LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2

[Robotbeat]

From what I understand, both SpaceX and Bigelow have plunked down something in the neighborhood of a quarter of a billion dollars in start-up money over a period of about ten years. SpaceX's contract with NASA calls for 12 supply flights for a total of $1.6B, for about $130M/flight (they're making money on this contract, by the way). Let's assume we have a fat field of six companies competing for services in a few years, and it's in NASA's interests to keep them all alive. $2B divided by six is about $330M/year for each, or two and a half of SpaceX's initial price on a supply flight. That just might be enough to keep a company alive and still flying, even assuming they're unable to drum up any other business outside of NASA's ISS efforts.

So, does the "price per flight" equate to covering the operating costs of the entire company, or that division at least, for a period of time before the next flight and the next infusion of money?

The answer in many cases is probably not entirely and therefore it will probably require sustainment from either corporate funds, which is not going to be popular if a business is continuously in a defecit mode, or the government is going to have to continue to step in in order to keep them afloat. 

Or other customers. Clearly that is possible.

EDIT: Not only is it possible, but SpaceX has customers on their manifest already, and they've already launched one into orbit. There are already DragonLab missions on the manifest. Orbital is an even better position since they are an established spacecraft and small launch vehicle company with a substantial existing revenue stream.

[Namechange User]

From what I understand, both SpaceX and Bigelow have plunked down something in the neighborhood of a quarter of a billion dollars in start-up money over a period of about ten years. SpaceX's contract with NASA calls for 12 supply flights for a total of $1.6B, for about $130M/flight (they're making money on this contract, by the way). Let's assume we have a fat field of six companies competing for services in a few years, and it's in NASA's interests to keep them all alive. $2B divided by six is about $330M/year for each, or two and a half of SpaceX's initial price on a supply flight. That just might be enough to keep a company alive and still flying, even assuming they're unable to drum up any other business outside of NASA's ISS efforts.

So, does the "price per flight" equate to covering the operating costs of the entire company, or that division at least, for a period of time before the next flight and the next infusion of money?

The answer in many cases is probably not entirely and therefore it will probably require sustainment from either corporate funds, which is not going to be popular if a business is continuously in a defecit mode, or the government is going to have to continue to step in in order to keep them afloat. 

Or other customers. Clearly that is possible.

EDIT: Not only is it possible, but SpaceX has customers on their manifest already, and they've already launched one into orbit. There are already DragonLab missions on the manifest. Orbital is an even better position since they are an established spacecraft and small launch vehicle company with a substantial existing revenue stream.

Correct about SpaceX, and was absolutely expecting someone to bring that up.

With SpaceX, this was always their business plan and to supplement that income by having other customers, DragonLab, etc that should offset those operating costs.  If not, they were willing to use their own private capital to do exactly this, after all this is really the ultimate plan for this particular company.

Orbital is not in a better position.  Existing revenue stream does not mean they are willing or want to "eat into it".  After all, companies are about making more money.  Same philosophy goes for everyone else and the business model is to get more money out of something than you put in.....and hence the potential problem with all of this.

People want to assume that "commercial" = better but I am telling you from first hand knowledge that all these concerns that everyone wants to beat on me for bringing up or thinking I'm just trying to defend some sort of status quo are absolutely real.

[Bill White]

I would imagine that Senator Hutchinson will arrange for her space policy staff people to transition to another Senator thereby allowing her space staffers to "stay in the game" so to speak.

Well, we'll see what tomorrow night brings with the primary election, but that aside the question would be whether that other Senator has more or less influence in the Senate than Senator Hutchinson.

It is fascinating to consider that the Texas governor's primary could influence space policy -- if Perry defeats Hutchinson tomorrow and there is no run-off then Senator Hutchinson will have considerably more time to devote to space policy.

I am somewhat tickled by the Democratic side, where Bill White ( not me! ) seems poised to coast to an easy win.

[Halidon]

neilh: that quote from the budget is so vague...there are ifs and maybes all through it.

The biggest proof: "...to improve the chance of mission success..."

So clearly they are not confident in the current plan being a success.

Wait a minute, back the CM up a sec. Earlier you accused the COTS of being "more than 67% over-budget." Over budget meaning they needed more money to do work they were already contracted to do. If their funding is being increased to pay for additional flights and testing, that's not even in the same ballpark. I'm looking at neilh's quotes and I'm seeing an acceleration and expansion, not a Nunn-McCurdy breach. You may not agree with said expansion, and question why it appears to lack detail, but nowhere is there anything about failure to reach milestones or failure to stay within cost goals.

When CxP were taking features off Orion and adding to the costs, THAT was a budget overrun.

[MP99]

We might be able to do just this with the Shuttle and the emergent commercial market if we privatize the Shuttle. After a three year weaning period, the Shuttle company would have to compete with the rest of the private companies. It's my take that such a company would not have long term financial viability, but there may be others who are willing to try and make a go of it. It's the only possible way forward I can see that preserves the Shuttle capability long enough for privately operated manned spaceflight to become operational.

It's all a matter of Congress willing to pay the $2B/year for three years plus whatever fees are incurred in privatization.

One very interesting way to look at this - how much would it cost to commercialise the Shuttle?

If the entry cost is low, ISTM the risk of some consortium taking over the Shuttle is equally low - they operate the Shuttle for three years, making profits as they go.

After that, see what transpires.

Hmm, just occurred to me... Would the Shuttle consortium be taking on a lot of liabilities to decommission the infrastructure once the programme gets shut down? That could be the real killer.

Martin

[Ben the Space Brit]

Hmm, just occurred to me... Would the Shuttle consortium be taking on a lot of liabilities to decommission the infrastructure once the programme gets shut down? That could be the real killer.

Indeed.  I imagine any real-world deal would include the US government either sharing decommissioning costs or a 'buy-back' where ownership is transferred back to the USG for decommissioning.  More intreguingly, there could be a 'continuity' deal where the USG guaranteees that future NASA HLVs would use the infrastructure in some form.  In that scenario, the consortium would be paid to maintain them in mothballs until required.

[robertross]

neilh: that quote from the budget is so vague...there are ifs and maybes all through it.

The biggest proof: "...to improve the chance of mission success..."

So clearly they are not confident in the current plan being a success.

Wait a minute, back the CM up a sec. Earlier you accused the COTS of being "more than 67% over-budget." Over budget meaning they needed more money to do work they were already contracted to do. If their funding is being increased to pay for additional flights and testing, that's not even in the same ballpark. I'm looking at neilh's quotes and I'm seeing an acceleration and expansion, not a Nunn-McCurdy breach. You may not agree with said expansion, and question why it appears to lack detail, but nowhere is there anything about failure to reach milestones or failure to stay within cost goals.

Actually, the over-budget % was a follow-on to Ross' post, and I put an asterisk in there indicating the crewed version would likely be higher.

If you read the quote in question, it is specifically the verbage of the budget text that calls into question exactly what the funds would be doing. They aren't clear. However, they do phrase it as if there are serious issues in the current timelines and they apparently want to throw money on the problem, by whatever means they can, to get things moving along.

So yes, they 'might' be adding more flights, or asking to move some flights around. But in all honesty, that seems like a cover to hide the fact that they may not acheive their goals in the time required by NASA. I say this specifically because of the launguage used. If it were clear that "we need to accelerate the schedule due to shuttle retirement", then that's fair. But you start putting in statements like: "...to improve the chance of mission success...", then you expose a weakness.

[Robotbeat]

NASA is adding requirements, the requirement for these new demo missions. And, NASA is paying for them. Sounds fair. What is there to talk about? Only the timeline.

[psloss]

It is fascinating to consider that the Texas governor's primary could influence space policy -- if Perry defeats Hutchinson tomorrow and there is no run-off then Senator Hutchinson will have considerably more time to devote to space policy.

Well, the first part happened.  Perry got ~52% of the vote in the Republican primary...among the speculation was the story about what she would do next:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33822.html

As the story says, apparently that includes leaving office this year -- which might have a different influence internally...

[Chris Bergin]

http://posey.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=174535

This is part of a multi-lawmaker effort. There's other Congressmen involved and Senator Hutchison's sponsored Bill.

Should be released publically at about 3pm Eastern and a press release shortly after. I'm talking about the March 3 version "Space15".

Has inputs from most of the major players, from USA to SpaceX, from Lockheed to NASA.

Massive changes to the FY2011 proposal, including shuttle extension by five years. Commercial elements change a lot too. HLV moved up.

[Ben the Space Brit]

I'm worried by the fact that they are still talking about continuing with 'Constellation', by which they very clearly mean Ares-I.  Ares-I is a death-note to US-indigenous HSF.

[Chris Bergin]

Should be out in 30 mins. Not sure if that means the bill - as a pdf - but if not, I'll move it to the public forum sections with an article I'm writing, regardless.

[nooneofconsequence]

I'm worried by the fact that they are still talking about continuing with 'Constellation', by which they very clearly mean Ares-I.  Ares-I is a death-note to US-indigenous HSF.

Everyone here thinks Ares-I is dead. Reports of its death are exaggerated.

Ironically, Ross and Chuck may help to revive it - which is nuts!

Politically there are two groups - reinstate Cx/Ares I and commercial.

It is idiotic to presume that reinstating Cx DOESN'T MEAN Ares-I.

The unstable middle (read as "bait and switch") is of a compromise deal.

[Eerie]

Politically there are two groups - reinstate Cx/Ares I and commercial.

I thought Ares I and commercial were moving together for a while now, before Cx cancellation.

[psloss]

Florida Today has Senator Hutchison's press release:
http://flametrench.flatoday.net/2010/03/in-senate-hutchison-echoes-kosmasposey.html

Don't see it on her Senate site yet.

[FinalFrontier]

Florida Today has Senator Hutchison's press release:
http://flametrench.flatoday.net/2010/03/in-senate-hutchison-echoes-kosmasposey.html

Don't see it on her Senate site yet.

Since I live in Texas:
Big news last night as Perry defeated Hutchison in the primary she is thus out of the running. I imagine her next order of buisness is (I hope) to go to D.C. and get involved in the pro SDHLV lobby. (crosses fingers).

[psloss]

Florida Today has Senator Hutchison's press release:
http://flametrench.flatoday.net/2010/03/in-senate-hutchison-echoes-kosmasposey.html

Don't see it on her Senate site yet.

Since I live in Texas:
Big news last night as Perry defeated Hutchison in the primary she is thus out of the running. I imagine her next order of buisness is (I hope) to go to D.C. and get involved in the pro SDHLV lobby. (crosses fingers).

Noted earlier in the thread -- she was running for Governor of Texas.  She doesn't have to give up her Senate seat (her term continues through 2012), but there has been speculation about a resignation.

[FinalFrontier]

http://posey.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=174535

This is part of a multi-lawmaker effort. There's other Congressmen involved and Senator Hutchison's sponsored Bill.

Should be released publically at about 3pm Eastern and a press release shortly after. I'm talking about the March 3 version "Space15".

Has inputs from most of the major players, from USA to SpaceX, from Lockheed to NASA.

Massive changes to the FY2011 proposal, including shuttle extension by five years. Commercial elements change a lot too. HLV moved up.

I hope she does not resign because wouldn't that make her effort less powerful? If she does not resign then perhaps this plan will save the day. I heard rumors that she and others along with all the commercial guys were planning to privatize the shuttle and/or build a SDHLV (direct)_ in the future.

[kraisee]

Ben,
In truth the players all know that the 1.5-launch architecture is DoA.   Only Sen. Shelby and Rep. Giffords are still pushing what I would term as "POR unchanged" at this time, and even for both of those are only doing so because that is a strong initial "hard line" negotiating stance to ensure they retain as much work in their states as possible.

An SD-HLV is getting the majority of the backing right now, along with continued Orion funding.

Ross.

[Bill White]

An SD-HLV is getting the majority of the backing right now, along with continued Orion funding.

Who will persuade NASA to go along with a compromise?

If this gets dragged out for another year and we see continuing resolutions for funding, there could be a fait accompli making it impossible to extend Orbiter, or go with SD-HLV.