Hypothetical switch to Commercial Rockets for NASA

[lewis886]

I'm just curious what people would think could get done, or would get done (or wouldn't get done) if NASA were to cancel all internal rocket/spacecraft (SLS/Orion) development, and put all of that money towards CRS-type cargo/crew contracts such as they currently have with SpaceX, Orbital, & ULA/Boeing.  This would be for crew, for heavy lift capabilities, etc.  If they want to go to Mars, they ask for bids on rockets that can do that job (Falcon Heavy/Falcon X), and spacecraft that can do that job (Dragon/CST-100), and modules that can do that job (Bigelow). 

In your opinion, what all could be done like that?  Would things get done quicker?  Cheaper?  Slower?  Would less get done?  More?   

How would that change the face of American spaceflight?

[nadreck]

A controversial topic that invites baseless conjecture. Oh, just what I like to pontificate on!

So a simple answer is that because NASA would still represent the same politically funnelled mandate that they would not pick and choose any more wisely than before. The picking would complicate the goals of companies like Blue Origin, SpaceX and Sierra Nevada but ultimately might give them a slightly better chance while still supporting the entrenched companies. In that environment I believe it would still take an awful lot of luck and pluck for a reasonable Mars HSF program or ISS follow on to get off the ground and that if/when it does it will be the result of independent activity that brings NASA along as a fellow traveller not the instigator.

[Hauerg]

The most likely outcome? The OrionSLS money would vanish.

[QuantumG]

The most likely outcome? The OrionSLS money would vanish.

Presumably some other politician would like it for his/her district.

[Oli]

Different contracts for different purposes.

[A_M_Swallow]

The other commercial thing that is changing NASA are cubesats. NASA no longer has to pay for an entire launch vehicle to get new technology into space. Commercial launch services permits launching of a new device into orbit for the cost of about 1 years development providing the device can fit into a cubesat, or small satellite. That moves the decision making from Congress to the NASA Administrator.

[A_M_Swallow]

It is surprising what can be purchased with a small budget. For instance the Commercial Crew and Cargo programs started with $50 million seed money NASA received under the 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'. When results were reported much more money was awarded in later years.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/feb/HQ_C10-004_Commercia_Crew_Dev.html

NASA needs budgets that allow it to experiment with new ideas without having to spend a larger sum briefing every Congressman or fending off every lobbyist in Washington DC. NASA will have to fight hard to keep control of these budgets.

[rocx]

If they want to go to Mars, they ask for bids on rockets that can do that job (Falcon Heavy/Falcon X), and spacecraft that can do that job (Dragon/CST-100), and modules that can do that job (Bigelow).

As far as I know that is not really how CRS works. NASA pays for a service, the delivery of a quantity of cargo to the ISS within defined parameters. Bidders are free to choose the infrastructure to achieve that goal. NASA still has oversight to see if the bids are realistic and if safety levels are maintained (more for crew, less for cargo). NASA does not order a spacecraft and a launcher separately and then combine them, as happened for Mercury and Gemini.

So it would seem better to me to hold competitions of the kind 'put a station in lunar orbit that can support five astronauts', 'deliver a payload of up to 100 tons to low Mars orbit', 'provide a propellant depot in low Earth orbit and keep it supplied'...

[Oli]

It is surprising what can be purchased with a small budget. For instance the Commercial Crew and Cargo programs started with $50 million seed money NASA received under the 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'. When results were reported much more money was awarded in later years.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/feb/HQ_C10-004_Commercia_Crew_Dev.html

The commercial crew program will cost ~$8.3bn in total, of which $3.4bn for 12 flights. Its not obvious to me that a NASA-led program would have been more expensive.

So it would seem better to me to hold competitions of the kind 'put a station in lunar orbit that can support five astronauts', 'deliver a payload of up to 100 tons to low Mars orbit', 'provide a propellant depot in low Earth orbit and keep it supplied'...

That makes sense if you have a variety of competitors and relatively little R&D is required.
 

[Proponent]

One of Chris's recent articles puts the cost of Orion through first crewed flight at $17 billion, assuming that's in 2023, which now appears unlikely.  That figure excludes launch vehicles and presumably the ESM, since ESA is picking up the tab for that.  Hence I can easily imagine that the cost of NASA developing an ISS crew capsule and flying it 12 times operationally would be much greater than the cost of the commercial crew program.

[baldusi]

It is surprising what can be purchased with a small budget. For instance the Commercial Crew and Cargo programs started with $50 million seed money NASA received under the 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'. When results were reported much more money was awarded in later years.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/feb/HQ_C10-004_Commercia_Crew_Dev.html

The commercial crew program will cost ~$8.3bn in total, of which $3.4bn for 12 flights. Its not obvious to me that a NASA-led program would have been more expensive.

If left to NASA it would have been done with Ares I. But they wouldn't have been able to finish it in time to replace the Shuttle. So yes, it would have cost more and would have failed to replace the Shuttle.
NASA is great at doing ground breaking new stuff. Recurrent TRL 8/9 stuff is better left to the industry.
That's why I believe that SLS could perfectly be replaced by the industry. Orion? I'm not sure, actually. Now, if they launch five to ten Orion missions to near-BEO, that experience will percolate to the industry and then they could replace it. But look how long it took for NASA to actually write a specification for crew-rating LEO SV. They would have to do that again for BEO.

[Endeavour_01]

It is surprising what can be purchased with a small budget. For instance the Commercial Crew and Cargo programs started with $50 million seed money NASA received under the 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009'. When results were reported much more money was awarded in later years.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/feb/HQ_C10-004_Commercia_Crew_Dev.html

Commercial Crew started with that money but Cargo was started under the Bush years. I believe SpaceX got their first contract in 2007-2008.

[Jim]

It started before commercial cargo with commercial launch services in 1988.   NASA has even gone as far as delivery on orbit for GOES- NOP.  The spacecraft manufacturer bought the launch service.

[Rocket Science]

This is my attempt at being Solomon and to prevent the NASA districts from the withdrawal DTs... As a transition I would purchase launch services for all vehicles/boosters and leave the agency with spacecraft/lander design, to be constructed by contractors...

[pathfinder_01]

The most likely outcome? The OrionSLS money would vanish.

Presumably some other politician would like it for his/her district.

And others would like the remaining "pork" of HSF in theirs. It would cause an smaller HSF budget, but the money would be more focused towards achieving an outcome.

[lewis886]

So, if all of the money that is currently being spent on SLS/Orion each year was given to SpaceX/Boeing/ULA for development milestones or whatever, could a mission around the moon happen sooner?  A mission to a NEO?  Let's just say it's a billion dollars per year. If you injected that into commercial development efforts would we be ahead of where we will be with SLS/Orion by 2023?

[A_M_Swallow]

The most likely outcome? The OrionSLS money would vanish.

Presumably some other politician would like it for his/her district.

And others would like the remaining "pork" of HSF in theirs. It would cause an smaller HSF budget, but the money would be more focused towards achieving an outcome.

Get the new program started before requesting the cancellation of the old program. Proof of concepts can be considerably cheaper than flight hardware.

[pathfinder_01]

.  This would be for crew, for heavy lift capabilities, etc.  If they want to go to Mars, they ask for bids on rockets that can do that job (Falcon Heavy/Falcon X), and spacecraft that can do that job (Dragon/CST-100), and modules that can do that job (Bigelow). 

There are many different outcomes and some things are more appropriate for commercial than others.

For heavy lift they could just bid it out like we currently do for launch services for unmanned flight. For instance TDRS(an communications sate light for the ISS) was once lifted by the shuttle now is lifted commercially. NASA ownership of the HLV could stunt development of more economical Heavy Lift because Congress would have to go along with all changes and a HLV can share it's infrastructure with smaller rockets if designed carefully. A commercial heavy lift could get private money for improvements or be replaced by another better commercial system  in an latter contract bid.

For Cargo(food, water, smaller items) upgrades of existing cargo craft could be needed but right now that could be just as simple as order some Cygnus esp.  If departing from LEO. It should be ordered as an service as it is currently for the ISS.

For modules ownership is important. Ordering an hab from bigleow would support the industry but I think NASA is going to have to own the module after delivery. This would be similar to the way things are done currently so there might not be as much savings here just more hope that bigleow or whomever can take the money and fund more commercial uses of it. Sort of like bombers(or military cargo) and passenger planes pre WWII(i.e. one modwl could serve both functions).

For crew things get tricky. If departing from LEO then commercial crew as it exists can serve it. If departing further out then  it should be ordered as service if possible.If it is determined that a service module can not be used or easily extended(i.e. an once every two year flight needing support all the way through for an 1-2 years doesn't present much for an commercial crew launch service to work with.) then the lift portion of it(i.e. Orion) should be on an commercial rocket.

[pathfinder_01]

So, if all of the money that is currently being spent on SLS/Orion each year was given to SpaceX/Boeing/ULA for development milestones or whatever, could a mission around the moon happen sooner?  A mission to a NEO?  Let's just say it's a billion dollars per year. If you injected that into commercial development efforts would we be ahead of where we will be with SLS/Orion by 2023?

Two years ago I would have said yes. Now enough time has passed to give SLS an edge in that respect. The difference would be what happens after 2023 and what would happen over time.  SLS would take an large increase in budget to do more lunar missions. For Commercial it would only take smaller amounts. SLS will never get near as much development as F9 or even Atlas is having.  There will never be an Opportunity for an cheaper provider to arise and allow a re balance of funding to more capability or towards different things.

[rayleighscatter]

The other commercial thing that is changing NASA are cubesats. NASA no longer has to pay for an entire launch vehicle to get new technology into space. Commercial launch services permits launching of a new device into orbit for the cost of about 1 years development providing the device can fit into a cubesat, or small satellite. That moves the decision making from Congress to the NASA Administrator.

NASA hasn't really had to pay for a launch vehicle for nearly any small payload since 1981 between Shuttle and ISS.