Hypothetical switch to Commercial Rockets for NASA

[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.