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.

[vt_hokie]

By building on existing assets, maybe we could continue flying while debating where to go next, rather than being grounded for years in between programs as tends to happen with these megabucks pork barrel type programs.

[spacenut]

NASA could sit down with all contractors, see what they have on the shelf, then tell them what they want to do, like go to Mars.  Contractors could show NASA their proposals.  Contractors would be allowed to get together to combine their proposals.  For instance.  SpaceX can offer the Falcon Heavy as a launcher.  Bigelow, in space modules.  ULA, ACES propellant depot.  Blue Origin could use their future New Sheppard for filling the fuel depot.  Some of the Aircraft Companies could offer to finance a NautilusX type components.   NASA could coordinate the construction and timing of the launching of various components.  NASA would not have to build anything themselves, just coordinate when it would be ready and budget to pay for the various things when they were ready and needed. 

Rockets are now approaching sizes needed for larger than ISS in space components for habitats, fuel depots, reusable in space transports, reusable landers. 

[QuantumG]

Sure, they could also hold hands and sing songs around the camp fire. Who brought the guitar?

I get it, you really want NASA to do stuff in space. So do I, but that's not the primary concern of the people who control the purse. Their goals control NASA's destiny.

[Coastal Ron]

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...

I know your question includes assumptions that NASA would do something after the SLS and Orion were cancelled, but I want to challenge that assumption.

I think if the SLS and Orion were cancelled, nothing else new would happen.  Nothing would replace it.

Because as of today the challenge the SLS and Orion have is not just related to their perceived limitations, but NASA in general - what is next after the ISS?  There is no political agreement on what is next.  So there is nothing new to fund.

However NASA has stated that their "technology cupboard is bare", so I would hope some funding would go toward basic technology development - preparing for when we finally agree on what's next.  And that's because we still need things like SEP, long lasting ECLSS systems, fuel depots, robotic tankers, etc. developed no matter where we want to go next, since technologies and capabilities like those will lower the cost and speed our ability to get there.

So I see no need to rush going somewhere when we don't have a consensus on what the long-term plan is.

But when we do get inspired to go somewhere, then I would hope that NASA would act as the overseer, and solicit ideas from industry and academia to find the best way to do it, and then involve the private sector as much as possible from the start.

My $0.02

[Oli]

One of Chris's recent articles puts the cost of Orion through first crewed flight at $17 billion

Not a fair comparison though, for a variety of reasons.

If left to NASA it would have been done with Ares I.

Ares I was meant to launch Orion. I mean a LEO capsule only. Whether it makes sense to develop a LEO capsule for the remainder of the ISS' lifetime is another question. It certainly does make sense if NASA wants a continued presence in LEO.

That's why I believe that SLS could perfectly be replaced by the industry.

In 2010 you only had Aerojet and ATK capable of providing the necessary propulsion. Today you arguably also have SpaceX/Blue Origin. There would be more competition for sure, but you would still only develop one HLLV. Whether NASA should take the lead in such a case or outsource it to a single prime contractor is kind of difficult to tell.

[spacenut]

Within 5 years you might have Vulcan also.  Vulcan, Falcon Heavy, and when/if Blue Origins New Sheppard will all make SLS obsolete.  With no clear direction, no president setting a goal like Kennedy did, what use is SLS.  What about NASA cancelling SLS and concentrating on finishing CTS, Dragon 2, and maybe Orion.  Then build a fuel depot, then Mars and Lunar landers, NautilusX for Mars transport, and start getting somewhere.  They could also build landers for the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, maybe even Pluto an Ceres.  Other things would be SEP space tugs, mining of Helium 3 on the Moon, Mars satellite communication system for various landers, and human exploration. 

[topo334]

Speaking as a space mad layman whose career is restoring antique furniture and repairing pipe organs, I view NASA as a heavy lifting body that has raised us to orbit. And now, nearly spent, will either fall back to earth,or given the additional boost of a new role be around for a few more orbits. NASA rescued Tesla and Spacex from oblivion with CCR contract, and the current estimated cost of the SLS program probably surpasses the total value of Spacex and Tesla. Perhaps NASA will end up being an expendable booster?

[Danderman]

If the Senate Launch Vehicle were to be replaced with a commercial vehicle that was not to be produced in the designated congressional and Senate districts?

That would be a very short program.

[libs0n]

That would be a very short program.

You mean like the ISS program, the Space Science program, and the Military space program, all of which do not operate their own rockets but contract commercial launch services, and all of which are examples of ongoing large programs of a scale comparable to the exploration program?

[pathfinder_01]

In 2010 you only had Aerojet and ATK capable of providing the necessary propulsion. Today you arguably also have SpaceX/Blue Origin. There would be more competition for sure, but you would still only develop one HLLV. Whether NASA should take the lead in such a case or outsource it to a single prime contractor is kind of difficult to tell.

Not quite. ULA would have been the company that owned the rocket and the rocket would have been an EELV(Atlas or Delta) phase I or Phase II. AeroJet and ATK would have simply been subcontractors who supplied the engines or solids. And it would possible to change subcontracts without Congress's approval(the recent switch of SRBs for the EELV comes to mind.). Upgrades to the engine could be funded by the company, the air force, the engine manufacturer or NASA. Giving greater possibility for increased function or reduced costs.

 The number of HLVs developed would not necessarily stay at one. Like the EELV it could cause another entrant like Space X to develop one to compete.  A lot depends on launch rate(which HLV is very poor at). It would share infrastructure with existing rockets and be capable of lifting both small and large amounts into orbit.

[QuantumG]

You mean like the ISS program, the Space Science program, and the Military space program, all of which do not operate their own rockets but contract commercial launch services, and all of which are examples of ongoing large programs of a scale comparable to the exploration program?

ISS is a post-pork program. Space Science is actually five line items, with individual ones supported by specific districts and the rest politicized even more-so. The EELV's are not commercial launch services when it comes to milspace, plus it has an actual need. Those same rockets would be for NASA, because the relationship would be so different.

If there's any good news this year it's that the commercial spaceflight budget has moved out of exploration. It was a quirk of history that it was taken out of exploration in the first place. If this had been done back in 2010 we probably would have seen the SLS vs Commercial Spaceflight rivalry that we see today.

[Oli]

In 2010 you only had Aerojet and ATK capable of providing the necessary propulsion. Today you arguably also have SpaceX/Blue Origin. There would be more competition for sure, but you would still only develop one HLLV. Whether NASA should take the lead in such a case or outsource it to a single prime contractor is kind of difficult to tell.

Not quite. ULA would have been the company that owned the rocket and the rocket would have been an EELV(Atlas or Delta) phase I or Phase II.

That way you're just handing over the key to a private monopolist. I don't see how that is preferable to a government-led program.
 

The number of HLVs developed would not necessarily stay at one.

The barrier to entry would be extremely high, especially with such a small market. Too high even for SpaceX.

Note I'm talking strictly about HLLV here, there are of course alternatives.

[pathfinder_01]

That way you're just handing over the key to a private monopolist. I don't see how that is preferable to a government-led program.

Normally I might agree but this monopolist is more efficient than NASA in terms of Cost.

The barrier to entry would be extremely high, especially with such a small market. Too high even for SpaceX.

Note I'm talking strictly about HLLV here, there are of course alternatives.

That high barrier of entry might not be enough to stop the rise of an another company. It just would take some time. The bigger barrier of entry would be the limited number of launches an HLV sometimes has. Hard to pouch the market when the thing only lifts 1-2 times a year.

[Oli]

That way you're just handing over the key to a private monopolist. I don't see how that is preferable to a government-led program.

Normally I might agree but this monopolist is more efficient than NASA in terms of Cost.

Who? ULA? What makes you say it was more efficient?

[QuantumG]

Who? ULA? What makes you say it was more efficient?

For a start, they actually launch things for the money they get...

[Proponent]

I think if the SLS and Orion were cancelled, nothing else new would happen.  Nothing would replace it.

I think that's certainly a possibility, but the risk depends on the foresight and political skill with which a replacement was promoted.  I think there's a decent chance that if an alternative program were put forth in advance of cancellation and political support were drummed for it, NASA could hold onto a significant fraction of the funding.

[Proponent]

One of Chris's recent articles puts the cost of Orion through first crewed flight at $17 billion

Not a fair comparison though, for a variety of reasons.

Consider that the figure for commercial crew includes the development of two complete spacecraft as well as a dozen operational flights, including launch costs.  One of those craft seats more people than Orion and has a heat shield capable of returning directly from Mars.  Orion, having been designed for a lunar mission, no doubt has some systems and capabilities that the others lack.  Most of those, however, relate to its service module, the cost of which is largely excluded from the quoted cost, since it's being developed by ESA.  The cost for Orion includes only one crewed flight, which is a test flight.  No launch costs at all are included in the Orion figure.

The comparison is unfair, but it's unfair to commercial crew.

[Proponent]

That way you're just handing over the key to a private monopolist. I don't see how that is preferable to a government-led program.

Normally I might agree but this monopolist is more efficient than NASA in terms of Cost.

Who? ULA? What makes you say it was more efficient?

In 2010, ULA indicated it could build a 90-tonne-class launch vehicle (Atlas V Phase 2, to be precise) for under $5.5 billion (see 2nd attachment here).  SLS will have burned through a multiple of that by the time the 70-tonne version flies.

[Oli]

The comparison is unfair, but it's unfair to commercial crew.

I could argue otherwise but I'm kind of tired of that debate.

In 2010, ULA indicated it could build a 90-tonne-class launch vehicle (Atlas V Phase 2, to be precise) for under $5.5 billion (see 2nd attachment here).  SLS will have burned through a multiple of that by the time the 70-tonne version flies.

The $5.5bn figure refers to the total cost of Atlas V ($2bn) and Delta IV ($3.5bn) development.

The actual Delta IV development cost was $3.5B, including a $0.5B USAF
investment, with multiple configurations including an HLLV configuration, RS-68 engine development, production factory, and two launch complexes. The Atlas V equivalent was $2B, including a $0.5B USAF investment

...

The EELV-derived evolution suppresses the non-recurring investment. Both the Delta and Atlas vehicles are
substantially evolved from prior vehicles. Atlas redesigned the Atlas III booster tanks but retained the RD-180
engine and Centaur upper stage. The Delta IV upper stages evolved from the prior Delta III configuration. This
allowed the design teams to focus on what was needed to gain the new capabilities and not design wholly new elements that merely replicated existing capability. In the end, the combination of modular construction and evolutionary design enabled the deployment of two separate launcher systems within 5 years and for less than a combined $5.5B, and can offer similar economies when expanded to the HLLV.

[Proponent]

The comparison is unfair, but it's unfair to commercial crew.

I could argue otherwise but I'm kind of tired of that debate.

In 2010, ULA indicated it could build a 90-tonne-class launch vehicle (Atlas V Phase 2, to be precise) for under $5.5 billion (see 2nd attachment here).  SLS will have burned through a multiple of that by the time the 70-tonne version flies.

The $5.5bn figure refers to the total cost of Atlas V ($2bn) and Delta IV ($3.5bn) development.

The actual Delta IV development cost was $3.5B, including a $0.5B USAF
investment, with multiple configurations including an HLLV configuration, RS-68 engine development, production factory, and two launch complexes. The Atlas V equivalent was $2B, including a $0.5B USAF investment

...

The EELV-derived evolution suppresses the non-recurring investment. Both the Delta and Atlas vehicles are
substantially evolved from prior vehicles. Atlas redesigned the Atlas III booster tanks but retained the RD-180
engine and Centaur upper stage. The Delta IV upper stages evolved from the prior Delta III configuration. This
allowed the design teams to focus on what was needed to gain the new capabilities and not design wholly new elements that merely replicated existing capability. In the end, the combination of modular construction and evolutionary design enabled the deployment of two separate launcher systems within 5 years and for less than a combined $5.5B, and can offer similar economies when expanded to the HLLV.

Thanks for spotting my error.  The figure I should have referred to is $2.6 billion, from the same document.  As the document says, that figure would require updating, and it probably isn't for the full 90-tonne version of Atlas V Phase 2.  But given that it's an order of magnitude less than the cost of SLS through first crewed flight, it's a strong argument that "the monopolist" would be cheaper than NASA.

More generally, consider the Space Access Society's recent critique of SLS's costs.  It's not strictly a comparison of NASA with the monopolist, but it's a pretty good run down on NASA vs. private.

[lewis886]

For argument's sake let's suppose that somehow the money magically stayed the same (in terms of what is currently being spent on SLS/Orion).
And here is a list of possible goals:
ISS replacement(s)
Moon missions
Moon base(s)
NEO missions
Mars flyby
Mars Landing
Mars base
Venus flyby
Asteroid mission (Ceres /Vesta)
Jupiter system mission

Supposing everything was switched to commercial contracts, what of the above do you think could/might be accomplished by:
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040

[TrevorMonty]

U

[TrevorMonty]

ULA distributed lift does provide an alternative to a HLV plus it can spread launch money around.
 Having other LVs delivering fuel means Vulcan is not limited to what can be delivered by 2 Vulcan launches. Plus launches can be within days of each other. A fully fueled 60t ACES with 35t payload in LEO opens up a lot of possibilities. Go to 3 core heavy and it could be 60t payload.

If SpaceX have in orbit refuelling they may lift payload and other companies provide fuel tankers.

[Oli]

The comparison is unfair, but it's unfair to commercial crew.

I could argue otherwise but I'm kind of tired of that debate.

In 2010, ULA indicated it could build a 90-tonne-class launch vehicle (Atlas V Phase 2, to be precise) for under $5.5 billion (see 2nd attachment here).  SLS will have burned through a multiple of that by the time the 70-tonne version flies.

The $5.5bn figure refers to the total cost of Atlas V ($2bn) and Delta IV ($3.5bn) development.

The actual Delta IV development cost was $3.5B, including a $0.5B USAF
investment, with multiple configurations including an HLLV configuration, RS-68 engine development, production factory, and two launch complexes. The Atlas V equivalent was $2B, including a $0.5B USAF investment

...

The EELV-derived evolution suppresses the non-recurring investment. Both the Delta and Atlas vehicles are
substantially evolved from prior vehicles. Atlas redesigned the Atlas III booster tanks but retained the RD-180
engine and Centaur upper stage. The Delta IV upper stages evolved from the prior Delta III configuration. This
allowed the design teams to focus on what was needed to gain the new capabilities and not design wholly new elements that merely replicated existing capability. In the end, the combination of modular construction and evolutionary design enabled the deployment of two separate launcher systems within 5 years and for less than a combined $5.5B, and can offer similar economies when expanded to the HLLV.

Thanks for spotting my error.  The figure I should have referred to is $2.6 billion, from the same document.  As the document says, that figure would require updating, and it probably isn't for the full 90-tonne version of Atlas V Phase 2.  But given that it's an order of magnitude less than the cost of SLS through first crewed flight, it's a strong argument that "the monopolist" would be cheaper than NASA.

More generally, consider the Space Access Society's recent critique of SLS's costs.  It's not strictly a comparison of NASA with the monopolist, but it's a pretty good run down on NASA vs. private.

No its not a strong argument. Its a hypothetical number from a ULA paper for a rocket far below SLS capability. The problem is that NASA is facing a number of constraints that have nothing to do with the fact that it is heavily involved in the design and operation of the rocket. For example, congress wanted NASA to use Shuttle hardware and congress doesn't give NASA enough money to develop the rocket in a fast and efficient manner.

As for the Space Access Society's critique, that's just low quality writing I can't take seriously.

[Proponent]

More generally, consider the Space Access Society's recent critique of SLS's costs.  It's not strictly a comparison of NASA with the monopolist, but it's a pretty good run down on NASA vs. private.

No its not a strong argument. Its a hypothetical number from a ULA paper for a rocket far below SLS capability.

The point is that the estimated cost is lower by an order of magnitude, yet the capability is within a factor of a few.

The problem is that NASA is facing a number of constraints that have nothing to do with the fact that it is heavily involved in the design and operation of the rocket. For example, congress wanted NASA to use Shuttle hardware and congress doesn't give NASA enough money to develop the rocket in a fast and efficient manner.

So we would seem to agree that inefficiencies forced on NASA tend make it a more expensive hardware developer.

As for the Space Access Society's critique, that's just low quality writing I can't take seriously.

I would disagree strenuously and suggest that the piece is well argued.  If you can offer specific criticisms, please do.

Compare the cost of the two commercial-crew capsules with 12 operational flights to what looks like $15 billion just on the Orion CM alone through EM-1, which won't even have much of a life-support system.

[Oli]

The point is that the estimated cost is lower by an order of magnitude, yet the capability is within a factor of a few.

Not unthinkable if it goes beyond commonality with existing rockets (diameter, engines, infrastructure etc.). But as I said, its a hypothetical number, better to be understood as advertising, and we do not even know what it actually includes.

So we would seem to agree that inefficiencies forced on NASA tend make it a more expensive hardware developer.

Such constraints can also be forced on commercial contractors (e.g. influencing the selection process, withholding funding). So no.

But again, I'm talking about the case when there's a natural monopoly. Orbital human spaceflight is almost certainly a natural monopoly, because the market is tiny and the fixed/entry costs are high.

[Vultur]

If NASA could keep even a significant fraction of the money spent on SLS/Orion, it would be worth it. If you get half the money but can spend it 3 times as efficiently, that's a win. (And judging from Falcon 9 development costs, it's probably more like 10 times the efficiency.)

The only thing NASA should really be developing/designing is a Moon or Mars lander/ascent vehicle, depending on which destination they want, IMO. Earth to orbit is handled just fine commercially and Bigelow could build the habs.

[pathfinder_01]

Such constraints can also be forced on commercial contractors (e.g. influencing the selection process, withholding funding). So no.

The selection process would be under the executive for the most part and companies can sue about unfair legislation. There are limits to how much congress can bend things esp. as competing companies would be lobbying.

But again, I'm talking about the case when there's a natural monopoly. Orbital human spaceflight is almost certainly a natural monopoly, because the market is tiny and the fixed/entry costs are high.

Natural monopolies are when it is more efficient for an single company to provide the service than competitors. And technology plays a huge role in the formation(and end) of natural monopolies.


Right now the commercial crew and commercial cargo contracts have multiple companies and therefore are not monopolies. While the fixed costs can be high there is no reason to suspect that they won't change over time esp. if a process is in place that rewards improvement.

[ArbitraryConstant]

How about a Commercial Moon program? Given Vulcan and Falcon Heavy I would bet we could return to the moon within what we currently spend on SLS.

[Proponent]

How about a Commercial Moon program? Given Vulcan and Falcon Heavy I would bet we could return to the moon within what we currently spend on SLS.

NASA-Funded Study on Low-Cost Public-Private Return to the Moon.

[Oli]

Right now the commercial crew and commercial cargo contracts have multiple companies and therefore are not monopolies.

I'm certain selecting a single commercial crew provider would habe been cheaper than two. NASA has other interests of course.

[ArbitraryConstant]

How about a Commercial Moon program? Given Vulcan and Falcon Heavy I would bet we could return to the moon within what we currently spend on SLS.

NASA-Funded Study on Low-Cost Public-Private Return to the Moon.

Thanks. Agrees with my intuition it would seem.

[pathfinder_01]

Right now the commercial crew and commercial cargo contracts have multiple companies and therefore are not monopolies.

I'm certain selecting a single commercial crew provider would habe been cheaper than two. NASA has other interests of course.

In the short term or the long term?

Monopolies can demand high prices because there is no competition. And there is little reason to improve the product because there is no way to lose. Why should any company put any money into it if Congress will pay 100% of the bill. There has to be a possibility of losing the contract to keep private improvement going.


Failure of the single provider would be a problem as there might not be an alternate way to get there.  Imagine a 2 year stand down of Orion in the middle of an moon base, lunar station or mars launch. For the ISS it would be soyuz but there are other leo possibilities and soyuz could not be expected to be available as quickly as a second provider.