Author Topic: Two Californian Senators Call for Competitive Heavy-Lift Propulsion Procurement  (Read 58526 times)

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
A lot of people appear to be trying to broaden those requirements, presumably so their favourite architecture will fit.

And some are trying to narrow them/keep them narrow so theirs will, presumably because it's the best way forward.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2011 10:38 am by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
A lot of people appear to be trying to broaden those requirements, presumably so their favourite architecture will fit.

And some are trying to narrow them/keep them narrow so theirs will, presumably because it's the best way forward.

But surely that's the whole point of this phase?  To take the already relatively narrow Authorization requirements and further narrow them down?

It's amusing watching the same people who decried the "Senate Launch System", now trying to claim their clean-sheet designs fit the parameters.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Exploration architectures are a very unrestrained problem, as far as I can tell. They are artificially restricted by saying "assume 100mT landed on the Martian surface" or "we're going to use a 140mT launch vehicle" as assumptions when they should be consequences. This isn't too uncommon among Mars reference missions I've seen. In reality, there are multiple ways of doing it, with different launch vehicles, different EDL approaches, etc. Zubrin's way would probably work (maybe risky, depending on who you ask). NASA's way would probably work. Jeff Greason's way would also probably work. But all of them would likely undergo huge changes before they actually flew, because each has their own sets of challenges.

I think we should give the job of designing the right human Mars architecture to those with the most expertise with actually doing Mars missions every day. JPL. They have a heck of a lot of experience. They're the ones who could probably guess what some of the unknown unknowns are for a human Mars mission, because they practically live on Mars and have done so every day for years (well, some of them), with total operational time on the surface measure decades over half a dozen successful surface missions (one still in progress).... (plus ten more successful Mars spacecraft that were either fly-bys or orbiters... with two orbiters still operating today)
« Last Edit: 06/05/2011 09:44 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
But surely that's the whole point of this phase?  To take the already relatively narrow Authorization requirements and further narrow them down?

Should they be so narrow from the very start, that only one system can realistically be expected to fulfil them (on paper at least)?

Quote
It's amusing watching the same people who decried the "Senate Launch System", now trying to claim their clean-sheet designs fit the parameters.

They don't "fit the parameters" and that's the point, the "parameters" themselves. People who decry SLS do so because of where the requirements came from and what they're meant to achieve - ensure one particular design prevails through political, not technical, means.

This probably wouldn't be happening, if everything was competed from the beginning and the only requirement was essentially "start work on a HLV now". Way I see it, Aerojet probably wouldn't be threatening legal action, if there wasn't a legal case to be made against the particular requirement setup that actually got handed to NASA.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1

Duh.  Because it's not just about cost, it's also about schedule, quality, proven performance, flight history, etc.

e.g. What chance Aerojet can design, develop, test and qualify an SSME &/or SRB replacement before a 2014 SLS test flight?  Zero. Zip. Nada.

And you would be wrong. I would even go so far as to state they could deliver one sooner. I have studied AJ's capabilities and resources, and they could deliver on time simply as they have everything needed already. This is not the case in 06 when their equipment was not yet tested. Now they have been.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline neutrino78x

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Politics making strange bedfellows, even more so......

http://www.teainspace.com/press-release-tea-party-supports-senators-feinstein-and-boxer-demand-for-open-competition-on-sls-contracts/

It is ironic, I consider the tea party extremely far to the right, and rarely agree with them on anything, but when it comes to space policy, we completely agree. :)

Here's another example of a Tea Party member who thinks Obama's plan for mostly private HSF is good:

http://rocketforge.org/?p=470

--Brian

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Politics making strange bedfellows, even more so......

http://www.teainspace.com/press-release-tea-party-supports-senators-feinstein-and-boxer-demand-for-open-competition-on-sls-contracts/

The guy behind the "Tea Party In Space" is a real wackjob. Just check some of the stuff that Everett Wilkinson has posted. He's a birther that wants Donald Trump for President. Sure, I believe thae the SLS is just an earmark program designed to pass funds to ATK.


Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Obama's plan for mostly private HSF is good:

http://rocketforge.org/?p=470

--Brian

What's ironic is that people categorize this as the "president's plan".  In reality, it is modeled after COTS, which of course started under Griffin.  It is also ironic because there were signs of this starting to happen anyway.  Dragon was under design.  X-Prize.  Bigelow (and his America's Space Prize), etc were all prior to this administration. 

People wrongly say this is the "Obama plan", to turn it over to commercial, implying that it exists and NASA has just ignored it or that NASA has been somehow holding it back, when in reality there is still much question over the market.  These people also tend to get it wrong by missing, or ignoring, the flaws in the plan, that could completely kill it or set it back many years.

In other words, ignore totally everything else beyond saying "we're going commercial" and that currently there is absolutely no plan but somehow that is acceptable. 

As for the Tea Party, they are looking at this superficially and ignoring, or just not realizing, in reality they are actually asking for additional federal dollars to be spent.  They are *assuming* that if something is competed, to replace essentially 1:1 something that exists now, it will be automatically cheaper (and that's not even accounting for the development that must occur first). 
« Last Edit: 06/06/2011 06:33 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
...congress critters

I've started using the term crinoids...

I don't know what to think of this new development.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
...congress critters

I've started using the term crinoids...


What about congrenaut? :)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Here is an interesting quote from Jefff Bingham:
Quote
And will NASA have the will—and the funding—to develop and fly the SLS by 2016? Bingham, who said he was speaking for himself and not officially representing the views of the Senate Commerce Committee, said the authorization act supported the development of both the SLS and commercial crew development, but funding could put the two in conflict with each other. “There’s no issue with or conflict with those goals,” he said. “Where it becomes in conflict is in resources. When you only get so big a pie, and you start having to make priorities, that’s where you start having this push-and-shove between commercial and governmental. That shouldn’t be. That’s an artificial conflict that shouldn’t have to be there if we were properly resourced as an agency.”

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/06/05/competing-heavy-lift/#comments


Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 48
The only sensible way forward is for NASA to come out with an open tender stating that they need 150 MT in LEO with a description of the realibility required and payload dimensions. Should be about 20 pages

This would allow best solution to win.

If they go with existing contractors they will end up with a cost to develop of $10-20 billion which will be canned by congress or if it isn't is a huge waste of resources in times of tight budgets. Just recently NASA HEFT programme quoted 17.5 bill to develop HLV and $1.2 BILL a launch

Space X have said that they will develop HLV WITH 150 tonne to orbit for $2.5 billion and launch for $300 mill. This sounds ridiculously cheap compared to other quote and might set alarm bells ringing if we didnt know that spacex developed and launched dragon for $250 mill when NASA have managed to spend $8.5 bill on Orion for a craft with similar capabilities.

There definitely needs to be a tender process

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
The only sensible way forward is for NASA to come out with an open tender stating that they need 150 MT in LEO with a description of the realibility required and payload dimensions. Should be about 20 pages

This would allow best solution to win.

If they go with existing contractors they will end up with a cost to develop of $10-20 billion which will be canned by congress or if it isn't is a huge waste of resources in times of tight budgets. Just recently NASA HEFT programme quoted 17.5 bill to develop HLV and $1.2 BILL a launch

Space X have said that they will develop HLV WITH 150 tonne to orbit for $2.5 billion and launch for $300 mill. This sounds ridiculously cheap compared to other quote and might set alarm bells ringing if we didnt know that spacex developed and launched dragon for $250 mill when NASA have managed to spend $8.5 bill on Orion for a craft with similar capabilities.

There definitely needs to be a tender process
SpaceX also promised Falcon 9 launches for $30 million, which did not happen.  And Dragon launches for $80, which also did not happen.

The fact is, SpaceX is promising pricing based on the thought that they will be doing dozens of flights per year, something they cannot actually do at this time.  As a result, they miss their price targets.  This is common in any industry, the Boeing Delta IV had the same issue.  The difference here is that SpaceX is promising your dreams to come true, and you want to believe.  The cold hard reality is, they cannot deliver what they promise, as anyone with experience in the industry will tell you. 

Do you honestly see a launch a week of Falcon 9 coming soon?  Or two Falcon Heavy a month?  Without those flight rates, they will never meet the price target, with those increasing as a result. 

He cannot deliver his SHLV for the price, history of the industry as well as his own companies history demonstrates that.  He is making every mistake in the book.  I don't want to see him fail, but if he cannot stop writing checks his company cannot cash, it is the end goal for SpaceX.

Incidentally, since when does Dragon offer similar capabilities to Orion?  It has 1/3rd the endurance, half the volume, 1/12th the delta-v, and does not have the capability to handle the same level of high speed re-entry that Orion is designed for.  Saying it cost less to develop, when it offers so much less capability, is akin to discussing how much my roomates sedan cost vs my truck, when my truck can does things and goes places his sedan just cannot.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
SpaceX will never appease the establishment.

SpaceX needs to fly.  And they will...

... long before SLS or MPCV ever does.

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
The only sensible way forward is for NASA to come out with an open tender stating that they need 150 MT in LEO with a description of the realibility required and payload dimensions. Should be about 20 pages

This would allow best solution to win.

If they go with existing contractors they will end up with a cost to develop of $10-20 billion which will be canned by congress or if it isn't is a huge waste of resources in times of tight budgets. Just recently NASA HEFT programme quoted 17.5 bill to develop HLV and $1.2 BILL a launch

Space X have said that they will develop HLV WITH 150 tonne to orbit for $2.5 billion and launch for $300 mill. This sounds ridiculously cheap compared to other quote and might set alarm bells ringing if we didnt know that spacex developed and launched dragon for $250 mill when NASA have managed to spend $8.5 bill on Orion for a craft with similar capabilities.

There definitely needs to be a tender process
SpaceX also promised Falcon 9 launches for $30 million, which did not happen.  And Dragon launches for $80, which also did not happen.

The fact is, SpaceX is promising pricing based on the thought that they will be doing dozens of flights per year, something they cannot actually do at this time.  As a result, they miss their price targets.  This is common in any industry, the Boeing Delta IV had the same issue.  The difference here is that SpaceX is promising your dreams to come true, and you want to believe.  The cold hard reality is, they cannot deliver what they promise, as anyone with experience in the industry will tell you. 

Do you honestly see a launch a week of Falcon 9 coming soon?  Or two Falcon Heavy a month?  Without those flight rates, they will never meet the price target, with those increasing as a result. 

He cannot deliver his SHLV for the price, history of the industry as well as his own companies history demonstrates that.  He is making every mistake in the book.  I don't want to see him fail, but if he cannot stop writing checks his company cannot cash, it is the end goal for SpaceX.

Incidentally, since when does Dragon offer similar capabilities to Orion?  It has 1/3rd the endurance, half the volume, 1/12th the delta-v, and does not have the capability to handle the same level of high speed re-entry that Orion is designed for.  Saying it cost less to develop, when it offers so much less capability, is akin to discussing how much my roomates sedan cost vs my truck, when my truck can does things and goes places his sedan just cannot.

Wow all good points.  NASA has had requirements for projects to meet financial history etc.  Think any future contracts should also be looked on the basis of "Contractor history".   Did a contractor do his last contract near budget, on time?  Why give new more work to contractors who fail?
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
The only sensible way forward is for NASA to come out with an open tender stating that they need 150 MT in LEO with a description of the realibility required and payload dimensions. Should be about 20 pages

This would allow best solution to win.

If they go with existing contractors they will end up with a cost to develop of $10-20 billion which will be canned by congress or if it isn't is a huge waste of resources in times of tight budgets. Just recently NASA HEFT programme quoted 17.5 bill to develop HLV and $1.2 BILL a launch

Space X have said that they will develop HLV WITH 150 tonne to orbit for $2.5 billion and launch for $300 mill. This sounds ridiculously cheap compared to other quote and might set alarm bells ringing if we didnt know that spacex developed and launched dragon for $250 mill when NASA have managed to spend $8.5 bill on Orion for a craft with similar capabilities.

There definitely needs to be a tender process
SpaceX also promised Falcon 9 launches for $30 million, which did not happen.  And Dragon launches for $80, which also did not happen.

The fact is, SpaceX is promising pricing based on the thought that they will be doing dozens of flights per year, something they cannot actually do at this time.  As a result, they miss their price targets.  This is common in any industry, the Boeing Delta IV had the same issue.  The difference here is that SpaceX is promising your dreams to come true, and you want to believe.  The cold hard reality is, they cannot deliver what they promise, as anyone with experience in the industry will tell you. 

Do you honestly see a launch a week of Falcon 9 coming soon?  Or two Falcon Heavy a month?  Without those flight rates, they will never meet the price target, with those increasing as a result. 

He cannot deliver his SHLV for the price, history of the industry as well as his own companies history demonstrates that.  He is making every mistake in the book.  I don't want to see him fail, but if he cannot stop writing checks his company cannot cash, it is the end goal for SpaceX.

Incidentally, since when does Dragon offer similar capabilities to Orion?  It has 1/3rd the endurance, half the volume, 1/12th the delta-v, and does not have the capability to handle the same level of high speed re-entry that Orion is designed for.  Saying it cost less to develop, when it offers so much less capability, is akin to discussing how much my roomates sedan cost vs my truck, when my truck can does things and goes places his sedan just cannot.

Wow all good points.  NASA has had requirements for projects to meet financial history etc.  Think any future contracts should also be looked on the basis of "Contractor history".   Did a contractor do his last contract near budget, on time?  Why give new more work to contractors who fail?
 

Has SpaceX failed?

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
The only sensible way forward is for NASA to come out with an open tender stating that they need 150 MT in LEO with a description of the realibility required and payload dimensions. Should be about 20 pages

This would allow best solution to win.

If they go with existing contractors they will end up with a cost to develop of $10-20 billion which will be canned by congress or if it isn't is a huge waste of resources in times of tight budgets. Just recently NASA HEFT programme quoted 17.5 bill to develop HLV and $1.2 BILL a launch

Space X have said that they will develop HLV WITH 150 tonne to orbit for $2.5 billion and launch for $300 mill. This sounds ridiculously cheap compared to other quote and might set alarm bells ringing if we didnt know that spacex developed and launched dragon for $250 mill when NASA have managed to spend $8.5 bill on Orion for a craft with similar capabilities.

There definitely needs to be a tender process
SpaceX also promised Falcon 9 launches for $30 million, which did not happen.  And Dragon launches for $80, which also did not happen.

The fact is, SpaceX is promising pricing based on the thought that they will be doing dozens of flights per year, something they cannot actually do at this time.  As a result, they miss their price targets.  This is common in any industry, the Boeing Delta IV had the same issue.  The difference here is that SpaceX is promising your dreams to come true, and you want to believe.  The cold hard reality is, they cannot deliver what they promise, as anyone with experience in the industry will tell you. 

Do you honestly see a launch a week of Falcon 9 coming soon?  Or two Falcon Heavy a month?  Without those flight rates, they will never meet the price target, with those increasing as a result. 

He cannot deliver his SHLV for the price, history of the industry as well as his own companies history demonstrates that.  He is making every mistake in the book.  I don't want to see him fail, but if he cannot stop writing checks his company cannot cash, it is the end goal for SpaceX.

Incidentally, since when does Dragon offer similar capabilities to Orion?  It has 1/3rd the endurance, half the volume, 1/12th the delta-v, and does not have the capability to handle the same level of high speed re-entry that Orion is designed for.  Saying it cost less to develop, when it offers so much less capability, is akin to discussing how much my roomates sedan cost vs my truck, when my truck can does things and goes places his sedan just cannot.

Wow all good points.  NASA has had requirements for projects to meet financial history etc.  Think any future contracts should also be looked on the basis of "Contractor history".   Did a contractor do his last contract near budget, on time?  Why give new more work to contractors who fail?
 

Has SpaceX failed?

VR
RE327

Unproven might be a better term for SpaceX.   However I would not reward them with any more contracts until they start to deliver to the ISS.
 
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
The only sensible way forward is for NASA to come out with an open tender stating that they need 150 MT in LEO with a description of the realibility required and payload dimensions. Should be about 20 pages

This would allow best solution to win.

If they go with existing contractors they will end up with a cost to develop of $10-20 billion which will be canned by congress or if it isn't is a huge waste of resources in times of tight budgets. Just recently NASA HEFT programme quoted 17.5 bill to develop HLV and $1.2 BILL a launch

Space X have said that they will develop HLV WITH 150 tonne to orbit for $2.5 billion and launch for $300 mill. This sounds ridiculously cheap compared to other quote and might set alarm bells ringing if we didnt know that spacex developed and launched dragon for $250 mill when NASA have managed to spend $8.5 bill on Orion for a craft with similar capabilities.

There definitely needs to be a tender process
SpaceX also promised Falcon 9 launches for $30 million, which did not happen.  And Dragon launches for $80, which also did not happen.

The fact is, SpaceX is promising pricing based on the thought that they will be doing dozens of flights per year, something they cannot actually do at this time.  As a result, they miss their price targets.  This is common in any industry, the Boeing Delta IV had the same issue.  The difference here is that SpaceX is promising your dreams to come true, and you want to believe.  The cold hard reality is, they cannot deliver what they promise, as anyone with experience in the industry will tell you. 

Do you honestly see a launch a week of Falcon 9 coming soon?  Or two Falcon Heavy a month?  Without those flight rates, they will never meet the price target, with those increasing as a result. 

He cannot deliver his SHLV for the price, history of the industry as well as his own companies history demonstrates that.  He is making every mistake in the book.  I don't want to see him fail, but if he cannot stop writing checks his company cannot cash, it is the end goal for SpaceX.

Incidentally, since when does Dragon offer similar capabilities to Orion?  It has 1/3rd the endurance, half the volume, 1/12th the delta-v, and does not have the capability to handle the same level of high speed re-entry that Orion is designed for.  Saying it cost less to develop, when it offers so much less capability, is akin to discussing how much my roomates sedan cost vs my truck, when my truck can does things and goes places his sedan just cannot.

Wow all good points.  NASA has had requirements for projects to meet financial history etc.  Think any future contracts should also be looked on the basis of "Contractor history".   Did a contractor do his last contract near budget, on time?  Why give new more work to contractors who fail?
 

Has SpaceX failed?

VR
RE327

Unproven might be a better term for SpaceX.   However I would not reward them with any more contracts until they start to deliver to the ISS.
 

And who is proven?

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1

And who is proven?

VR
RE327
For delivering the necessary equipment for an HLV, we have Boeing, Lockheed, PWR, Aerojet, ATK and Northrop off the top of my head.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1