And it was (again) in the third stage, but it doesn’t seem to be common with the failure a few weeks ago. There is one common cause, though — it is a product of the Russian space program, which seems to be having ongoing problems, and Congress continues to fiddle with SLS while it burns, while underfunding the only program that can eliminate our dependence on it.
[UPdate late morning]
A combustion-chamber burn through? If so, was this a manufacturing, or processing problem?
From what I understand, their brain drain due to an aging workforce and horrible wages for youngsters, is dismantling their entire space program.
You can make more money selling cell phones on the street in Moscow than you can make as an aerospace engineer I am told.
At least the astronaut with the training to dock Dragon made it to ISS. And they have a couple of fresh Soyuz capsules docked to it.
I predict that if a Russian launch does finally kill a crew what we will hear from Congress are admonitions that “See, even the most reliable system in the world isn’t reliable, so how can we let the inexperienced private sector take over transport to ISS. Time to put ALL the money into SLS, where NASA can ensure safety.”
And if the ISS has to be ditched in the pacific in the meantime, we will have had the absolute destruction of any real utility to NASA human space, and the absolute ascendancy of pure political utility of NASA to feed $ to SLS districts…forever.
That would be the same NASA that lost 14 people in two spaceflight accidents…
[[[I predict that if a Russian launch does finally kill a crew what we will hear from Congress are admonitions that “See, even the most reliable system in the world isn’t reliable, so how can we let the inexperienced private sector take over transport to ISS. Time to put ALL the money into SLS, where NASA can ensure safety.”]]]
And if that happens you will see the end of commercial orbital HSF efforts in the U.S. on the grounds that if the CCDev systems are considered too dangerous for NASA than they are clearly too dangerous for space tourists. Yep, CCDev is really looking to be an Albatross around the emerging New Space Industry, not only distorting markets by picking winners and losers, but by threaten even the winners with economic destruction on the whims of a chance event.
Thomas, which “winners” have been chosen for Commercial Crew? So far we still have four competitors, none of which have been deemed “It” by NASA or anyone.
And as far as CCDev being an albatross, that would imply that the program is holding someone back, which it clearly isn’t. CCDev has accelerated the efforts of not only potential NASA crew providers, but any passenger service to LEO. All of the CCDev 1&2 winners could move forward on their own if they wanted to (and had the money), but so far the only destination is the ISS, and NASA is the only customer willing to pay money – hence NASA’s need to help their future contractors, which happens in private industry all the time.
Apple is probably the most visible provider of upfront money to their contractors, otherwise their contractors would not be able to afford to ramp up their production rates as fast as Apple needs them to. In some cases Apple even provides the equipment for them to use. All of this has direct parallels to what NASA is doing with CCDev and Commercial Crew in general.
Ask Gary Hudson about it sometime.
Ron
You really need to keep up the with CCDev and stop buying the press hype from the SFF.
There were 5 winners in the first round of CCDev and TEN losers. (Alliant Techsystems, Andrews Space, Ball Aerospace, Firestar Engineering, HMX, Inc., Oceaneering Space Systems, Odyssey Space Research. Orbital Outfitters, Orbital Sciences Corporation, and Planetspace). I haven’t seen much on these firms “commercial” space efforts since and I think they are effectively dead due to NASA’s rejection.
For the second round there were four winners and FOUR losers.
Orbital Sciences/Virgin Galactic for their Prometheus lifting-body spaceplane, which is probably dead for lack of commercial funding thanks to NASA passing them over. The Paragon Space Development Corporation, T/Space and United Space Alliance proposals are also effectively dead since they failed to get NASA contracts.
So yes you have four winners and 14 losers so far from CCDev. And YES, NASA is distorting markets by picking winners.
As for COTS/CCDev delaying entry into commercial markets, exhibit A is Dragonlab thanks to how long its taking Elon Musk to move on from COTS. His rocket is sitting now in Florida, waiting and waiting on NASA. Meanwhile his COMMERCIAL Dragonlab customers are waiting and waiting for the flights he promised in 2008 to be in 2010 and 2011.
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20081202
[[The first two flights are scheduled for 2010 and 2011 respectively from the SpaceX Falcon 9 launch site at Complex 40, Cape Canaveral, Florida.]]]
The first Dragonlab flight is now promised for 2014, three years late, but no one is holding their breath on it. And as the Cheese aboard the first COTS flight showed, Elon probably could have launched the first Dragonlab in 2010 IF not for COTS monopolizing SpaceX resources.
But go ahead and keep admiring how pretty the Emperor’s cloths are 🙂
Hi Thomas. No I don’t read “SFF” stuff, and I’d have to guess what that means. I collect my own information, which allows me to hear views from many different viewpoints – yours included.
You originally said:
“Yep, CCDev is really looking to be an Albatross around the emerging New Space Industry, not only distorting markets by picking winners and losers, but by threaten even the winners with economic destruction on the whims of a chance event.”
I disagreed. Can you show where NASA’s CCDev efforts are holding back anyone? You pointed out that a number of firms didn’t get funding from NASA, but that doesn’t mean NASA is holding them back, just that NASA isn’t funding them. So far you haven’t proved anything.
I do agree, and I have said it many times, that NASA is the key for getting a Commercial Crew marketplace going in the near future. However this is not a matter of the industry pushing NASA to do something it doesn’t need – NASA needs crew services for the ISS after 2016 (and possibly before). So this is more a matter of whether NASA will do Commercial Crew in a way that leads to a robust and redundant market, or it just picks one supplier and no competitive market emerges.
Once the market is going for NASA services, then Bigelow opens the market for non-NASA providers. I don’t know how quickly that will happen, but in time I think it will.
Regarding DragonLab contracts, I’m sure those customers are free to contract with someone else if they want, but I’m sure they realized that the Dragon spacecraft schedule was going to driven by larger customers than they are, so it’s not an unexpected situation. Ask Boeings customers about their 787 delivery schedules – these things happen.
Ron,
If you read a lot like you claim you would know that SFF stand for the Space Frontier Foundation which has been pushing alt-access as “commercial” crew used to be called since the 1990’s. Your not recognizing it makes wonder just how informed you are.
[[[Can you show where NASA’s CCDev efforts are holding back anyone? ]]]
I provided a list of firms whose projects died once they received the NASA “seal of disapproval” not being selected. I will list them again since you seem to missed it.
Alliant Techsystems, Andrews Space, Ball Aerospace, Firestar Engineering, HMX, Inc., Oceaneering Space Systems, Odyssey Space Research. Orbital Outfitters, Orbital Sciences Corporation, and Planetspace all lost the first round and so lost their creditability in commercial markets. Orbital Sciences/Virgin Galactic’s Prometheus lifting-body spaceplane, The Paragon Space Development Corporation, T/Space (Gary Hudson) joined them when the received the NASA “Seal of disapproval” in the second round.
[[[NASA needs crew services for the ISS after 2016]]]
They wouldn’t need it if ISS was scrapped in 2015 as was planned. But since they now need it, its still cheaper to buy Soyuz seats for 4 more years then to spend billions on developing CCDev and then buying seats for 4 years. And if they are worried about Russia, just invite China into the partnership and allow them access to ISS in exchange for providing seats to nations without human spacelift capability.
[[[Regarding DragonLab contracts, I’m sure those customers are free to contract with someone else if they want, but I’m sure they realized that the Dragon spacecraft schedule was going to driven by larger customers than they are, so it’s not an unexpected situation.]]]
Glad you admit that NASA is hogging the market thanks to its deep taxpayer funded pockets. As for alternatives? What alternatives? Stratolaunch is the only one and I am sure that the NASA Borg will try to assimilate them. Indeed, that makes me wonder about NASA sudden decision to regarding Space Act contracts. A cynical observer would think it was to bring them into the NASA collective.
No, just as COMET soured biotech on space for a generation of biotech/material science researchers, COTS/CCDev hogging of resources will probably drive another generation to seek alternatives to the unreliable space vendors.
“I provided a list of firms whose projects died”
Your inference is that if there was no CCDev, those projects would have continued and succeeded. It can also be that they would not have succeeded regardless, and/or that they were proposals created to compete in CCDev and would not exist outside the existence of the CCDev program.
“They wouldn’t need it if ISS was scrapped in 2015 as was planned. But since they now need it, its still cheaper to buy Soyuz seats for 4 more years”
You don’t run the government and NASA and create space policy. ISS has been continued, and a domestic capability has been desired for its needs servicement. If such a domestic capability is created, it should be open to competition and firms should have the liberty to decide if they wish to compete for that work.
“Glad you admit that NASA is hogging the market thanks to its deep taxpayer funded pockets.”
The economics of space are impacted by demand and I disagree with your notion that NASA procurement necessarily worsens the economics of space systems. In the case of SpaceX, I put forward that without the support his business has received from winning NASA contracts his business may not be in a shape to offer lower cost products or see them through to market availability. COTS/CRS allowed Musk to grow a technical organization beyond his limited startup capital and supported him through the startup process, and the CRS contracts help pay the costs of bringing and keeping such capability online.
You say COTS/CRS delays Dragonlab. Without COTS, it may be that Dragonlab doesn’t exist or has sufficient economic positives to attract customers.
Your theories on how things play out more positively if NASA work had been avoided are your own personal conjecture.
I will also point out that it is Elon Musk’s SpaceX and not Thomas Matula’s SpaceX. Musk has freely chosen to involve his business with competing for NASA work, presumably for the betterment of his business. And a more healthy SpaceX helps him in any other pursuits, as opposed to an anemic one, or a dead one.
Nice observations and counter arguments Libson.
Thomas, I get the feeling that you’re not a businessman, since you have a hard time understanding how businesses get funding for things they want to do (or don’t get funding).
I saw the list of companies you provided the first time, but it didn’t matter who NASA didn’t fund – they pitched an idea to a potential customer, and if they didn’t get funding they were free to continue pitching to other sources of potential funding. That’s how business works, especially for startups. If they really wanted NASA money, then they should have paid more attention to what NASA wanted.
However you still haven’t shown that NASA’s CCDev efforts are holding back anyone. Those other companies are not being restricted from continuing their ideas – ATK/Astrium has said that they are continuing forward, and they even have an unfunded SAA from NASA, as well as Excalibur Almaz. So much for that theory.
Regarding the ISS, remember that it was the Constellation programs need for funding that was going to end the ISS operations in 2015 – Bush/Griffin forced Congress to choose between the Moon or the ISS, and Congress went along until Griffin’s mishandling of Cx forced them to cancel Cx and go back to Plan A – fully support the ISS for as long as possible.
And regarding DragonLab, you’re making a mountain out of a mole hill. Where is the customer outrage? When you’re on the leading edge of technology, no one is surprised when priorities shift or dates slip. And SpaceX having COTS money is pushing Dragon along far faster than it would have been without COTS money, so DragonLab customers realize that.
Finally, about the SFF. They don’t build or operate hardware, so they are not a prime source of information.
Libson,
You weren’t around in the 1990’s when NASA, after DC-X, decided to take RLV work from the military and “helped” the industry develop were you? So where are all the operating RLVs? Wasn’t the X-33/X-34 projects going to fill the sky with them? I know, “its different this time”. Yes, its always “different”. Its different because after each wave of NASA failures the slope up for private firms get more difficult. But I guess you will have to learn the lesson again, the hard way. Space is no different than other industries, and the results from NASA misdirecting the market will be the same as it was for the Merchant Marine and the airlines, before they were deregulated.
So yes, I will put my opinion against yours anytime and the common wisdom of space advocates. We will see in a few years who is right.
Ron,
Strikes me you are the one that doesn’t understand how industries work, but since you hide your identity is easy for you to claim whatever knowledge you want even if you don’t have any. NASA is the 800 pound guerrilla. When they get involved they drive everyone else away. Tha is what happened to the RLV projects in the 1990’s. And to microgravity in the 1980’s (Remember COMET?) Its what they are doing now with COTS/CCDev. Why do you think Robert Bigelow withdrew his America Prize? What is a $50 million dollar prize when the government is giving out far more than that for just reports and review milestones?
[[[Finally, about the SFF. They don’t build or operate hardware, so they are not a prime source of information.]]]
Hmmm, you really don’t know much about New Space do you? Especially the connection between SFF and COTS. I suggest you do some research on it.
How exactly can NASA buy services without picking “winners”?
Thomas, anyone that has money to invest can be the “800 pound gorilla” (not “guerrilla”). Bigelow’s $50M, while seemly large, is not large enough to fund a crew system, so it’s no surprise that no one really pursued it.
You still fail to show how NASA is stopping anyone from pursuing their own crew systems. Stratolaunch is, and anyone who can round up enough money can too. It just so happens that NASA is the source of the largest amount of money, which they need for their own needs (ISS support). They are spending money to solve their own needs, but we’re all hoping that they can do it in a way that results in a solution that can be used for non-NASA needs too. We’ll see.
Regarding blogging with real names versus hidden identities, space to me is a passion, but not a business pursuit, and I prefer to keep my professional identity focused on my business. As you already know, even someone with an alphabet soup of letters after their real name doesn’t mean that you automatically agree with them, so I prefer to go by what people say, not what they did in school.
Happy Holidays
Malmesbury,
There is a difference between buying services and subsidizing the development of launch systems. When NASA buys a seat on Southwest Airlines that is buying services. But when NASA gives Boeing a few hundred million to provide engineering data on milestones on their newest version of the B737, that is a subsidy.
My complaints with the New Space community on COTS/CCDev are three fold. First calling it commercial when its only another form of government contracting. Second, claiming NASA is buying a service when what they are really doing is subsidizing the development of launch systems. In both cases the new space community is misrepresenting the program to the public, using “buzzwords” (a favorite SFF tactic) to make it sound like something its not.
Now the commercial cargo flights SpaceX is scheduled to supply under CRS is actually a service since they are actually bring cargo to the ISS, but CRS is NOT COTS, its a different program. But thanks to COTS the rest of the industry was effectively excluded from it.
My third complaint is their belief that COTS/CCDev will actually help rather then hinder the emergence of a viable commercial HSF industry. The long unsuccessful history of NASA involvement in developing systems for commercial use (SST, COMET, X-33, X-34, SLI, etc) over the last 30 years show both the folly of that belief as well as likely outcome of COTS/CCDev.
Ron,
I figured that you weren’t familiar with the space industry, and NASA’s history in derailing commercial efforts by “helping” them as soon as you failed to recognize what SFF stands for. I also suspect that is why you don’t recognize how COTS/CCDev are just another sad chapter in the long tradition of NASA helping in a way that send the industry into a dead end. Just watch how things unfold over the next few years and you will see what happens.
Yes, Stratolaunch is an effort that is currently free of NASA interference, building on the Falcon V, a rocket design SpaxeX abandoned in order to pursue COTS. I suspect that is why Rand and the folks here are looking for some secret government purpose to it, as in the thread below. I don’t, I see it simply as other folks recognizing the systems being developed for CCDev will be uncompetitive for commercial markets and they are moving in to fill the vacuum. The one big risk I see for Stratolaunch (assuming they stay free of the NASA tar baby) is the possible negative impact of the safety regulations NASA is likely to impose on CCDev on the FAA AST regulations for HSF and, even more important, if those NASA requirements become the insurance industry requirements for the commercial HSF industry.
I also wish you a Happy Holiday Season.
Tom
I have to agree to an extent with Thomas here. It’s not rare for a NASA contract to be the kiss of death for a small business. NASA (like most government agencies, I gather) gets to change the terms of a contract, Darth Vader-style. And that could mean the end of your hand-to-mouth business, if you thought you were going to get paid and find out instead that you have new hoops to jump through before the money comes.
While your business might not exist in the absence of a NASA contract, it’s likely that you’d have run things in a more sustainable way without the promise of that contract’s payout.
Having said that, the COTS/CCDev program seems to be run pretty consistently and fairly. And the bidders are smart enough and deep-pocketed enough to weather a change in whim. There’s still the problem that these businesses may be creating a vehicle that might not work for non-NASA purposes, but I don’t see a great danger there.
Nor do I see the point of Thomas’s complaints. As has been pointed out, NASA has a station and NASA needs rides to that station. How should NASA fill that need?
My football game isn’t on yet, so I’ll post one more response.
Thomas, maybe you obsess over SFF for all things space, but that doesn’t mean that they are the prime source of information. They aren’t. Maybe a nice bunch people talking about things I like talking about, but unless they are spending money and building hardware, they are with all of us in the peanut gallery.
Regarding your comment about Falcon 5 (not V), my background is manufacturing, and you’re wrong when you say “a rocket design SpaxeX abandoned“. Falcon 5 was to use the same tooling as Falcon 9, and it was a 5-engine variant as opposed to the 9-engine Falcon 9. Customers wanted the more powerful version of the larger Falcon family, but if they wanted it, SpaceX could easily oblige them.
My manufacturing background also includes the money side of things (DoD contractors & commercial), so I focus on cost issues – I follow the money. Add to that my recent focus on startups, and I’d say I have a pretty good perspective on “Old Space” and “New Space” issues.
My manufacturing background also includes seeing many times when my company has provided assistance to a small but critical contractors, so COTS & CCDev is nothing new from what happens in the commercial world.
And AGAIN, you have failed to show how NASA is stopping anyone from pursuing their own crew systems. Still just an unproved theory.
Ron,
Yes, commercial firms do help vendors, and in return they expect something in return, a lower price, first call on production, something. By contrast NASA has no such requirements for any follow on service contracts to the CCDev. The firms not only have no obligation to provide services to NASA at a lower cost, they don’t even have to sell to them.
Let’s try another example using office buildings to make it clear how CCDev works. The government decides it wants to rent space in a green office building. So it selects a builder to design and build a green office building it could rent. It offers them a flat price for each step completed regardless of cost. SO when the builder completes the foundation they get $20 million, even if it only cost them $10 million. Once completed the office building and the technology they develop to build it belongs 100 percent to the builder. The builder is free to rent offices to government and commercial firms for whatever price they will pay. And they have no obligation, zero, to rent a single square foot to the government who paid them to build it. They are free to charge very high prices to the government, or undercut other office builders, since their building is paid for thanks to the taxpayers.
Now tell me. Would you consider that a market distortion? A subsidy that picks winners? And if you had a real estate development corporation would you build a office building in that market knowing the firm that was subsidized by the federal government could undercut you?
That is what COTS/CCDev is when you move it out of the space industry.
[[[And AGAIN, you have failed to show how NASA is stopping anyone from pursuing their own crew systems. Still just an unproved theory.]]]
And exactly what would you accept as proof? Rocketplane Kistler’s going under having won a COTS award? Orbital Sciences abandoning its lifting body design? A statement from a loser clinging to hope for a future contract bashing NASA? Give me an example of what YOU think proof would be.
Karl,
[[[As has been pointed out, NASA has a station and NASA needs rides to that station. How should NASA fill that need?]]]
I see three options.
1. Continue to buy seats on Soyuz.
2. Dust off the proposals for the old OSP and fund one to be operated by NASA, only for NASA needs.
3. Just make an offer to pay XX dollars (say $50 million in 2011 dollars) for 8 seats a year to ISS for any U.S. system capable of delivering them. No up front money or subsidizes. Nothing. Money is paid on completion of the service, just as when NASA buys seats on an airliner.
Thomas, it’s hard to fathom why you have such distain for the COTS/CCDev process, although it’s obvious you don’t understand the market forces at work.
Your “green building” example is incorrect for a number of reasons, including that you imply that there is only one choice for “the government” customer. That could happen with CCDev (and some in Congress appear to want that), but it may not, and COTS currently has two companies involved with some degree of competition and choice.
Regarding why RpK was kicked off of the COTS program, you appear to be ignorant of the facts. RpK did not meet their COTS fundraising milestones, which meant they were unlikely to make it through the entire COTS program. Because of that, NASA decided to replace them with the company that the next runner-up – Orbital Sciences. That RpK was so dependent on one customer is not NASA’s fault, it was bad management on the part of RpK.
Regarding proof of NASA stopping companies from pursuing their own crew systems, a simple statement from the companies would be a good start. However lack of funding does not constitute NASA keeping companies from developing their own crew systems, since they could do what Stratolaunch, ATK/Astrium and others are doing by using their own money or getting outside investor money to move forward. SpaceX had to raise VC money to get to the point where they could compete in COTS, so it’s not impossible.
However, and this is where I see a lack of business acumen in your statements, it doesn’t matter if you have a “good idea”, you have to have a good “business idea” – one that has a good management team and good revenue potential. For instance, VC’s are more likely to invest in a company with a great team but a mediocre product, than a mediocre team with a great product. SpaceX is not doing anything dramatically new technology-wise, but their management team is doing a great job coming up with a great plan, and then executing the plan.
Regarding your response to Karl regarding your “three options”, your #3 could be done today if Congress didn’t want NASA to manage things so closely, so it’s not entirely up to NASA – you have to convince Congress to give up direct control.
And if that happens you will see the end of commercial orbital HSF efforts in the U.S. on the grounds that if the CCDev systems are considered too dangerous for NASA than they are clearly too dangerous for space tourists.
And just who is going to make that call? There isn’t one grand space authority “allowing” commercial space to happen until it decides otherwise.
MfK,
You are forget how commercial systems work. If you are a commercial launcher you must have insurance to launch. No insurance no launch.
If the handful of insurance firms that do launch insurance determine the risk is too high to insure they won’t. End of story. That is what appears to be happening to the Reno air races after last year’s accident. FAA seems OK with them going on with slight changes to the rules, as is the firm that runs them. But finding an insurer is going to be another thing. Even before last year’s accident they could only find a single firm that was willing and its now facing $100 million in lawsuits and claims while having only received a $350,000 premium. What do you think the odds are they won’t offer a renewal for next year?
The engine is a new closed-cycle upgrade that upped the chamber pressure from about 1000 psi to 2250 psi. I could see a few hiccups occuring before the new engine meets the same reliability as the old ones. It sounded like they’ve found the stage, and if so they’ll get to see exactly what went wrong.
Call this crazy talk, but testing an engine upgrade to destruction seems like something better done on a ground stand.
That’s just crazy talk. If they test it to destruction then they have to build a new one, and that cuts into vodka money.
Aside from a manufacturing defect, could an engine design be so close to the temperature margins that convective cooling from the violent air circulation during a ground test hides a failure mode that will occur at near vacuum conditions?
Another possibility is a bad batch of RP-1 that was cut with regular kerosene (profit!), so that it polymerized and left deposits on the cooling passages.
And of course it might be that the Russians cut corners all over the place and cross their fingers.
The vodka *was* the propellant.
If/When astronauts die on Soyuz something will change.. it’s very hard to predict what exactly.
If it happens in the next few years, we’ll be faced with the choice of abandoning the ISS (not that there’s necessary anything wrong with that) or buying rides from the Chinese.
Or flying Dragon or CST without a tested abort system.
I don’t get the “without a tested abort system” obsession. Why not test it?
$$$$$ – SLS ate/is eating it all.
I’m sure they could get the abort system working *and* fly without it in 2012 if there was an actual need. But hey, apparently sending all that money to Russia and violating INA every year isn’t all that important (?!)
How about “without an abort system.” The Shuttle flew for decades without one.
“The Shuttle flew for decades without one.”
And killed 14 people.