Next steps in commercial space flight

[joek]

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.

Sure, more BEO robotic missions, but not 5 to Mars--which are the ones which would benefit from this SpaceX effort.  Or do you intend to expand the discussion to the entire solar system?

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%.

You willing to do that today?  Or find anyone at NASA willing to do so?  Good luck.  And where do you get the "25% risk of failure but a 75% chance that costs will be reduced by 25%."

edit: remove snarky "pulling nunbers..."

[Bob Shaw]

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.

They're already cutting metal that will fly. That's the difference - SLS is simply cutting metal to build the jigs.

[nadreck]

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.

Sure, more BEO robotic missions, but not 5 to Mars--which are the ones which would benefit from this SpaceX effort.  Or do you intend to expand the discussion to the entire solar system?

I am speaking beyond just Mars as what we are discussing here is a product that was just advertised in the same PR that announced the 2018 mission to Mars (and previously) as applying to any body in the Solar system.  The titled of this thread is in no way constrained to Mars, there were other threads for that. This thread is broad for all of commercial space flight and suggests the BEO missions can now be commercial.

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%.

You willing to do that today?  Or find anyone at NASA willing to do so?  Good luck.  And where do you get the "25% risk of failure but a 75% chance that costs will be reduced by 25%."

PLEASE edit your post to remove the rhetoric I did not quote it is what doesn't belong here. Gracias

I don't have a ring so I do not have a qualified engineering assessment to offer. However NASA has many. NASA opinions and attitudes are not homogeneous. Given the ability for the media to quote a NASA person on record with almost any opinion about any topic I think it is likely that there are more people than you imagine at NASA willing to stake their futures on that sort of pronouncement.

I did not make those numbers up from some vague idea of what the engineering study might reveal, they were an example of an argument that, if it were backed up by engineering work, would be persuasive to Congress.

[Coastal Ron]

If a country or company came to SpaceX and offered to pay for a trip to Mars, what do you think SpaceX would do?  I think they would take the money and say "When do you want to go?"

That's the thing - who's just got all this cash lying around to throw at SpaceX to buy a trip to Mars? I thought countries do these things to show off their own accomplishments for national prestige. How are you going to summon up national pride just for having written a big fat cheque, as opposed to having done it yourself? That's like hiring athletes from other countries to represent you at the Olympics. What bragging rights do you get?

This is a good question, since it really does get to the heart of why we do anything in space.

Apollo was done for political reasons, not for human space exploration, and political reasons are valid.  But political reasons are likely not sustainable, and as of today there is no political reason to expand humanity out into space.

But Musk is going to Mars because he believes that humanity should be multi-planetary, and it's safe to say that a majority of the SpaceX employees agree with that goal.  But are they the only ones in the world that have that goal?

Of course the answer to that is no, but those who do support it likely are a minority of all of humanity.  Still, maybe it's enough to convince those that have plenty of money (rich individuals, companies, countries) that it is a goal worth supporting.  Why?  They may all have their own reasons, so I don't think there will be just one.

And since those that want to go don't really care how they get there, I don't think anyone would really care that SpaceX (a private company) is the transportation provider.  NASA doesn't seem to care about not being the lead for this Red Dragon mission.

I think it would be cool if Google were to sponsor a mission to Mars.

They already are, since they invested $900M in SpaceX last year.

Amazon is already sponsoring Blue Origin, in a sense.

I wouldn't characterize it that way, since Amazon shareholders get no benefit from the 100% Bezos-owned Blue Origin.

If Google goes with SpaceX, then Apple will be under pressure to pair up with someone - Orbital ATK? Heh, and Microsoft can eventually join the party by tying with Stratolaunch.

These are exciting times, and they only look to get more exciting, so who knows what will happen.  But personally I think in the not too distant future we will see others joining Musk in his Mars quest.  But I'm not saying what that timescale is...   

[Space Ghost 1962]

Suggest that you are listening to the terror of displeasing the stakeholders of planetary science missions in some fashion.

Just like the terror of displacing NSS stakeholders - no difference.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

Wow, incredible.

This malaise of people grumbling at each other is only occuring on a fan site, with an even mix of professional industry insiders from just about everywhere and anywhere, spaceflight advocates, politicians, journalists, engineers, scientists, engineering students, a few gazillion dip-in fans and procrastinatory almost-millennials like myself. If Red Dragon has rocked the boat this hard on a forum, I can only imagine what it's done in-industry.

The fact that this event is this disruptive to the harmony of this forum makes me wonder what exactly Red Dragon is doing inside JPL. Extrapolate by several orders of magnitude.


One thing's for sure; this level of disruption is extremely healthy. Everyone is having their opinions challenged and is having to rush to substantiate them. Preconceived truths are being questioned.  Preconceived interests are being redefined.

Whilst the form of this particular disruption - the rise of commercial newspace - is unprecedented, disruption within spaceflight itself is not new. The need for long range artillery weapons in the 1940s and 1950s revolutionised spaceflight. The satellite race revolutionised spaceflight. Early manned missions, spacewalks and docking all revolutionised spaceflight. Planetary science missions and autonomous landers revolutionised spaceflight. The Moon landings revolutionised spaceflight. Apollo-Soyuz, space stations revolutionised spaceflight. Rovers revolutionised spaceflight. The Space Shuttle revolutionised space flight, even if it didn't provide the cost savings it was never optimised for. Space telescopes, ion thrusters, probes to the gas Giants, increasingly larger payloads and rovers landed on Mars, the climbing success rate of spaceflight in general, the ISS; one of the most audacious structures ever built by human kind, space tourists, Space Ship One and yes, SpaceX, Blue, Masten, Altius, Rocketlab, Reaction Engines Limited, SSC, Bigelow and the enormous series of others who are attempting to provide some kind of service in the spaceflight world that would have previously been the purview of many-decadal aerospace monopolies or governmental agencies. Space is always changing. Denying the fact that it changes is a denial of reality.

So whatever our respective views of the future are - we should accept they're all equally valid (with some deference to the insiders of course). It's likely not going to go exactly as we predict anyway! 

[joek]

... The fact that this event is this disruptive to the harmony of this forum makes me wonder what exactly Red Dragon is doing inside JPL. ...

Generally agree with your sentiments... but who says this is "inside JPL"?

[Space Ghost 1962]

Wow, incredible.

This malaise of people grumbling at each other is only occuring on a fan site, with an even mix of professional industry insiders from just about everywhere and anywhere, spaceflight advocates, politicians, journalists, engineers, scientists, engineering students, a few gazillion dip-in fans and procrastinatory almost-millennials like myself. If Red Dragon has rocked the boat this hard on a forum, I can only imagine what it's done in-industry.

It's an annoyance in industry, as well as all the other newbies on the field.

It scares the mission planners/middle managers because you don't know if it helps/hurts/curses your mission to bring it up in the first place. Many are used to getting shot at and have no stomach for it. While some have gotten that bullet and still trudge on.

The fact that this event is this disruptive to the harmony of this forum makes me wonder what exactly Red Dragon is doing inside JPL. Extrapolate by several orders of magnitude.

Note that RD work has long been done out of Ames, not JPL! Also, there's a lot of "inside baseball" between centers/providers/vendors we can't/don't talk about. So there's a lot of "bad mouthing" that passes for informed opinion that IMHO goes too far, and what's behind it is the fight for who gets what mission and keeps alive N grad students etc.

Never have the stakes been so low.

One thing's for sure; this level of disruption is extremely healthy. Everyone is having their opinions challenged and is having to rush to substantiate them. Preconceived truths are being questioned.  Preconceived interests are being redefined.

Which some might rightly fear, could pull the funding rug out from under various mooted missions. Do not discard that lightly, its very real.

For many here what does not change is the "zero sum game". If I'm funded then you're not.

[Lar]

For many here what does not change is the "zero sum game". If I'm funded then you're not.

It's sad that people can't see that if the alternative is low enough, both missions could get funded.  bigger pie is there if they want it.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

Generally agree with your sentiments... but who says this is "inside JPL"?

I have no idea, thus making assumptions. JPL as far as I can tell has been highly supportive. However, mars landers is usually something JPL handles so it's somewhat trend bucking.

Edit: Nope, I'm being a wingnut. Ignore.

Note that RD work has long been done out of Ames, not JPL!

Edit edit: No, I'm not being a wingnut apparently. I'm referring to landed payloads not the process of landing payloads, although I can imagine it's impactful at Ames as well. This is impactful from a mission operations perspective along with an RD perspective, thus JPL's namedrop.

Edit edit edit: This has the obvious potential of impacting Mars orbiters as well, if SpaceX does end up producing their own supporting orbiters in the 2020s/adapts lessons learnt from their own sat program/goes ahead with dragon lab.

[Bob Shaw]

Guys, the world has changed with RD 2018; the prior lobbying groups are in the same space as buggy-whip manufacturers when Henry Ford introduced the Model T. OK, it isn't as simple as that - but, the old rules are no longer quite so important. Try to adapt to the new reality.

Oh, and guess what? Some of your academic competitors have *already* adapted, and are working toward getting their payloads onto the surface of Mars...

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

Guys, the world has changed with RD 2018; the prior lobbying groups are in the same space as buggy-whip manufacturers when Henry Ford introduced the Model T. OK, it isn't as simple as that - but, the old rules are no longer quite so important. Try to adapt to the new reality.

I'm not sure if I agree with you although I can see where you're coming from. The old rules have not yet changed nor has it been proven yet that they will be replaced. There's a potential for transformation, but it hasn't occurred yet. 2018 Won't result in such a transformation either, it merely anticipates one.

The NASA way of doing things is indespensible. NASA is great at space operations, it's just about making the physical spacecraft cost less. SpaceX is a subcontractor after all.

[Cherokee43v6]

First off, for the naysayers, I'll admit that I am a SpaceX fan.  Why?  Because not only are they trying to do things differently, but so far they are succeeding at doing so.

Okay, so they have a problem with hitting the target dates they announce.  The important thing is that they keep plugging away until they do succeed at what they are attempting.

What interest me most about this is what proving the capability would enable.

1st, Red Dragon would not be reusable, thus a regular series of Red Dragon(RDs) launches would ensure continuance of Dragon2 production once initial market saturation is reached.  (If D2s are reusable for 10 flights, then initially they won't need more than 3 or 4 at most.)

2nd, Inexpensive (relative) flights to Mars enable more flights for the same buck.  This means that more science gets done in more areas.  This would lead to the identification of a base site for the stated colonization goal and the landing of multiple RDs at said site for proper resource characterization.

3rd, at 2 tons cargo to Mars surface, far more than just science packages can be carried.  2 tons moves into the realm of light construction equipment, which means that missions can then be tailored to site and base prep for Elon's colonization goal.  (BTW, How much does a Tesla Model X weigh? And then there is the Tesla Autopilot. Isn't Tesla working on a robotic recharging station?  Hmmm... And how about a self deploying set of Solar City Cells to charge the BatteryPack for said robotic station...  I'm seeing two RD flights here... and a massive marketing opportunity.)

4th, 2 tons is a significant volume of supplies that can be pre-positioned for a base camp.  While Falcon Heavy launched RDs may not be the choice for human travel to Mars, I can certainly see them serving in a significant 'sustainer role'.

[Space Ghost 1962]

For many here what does not change is the "zero sum game". If I'm funded then you're not.

It's sad that people can't see that if the alternative is low enough, both missions could get funded.  bigger pie is there if they want it.

What's sad is trying to secure enough budget for researchers to get their grad students and post docs through to be able to stay in the field and not here the siren song of doing an Internet start-up. Planetary science budgets have not been done much good by JWST and Insight launch delays and budget overruns. A healthy planetary science side is one with increasing missions on the manifest.

What RD means is to unlock some of the public funds, match them with private funds, and increase science missions. Which is why one needs to be critical of joek's remarks as they bespeak a certain narrowness that means to me graduate students flipping burgers and post docs waiting tables. He might not care but I sure do.

I *need* those scientists figuring out how planets work.

[sanman]

It's an annoyance in industry, as well as all the other newbies on the field.

It scares the mission planners/middle managers because you don't know if it helps/hurts/curses your mission to bring it up in the first place. Many are used to getting shot at and have no stomach for it. While some have gotten that bullet and still trudge on.

The fact that this event is this disruptive to the harmony of this forum makes me wonder what exactly Red Dragon is doing inside JPL. Extrapolate by several orders of magnitude.

Note that RD work has long been done out of Ames, not JPL! Also, there's a lot of "inside baseball" between centers/providers/vendors we can't/don't talk about. So there's a lot of "bad mouthing" that passes for informed opinion that IMHO goes too far, and what's behind it is the fight for who gets what mission and keeps alive N grad students etc.

Never have the stakes been so low.

Which some might rightly fear, could pull the funding rug out from under various mooted missions. Do not discard that lightly, its very real.

For many here what does not change is the "zero sum game". If I'm funded then you're not.

Hmm, so that's something interesting that I'd never considered before in regards to SpaceX and Red Dragon. NASA is not a monolithic entity, and there are different centers and different mission groups in contention with each other for funding and support to gain approval for their missions to go ahead.

So SpaceX comes along and can now tilt the balance on that playing field. Does your NASA center or mission have a "SpaceX strategy"? If you don't, you might fall behind in the contest, and get shut out.

Will all NASA centers and mission groups now each be trying to come up with a "SpaceX angle" to make their stuff happen? Could re-writing your mission proposal to take advantage of SpaceX capabilities now be the key to jumping ahead in the queue, or even holding your place in line?

Will more and more NASA development be done in connection with interoperating with SpaceX hardware?

It seems to me that the emergence of SpaceX capabilities on the scene is a great benefit to NASA program managers, because SpaceX is offering the opportunity of more-bang-for-buck, and the chance for them to fly when it might otherwise be denied.

[jtrame]

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.

They're already cutting metal that will fly. That's the difference - SLS is simply cutting metal to build the jigs.

You may want to update your information.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/welding-wonder-completes-hardware-for-first-flight-of-SLS-rocket

Also, SRB segments for first flight being cast.  This is more than paper rockets and jigs at this point on the timeline.

[A_M_Swallow]

Hmm, so that's something interesting that I'd never considered before in regards to SpaceX and Red Dragon. NASA is not a monolithic entity, and there are different centers and different mission groups in contention with each other for funding and support to gain approval for their missions to go ahead.

So SpaceX comes along and can now tilt the balance on that playing field. Does your NASA center or mission have a "SpaceX strategy"? If you don't, you might fall behind in the contest, and get shut out.

Will all NASA centers and mission groups now each be trying to come up with a "SpaceX angle" to make their stuff happen? Could re-writing your mission proposal to take advantage of SpaceX capabilities now be the key to jumping ahead in the queue, or even holding your place in line?

Will more and more NASA development be done in connection with interoperating with SpaceX hardware?

It seems to me that the emergence of SpaceX capabilities on the scene is a great benefit to NASA program managers, because SpaceX is offering the opportunity of more-bang-for-buck, and the chance for them to fly when it might otherwise be denied.

It is not just SpaceX that requires a new strategy but the entire commercial crew and cargo industry. Not only does SpaceX have rivals but new companies selling new goods and services are being created. The centre can now buy things that previously it would have had to spend time developing itself.

The other strategy changer is tiny satellites like cubesats. Instead of having to procure a $70 million launch vehicle, which requires Congressional approval, the entire project can be built and launched for a couple of million dollars. 'Small' projects can be approved by NASA's Administrator. (He can negotiate a general budget with Congress.)

[JasonAW3]

I'll put it simply;

     We've all heard such terms as "game changer", "paradigm Shift" etc, bandied about with little regards for reality.

     Yes, what has been done is VERY exciting.  And yes, this does have the potential to significantly change the costs for both space flights and missions significantly and for the better.

      But what seems to escape everybody's attention is, that these incremental improvements that we are seeing,(and yes, they ARE incremental) could have and in fact SHOULD have been not only possible, but implemented DECADES ago.  Steps such as the Space Shuttle, the DC-X, and even the Plug Nozzle, (which was first tested nearly half a century ago) were tested and discarded when they failed to live up to the hype that had been placed upon them.

     I am NOT disregarding the facts that many technological and materials advancements were needed to get to this point, nor am I ignoring the fact that MANY more such advancements will be needed to further developed before the costs and procedures are brought down to a level of both economical and technical affordability, but had funds been locked in at a level of the same as percentage of the national budget as was available during the Apollo Program, then I have no doubt that not only would we have bases on the moon, colonies on Mars, and manned missions to asteroids and the comets, but we'd also have a robust economy from both Space as well as a series of mostly to fully reusable space craft of a wide variety of designs.

     While I applaud both Elon Musk and SpaceX, Blue Origin and all the other New Space companies that stand to create vast changes in how we get to space, I think that we should temper this with the realization that these advances are decades overdue, and were held back, not only by the lack of technology, but both the political and corporate interests that stood to lose their substantial economic wind fall they received for each 200+ million dollar rocket, that lofted between 2% to 5% of their total launch mass into space, while simply disposing of the other 80% to 90% their mass into the sea with no possibility of recovery.

     We've KNOWN reusable space craft were possible as far back as the X-15 space plane, yet this was a technology never pursued.

     Again, I'm glad to see this finally coming about, but I find myself infuriated that more progress wasn't made sooner, when we KNEW it was possible.  (Heck, there were even design concepts for reusable stages for the Saturn V rocket!)

     Sorry for the rant, but I think that this is something that has been a long time coming.  An entirely TOO long a time in coming!

[Oli]

I think that we should temper this with the realization that these advances are decades overdue, and were held back, not only by the lack of technology, but both the political and corporate interests that stood to lose their substantial economic wind fall

They "held back" because they did not think that they could grow the market. Revenue loss and job cuts are usually not the things companies are very keen to do. To date there's no indication that the launch market will grow.

We've KNOWN reusable space craft were possible as far back as the X-15 space plane, yet this was a technology never pursued.

So you just erased the Shuttle from the history books because it doesn't suit your agenda. Great.

[ncb1397]

How is it untethered to government control? If the government cancels commercial crew, doesn't allow free access to the DSN and stops being SpaceX's number 1 customer, Red Dragon is probably not happening. If the ISS market doesn't support dragon production for cargo and crew launches, then the capability of SpaceX to support the continuation of the product line, including the Red Dragon variant, is questionable at best.

If the government cancels commercial crew, SpaceX will make Dragon 2 anyway, because it is part of their path to Mars, and it can be used for transport to future commercial space stations (Bigelow). Dragon lab is still on the manifest as well. Reduced demand for Dragons would probably up the per unit cost, but SpaceX still could fund occasional Dragon missions from its own profit.

Without free access to the DSN, SpaceX would pay for access, or build their own relays depending on how the cost works out.

SpaceX doesn't need NASA or the government in general as an anchor customer at this point. Take a look at the manifest for the rest of the year, out of 14 planned flights, there are 2 Dragon missions, the falcon heavy demo, 2 foreign government missions, and 9 commercial. The government is NOT SpaceX's number one customer anymore. (this doesn't mean that government contracts aren't lucrative, since gov't pays more to impose special requirements, which in turn means more profit, plus gov't will partially support development)

I am not saying that SpaceX losing all of its NASA support and government missions wouldn't slow down SpaceX's plans, but they would still be making plenty of profit which they would then reinvest into the Mars missions. (SpaceX's balance sheet has always been effectively 0, since they redirect any profit directly into R&D and capital, that plus being a private company makes it hard to tell how much they really net on a single launch, but they clearly get enough based on the amount of side projects they have)

SpaceX's 2.6 billion Commercial Crew contract is worth the equivalent of about 43 Falcon 9 commercial launches. At 12 commrcial launches per year, that is about 3.5 years worth of commercial business. On the cargo side, 1.8 billion for CRS 1 and at least .9 billion for half the flights(minimum per provider) in CRS 2. In total, SpaceX's ISS business(past and future) is equivalent to 88 Commercial Falcon 9 launches. On their official manifest on their website, they only have 44 flights listed. The majority of the cost of Red Dragon is being footed by the government on Commercial Crew development milestones.