crew-to-LEO transport market will not be purely private market in nature. His initial clients are all sovereign states. So, at least in the early going, servicing Bigelow habs with crew and cargo will be government contracting at one remove. It’s just that the governments in question will not – at least immediately – number that of the U.S. among them.
Bigelow will quickly attract other clients of a completely commercial market stripe to be sure. The fact that there is an increasing number of such arrangements even on the ISS proves there is a market for such services and that its upper bounds are not currently known. Purely commercial transactions in space will grow over time, but government contracting, either directly or indirectly, will remain important for some time. That being the case, it is perfectly rational for NewSpace firms to challenge the many obvious absurdities of current U.S. government procurement practice.
As Boeing is furthest from being flight-ready of the three currently funded Commercial Crew competitors
Why do you think that Boeing is further than Sierra Nevada?
Yes, Dick, I know you believe that. Religiously. I hear it daily from the faithful followers of Brother Rick Tumlinson. “The only difference between New Space and Old Space is which contractor gets the NASA money. We don’t need no stinking competition. ISS will turn into Alpha Town. Potential single-point failures don’t matter because Elon is infallible. Yadda, yadda, yadda.”
I won’t try to convince you you’re wrong, but you haven’t even tried to answer my question. What awful thing what would happen if we *didn’t* put all our eggs into one basket? How would we be worse off if the “NewSpace” movement had supported Alan Wasser’s land-grant proposal, Dana Rohrabacher’s Zero G Zero Taxes, Newt Gingrich’s Mars prize, or George Nield’s CATS prize — to name just a few examples? Why is “NewSpace” afraid to even consider such ideas?
Rand,
I assume Boeing is furthest from operational capability because, so far as I know, they have yet to build anything even equivalent to Sierra Nevada’s engineering test article, never mind the first orbit-capable Dreamchaser which is now in the early phases of construction. Boeing built something to do parachute and airbag drop tests with, but it was not my impression this was anywhere near a complete vehicle. I’m quite prepared to be corrected if I’m mistaken in any of these notions.
Edward,
I haven’t a clue where most of your latest post comes from, but it sure ain’t from me or anything I’ve written here.
The only difference between New Space and Old Space is which contractor gets the NASA money.
I pretty obviously don’t believe that. It not only matters which contractor gets the money, it matters even more how they get the money. FAR and cost-plus are roads to extinction. Fixed-price milestones are the way forward.
We don’t need no stinking competition.
Why you would attribute this to me is incomprehensible. It is precisely the opposite of my actual beliefs. Lack of competition is the hallmark of every part of legacy space that’s holding us back.
ISS will turn into Alpha Town.
I don’t get the reference.
Potential single-point failures don’t matter because Elon is infallible.
Of course single-point failures matter. What have I ever written that would make you think I believe otherwise? One of SpaceX’s keys to success has been to eliminate as many single-point failure modes as possible from their designs. I’ve commented several times about how their engine clustering is essentially an aerospace application of the same engineering principle underlying RAID storage arrays and how too many people with traditional aerospace backgrounds can’t seem to grasp that this approach is superior to simply pursuing a policy of minimizing total part count.
I won’t try to convince you you’re wrong, but you haven’t even tried to answer my question. What awful thing what would happen if we *didn’t* put all our eggs into one basket? How would we be worse off if the “NewSpace” movement had supported Alan Wasser’s land-grant proposal, Dana Rohrabacher’s Zero G Zero Taxes, Newt Gingrich’s Mars prize, or George Nield’s CATS prize — to name just a few examples? Why is “NewSpace” afraid to even consider such ideas?
I see no reason to believe NewSpace doesn’t support any of your cited policies, but I see plenty of reasons to suppose they also see the anything-but-certain and uphill nature of the political fights that would be necessary to establish any of them. For someone who claims to champion purely “commercial” space, untouched by icky government contracting, you seem quite enamored of policies that have lots of politics on their critical paths, not to mention prizes that are government-sponsored. I fail to see any essential difference between fixed-price milestone-based contracting and government-funded prizes.
I assume Boeing is furthest from operational capability because, so far as I know, they have yet to build anything even equivalent to Sierra Nevada’s engineering test article, never mind the first orbit-capable Dreamchaser which is now in the early phases of construction. Boeing built something to do parachute and airbag drop tests with, but it was not my impression this was anywhere near a complete vehicle. I’m quite prepared to be corrected if I’m mistaken in any of these notions.
I think that Sierra Nevada has a lot more uncertainties in front of them to build an orbital vehicle (particularly with entry) than Boeing does, since the latter is basically an Apollo capsule.
It not only matters which contractor gets the money, it matters even more how they get the money.
Obviously, it does not matter. “There is no significant difference between the final phase [of commercial crew] and traditional government contracting.” That’s not me saying that. That was Garrett Reisman, from SpaceX, back in January.
But this has not tempered “NewSpace” enthusiasm for CCDeev at all.
“A difference must make a difference to be a difference.”
Lack of competition is the hallmark of every part of legacy space that’s holding us back.
Yet, that’s the direction in which CCDev is headed — and no one cares. Jim Muncy actually *praised* Rep. Frank Wolfe, in Space News, for forcing NASA to downselect.
I don’t get the reference.
“Alpha Town” was Rick Tumlinson’s name for the first “village in space,” which ISS was supposed to evolve into. It was SFF’s justification for flip-flopping on the space station (which it had originally opposed) and later for Alt Access / COTS / CCDev.
Of course single-point failures matter…. One of SpaceX’s keys to success has been to eliminate as many single-point failure modes as possible from their designs.
You don’t get it. SpaceX is a potential single-point failure. By pinning all your hopes on one company, you may the entire industry dependent on a single company’s success. If Elon Musk has a heart attack, if he gets hit by a bus, if an earthquake wipes out their Hawthorne factory, if the company simply makes a mistake — the entire “NewSpace” plan goes down with it.
And it’s impossible to make “NewSpacers” understand that. No matter how many times you warn them, they must keep saying how great Elon is.
And even if SpaceX does everything perfectly, the International Space Station is another potential single-point failure. And NASA itself is another. As are both houses of Congress, and the White House… all potential single-point failures on the critical path.
It isn’t just a out how you cluster the engines. It’s about funding and politics and institutions.
I see no reason to believe NewSpace doesn’t support any of your cited policies,
Really? Did you attend last year’s NewSpace Conference, or even look at the agenda? Did you see any of those ideas listed?
The mantra at NewSpace 2013 said that “public-private partnerships are the correct way to do space.” Not a correct way, the correct way. That’s the sort of thing we’ve heard for the more than 10 years. When someone presents a new idea, the “leaders of NewSpace” stomp all over it. The excuse is always the same: “[Alt Access|COTS|CCDev] is more important.”
Rand,
You could be right. Nonetheless, Sierra Nevada claims that its sub-contractor, LockMart, is fabricating a flight-capable Dreamchaser right now at Michoud.
Both CST-100 and Dreamchaser have basic geometry and aerodynamics based on legacy NASA vehicles (Apollo command module and HL-20 lifting body, respectively). Actual re-entry experience favors the Apollo-like CST-100. Still, CST-100 isn’t exactly an Apollo knock-off. Its heat shield material, for example, is roughly 40% less dense than the Avcoat material used on Apollo and slated, in resurrected form, for Orion. Given Orion’s persistent obesity problem, I have to give props to Boeing for what clearly seems a superior choice, but also note that a lighter heat shield will non-trivially influence re-entry dynamics.
Still, my impression of CST-100’s progress toward flyable hardware being a bit on the leisurely side is based, among other things, on Boeing having shown pictures of a CST-100 iso-grid pressure vessel test article in 2011, that was, nonetheless, apparently not incorporated into the drop test article used a year later for parachute and airbag terminal descent and landing tests. In fact Bigelow is credited as supplying the boilerplate structural test article for these tests.
Also, Boeing concluded a deal quite some time ago to use the former Orbiter Processing Facility No. 3 at Kennedy as their production facility for CST-100 but I have been unable to find very much about what has actually gone on there since. Dragon V2 has been shown in at least abort test flyable form and Sierra Nevada has their Engineering Test Article and, as noted already, reports that their first flight-capable Dreamchaser is now under construction at Michoud. Perhaps Boeing is actually further along than this with a flight-capable CST-100. I just don’t get the feeling this is the case.
Whose vehicle is further along may well prove of no ultimate importance anyway. Both CST-100 and Dreamchaser are dependent, for now, upon Atlas V as a launch vehicle and the future of that rocket is, of course, critically dependent on the future availability – or non-availability – of RD-180 engines. If Russian counter-sanctions end RD-180 shipments, as now seems increasingly likely, both Boeing and Sierra Nevada have some major scrambling to do.
Edward,
With all due respect to Mr. Reisman, he’s wrong. If Sen. Shelby’s poison pill language survives conference committee he’ll find out he’s wrong. The CCDev contracts are FAR-based, but not cost-plus. Having to meet cost-plus FAR reporting requirements without also getting a guaranteed profit margin is actually the worst situation for a contractor – and that is, of course, exactly what Sen. Shelby intends. Government contracts are not uniformly gray, like cats after midnight. I have no idea why you keep trying to pretend otherwise.
As for downselection to a single vendor, that is hardly a done deal. Even if that does come to pass, it doesn’t mean the end of competition, just the end of competition within the rubric of CCDev. If SpaceX is dropped from CCDev in the Fall, they will press forward regardless. Sierra Nevada has said the same, though one, admittedly, has to take that with a bit more salt. Still, a Boeing sole-source CCDev award contains at least the seeds of three-way competition for LEO crew launch services and a virtual certainty of preserving two-way competition. The worst outcome anent competition, ironically, would be if CCDev downselects to one vendor and it’s SpaceX. But that scenario is pretty much incompatible with the views of people like yourself who believe government contracting to be irretrievably corrupt and unreformable.
Thanks for enlightening me about Alpha Town. I don’t pay much attention to Rev. Rick as a general thing. He’s well-intentioned, but also pretty much irrelevant to what’s actually going to happen in commercial space.
Now to that business about single-point failures. Yes, in theory, SpaceX is a single-point failure that could happen. The conquest and occupation of the United States by Islamic jihadists is also a theoretically possible single-point failure that cannot be completely ruled out. What’s important here is not whether a particular single-point failure mode is or isn’t utterly foreclosed by the laws of physics, but what its probability of occurrence is. I think SpaceX is past the point where even the loss of Elon Musk is likely to take it down and I’m actually a believer in the “Great Man” theory of inflection points in history. SpaceX’s future would be more secure with Elon continuing in charge, but he’s got a good team there. They could soldier on without him.
The rest of your alleged single-points of failure are all a lot more likely to come to pass than the fall of SpaceX or even of the United States, but I worry about none of them because, in my estimation, not a single one is on the critical path to humanity becoming a space-faring/dwelling species. Let’s examine each.
ISS? It will either last beyond 2020 or it won’t. Bigelow will start putting habs in LEO as soon as Falcon Heavy and affordable LEO crew transport are done deals – 2018 at the latest. The market for LEO crew transport doesn’t end with ISS. There’s a decent probability it won’t even begin with ISS.
NASA? If NASA disappeared tomorrow, SpaceX would still finish Dragon V2 and FH. Bigelow would still put up his habs.
Congress? Other than gratuitously screwing around with the NASA budget and doing things like Sen. Shelby’s latest attempt at sabotage to rational contracting practices, there’s nothing much Congress is likely to do that would actually get in the way of current commercial space activity. There are doubtless individual Congresscritters who’d like to turn back the clock to a pre-Elon era, but that ship sailed a long time ago. The more Congress tries to preserve the ancien regime of NASA and legacy contractors, the quicker it all comes apart.
The White House? The next administration will likely be Republican. Tea Party types aren’t fond of crony capitalism and there will be even more of them in Congress than there are now; the vast majority from states with no vested interest in preserving NASA/DoD business as usual. The occupant of the White House isn’t likely to be anyone with ties to traditional aerospace or NASA unless it’s Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz and I don’t think it will be either of them. The future of the current corrupt arrangements doesn’t look good, especially given the complicating factor of Russian counter-sanctions that have already upended ULA’s rice bowl. Even before the 2016 election, I expect ULA may well implode. Shelby is being aggressive now because the ground is crumbling under his feet.
It isn’t just a out how you cluster the engines. It’s about funding and politics and institutions.
I thought you were the one who wanted commercial space to steer as clear as possible of icky and corrupt government contracting? Now you seem to be suggesting that government is still the essential customer.
I think the U.S. government is a useful customer, but if it ceases to be, I think commercial space can get along without it. I favor Elon’s assault on the monopoly privilege of ULA because ULA is now a shambles, it and the rest of the legacy aerospace procurement institutions are structurally corrupt and because introducing competition is best for the national security of the United States and for reducing Uncle Sugar’s launch services bill.
Really? Did you attend last year’s NewSpace Conference, or even look at the agenda? Did you see any of those ideas listed?
No, no and no. And why should I? The “leaders of NewSpace” are not conference organizers or the officers of fanboy organizations, they’re the people raising capital, bending metal and throwing their hats into the ring of actual commerce. I used to think conferences and such were a big deal when I was much younger. I’ve long since learned better. You should too.
The space movement has spent four decades trying to “fix NASA,” with very little to show for it. Isn’t it time we thought about Plan B?
Erecting barriers to entry for upstart competition–one of the more destructive features of crony capitalism.
Looking at that chart what I get is that SpaceX demonstrated the capability to launch to orbits that cover like half the payloads ULA launched. Of course that chart only focuses on orbit not actual payload mass.
As for having a bigger track record to lean upon. Sure. They are the incumbent after all. Plus if SpaceX don’t get a chance to launch more payloads they won’t get more of a track record either making this a catch-22.
Why did ULA put all their vehicles on their side of the chart yet they compare only against the Falcon 9 v1.1 and don’t even include v1.0? That would double the number of SpaceX datapoints.
In other news, buggy whip manufacturers point out that horseless carriage owners do not buy many buggy whips (when they do they seem to use them in basements rather than outdoors?!)
“Don’t try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Lock Mart. Your sad devotion to that ancient mode of procurement has not helped you conjure a mode of crew transport, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the intent of Congress… ”
(chokes Elon with projection of mental force)
“I find your lack of faith . . . disturbing.”
I’ve contempt for people using the logic in the ULA graphic, it’s the same logic that some dictatorial thugs use: I’m the only one who’s been in power so I need to stay in power because no one else can show that they’re competent a my job (putting aside the thugs already demonstrated lack of competence).
This “scorecard” illustrates that ULA has completed far more launches than SpaceX.
So? The Russians have completed far more launches than ULA. What’s their point?
For the latest indications this may be a giant turf grab for the old-NASA SLS mafia and Boeing, see http://www.space-access.org/updates/sasalert061114.html
People frequently ask why it costs so much and takes so long for the military to buy things. Take a look at this JCIDS Process Diagram and you’ll see why. As one general from Air Force Space Command said, “I couldn’t get a paperclip through this process in less than two years.”
Tha sad thing is this isn’t include all the hoops you have to jump through on a major acquisition.
If you think that chart is bad, take a look at this.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/486671231/integrated-space-plan-envisioning-humanitys-future
Yeah, that will certainly ensure humanity’s future in space. 🙂
Good. Grief.
I’m speechless.
Looks like a mask design for a chip.
This is why FAR and cost-plus contracting need to be done away with wholesale. This bureaucratic growth of kudzu makes it impossible for the DoD to buy anything either quickly or cheaply. Ditto for NASA. It has to go.
This is why FAR and cost-plus contracting need to be done away with wholesale.
As desirable as that might be, it ain’t gonna happen.
A more realistic alternative is to look for ways of going into space that are *not* dependent on government as the sole (or primary customer).
What we used to call “commercial” space or “private enterprise” — before ISS huggers like the SFF redefined those words to mean government contracting.
Where we would we be today if the space movement had rallied around SpaceShip One, instead of the Bush Vision of Space Exploration, for the last 10 years? Can you honestly say we would be any worse off than we are now? And there’s a chance that free-enterprise stuff might actually work the way economists say it does.
The displacement of NASA/legacy space by commercial space seems reasonably well underway.
The next “waypoint” will be the reconciled version of the NASA budget bill. If it emerges without Sen. Shelby’s poison pill language it will be an indication that commercial space is strong and adroit enough politically to begin getting the weather gauge on business as usual and holds out hope that the ossified ways of doing things in the military/space industrial complex may be capable of being supplanted.
The waypoint just beyond is the decision about which competitors go forward in Commercial Crew. Outcomes of these two waypoint decisions of varying likelihood can be ranked from best to worst.
I rate the best outcome as that where the poison pill fails to stick, SpaceX and Sierra Nevada are selected to continue in Commercial Crew and Boeing is cut. This would mean SpaceX sticks to NASA’s schedule so Dragon V2 probably carries people later than if any of the combinations where SpaceX is cut from Commercial Crew come to pass. But Sierra Nevada would be in for a full share and would reach operational capability earlier than under any other scenario. Thus, this choice gets us to two competitive heterogeneous commercial crew solutions quickest.
I rate the worst outcome as that where the poison pill sticks and Boeing is selected to proceed alone in Commercial Crew. No more competition (at least within the program), the latest probable capability of carrying crews to orbit (again, within the program) and no more heterogeneity of vehicles.
The combination of Shelby’s poison pill and a Boeing-only conclusion to Commercial Crew would signal that the rot is so deeply set as to justify the pessimism widely expressed about the possibility of ever reforming NASA/defense procurement.
But any outcome in which SpaceX is cut from Commercial Crew also frees Elon to pursue his own muse at his own maximum speed. He’s already moving at many times the speed of NASA and legacy aerospace. The prospect of further acceleration by Hawthorne has me fairly sanguine about the ultimate ability of commercial space to prevail regardless of what NASA decides or legacy firms do. Therefore, Dragon V2 would fly even sooner than if it remains under NASA auspices, but the other Commercial Crew competitors would be slowest to actually produce anything capable of taking crews to orbit.
Sigh. Are you you’re deliberately misunderstanding me? I went out of my way to make it quite clear I was talking about what *used* to be called commercial space — private companies selling goods and services to private customers — not what is now called “commercial space” — which we used to call “government contracting.”
You talk about “the displacement of NASA,” but you can’t get past government contractors, selected by NASA, carrying NASA astronauts to NASA’s space station as the only possible market? That’s the “best outcome” you can imagine?
Let me try one more time. Instead of following the “Orphans of Apollo” down the BVSE path, suppose the space movement had heeded the politically incorrect “dinosaurs” like G. Harry Stine who advocated policies that incentivize private markets? Tax credits, technology prizes, regulatory and liability reform, space property rights, etc. I know, that’s “Old Space” thinking, but humor me for a moment — how would you be worse off than you are now, or even in your “best outcome” scenario?
No, I didn’t misunderstand you. So let me further explain my views on these matters.
My best case scenario grows out of government contracting, specifically, out of Commercial Crew. I deemed it best because it appears the fastest road to a competitive crew-to-LEO transport market with heterogeneous vehicles whose “ecological niches” don’t fully overlap.
Scenarios in which SpaceX is aced out of Commercial Crew this Fall and left to pursue matters on their own I rated slightly lower because all but the scenario in which the poison pill fails and Boeing and Sierra Nevada are chosen to continue in Commercial Crew would materially slow or even prevent Sierra Nevada from providing Dreamchaser as heterogeneous competition for Dragon V2. That would be the downside of these scenarios.
Their upside is that it would unleash SpaceX to pursue its Matula-tastic agenda largely unhindered by NASA strings. Falcon Heavy’s initial launch would likely move up, perhaps even reverting back to Vandenberg as launch site if LC-39A can’t be readied in time. Bigelow would get the thumbs up to ready the first BA 330 for launch. Dragon V2 would accelerate its test schedule. The first private space station would be on-orbit and accepting visitors by as early as 2016.
The worst case scenario of a Boeing sole-source Commercial Crew victory would delay U.S.-based crew transport to ISS – at least from within the sad remains of the Commercial Crew program – and delay or kill competition from Dreamchaser. This is another of the scenarios in which SpaceX gets to accelerate Dragon V2’s schedule on their own dime. As Boeing is furthest from being flight-ready of the three currently funded Commercial Crew competitors, SpaceX might conceivably make NASA an offer it couldn’t refuse and wind up with a crew transport contract anyway, once it has actually flown Dragon V2 to orbit and back successfully with crew aboard. But that is hardly a cinch bet.
Should SpaceX continue in Commercial Crew, the initial market for crew-to-LEO transport will be NASA and ISS. But I’m increasingly dubious of the ISS lasting much beyond 2020. Meanwhile, the Falcon Heavy will fly next year and Bigelow will be able to start planning for its first LEO hab to go up about the same time Dragon V2 first flies for NASA in 2017. I think Bigelow will soon have an increasing number of BA 330’s up, in single and multi-hab configurations. The crew-to-LEO transport market will then begin to transition in a Bigelow-centric direction. Even if ISS lasts beyond 2020, the total Bigelow presence in LEO is likely to quickly exceed the ISS in volume. A few years after that it will exceed ISS in mass as well.
One thing to remember about Bigelow is that, by your definition, his part of the crew-to-LEO transport market will not be purely private market in nature. His initial clients are all sovereign states. So, at least in the early going, servicing Bigelow habs with crew and cargo will be government contracting at one remove. It’s just that the governments in question will not – at least immediately – number that of the U.S. among them.
Bigelow will quickly attract other clients of a completely commercial market stripe to be sure. The fact that there is an increasing number of such arrangements even on the ISS proves there is a market for such services and that its upper bounds are not currently known. Purely commercial transactions in space will grow over time, but government contracting, either directly or indirectly, will remain important for some time. That being the case, it is perfectly rational for NewSpace firms to challenge the many obvious absurdities of current U.S. government procurement practice.
As Boeing is furthest from being flight-ready of the three currently funded Commercial Crew competitors
Why do you think that Boeing is further than Sierra Nevada?
Yes, Dick, I know you believe that. Religiously. I hear it daily from the faithful followers of Brother Rick Tumlinson. “The only difference between New Space and Old Space is which contractor gets the NASA money. We don’t need no stinking competition. ISS will turn into Alpha Town. Potential single-point failures don’t matter because Elon is infallible. Yadda, yadda, yadda.”
I won’t try to convince you you’re wrong, but you haven’t even tried to answer my question. What awful thing what would happen if we *didn’t* put all our eggs into one basket? How would we be worse off if the “NewSpace” movement had supported Alan Wasser’s land-grant proposal, Dana Rohrabacher’s Zero G Zero Taxes, Newt Gingrich’s Mars prize, or George Nield’s CATS prize — to name just a few examples? Why is “NewSpace” afraid to even consider such ideas?
Rand,
I assume Boeing is furthest from operational capability because, so far as I know, they have yet to build anything even equivalent to Sierra Nevada’s engineering test article, never mind the first orbit-capable Dreamchaser which is now in the early phases of construction. Boeing built something to do parachute and airbag drop tests with, but it was not my impression this was anywhere near a complete vehicle. I’m quite prepared to be corrected if I’m mistaken in any of these notions.
Edward,
I haven’t a clue where most of your latest post comes from, but it sure ain’t from me or anything I’ve written here.
The only difference between New Space and Old Space is which contractor gets the NASA money.
I pretty obviously don’t believe that. It not only matters which contractor gets the money, it matters even more how they get the money. FAR and cost-plus are roads to extinction. Fixed-price milestones are the way forward.
We don’t need no stinking competition.
Why you would attribute this to me is incomprehensible. It is precisely the opposite of my actual beliefs. Lack of competition is the hallmark of every part of legacy space that’s holding us back.
ISS will turn into Alpha Town.
I don’t get the reference.
Potential single-point failures don’t matter because Elon is infallible.
Of course single-point failures matter. What have I ever written that would make you think I believe otherwise? One of SpaceX’s keys to success has been to eliminate as many single-point failure modes as possible from their designs. I’ve commented several times about how their engine clustering is essentially an aerospace application of the same engineering principle underlying RAID storage arrays and how too many people with traditional aerospace backgrounds can’t seem to grasp that this approach is superior to simply pursuing a policy of minimizing total part count.
I won’t try to convince you you’re wrong, but you haven’t even tried to answer my question. What awful thing what would happen if we *didn’t* put all our eggs into one basket? How would we be worse off if the “NewSpace” movement had supported Alan Wasser’s land-grant proposal, Dana Rohrabacher’s Zero G Zero Taxes, Newt Gingrich’s Mars prize, or George Nield’s CATS prize — to name just a few examples? Why is “NewSpace” afraid to even consider such ideas?
I see no reason to believe NewSpace doesn’t support any of your cited policies, but I see plenty of reasons to suppose they also see the anything-but-certain and uphill nature of the political fights that would be necessary to establish any of them. For someone who claims to champion purely “commercial” space, untouched by icky government contracting, you seem quite enamored of policies that have lots of politics on their critical paths, not to mention prizes that are government-sponsored. I fail to see any essential difference between fixed-price milestone-based contracting and government-funded prizes.
I assume Boeing is furthest from operational capability because, so far as I know, they have yet to build anything even equivalent to Sierra Nevada’s engineering test article, never mind the first orbit-capable Dreamchaser which is now in the early phases of construction. Boeing built something to do parachute and airbag drop tests with, but it was not my impression this was anywhere near a complete vehicle. I’m quite prepared to be corrected if I’m mistaken in any of these notions.
I think that Sierra Nevada has a lot more uncertainties in front of them to build an orbital vehicle (particularly with entry) than Boeing does, since the latter is basically an Apollo capsule.
It not only matters which contractor gets the money, it matters even more how they get the money.
Obviously, it does not matter. “There is no significant difference between the final phase [of commercial crew] and traditional government contracting.” That’s not me saying that. That was Garrett Reisman, from SpaceX, back in January.
But this has not tempered “NewSpace” enthusiasm for CCDeev at all.
“A difference must make a difference to be a difference.”
Lack of competition is the hallmark of every part of legacy space that’s holding us back.
Yet, that’s the direction in which CCDev is headed — and no one cares. Jim Muncy actually *praised* Rep. Frank Wolfe, in Space News, for forcing NASA to downselect.
I don’t get the reference.
“Alpha Town” was Rick Tumlinson’s name for the first “village in space,” which ISS was supposed to evolve into. It was SFF’s justification for flip-flopping on the space station (which it had originally opposed) and later for Alt Access / COTS / CCDev.
Of course single-point failures matter…. One of SpaceX’s keys to success has been to eliminate as many single-point failure modes as possible from their designs.
You don’t get it. SpaceX is a potential single-point failure. By pinning all your hopes on one company, you may the entire industry dependent on a single company’s success. If Elon Musk has a heart attack, if he gets hit by a bus, if an earthquake wipes out their Hawthorne factory, if the company simply makes a mistake — the entire “NewSpace” plan goes down with it.
And it’s impossible to make “NewSpacers” understand that. No matter how many times you warn them, they must keep saying how great Elon is.
And even if SpaceX does everything perfectly, the International Space Station is another potential single-point failure. And NASA itself is another. As are both houses of Congress, and the White House… all potential single-point failures on the critical path.
It isn’t just a out how you cluster the engines. It’s about funding and politics and institutions.
I see no reason to believe NewSpace doesn’t support any of your cited policies,
Really? Did you attend last year’s NewSpace Conference, or even look at the agenda? Did you see any of those ideas listed?
The mantra at NewSpace 2013 said that “public-private partnerships are the correct way to do space.” Not a correct way, the correct way. That’s the sort of thing we’ve heard for the more than 10 years. When someone presents a new idea, the “leaders of NewSpace” stomp all over it. The excuse is always the same: “[Alt Access|COTS|CCDev] is more important.”
Rand,
You could be right. Nonetheless, Sierra Nevada claims that its sub-contractor, LockMart, is fabricating a flight-capable Dreamchaser right now at Michoud.
Both CST-100 and Dreamchaser have basic geometry and aerodynamics based on legacy NASA vehicles (Apollo command module and HL-20 lifting body, respectively). Actual re-entry experience favors the Apollo-like CST-100. Still, CST-100 isn’t exactly an Apollo knock-off. Its heat shield material, for example, is roughly 40% less dense than the Avcoat material used on Apollo and slated, in resurrected form, for Orion. Given Orion’s persistent obesity problem, I have to give props to Boeing for what clearly seems a superior choice, but also note that a lighter heat shield will non-trivially influence re-entry dynamics.
Still, my impression of CST-100’s progress toward flyable hardware being a bit on the leisurely side is based, among other things, on Boeing having shown pictures of a CST-100 iso-grid pressure vessel test article in 2011, that was, nonetheless, apparently not incorporated into the drop test article used a year later for parachute and airbag terminal descent and landing tests. In fact Bigelow is credited as supplying the boilerplate structural test article for these tests.
Also, Boeing concluded a deal quite some time ago to use the former Orbiter Processing Facility No. 3 at Kennedy as their production facility for CST-100 but I have been unable to find very much about what has actually gone on there since. Dragon V2 has been shown in at least abort test flyable form and Sierra Nevada has their Engineering Test Article and, as noted already, reports that their first flight-capable Dreamchaser is now under construction at Michoud. Perhaps Boeing is actually further along than this with a flight-capable CST-100. I just don’t get the feeling this is the case.
Whose vehicle is further along may well prove of no ultimate importance anyway. Both CST-100 and Dreamchaser are dependent, for now, upon Atlas V as a launch vehicle and the future of that rocket is, of course, critically dependent on the future availability – or non-availability – of RD-180 engines. If Russian counter-sanctions end RD-180 shipments, as now seems increasingly likely, both Boeing and Sierra Nevada have some major scrambling to do.
Edward,
With all due respect to Mr. Reisman, he’s wrong. If Sen. Shelby’s poison pill language survives conference committee he’ll find out he’s wrong. The CCDev contracts are FAR-based, but not cost-plus. Having to meet cost-plus FAR reporting requirements without also getting a guaranteed profit margin is actually the worst situation for a contractor – and that is, of course, exactly what Sen. Shelby intends. Government contracts are not uniformly gray, like cats after midnight. I have no idea why you keep trying to pretend otherwise.
As for downselection to a single vendor, that is hardly a done deal. Even if that does come to pass, it doesn’t mean the end of competition, just the end of competition within the rubric of CCDev. If SpaceX is dropped from CCDev in the Fall, they will press forward regardless. Sierra Nevada has said the same, though one, admittedly, has to take that with a bit more salt. Still, a Boeing sole-source CCDev award contains at least the seeds of three-way competition for LEO crew launch services and a virtual certainty of preserving two-way competition. The worst outcome anent competition, ironically, would be if CCDev downselects to one vendor and it’s SpaceX. But that scenario is pretty much incompatible with the views of people like yourself who believe government contracting to be irretrievably corrupt and unreformable.
Thanks for enlightening me about Alpha Town. I don’t pay much attention to Rev. Rick as a general thing. He’s well-intentioned, but also pretty much irrelevant to what’s actually going to happen in commercial space.
Now to that business about single-point failures. Yes, in theory, SpaceX is a single-point failure that could happen. The conquest and occupation of the United States by Islamic jihadists is also a theoretically possible single-point failure that cannot be completely ruled out. What’s important here is not whether a particular single-point failure mode is or isn’t utterly foreclosed by the laws of physics, but what its probability of occurrence is. I think SpaceX is past the point where even the loss of Elon Musk is likely to take it down and I’m actually a believer in the “Great Man” theory of inflection points in history. SpaceX’s future would be more secure with Elon continuing in charge, but he’s got a good team there. They could soldier on without him.
The rest of your alleged single-points of failure are all a lot more likely to come to pass than the fall of SpaceX or even of the United States, but I worry about none of them because, in my estimation, not a single one is on the critical path to humanity becoming a space-faring/dwelling species. Let’s examine each.
ISS? It will either last beyond 2020 or it won’t. Bigelow will start putting habs in LEO as soon as Falcon Heavy and affordable LEO crew transport are done deals – 2018 at the latest. The market for LEO crew transport doesn’t end with ISS. There’s a decent probability it won’t even begin with ISS.
NASA? If NASA disappeared tomorrow, SpaceX would still finish Dragon V2 and FH. Bigelow would still put up his habs.
Congress? Other than gratuitously screwing around with the NASA budget and doing things like Sen. Shelby’s latest attempt at sabotage to rational contracting practices, there’s nothing much Congress is likely to do that would actually get in the way of current commercial space activity. There are doubtless individual Congresscritters who’d like to turn back the clock to a pre-Elon era, but that ship sailed a long time ago. The more Congress tries to preserve the ancien regime of NASA and legacy contractors, the quicker it all comes apart.
The White House? The next administration will likely be Republican. Tea Party types aren’t fond of crony capitalism and there will be even more of them in Congress than there are now; the vast majority from states with no vested interest in preserving NASA/DoD business as usual. The occupant of the White House isn’t likely to be anyone with ties to traditional aerospace or NASA unless it’s Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz and I don’t think it will be either of them. The future of the current corrupt arrangements doesn’t look good, especially given the complicating factor of Russian counter-sanctions that have already upended ULA’s rice bowl. Even before the 2016 election, I expect ULA may well implode. Shelby is being aggressive now because the ground is crumbling under his feet.
It isn’t just a out how you cluster the engines. It’s about funding and politics and institutions.
I thought you were the one who wanted commercial space to steer as clear as possible of icky and corrupt government contracting? Now you seem to be suggesting that government is still the essential customer.
I think the U.S. government is a useful customer, but if it ceases to be, I think commercial space can get along without it. I favor Elon’s assault on the monopoly privilege of ULA because ULA is now a shambles, it and the rest of the legacy aerospace procurement institutions are structurally corrupt and because introducing competition is best for the national security of the United States and for reducing Uncle Sugar’s launch services bill.
Really? Did you attend last year’s NewSpace Conference, or even look at the agenda? Did you see any of those ideas listed?
No, no and no. And why should I? The “leaders of NewSpace” are not conference organizers or the officers of fanboy organizations, they’re the people raising capital, bending metal and throwing their hats into the ring of actual commerce. I used to think conferences and such were a big deal when I was much younger. I’ve long since learned better. You should too.
The space movement has spent four decades trying to “fix NASA,” with very little to show for it. Isn’t it time we thought about Plan B?