Next steps in commercial space flight

[Oli]

The launcher and lander will be adapted rather than the lander being a bespoke design and build each time.

Already being done as we speak.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

Science missions will remain custom, since that is what scientists demand. InSight and Mars 2020 are expensive missions despite using proven landing and even rover platforms.

I agree customisation of the science payload and the landing site for the mission is vital. However, even that customisation process can be cheapened dramatically.

Imagine if rovers were assembled like commercial satellite busses.

Edit: Yes, to a -extremely limited- extent they already are, but the design and construction of the rovers themselves could be commercialised further. There's always room to reduce cost without sacrificing capability. If we don't find it, it's because we're not looking hard enough.

[nadreck]

What we have now? Custom missions at great cost, humans perpetually 20 years out...

Science missions will remain custom, since that is what scientists demand. InSight and Mars 2020 are expensive missions despite using proven landing and even rover platforms.

Actually science (for example planetology) requires fairly repeatable measurements/observations at different locations. Scientists have been satisfied constrained with being told that if you want X you have to work towards just X with today's technology for the next 5 to 10 years to have a chance of your measurements/observations taking place on Mars. Yes each mission has been pretty custom so far, but each 'team' of scientists only gets to upgrade the observation tech every few years to something they know will be 3 to 5 years obsolete by the time it is deployed.   Real science could take place hand in hand with developing an inventory of information useful to settlement and ISRU needs. We might actually begin to get a picture of the last billion or two years in the planetary history of Mars. Of coure the really interesting times are probably 4 billion years ago and that will take drilling to the bottom of glaciers and/or through thousands of meters of bed rock which will probably take until there are humans there.

[Space Ghost 1962]

To the naysayers on this thread I ask one simple question... What are the alternatives?

No government funding of space.

If NASA is just to be a pass through for federal money then this has to be accepted as a legitimate alternative.

So then what is the alternative to the SpaceX way of doing things is the question? (My original question was pretty much a rhetorical one).

What we have now? Custom missions at great cost, humans perpetually 20 years out...

Its not RD/FH/science/colony Musk is directly, immediately after. Its the above dilemma. Here's how your change things:

A. Shuttle was intended to lead to lower cost  to space, higher flight frequency - it didn't. So what if  private industry creates a means to do so, that doesn't go away, but instead constantly consumes global market share patiently. Doesn't have to do anything more than that. Now he's taken away BA/LMT's "small but essential" launch sliver of giant SC market that controls it.

B.  The biggest SC domestic revenue source is comm. Do a deal to grab 90% of future revenues of comm with the intended new owner of all comm through a constellation of sats that you refresh as the tech evolves and turns your way. Now he makes the most revenue off SC long term.

C. HSF and exploration side consume billions through few missions that occasionally fly. He positions vehicles/services to be the leader in EDL/delivery for those missions.  Now if you have a science/exploration budget, use of those services in some capacity becomes the way you suggest funding your mission first.

With these he's disintermediated traditional space from the "big toys first, science/exploration maybe later".

It becomes "science/exploration first". Traditional space plays more of a role in difficult "one offs", which is how they currently view all missions. This is as it should be.

"Pork" still flows but differently.  Please tell me "how". Does govt back away? Wouldn't they do so anyways?

And this is truly the immediate point of the exercise here. Musk is trying to change the "game".

[Lar]

Yes. Musk is trying to change the game. And might. But contrast this with Blackstar's view, that this is all stuff and nonsense and the current way of doing things is 100% right.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40188.msg1526901#msg1526901

even suggesting 1% attention to whatifs is amazing peopleism...

[nadreck]

If there were no other considerations except efficiently getting the results you want from space then if you consider that there is a 25% probability of the capabilities that SpaceX is promising and a 50% chance of a split between current capabilities and those advertised then it makes sense to put as much attention to it as you do to the current systems. Ie plan half the new endeavours on it for now and take advantage of the cost savings to make it a 33% increase in total new endeavours than if you didn't have this capability to plan for.

[joek]

If there were no other considerations except efficiently getting the results you want from space then if you consider that there is a 25% probability of the capabilities that SpaceX is promising and a 50% chance of a split between current capabilities and those advertised then it makes sense to put as much attention to it as you do to the current systems. Ie plan half the new endeavours on it for now and take advantage of the cost savings to make it a 33% increase in total new endeavours than if you didn't have this capability to plan for.

Assuming you have the budget and mission spread to place several bets.  NASA's Mars exploration plans do not fit that model.  Whether they should is another discussion--and certainly premature from the perspective of any existing and near-future programs until there is a credible capability.

[Rocket Science]

If there is a potential to reduce the cost of science with this new paradigm and it allows us to do "more" science... Great!

[Space Ghost 1962]

If there were no other considerations except efficiently getting the results you want from space then if you consider that there is a 25% probability of the capabilities that SpaceX is promising and a 50% chance of a split between current capabilities and those advertised then it makes sense to put as much attention to it as you do to the current systems. Ie plan half the new endeavours on it for now and take advantage of the cost savings to make it a 33% increase in total new endeavours than if you didn't have this capability to plan for.

Assuming you have the budget and mission spread to place several bets.  NASA's Mars exploration plans do not fit that model.  Whether they should is another discussion--and certainly premature from the perspective of any existing and near-future programs until there is a credible capability.

Suggest that there already is enough reason for "credible capability". Except for glacial govt synapse firing and decadal survey pessimism. Oh, and CYA budget padding. Or am I being a bit on the harsh side here?

There are tools. One is paid to examine all the tools and how they can be used. Perhaps they don't work the same, but it's likely that they work and are useful for said purpose. Not everything needs to be hyper customized optimized to function.

[joek]

Suggest that there already is enough reason for "credible capability". Except for glacial govt synapse firing and decadal survey pessimism. Oh, and CYA budget padding. Or am I being a bit on the harsh side here?

Don't see that... Imagine yourself in front of a Congressional Committee...
- We're betting on Elon Musk and SpaceX for the success of X% of our Mars missions...
- And your basis for making that bet?
- We just believe because he said...
Fat chance.

While there may be many in these forums who would make that statement (and have zero career investment in the outcome), I doubt there are few (if any) at NASA.  Nothing is going to change until well after SpaceX proves this capability.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

The SAA places RD in the category of COTS Commercial Cargo ("Resupply Service") to Mars (CRSM). RD would become a cargo provider for standardized form and fit "experiment packages" for delivery to Mars surface in the same manner that the same is being done for delivery of "cargo" to the ISS. First comes CRSM then later Commercial Crew to Mars (CCM).

So is RD an attempt at creating a standardized cargo service to the surface of Mars? My answer to that is yes. Which means the next step is commercial crew to Mars.

NASA is fond of the multiple provider. So how would they get another provider to develop a similar capability to RD? And then to a Commercial Crew to Mars?

This begs that there would be a possible Mars Base and most likely also a Lunar base serviced by multiple CRSM/CCM and CRSL/CCL providers by as early as 2030. This is a very different picture than the current somewhere in the future for both a Lunar and Mars Base.

[nadreck]

If there were no other considerations except efficiently getting the results you want from space then if you consider that there is a 25% probability of the capabilities that SpaceX is promising and a 50% chance of a split between current capabilities and those advertised then it makes sense to put as much attention to it as you do to the current systems. Ie plan half the new endeavours on it for now and take advantage of the cost savings to make it a 33% increase in total new endeavours than if you didn't have this capability to plan for.

Assuming you have the budget and mission spread to place several bets.  NASA's Mars exploration plans do not fit that model.  Whether they should is another discussion--and certainly premature from the perspective of any existing and near-future programs until there is a credible capability.

If you tell me there are not going to be any new missions planned from here, then that budget and mission spread comment is correct, but presuming that there will be new missions planned then they can be planned with the potential in mind. If there were only the budget for a single mission of the old paradigm (ever) then maybe you have described how an organization weighed down by seriously conservative elements might decide, however what if there were only the budget for a single mission under the new paradigm?  Reality is that there will be several more missions planned BEO and some should be budgeted and planned using the newer, more economical capacity.

Thankfully SpaceX has pushed it a step forward and the 2018 mission has NASA instruments on a mission of opportunity that they were presented with.

[joek]

The SAA places RD in the category of COTS Commercial Cargo ("Resupply Service") to Mars (CRSM). RD would become a cargo provider for standardized form and fit "experiment packages" for delivery to Mars surface in the same manner that the same is being done for delivery of "cargo" to the ISS. First comes CRSM then later Commercial Crew to Mars (CCM).
...

Absolutely not.  This SAA in no way comes close to anything similar to COTS or CRS.  In a few years... maybe.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Suggest that there already is enough reason for "credible capability". Except for glacial govt synapse firing and decadal survey pessimism. Oh, and CYA budget padding. Or am I being a bit on the harsh side here?

Don't see that... Imagine yourself in front of a Congressional Committee...
- We're betting on Elon Musk and SpaceX for the success of X% of our Mars missions...
- And your basis for making that bet?
- We just believe because he said...
Fat chance.

Have been in front of members of Congress. Here's what I'd say:

We have enormous cost and program risk, but its the nature of this mission and it's at the top of our list for X good reasons that we've been telling you for years.

So to double our chances of bringing it off, we want a 15% budget increase to handle two unrelated means to do the same thing. One is ironclad but costly, the other is novel/less proven but economical. If we do one we'll always stay costly, if we do two we'll get a better deal long term, grow American technology base, and have two chances to get it right. Oh, and you have some public/private cost pairing too here.

So Congressman, how much do you want your NASA money to work for you? 1x, or 4x? All the same to me.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Don't see that... Imagine yourself in front of a Congressional Committee...
- We're betting on Elon Musk and SpaceX for the success of X% of our Mars missions...
- And your basis for making that bet?
- We just believe because he said...
Fat chance.

Same for SLS and ATK, etc. Worse actually because the SLS has not flown once.

[joek]

If you tell me there are not going to be any new missions planned from here, then that budget and mission spread comment is correct, ...

Look at the MEP plans and tell me which new missions may benefit?  I don't see much beyond MSR, which for the most part is baked.  Again, don't see this having much effect on any planned missions.

[joek]

Have been in front of members of Congress. Here's what I'd say:

We have enormous cost and program risk, but its the nature of this mission and it's at the top of our list for X good reasons that we've been telling you for years.

So to double our chances of bringing it off, we want a 15% budget increase to handle two unrelated means to do the same thing. One is ironclad but costly, the other is novel/less proven but economical. If we do one we'll always stay costly, if we do two we'll get a better deal long term, grow American technology base, and have two chances to get it right. Oh, and you have some public/private cost pairing too here.

So Congressman, how much do you want your NASA money to work for you? 1x, or 4x? All the same to me.

And the criticality of ensuring a Mars mission success is what, for whom?  I don't see Congress going for it.  If this were a National Defense issue, maybe; for science, no.  They're going to do what they have always done.

[nadreck]

If you tell me there are not going to be any new missions planned from here, then that budget and mission spread comment is correct, ...

Look at the MEP plans and tell me which new missions may benefit?  I don't see much beyond MSR, which for the most part is baked.  Again, don't see this having much effect on any planned missions.

You really don't think they will add new missions post the current ones? Then they really aren't serious about deep space. I would expect over the next 5 years that NASA will announce at least 5 new BEO robotic missions.

And the criticality of ensuring a Mars mission success is what, for whom?  I don't see Congress going for it.  If this were a National Defense issue, maybe; for science, no.  They're going to do what they have always done.

Then if it doesn't matter then go before congress and say hey we can give you our profound critical engineering assessment that going with the cheaper provider only adds a 25% risk of failure but a 75% chance that costs will be reduced by more than 25%.

[Bob Shaw]

Yes. Musk is trying to change the game. And might. But contrast this with Blackstar's view, that this is all stuff and nonsense and the current way of doing things is 100% right.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40188.msg1526901#msg1526901

even suggesting 1% attention to whatifs is amazing peopleism...

I have a lot of respect for Blackstar, but I think you're both missing the point. He's committed to the MEPAG route, which is tried, tested and very, very sane. Elon Musk's RD effort is bold, and very personal. There's actually no crossover, though I doubt if Musk would consider running roughshod over the planetary protection crew quite yet - he'll be a good player for a while...

[Space Ghost 1962]

Have been in front of members of Congress. Here's what I'd say:

We have enormous cost and program risk, but its the nature of this mission and it's at the top of our list for X good reasons that we've been telling you for years.

So to double our chances of bringing it off, we want a 15% budget increase to handle two unrelated means to do the same thing. One is ironclad but costly, the other is novel/less proven but economical. If we do one we'll always stay costly, if we do two we'll get a better deal long term, grow American technology base, and have two chances to get it right. Oh, and you have some public/private cost pairing too here.

So Congressman, how much do you want your NASA money to work for you? 1x, or 4x? All the same to me.

And the criticality of ensuring a Mars mission success is what, for whom?

That one's an easy softball. To prevent anohter JWST debacle, where it goes long in schedule/budget/cost, and you still *have to do it* because its the next thing on the agenda. Duh.

I don't see Congress going for it.  If this were a National Defense issue, maybe; for science, no.

Perhaps, but likely because its not in their district/state . That's a whole different matter. I trust you did not expect I'd have an entire presentation to congress in a single post?

They're going to do what they have always done.

Might. Now, look at it as answering my post with "1x". Then MSR goes overbudget, slips to another opposition, and someone has a painful time explaining why they didn't CYA on a fallback. Not going to do the matrix of possibilities here, don't have the time/patience/space and you know it anyways.

But grant me I did answer your challenge in the affirmative, correct?