I have a response to Robert Costa’s piece from last week, over at National Review Online.
65 thoughts on “Barack Obama’s Conservative Space Program”
Comments are closed.
I have a response to Robert Costa’s piece from last week, over at National Review Online.
Comments are closed.
Rand wrote:
“Ares/Orion alone — just to get to low-Earth orbit, without the lunar capability — was going to cost a couple billion per flight, which is much more than the shuttle costs, for much less capability.”
Bolden stated in Congress $1.6 billion per Ares I / Orion flight, when pressed on this and referred to a letter sent by NASA that quoted $1.19 billion for three flights per year, he had no response other to say he would check his numbers. (ref this youtube at 5 mins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21NT7vOQXQY). So what are your basing your extremely high figures on?
So what are your basing your extremely high figures on?
A rough guesstimate, assuming amortization of development and annual fixed costs and a couple flights per year. It’s not clear what Bolden’s numbers represent, or if they amortize development.
> MfK Says:
>
> April 21st, 2010 at 12:48 pm
>
> I’ve learned recently, from a credible source, that Obama’s
> interest in commercialization of space is genuine, and dates
> back to the days when he was running for the Senate….
I find that hard to beleave given his consistent stance against space, and the way hes avoided and support for newspace or commercials. Also his philosophy has been consistent in focusing on more centralized gov control of various fields and industries. Even this new plan pours lots of money into NASA, and litle if any to new commercials.
> Rand wrote:
> “Ares/Orion alone — just to get to low-Earth orbit, without the
> lunar capability — was going to cost a couple billion per flight,
> which is much more than the shuttle costs, for much less capability.”
I was seeing GAO numbers suggesting up to $7B a launch. Being more optimistic in assumptions:
Given $50B to develop Ares-I &Orion, they were only talking about flying Ares-I/Orion twice a year. Assuming thats from 2015-2035. Thats $1.25B just for R&D cost for the 40 flights. All of VES was projected. Total GAO cost projections were $250B up to 2035, that would include maybe 30 Ares-V/Altair launches if you assume moon flights start in 2020. 70 total launches, thats about $3.6 billion a launch. If you assume Orion starts flying operationally in 2015-through 2035, and Ares-V/Altair flies twice a year from 2020-2035.
about 3 times the shuttle costs per launch, if you don’t count the associated facilities costs.
The visions are not of dollar signs but of a future where more people than just a handful of government employees get to go into space each year.
I don’t believe the first part of your statement.
I think the second part of your statement is great and I’d like to see that too, but imagining that somehow the federal gov’t can or is even interested in making it happen should, IMO, be looked at with a great deal of skepticism.
I remember back in ancient times, pre-VSE, the general consensus among space entrepreneurs was, “Screw the feds, we’ll be sitting around forever if we wait for their help. In fact, we don’t want their help because we don’t want the interference that comes with it. All we want is for them to get out of the way”. Then SpaceShipOne flew and that was awesome — things were really looking up. But then the VSE came out and “screw the feds” turned into “we’re entitled to a piece of that juicy gov’t contract goodness”. And now ObamaSpace seems to have turned that attitude up to eleven.
So go ahead and talk about how ObamaSpace is now the key to opening space access to The People, but don’t be surprised if at some later date you end up looking at the underside of the bus — what Uncle Sugar giveth, Uncle Sugar can taketh away.
Starless,
Don’t worry. Just wait a couple years and the old pre-VSE attitude will return, at least among the survivors, this time tampered by the experience of what happens when you focus on being a government contractor instead of focusing on commercial markets.
Yes, you make a lot of money a lot faster, but there is a price to pay. Orbital and SpaceHab learned those lessons a while ago.
Thomas, would you describe your aims as:
a) trying to keep commercial space proponents from making a big mistake
b) trying to keep NASA-run single source manned spaceflight alive
c) something else
This may be pointless dead-thread talk, but I’ll write it anyway.
For me, it’s option “a” and the more I look at it, the more I find arguing with New Spacers who’re all gung-ho for ObamaSpace is sort of like trying to tell a really good friend that the person he or she has fallen madly in love with is obviously not right for them. You can see that there is a high probability for heartbreak at the end of the road and you’re trying as tactfully as possible to tell them that they’re making a big mistake. The trouble is that they’re on such an emotional high that their objectivity is almost non-existent and they’re just not going to listen.
As for “b” — I’d like to see the sort of differentiation species bidding for NASA work that we saw at the dawn of the aerospace industry but it just isn’t there anymore. Couple that with the realization that NASA has always been and will always be a thoroughly political organization, I’ve come to the conclusion that expecting a lot from NASA is expecting too much. In spite of this highly inefficient political atmosphere they will still accomplish some great things (more than pretty much any other federal department or agency) but expecting that something like commercial space will be able to play the system to get what it wants despite the politics is a fool’s errand.
the more I find arguing with New Spacers who’re all gung-ho for ObamaSpace is sort of like trying to tell a really good friend that the person he or she has fallen madly in love with is obviously not right for them. You can see that there is a high probability for heartbreak at the end of the road and you’re trying as tactfully as possible to tell them that they’re making a big mistake. The trouble is that they’re on such an emotional high that their objectivity is almost non-existent and they’re just not going to listen.
That’s certainly not the case with me. I’m not “in love” with this plan, and I don’t even have particularly high hopes for it. I just think that it at least offers the possibility, however slim, of providing a little value for the taxpayer money. Constellation didn’t.
That’s certainly not the case with me. I’m not “in love” with this plan, and I don’t even have particularly high hopes for it.
The way you defend it and the way you seem dismissive towards those who criticize it make you sound like someone who has really taken the program to heart.
I just think that it at least offers the possibility, however slim, of providing a little value for the taxpayer money.
I’d argue that “value” and federal programs don’t go together.
Constellation didn’t.
And I’d say that the cost/benefit ratio of ISS leans very, very heavily (if not exclusively) towards the side of cost. When I heard that Constellation was going to be Shuttle-derived, I was a little disappointed, but when they actually launched a test article, I was pleasantly surprised. Were we getting $9B worth of value? I dunno but I know for damn sure we’re not getting $100B in value out of ISS. So now the answer is to flush that $9B of cost down the toilet? Kill the child to save it? And in the process, mainline the nascent private manned space industry into the very system which is inherently inefficient?
To me, that’s a double-whammy — federal waste stacked on top of putting private industry in a position to be hamstrung by the politics of that federal waste.
Unlike peanut butter and chocolate, I don’t think private space and NASA go together. At least not in the sort of close-knit relationship ObamaSpace calls for.
And I’d say that the cost/benefit ratio of ISS leans very, very heavily (if not exclusively) towards the side of cost.
It does. In fact, that’s one of the reasons I don’t take Constellation defenders seriously. They complain about losing the sunk costs of ten billion, but are apparently completely indifferent to sunk costs for ISS of ten times that. If they’re going to indulge in the sunk-cost fallacy, they should at least be consistent.
I’m dismissive of the people who favor Constellation and oppose the new direction because their arguments are generally based on nonsense, both in terms of facts and logic. Just look at the stupid things those Senators said yesterday.
I subscribe to the find ’em, fix ’em, flank ’em, finish ’em philosophy.
Insisting on an unnecessary HLV for exploration, insisting on an unnecessary new kerolox engine for that HLV, taking the easiest substantial destination off the table, relying on “breakthrough” propulsion, though without the necessary power source and burdening NASA with the fixed costs of the ISS all support fixing ’em.
Private crew transport services, on orbit cryo propellant transfer and storage, automated docking and rendez-vous support support flanking ’em.
If commercial players pick up the ball they can then finish ’em.
Tragically all of this could have happened more than a decade earlier if NASA had decided to focus on deep space spacecraft instead of launchers.
> Starless
>
>== when they actually launched a test article, I was pleasantly
> surprised. Were we getting $9B worth of value? ==
The “test article” was really a stunt, since it didn’t test any Ares related systems or components. They weer projecting $30B to develop Ares-I adn $20B for the Orion capsule. So really teh sunk costs were nothing compared to the bill yet to come.
It does. In fact, that’s one of the reasons I don’t take Constellation defenders seriously. They complain about losing the sunk costs of ten billion, but are apparently completely indifferent to sunk costs for ISS of ten times that. If they’re going to indulge in the sunk-cost fallacy, they should at least be consistent.
The flip side of that for me is that in the Obama plan, the proposed way of getting more value out of ISS is to extend its life — as though extending its life, in and of itself, adds value. The quid pro quo with the Russians is what makes ISS a white elephant and as long as that doesn’t change (whether we’re talking ObamaSpace or Constellation), NASA will still be saddled with a massive program which drags everything else down. To me, changing horses right now while ignoring what, IMO, is the real problem only extends that problem farther into the future.
I’m dismissive of the people who favor Constellation and oppose the new direction because their arguments are generally based on nonsense, both in terms of facts and logic. Just look at the stupid things those Senators said yesterday.
Fair ’nuff. There needs to be more clarity from the opposition. “Apollo on steroids” was an ill-advised marketing phrase and continued references to Apollo isn’t really helping. But what I hear behind all of that is a call for the type of energy, innovation, and greatness we saw at the dawn of the space age, not necessarily a misty nostalgia for glory days. I don’t see that kind of renewed greatness and innovation coming from NASA — I see it coming from space entrepreneurs and, IMO, pulling them farther into the fold as prime contractors on highly visible, politically volatile programs puts them in danger of being squelched and/or severely damaged.
The “test article” was really a stunt, since it didn’t test any Ares related systems or components.
I’d argue that it wasn’t a stunt, but it’s almost immaterial whether it was or not because the political and PR value was so much higher than the specific technical and engineering value.