A vision for commercialization

[wvbraun]

<i>The need for commercialization<br /><br />There’s just one problem with this approach: the money’s not there. Shank made that clear in his presentation as he outlined the overall exploration roadmap. “We’ve run the numbers, the budget numbers, and we can’t afford this plan—we simply can’t—if we follow the business-as-usual approach.” He didn’t go into the specifics of what made this unaffordable, although he later indicated that the problems were in the out-years beyond 2010 when NASA had to fund continued operations of the ISS and the new CEV while developing a heavy-lift launch vehicle and other systems needed for a human return to the Moon.<br /><br />However, as Shank put it, “If there’s one thing about Mike Griffin that industry and stakeholders are learning about, it’s that he’s not a business-as-usual kind of guy… The NASA budget is only so much per year. It is just a matter of what it is you want to do with that money. So we, NASA, need to be smarter customers.”<br /><br />That opens the door for alternative approaches, including the purchase of commercial services. “NASA needs commercial ISS crew and cargo operations,” Shank said. “If we assume CEV was the only vehicle, in a business-as-usual conservative costing approach, that if we didn’t take a firm fixed-price approach towards our acquisition practices on how we’re going to provide ISS crew and cargo, we could not afford to move on to the Moon. Therefore, we need to take this ISS crew/cargo procurement very seriously.”<br /><br />That statement is the strongest yet about the role commercialization will play in the overall Vision, a position that has evolved even during the three months Griffin has been in the administrator’s office. In a speech at a Women in Aerospace event in Washington in early May, Griffin talked positively about commercialization but seemed reticent about using commercial services in the heart of the overall plan:</i><br /><br /> I cannot put public money at risk, depending on a commerc

 

[nacnud]

This is fantastic news, it’s just what is needed to help the fledgling ISS re-supply proposals get some venture capital behind them. There are quite a number of interesting proposals for ISS re-supply out there that I think could stand a chance, most recently I found spacehab’s Apex.

 

[no_way]

Excellent if only ...<br />I wish they wouldnt change the tune so often and come out with something final and official.

 

[shoogerbrugge]

Do you suppose a brand new vehicle like being developed by T/Space or any other yet to materialize project is going to be cheaper and safer then Progress or ATV?<br /><br />Even if the commercial sector is going to perform re-supply missions to the ISS, NASA will end up paying for it. So you might as well look at the cheapest and safest option availeble. As a manager of a orbital space station I would lose sleep at night knowing the re-supply and the continuing habitation of a multi-billion USDollar project depends and unproven and brand-spanking new vehicles with god knows how long lead times and possible delays.<br /><br />If you want to fix the ISS you shouldn't start developing new vehicles now, unless they have an extremly short lead time. Anything that has to be designed from scratch and as complicated as a spacecraft will likely be grounded forever because what are the odds of the ISS still flying around in 2014. <br /><br />Quick fix solutions should be developed with technology ready now, and the current private sector have a hard time delivering those fixes now.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If you want to fix the ISS you shouldn't start developing new vehicles now<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You dont have to start from scratch. There was an "alternate access to station" program ( which you can read about here ) at one point in time so some people can simply pull their designs off the shelves. <br />Similarly, copying the ideas and building what works has done wonders before, and building a US copy of Proton should be a no-brainer, given proper investment and sufficient market.<br />Besides, designing and building basically a smart cargo can to be berthed by ISS arm _is not_ bleeding edge technology in year 2005. Nobody has done it so far because NASA didnt want it. <br /><br />EDIT: btw heres a design by HMX of what is basically a clone of Progress, proposed to NASA in 2000. Quite detailed one.

 

[nacnud]

The problem is the ISS needs the shuttle for re-supply. Only the shuttle can currently get full sized International Standard Payload Racks (ISPR) to the ISS, and importantly, back again. Also there are a number of large items that need to be serviced on the ground such as the Control Moment Gyro, as is show in the middle size of the Apex vehicles in the link above.<br /><br />The Japanese have in development a vehicle capable of delivering ISPR and other large non pressurise cargo however is is and expendable vehicle and can't bring anything back from orbit.<br /><br />Without the shuttle the only vehicle that can bring anything back from the ISS is the Soyuz, and that can only bring 50kg back.<br /><br />There is a massive gap in the re-supply needs of the ISS. Progress, ATV and HTV can keep the ISS flying but to really utilise the station regular cheap flights of something like the Apex vehicle is needed.<br />

 

[shoogerbrugge]

For downloading carge you could use the IRDT-2. Quite cheap to use and already quite far in development. http://www.2r2s.com/iss_download.html<br /><br />They have already launched one test version, although the Volna vehicle failed. They should have another go next few months, if the R-29 is returned to flight.<br /><br />The company seemed stalled for some time, but recently had some sort of revival, they even got some publicity in "The Economist" <br /><br />

 

[nacnud]

Here is a link to all the info I've been able to find on the alternate access to station propasals.

 

[arobie]

wvbraun,<br /><br />Excellent News!!<br /><br />This is exactly what I've always wanted NASA to do, lead the way to allow Private Industry to come up and move in also.<br /><br />I especially like this paragraph.<br /><br /><i>While many aspects of this exploration architecture share similarities to Apollo, Shank made it clear it was not the purpose of the Vision to duplicate Apollo. “You’re looking at much better thermal protection systems and avionics and ground operations,” he said. As a result, each mission—a minimum of two are planned each year—will be able to carry four astronauts to the lunar surface and quadruple the number of crew-hours on the lunar surface compared to Apollo. Also, unlike Apollo, the long-term goal will be the development of a permanent outpost, with the south pole region of the Moon the most likely location. “This is not your father’s Apollo program.”</i><br /><br />Earlier the article mentioned that our seventh lunar landing is scheduled for 2018. Also ealier was mentioned a 125 tonne heavy lift lauch vehicle. This paragraph brought up a minimum of two lunar missions a year(!!) with the goal of a permanent outpost at the southpole!<br /><br />I'll take it. Go NASA!

 

[wvbraun]

I have to say I'm a bit disappointed by the 2018 target date. I had hoped that Griffin would go for a 2015 landing and begin developing hardware for Mars missions early on. But apparently the funding is just not there. <br />And who knows, if t/space reaches orbit in 2010 for half a billion in development costs NASA might decide they have had it with Bolockmart and decide that t/space can mount a lunar mission sooner and cheaper. <br /><br /><br /><i>Once you get to Earth orbit, you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system.</i> <br /><br />Robert Heinlein

 

[arobie]

I guess that I can put up with the target date. I'm just glad that we <i>have</i> a target date.<br /><br />I'de also gladly accept an ealier target date.<br /><br />I'm just a bit laid back. I'm thilled that NASA's pulling itself together with a plan that has the intent to set off more commercial activities in space also.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I have to say I'm a bit disappointed by the 2018 target date. I had hoped that Griffin would go for a 2015 landing</font>/i><br /><br />I think 2018 is a non-starter. That would be approximately 8 years between the last shuttle launch and the first SDHLV. That is too long of a gap. The manufacturing capability would be lost. The expertise would be lost. The launch facilities would deteriorate.<br /><br />We need to ask: What is the maximum down time I can have between the last Shuttle and the first SDHLV launches and still keep suppliers in business, assembly lines in place, experts employed, and facilities operational?<br /><br />That should me the means used to set the first Lunar launch dates.</i>

 

[wvbraun]

"That should me the means used to set the first Lunar launch dates."<br /><br />Well, NASA has to face the budget reality.<br /><br /><br />"We need to ask: What is the maximum down time I can have between the last Shuttle and the first SDHLV launches and still keep suppliers in business, assembly lines in place, experts employed, and facilities operational?"<br /><br />Griffin has made it clear that he is thinking about these issues. HLV development starts in 2010, maybe they'll have the first test flight in 2016 or so...

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Even if the commercial sector is going to perform re-supply missions to the ISS, NASA will end up paying for it. So you might as well look at the cheapest and safest option availeble.</font>/i><br /><br />(1) Congress will give priority to a majority US-owned company to provide a service over a foreign company even if the foreign company is cheaper. (Within reason)<br /><br />(2) To benefit NASA, the commercial company will have be smarter (to keep the development and marginal costs down) or find a lot of additional missions (e.g., tourists) to keep prices to NASA lower than a NASA-derived solution.<br /><br />(3) Assuming NASA's budget is relatively fixed, in order to direct money to the commercial services either NASA employees or traditional NASA contractors are going to have lose their jobs.</i>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"I think 2018 is a non-starter. That would be approximately 8 years between the last shuttle launch and the first SDHLV. That is too long of a gap. The manufacturing capability would be lost. The expertise would be lost. The launch facilities would deteriorate."<br /><br />You are making some incorrect assumptions. Just because the first manned flight to the moon is planned for 2018 doesn't mean nothing happens with SDHLV between 2010 and 2018. Odds are at least some test flights and unmanned cargo flights of the HLV would occur before 2018. Then there is all the development time needed for the HLV. Some estimates for the highly modified inline version of the SDHLV claim a development time of ten years! So in truth there would be no gap implied by a manned 2018 moon landing.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">You are making some incorrect assumptions.</font>/i><br /><br />Almost certainly! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> But I try to balance my incorrect assumptions so they cancel each other out.<br /><br />Here was my shallow thought process: (1) There would be at least one, maybe two unmanned test flights, perhaps with a dumby payload, of the 100 tonne SDHLV before the first manned mission, but not many more than this. (2) It would be difficult to find any mission to justify the cost of a 100 tonne launch capability other than a manned mission or to deliver a human habitat the Moon or Mars. (3) The actual launch would be at least 10% behind schedule (how many manned efforts have only been 10% behind schedule?), so if they target is 2018, 2019 would probably be the earliest actual manned mission.<br /><br />So, an only slightly behind schedule launch in 2018 of a dumby payload. Habitat launch at the end of 2018 or in 2019. Manned launch to Lunar habitat in 2019 or 2020. The time between use of a SRBs, external fuel tanks, launch facilities, etc. would be 10 years.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Some estimates for the highly modified inline version of the SDHLV claim a development time of ten years! So in truth there would be no gap implied by a manned 2018 moon landing.</font>/i><br /><br />The design and development phase would not keep the same people, suppliers, assembly lines, and launch facilities busy as the operational phase would. But more importantly...<br /><br />As Zubrin points out in "Getting Space Exploration Right", from 1961-1973 NASA's budget, adjusted for inflation, was about the same as today's budget. But during this period, starting from an almost zero technological base, NASA:<br /><ul type="square"><li>Flew Mercury, Gemeni, Apollo (including 6 Lunar landings), and Skylab.<li>Launched Ranger, Surveryor, and Mariner series of missions.<li>Did the development work for Pioneer, Viking, and Voyager missions.<li>Developed large hydrogen-oxygen rocket engines, space suits, life support systems, orbital rendezvous techniques, reentry technology, etc.<li>Built-out the infrastructure for Cape Canaveral, Johhnson Space Center, and the Deep Space tracking network.<br /></li></li></li></li></li></ul><br />It seems strange that for roughly the same budget, starting from a much greater technical and experience base, having much of the infrastructure already built, and incredible advances in computer aided design and modeling, that we cannot complete a single Lunar landing in the same period of time!</i>

 

[arconin]

Lack of ambition I suspect is the cause of that. Lack of ambition and a tendancy to play it safe, which never got anybody anywhere. Hence the sorry state of the post Apollo space program and why we have meaninglessly kicked around in LEO for 30 years. <br /><br />That and we dont have the big bad russians to beat. How much money do you want to put down that it will be the big bad Chinese that they tell us we need to beat next. <br /><br />Nothing gets the politicians moving more than the chance to look good for the mob.

 

[strandedonearth]

I suspect that the modern NASA is pushing a lot more paperwork around. The phrase that popped to mind is "launching more paperload." *ducks the rotten tomatoes*<br /><br />I assume the bulk of the Shuttle budget goes to labor (in the end, everything is labor). I'm curious as to how many man-hours are required to launch, land, and return the stack to the pad for the next launch, and what percentage of those man-hours are spent on refurbishing the TPS between launches. I'm sure that is where the major savings is to be had on shuttle derived vehicles: no TPS maintenance.

 

[john_316]

Well if the other private companies get it going they may do it without NASA or at least partially.<br /><br />So I can see some bigger dogs playing to the fiddle here. If we had companies like ALCOA or USX and such and engineering firms like MSA and CAT and drilling companies along with oil companies we could see a broader range of companies involved in space exploration.<br /><br />Even these oil companies know they have to go spaceborne for the future because oil is on the decline especially for us.<br /><br /><br />