Hypothetical switch to Commercial Rockets for NASA

[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.