E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSLast updated 10:15 p.m. ET:
NASA is awarding $269.3 million to four companies that plan to work on new spaceships capable of ferrying astronauts into orbit. The money is going to Blue Origin, the Boeing Co., Sierra Nevada Corp. and SpaceX.
The awards, ranging from $22 million to $92.3 million, are aimed at supporting the development of private-sector space transportation systems that will help fill the gap left by this year's expected retirement of the space shuttle fleet. This is the second phase of the Commercial Crew Development program, also known as CCDev2. Last year, $50 million was awarded for the first phase of the program, and NASA is asking for another $850 million to cover a third phase.
Philip McAlister, acting director of NASA Headquarters' Commercial Spaceflight Development program, told journalists today during a teleconference that the $269.3 million in CCDev2 funding would be doled out as companies achieved milestones laid out between now and May 2012. It will take more time and money, however, to get the private-sector spaceships into service.
"We are targeting the middle part of this decade to hopefully have services available for purchase," McAlister said.
Boeing
An artist's conception shows Boeing's CST-100 capsule, which is getting development funding from NASA.
Twenty-two proposals for CCDev2 funding were received, and after months of study, NASA picked these four as the winners:
• The Boeing Co. is getting $92.3 million for its CST-100 project, which would create a seven-passenger space capsule for travel to and from the International Space Station — or other orbital destinations such as Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable space stations.
The CST-100 effort already received $18 million during the first CCDev phase.
Sierra Nevada Corp.
Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser craft approaches a space station port in this artist's concept.
• Sierra Nevada Corp. was allocated $80 million for its Dream Chaser space plane, a seven-passenger craft designed to be launched vertically on a rocket and land horizontally like an airplane.
NASA paid Sierra Nevada $20 million for Dream Chaser development during CCDev1. Among Sierra Nevada's many partners in the project is Virgin Galactic, which is involved in suborbital space tourism and could eventually extend that business to low Earth orbit.
SpaceX
An artist's view shows the SpaceX Dragon coming in for a docking with the International Space Station.
• SpaceX was selected to receive $75 million, to work on what the company said were "the final upgrades needed for the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft to carry astronauts." NASA said those upgrades would include development of a side-mounted launch abort system and the hardware for accommodating crew in the Dragon capsule.
SpaceX is already receiving millions of dollars from NASA to build out the Dragon as an unmanned cargo-carrying spaceship. In December, the company conducted a fully successful test launch of the Falcon 9, putting a Dragon into orbit and bringing it back down for a Pacific splashdown. The California-based company did not receive any money from the CCDev1 program.
Blue Origin
Blue Origin says it intends to build the orbital space capsule shown in this artist's conception.
• Blue Origin, the somewhat secretive space venture backed by Amazon.com billionaire Jeff Bezos, has been alloted $22 million to continue work on its crew spacecraft and its "pusher" launch abort system. The company received $3.7 million from NASA during CCDev1.
Winners and losers
"This was a very competitive selection," McAlister said. One of the companies losing out was United Launch Alliance, which wants to offer the Atlas 5 and Delta 4 rockets as launch vehicles for trips to the space station (and was awarded $6.7 million during CCDev1).
Another loser was ATK, which supplies the solid-fuel rocket boosters for the space shuttle — and proposed building a Liberty launch vehicle using elements of those boosters as well as an upper-stage core from Europe's Ariane 5 rocket. NASA also passed up a proposal from United Space Alliance, the prime contractor for the space shuttle program, to keep two of the shuttles running as a commercial operation.
Today, McAlister declined to specify exactly why the four winning proposals were chosen over the others. "It was never one thing," he said. He said NASA officials considered how far along each company had come in its development program, how the federal money would accelerate development, how much internal funding each company was committing to its project, and how viable each company's business plan was.
He promised that NASA would release further details about the selection process once the winners and the losers had been briefed and given an opportunity to provide feedback.
Independent space consultant Charles Lurio told me that launch vehicle providers such as United Launch Alliance shouldn't lose heart just yet. "I think ULA wins in any case," he said. "Three out of four [Boeing, Sierra Nevada and Blue Origin] are looking for boosters, so ULA will definitely keep their work warm."
Ed Mango, program manager for the Commercial Crew Program at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, told reporters that the work covered under the CCDev2 agreements would begin as soon as possible. "We're at the starting gate, ready to go," he said. NASA officials emphasized that the slate would be wiped clean for future rounds of funding: Winning this time around would not guarantee additional support later, and today's losers could be the winners next time.
NASA's other options
NASA won't be left totally in the lurch when the shuttles retire: It has already worked out more than a billion dollars' worth of agreements to transport U.S. astronauts to the space station on Russian Soyuz craft. Unmanned European, Russian and Japanese transports are capable of sending cargo to the station, and commercial U.S. spaceships such as SpaceX's Dragon could start ferrying cargo in the next year or two.
For the longer haul, NASA is just starting to look into the development of a heavy-lift rocket and multipurpose crew vehicle capable of going beyond Earth orbit. But those next, next-gen vehicles aren't expected to enter service until 2016 or later, and they're likely to be significantly more expensive than the "space taxis" that are being supported through the CCDev program.
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden recently said that commercial spaceships would play an essential role in the agency's long-range plans — and he reiterated that view in a statement released today.
"We're committed to safely transporting U.S. astronauts on American-made spacecraft and ending the outsourcing of this work to foreign governments," Bolden said. "These agreements are significant milestones in NASA's plans to take advantage of American ingenuity to get to low-Earth orbit, so we can concentrate our resources on deep space exploration."
In today's news release, Mango said that "the next American-flagged vehicle to carry our astronauts into space is going to be a U.S. commercial provider."
"The partnerships NASA is forming with industry will support the development of multiple American systems capable of providing future access to low-Earth orbit," he said.
Do you agree or disagree with NASA's push for commercialization? Do you think the traditional way of doing things, with NASA astronauts flying on spacecraft built and maintained exclusively for NASA, is still the way to go? ... Or is "the traditional way of doing things" even sustainable anymore? Whatever your view, feel free to weigh in with your comments below.
To learn more about the spaceship projects, check out NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate webpage and Kennedy Space Center's procurement portal on the Web.
Join the Cosmic Log community by clicking the "like" button on our Facebook page or by following msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle as b0yle on Twitter. To learn more about my book on Pluto and the search for planets, check out the website for "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
I predict, that in time.... spaceships will be covered in corporate advertising and logos, like Nascar racing cars are...
I think you might be right. That's pretty sad that when corporations have to graffitti up a good thing. I hate the fact that banks name sports stadiums after themselves instead of a worthy athlete or founder.
Very possible, V.
Also, a lot of people are not realizing other uses for this program. Though WhoWhatWhenWhereWhy might be overly pessimistic in thinking that spaceflight will never be profitable in the long run, that will be true unless there is a destination to fly to, like a space station/hotel or a resort on the Moon. Don't laugh.
But think of the commercial transport possibilities. How would you like to cross the Atlantic in 30 to 45 minutes? (Concorde was 3.5 hours) Or make it to India in just over an hour? Could be possible with a suborbital flight.
One thing is sadly becoming more certain in the future, it won't be carrying an American flag either!
I think it's inevitable that commercialization was going to occur given the amount of startup companies that have cropped up over the last 10, even 5 years.
Having worked with local and federal governments before, I think it will certainly speed up the pace of R&D and overall progress. Some of these government agencies move at such a snails pace it's infuriating.
Oh, and I almost forgot efficiency. Massive government projects have the option of grossly running over budget. A corporation can't nearly as easily, and project managers are much more effective at monitoring this and reacting accordingly.
Personally would like to see all four of these projects make it to flight and to spur further commercial competition.
Just glad to see NASA spending the money on the private sector and avoiding all the waste associated with big government.
Manned space flight is a waste of resources. The limitations are just too much for current technology. Zero gravity cripples the immune system among other problems.
Lets look at your comment and apply it to football. I doubt you consider football to
be a waste and yet...young athletes get crippled on the field, sometimes for life. What
a waste that is of someones physical capabilities. But they do it because they do not
believe its a waste. Point being, not everyone believes manned space flight is a
waste. The sports analogy has another upside. All that seemingly wasted football
playing and other athletic activities lead to the development of modern sports
medicine.
Medical research is just one of the things that Human Space Flight (HSF) can lead
to if ever we can break the cost barrier. The technology has limits to be sure. But
these limits can be overcome once we break the cost barrier.
The cost barrier is the real limit to HSF and thats why private industry is trying
to break the cost barrier.
If the cost barrier cannot be broken...we are at the limits of what humanity is capable
of doing. Say goodbye to the idea of renewable energy sources because they have a cost
barrier. Say goodbye to cures for cancer and other diseases that continue to plague us
because they have a cost barrier...the list goes on. It used to be that critics of HSF
limited their criticism to taxpayer funded HSF, what do you care what the emerging
commercial space companies do with their money.
I would think you'd be happy that NASA is basically paying private enterprise to replace
them in the world of HSF.
I hope for the best and wish them all (and others) complete success. But I also have a fear that with more options to utilize in getting our people to LEO we may end up not using any often enough. In most business plans if you don't have regular customers you will not get "in the black". Whatever happens I just hope that we use these commercial crew transports early and often.
Don't worry, after all the mergers and hostile takeovers, we will have Big Space Corporation, the Wal-mart of spaceflight. Cheap, no frills and most parts made in China (or maybe Thailand). They will hide their money in off-orbit accounts.
It's a good start. I just wish they'd hurry up!
LOL!! I agree with you on that. Time is the enemy in all this. However patience must be a virtue when you are working with space. Don't want any Challengers or Columbias happening.
I agree with mob_barley, I think we are spreading our meager space resources too thin. I would put my money on SpaceX (the only one who's actually launched a capsule so far), and on Boeing. The other companies are also-rans at this point. Isn't Lockheed Martin or ULA also in this race? Why weren't they mentioned here as well?
The article pretty much explains the ULA position. Most of the companies receiving CCDEV-2 funds are developing spacecraft or associated systems (i.e., it appears Blue Origin is just in it for their LAS - launch abort system). SpaceX is the only one of them with an actual launch vehicle.
So with these additional payload, ULA seems relatively primed even without CCDEV funding, and should have plenty of demand for their launch vehicles (adding to their existing client base). As an aside, I understand that it will be relatively inexpensive to man-rate the Atlas-V too. So they're in a good position.
Sidenote - I'm glad to see ATK's "Liberty" got the shaft. It's a ploy for their 5-seg booster. (Thou shalt not cast stones into space!)
I hope NASA is also able to design and build a smart, cost effective, highly capable launch vehicle for BEO exploration. Commercial (mostly SpaceX) has continually teased at the idea of building toward manned deep space exploration, but there's no guarantee. I'm willing to wait for NASA to develop the right vehicle to supplement and compete against commercial... to safely and sustainably get American astronauts back into deep space!
Blue Origin's so secretive, that it's impossible to know what (if anything useful) is being designed by them. SpaceX should be receiving the most attention for its complete disclosure policy and exceeding expectations every step along the way. Personally, I think Blue Origin is a joke. They flew a basically worthless model for a few hundred feet and that's about all. Meanwhile, SpaceX is already launching rockets into space, reaching orbit and has successfully executed reentry. Blue Origin is a multi-million-dollar waste of taxpayer's money.
"Blue Origin's so secretive, that it's impossible to know what (if anything useful) is being designed by them. SpaceX should be receiving the most attention for its complete disclosure policy and exceeding expectations every step along the way."
With the amount of resources and cooperative technology it takes to develop a space system I don't understand why the Obama administration decided to spread the money out amongst four companies. Had Kennedy, followed by Johnson, done this in the 60's we would never had made it to the moon. Space flight for the masses will never be a money-maker for a private company long term.
That's right, why fly when you can take a train. Airplanes will never amount to anything more than a novelty item.
Obviously reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I've read extensively about space exploration and particularly early space flight, and even had the privilage of living on a missile base in the 60's as an Air Force brat. We obviously have had the technology for decades, but you might want to research how much it cost us to put a man on the moon and how many companies worked cooperatively. Do you really think one company has those kind of resources for research and development without a short term payoff?
If reading comprehension is not my strong suit, visionary thinking is not yours.
Space flight for the masses will not be a money maker, long term, until there is a destination. Put a Hilton in orbit or a Ritz-Carlton on the Moon, and you have a resort destination. Have weekly flights to the Moon to rotate mining crews. Once there is a destination, it will open for everyone.
Space tourism, manned exploration and manned research/industrial facilities in space will grow in the future, but they will never be a destination for large numbers of people on a regular basis. There is only one space destination that would ever have mass appeal -- other habitable planets, if they exist.
"With the amount of resources and cooperative technology it takes to develop a space system."
What exactly do you mean by 'a space system?' This is not a limited time ('before the decade is out' and before the Soviets, whichever comes first), almost unlimited money, single-destination oriented project like Apollo. (which also involved a great many contractors, BTW)
This is about encouraging the commercialization of manned access to Earth orbit, with the innovations and cost reductions that come with it. You (as NASA) don't want to try to pick the allegedly 'one right way' (there really is no such thing, even reaching the Moon could've been [and going back will be] done differently, given different circumstances) you want to encourage as many different approaches as possible. And buy rides/transport services from the winner, in order to assemble whatever deep-space ships you have in mind...
Apollo is over. The world has changed.
 I don't know why they left out the company that makes the Solid Rocket Motors, they have a Launch Vehicle "Liberty" that is ready to go...these 4 companies have never flown anything "Human rated" ATK has!
Boeing built the space shuttle, I believe that's "Human rated". They have 10 times the expertise as ATK.
It's time to move beyond the Shuttle-centric thinking that has captured us in the corner for 30 years, and move on with new, better designs. If we had waited for a "human rated" launch vehicle in the 60's, the International Space Station would have been a Russian initiative. Solids alone will never perform as well as liquid or gas-fueled vehicles. Boosters, yes. Solo, no.
Liberty was NOT ready to go, with humans at least. The one and only Constellation launch was a suborbital flight with a standard 4-segment Shuttle SRB motor and dummy upper stage. And might I point out that these are the exact same SRBs that killed 7 astronauts in 1986? Strapping human beings on top of a Roman candle is a really bad idea, I think.
So what is the difference between Solid Rocket and Liquid rockets? How do you think they are going to get the Space capsule off the launch pad?? Rubber bands?
How are liquid fueled rockets better than a SRB? Just asking..I have never heard why one is better than the other..
I know Boeing has a lot more experience than ATK does, and ATK has been partnered with them for years..
To Kammeyer...I didn't say it (Liberty) was ready to go.
@Never - the difference is a liquid rocket motor can be shutdown in an abort situation, the solid rockets burn until they are done. It is a matter of crew safety.
The Shuttle was built by North American-Rockwell (as was the Apollo CM), since absorbed by Boeing. Boeing did, however, build the first stage of the Saturn 5. They know man-rating.
So does SpaceX. Falcon 9 was designed from the start to meet NASA's (not always clear) criteria for that. No human has ridden it at this time, but it is man-rated.
The Space X Falcon Rocket and Dragon capsules were designed from the ground up to be "man rated". ATK didn't get any money for two reasons; one, They tried to way over charge for the development of the 5 segment SRB that Ares was supposed to use, you don't want to bite the hand that feeds... and two, launching humans on Solid Rockets is inherently dangerous, light it and pray, there is no shut off or throttle. It was a mistake to use SRB's on Shuttle, and that error shouldn't be repeated.
While I agree that Sierra Nevada and Blue Origins are long shots, Boeing and Space X have what it takes to put some ships together. ULA pretty much IS Boeing so no tears for "them" (yes I know it's a joint venture) Besides don't you think the CST-100 will fly on a Delta IV...
$269.3 million wasted........what a shame
Yeah, research and development is always a waste. In another article you'll probably bemoan America's slipping position as an advanced country, or some such tripe. Hypocrite.
It may be a waste if not even one of these companies delivers what's expected of them. Please tell me how you can already know if they won't?
(Of course, I really suspect you're against spending any money on any human space flight, but if I'm wrong, please tell me that, too.)
We need to revive Constellation, and stop funding Amatures.
Boeing is an 'amateur?' SpaceX, which has demonstrated hardware, and launched satellites for money, is an 'amateur?'
We need to encourage commercial space, and stop funding pork for Alabama, Florida and Utah.
Now it's going to get interesting! Competition=Innovation. Won't be long before we are ion driving to Mars!
This is on top of the 2.5 BILLION spent on looking for a spot to land another Mars rover!
Good American tax payer's money down the drain, and you wonder why we are 13 TRILLION dollars in debt.
2.5 billion is exactly .019231 percent of the national debt. And every cent of it was spent here on earth, not on Mars. And I'm not exactly sure where you get that 2.5 billion figure, either. Get real.
Must've been written by a troll. No serious person could make such a hopelessly insipid remark. Such silliness.
It's hard to argue that less than 1% of the federal budget is responsible for our huge deficit and debt issues. Nothing inspires like the answering the call to space, or any other unexplored territories. It's not about profit, although that is nice. It's about the need to answer for our origins, to insure our place and invest in our future. It's about the need to put a human face on that. Our paltry sums to achieve those goals couldn't be better spent.
The usual tired old argument from someone who OBVIOUSLY has not done one iota of research on NASA budgets versus the debt and other government spending. If he/she had done their research,
they would know that in 2010 alone. $125B dollars was wasted in government spending on
programs I'm sure he/she would be in favor of cutting NASA to support.
$125B dollars is equivalent to six NASAs and the debt is fifty NASAs and counting.
NASAs budget OTOH, went from a record high of 5% federal spending to the current point 6
percent federal spending. How does that contribute to the debt I wonder? But then, this is
why posting like this gets the poster called a troll.
Oh, did I mention $2.5B dollars is the total amount of funding planned for the MSL rover...not just a search for a landing site. Do your homework before posting Dave the doubter...otherwise, you have no credibility.
"Private" space industry!?? Public dollars!! Lots and lots of taxpayer dollars to accomplish what NASA accomplished in 1962 (Low Earth Orbit), 1973 (Skylab), 1998-(Unity Modiule of ISS) . I guess when you have NO ideas and are really against Space Exploration, re-inventing the wheel is a good a way as any other for killing the American Manned Space EXPLORATION effort. And what do we have again, as well? Privatized profit and socialized (taxpayer) costs/risk! I wonder where Obama came up with that idea?! His Wall Street buddies, maybe?
1962? Really? I didn't know private space flights to the moon were available that long.
So, there's no difference between the Spirit of St. Louis, and a Boeing 747, because both do nothing but fly New York City to Paris, non-stop?
Understand this, not all human space flight is about 'exploration.' It's not just hopscotching across the solar system, putting boots on the next planet, and moving on. It's also about making better use of the places we've 'already been.' (LEO, the Moon, and all the other places that somebody, someday will describe as 'been there, done that.') And as it increases technology and infrastructure, more commercial space flight can only help exploration.
Oh, and BTW, President Obama did not invent the notion of Commercial Space. You don't know your history quite as well as you think...
Sad that we didn't learn our lesson, losing expertise and having to rebuild from scratch between moon missions and the shuttle program. I predict there will be just enough delay before NASA is decently funded again, so that most or all of the spaceflight experts will have retired or be otherwise unavailable, and we'll have to do it all over again.
So yay for the shortsighted stupidity of willfully ignorant homeschooled regressive tea party republicans. Everyone will be soooooooo grateful when there's an asteroid hurtling toward us and we have to huddle in our houses depending on the Russians to save us because the idjits destroyed our space program. Happy happy joy joy.
But at least in the meantime some company will make gazillions of dollars in profit from all our taxpayer funded research. Gosh, I wonder if that company (no doubt owned by members of congress) will pay any taxes. I'll hold my breath while I wait.
I am glad I did a double take...as I was skiming the headlines I read the headline as "nasa's fun with new gun spaceships"....I was a couple of headlines ahead when I thought...what???.....talk about comprehension...jeesh....I think a foia request should be handed to nasa to clarify their decisions....just to keep everyone hones.....after the bidding fiascos at the dod, I do tend to terse up a bit when I hear the word boing, but they are accomplished, nonetheless...I just don't want us buying into things marketed by lobbyists....I can say without prejiduce, Wish I had gotten some of that money to make a spaceship!!!...If I ever do get a spaceship up, ya, advertising...I WILL put the "Intel Inside" logo on it, whether endorsed by Intel or not!!...as for coca-cola or pepsi....eh, let bid for a 2 foot sqare near the soil dump port..hehe....anyways, a point I am dancing around here is that NASA ain't the only game in town!!...the deep pockets crew, ya, for sure, but even though I have been pounding the made in america drum for a couple of decades now, and I like the sound of american astronauts traveling on american ships...let us not forget that we really our globally competing for commercial space dollars. After all, It is going to be hard to beat Russia's system...big ole rocket, small but direct payload, no frills landing, get out quick and ready for the next launch.....hard to beat simple, BUT, that is no way to build a space structure. Obviously. And the profit is limiting in it's payload capacity. The nasp is where it's at. The shuttle was supposed to progress in design and to some extent it did. For instance, when I saw my first shuttle tile in the eighties, some general was demonstrating with a blow torch how heat resistant it was, the latest iteration of the tiles is even more impressive (do your own research). I hope those that take the federalies money do well with it, and I encourge those that did not, to not give up....the path not yet taken may well be the winner in the long term, as mob alluded to, the competition may well thin the innovative ability in terms of research and development dollars, on the other hand, the competition may help keep the contractors from gouging the taxpayer (please don't ask me if I really believe that, just stating that it is possible). I'll take a bit of a wait and see stance on this rather than jumping all critical on, what to me, is at least a step in a direction, any direction cept backwards has gotta count for something. for the amatures comment, I thought professionals do what they do for profit, and rank amatures just do it because it's not their money.....for a different angle on his comment......this is all to far out of obama hands for him to really make much of an effort to DIRECTLY effect it. Bottom line there. But if rummies buddies are not involved, well I'll just toss out the ole shot glass now and grab a snort of rebel yell off a chinese chop stick...hehe....toney is right about one thing, moon excursions are going to be profitable...governments and universities and mineral scouts would willingly sign on right now for good money, get the price down to where the average millionare can afford it and you got a booming biz of sir hillarys, just eager to get on with it...get the price down to where a newlywed couple can afford a night or two in a spanish spinning space-tel and you will have a traffic jam at BOTH space ports.....the negativism coming from inside our own country gives me great pause....I too spent a lot of time on air force bases as a youngster, damn near twenty years worth in fact, but we did not learn the kind of absolute hate of darn near everything that I see all to often expressed nowadays...no that attitude was not learn't or taught by military families....maybe whats missing today is the brats spared to much today....If we support these companies for doing right and make it point to not excuse them when they obliviate the public trust, we might get something done, if we hail them with brimstone before they ever get anything accomplished, then we might as well just hand the technology over to the mexicans now and let a hard working nation that has so little show us what national pride can be if given a chance...(not to knock canada or venuzuela etc, just pointing out that a large percentage of americans are, in fact, backseat drivers and sunday morning quaterbacks)...and with that, it's back to work. I am personally hoping a better drive system is what will really take us (americans) into a succesful space age. Politicians be damned (for fooling the scientists).
Here's an idea. Why not just re-use tried and true technology from the Apollo program. The Saturn IB Booster along with the Apollo capsule could form the basis for designing a 7 person capsule. The Russians are still using Soyuz which is over 40 years old with great success.
The Rissians have been using the Soyuz continuously for those 40 years. Just about everything from the Apollo era would have to be re-done from scratch. It's been almost 40 years since anyone has worked on an Apollo Rocket<Saturn V>
True, but the blue prints and specifications for those vehicles must exist somewhere. It's just a matter of revising some of them to meet new requirements. Why does NASA feel the need to re-invent the wheel with every new project that comes along these days?
Good question, and I hope I can answer it to some degree:
That technology was replaced because of reliance on throwaway rockets. Being able to reuse
the rocket is the only way to overcome the cost of throwaway rockets. Would you throw your
car away each trip to the 7-11? Problem with the shuttle was, it proved to be an economic
failure because its reusability was severely limited by its complexity.
As for the Soyuz, have you ever actually seen the flight rates for manned Soyuz missions?
They fly on average, twice a year. Thats not even as good as the shuttles flight rates some
years. Soyuz is less expensive because it is not flown very much and the launch cost is
spread among other unmanned spacecraft that ride the Soyuz rocket.
Flying a manned Soyuz means additional preparations to ensure the rocket and spacecraft
can safely fly missions before launching. This is one reason for the manned Soyuz flight
rates being so low. Even in the Soviet days, Soyuz mission rates were only slightly
higher than today. 3 or 4 annually in the mid 1970s on average.
The Soyuz rocket is probably not very expensive as expendables go but it should also be
noted the Russians do not pay nearly as well to what are mostly Russian military operators
of Soyuz than their American NASA contractor counterparts. Hardware is expensive when not
reused. Expendable hardware is more expensive than reusable for obvious reasons. Despite
the shuttles economic woes, imagine the cost of 130 shuttle missions had a new orbiter
been built after each mission. That should shed some light on why reusable is better
than resurrecting expendable tech.
For Dennis-1989658:
While its a popular idea that NASA simply reinvents on a whim...this is not the case. When they reinvent, its usually the quest for an improved way of doing business because they are budget driven and often operate on extremely limited budgets. Constellation...a return to the moon seems on the face of it a good reason to resurrect the Saturn-V. But with shuttle hardware already available, it made better sense economically to adapt that hardware. Plus Constellation was about lunar bases rather than flags and footprints.
Russians charge NASA 48 million per seat on Soyuz which equates to 144 million for all 3 seats. That's after the markup they impose. Actual cost has been estimated at 72 million or 24 million per seat. Compare that with the launch cost of 500 million for one Space Shuttle launch with 7 seats at 72 million per seat. Clearly the economics favor using Soyuz for sending people and supplies to ISS.
You bring up a good point about costs spread out to unmanned launches. That's only possible because they use common booster vehicles for everything they send into orbit. They can scale up production and reduce per unit cost much more effectively than NASA because since Apollo we have developed all boosters in house just for the manned program. Thus while the Russians recouped the development cost for Soyuz long ago, it has taken considerably longer to recoup development costs for the Shuttle. Each shuttle alone costs about 1.2 billion a piece.
Your right, clearly the shuttle is not an economical way to access space or low orbit.
Soyuz is the best choice to send people to ISS but it is limited where supplies, or
at least large scale supplies such as that which would fit into a Leonardo module
which can only be carried to orbit by the shuttle or expendable equivalent.
The Progress vehicle (Cargo version of Soyuz) would fit inside a Leonardo
module.
I'm dubious of the Soyuz cost accounts because there are such large scale differences
in the economies of Russia and the U.S. What may seem cheap to us was evidently pretty
expensive to them relative to their overall economy. Otherwise, Soyuz manned craft
could fly much more than they do. Soyuz is not reusable which means its expensive
to fly. One mission each and then thrown away.
How they use the booster is clearly economical. But we have done essentially the same
with most of our expendables.
The Delta evolved from the Thor Delta, the Atlas and Titan, evolved and still in use.
And when it became apparent the shuttle could not economically replace those boosters,
NASA/USAF halted plans to phase them out. Even the Saturn-V was used to put Skylab
into orbit after initially being used to send men to the moon.
Hopefully, private industry players such as Space "X" will make getting to low orbit
economical, and even more so than Soyuz can.
I share your hope that these new vehicles will work. We need a firm commitment from these companies that they will be able to deliver the goods. Manned spaceflight must continue to go forward.
The thought of having to rely on a foreign power to service and support the ISS which we shouldered a considerable portion of the cost is troubling.
"Here's an idea. Why not just re-use tried and true technology from the Apollo program."
Because it works and work well, but it's too expensive to use commercially. (And you can't even find some of that 'tried and true,' pre-microprocessor technology, anymore) Soyuz (and its launcher) has undergone incremental upgrades over its history, even if mostly internal. (as did the Shuttle) Today's Soyuz is not the same as Soyuz-1 (and considering how that ended, that's a very good thing)
This isn't about getting (back) to the Moon before another country. It's about commercially affordable access to space to do as much as we want there (including, but not limited to returning to the moon, and going beyond). Apollo is over.
I agree 100%.
Dennis - The Orion capsule, that was to be for another moon mission, has the same structural design as the Apollo capsules. Now for the boosters, I would go for some of the shuttle technology. The liquid propellant nozzles on the shuttle are a remakable piece of engineering. Not only are they reusable, they are so much more efficient than the Saturn V's nozzles.
Many scientists must read this article, therefore I have a naive question to ask them. Do spaceships need to take off vertically or could they just take off from a runway? Do they need to reach a speed a 'normal' airplane cannot achieve with jet turbines (using solid fuel once in space)? Finally, if this tremendous speed must be achieved, why do these spacecraft have these enormously un-aerodynamic round noses? When I put my hand out of the window of a running car I feel the drag difference between a horizontally flat hand and a punch shaped one. Does the same not apply in aerodynamics? Please understand these questions are not provocative or teasing, but just birth of my ignorance. Thank you for replies!
@Albi - the truth now is both, but it depends on the mission. Scaled Composites have shown that you can ferry a ship to a certain altitude then let its rocket motor got it to the fringes of space. But if you want to get some mass to low Earth orbit and beyond, the only way is through vertical launch. The escape velocity for Earth is 25,000 mph. And actually, the noses of these spacecrafts are aerodynamic for the needs of the spacecraft. There is balance between drag and stability of the spacecraft for all stages of it's flight. Hope this helps.
Albi-3342349
These are excellent questions and nothing wrong with asking them. TReed has explained some
of it well. A few more tidbits of info. The velocity required to reach orbit is 17,500 mph
or about 5 miles per second. The vertical launch trajectory eventually becomes a horizontal
trajectory to ensure proper insertion into orbit.
Three basic types of rocket propellants are utilized. Solid propellant (Ammonium Perchlorate
and powdered aluminum), cryogenic propellant (Liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen) and hypergolic
(Monomethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide). In each of the propellants, one of the chemicals
is an oxidizer...that is, an on board supply of oxygen because of course, no oxygen in space.
Aerodynamics is a necessary feature of rocket propelled vehicles, but not as necessary as it
would be on vehicles operating within the atmosphere. Vertical lift vehicles spend little time
within the atmosphere. Horizontally launched vehicles would spend more time ascending out of
the atmosphere and if ever you have seen the X-30 National Aerospace Plane (NASP) design,
you'll see the aerodynamics involved which include the engine intake as part of the
overall aerodynamics of the vehicle itself.
In any case, if you put enough rocket power behind it...a brick house will fly! Provided it
doesn't come apart from the stress first.
The space program has brought countless benefits "to the masses," as some like to say. In daily life, cell phones, computers, and so on., HDTV, etc. owe all or some of their existence to the space program. Think of all the medical benefits, in areas including technology (think CAT scans and MRI's, for instance), materials science, propulsion systems, optics -- well, the list is very, very lengthy.
Further, I read recently that each $1.00 spent on the space program generates about $7.00 in economic activity -- a great return-in-investment.
People whine and moan about "wasting" money on sopace -- UNTIL the space-related factory or other business up the road closes, throwing its employees out of work, and sending a ripple effect through the local economy, at the very least. If a truly big corporqation involved in space were to go belly-up, there wouldn't be ripples -- there would be a tsunami, economically speaking, felt far and wide.
There's an old Chinese proverb that comes to mind: "Be careful what you wish for."
My tax dollars spent on space are among the few I believe are well spent.
NASA on the Road to No Way
Fifty four years and still no road map, give it up.
Oaktree-1217860
Thats because we spent fourty of those years keeping NASA largely underfunded.
Had the 1969 roadmap been followed, we'd be a lot further along with HSF, assuming
the shuttle had been more of an economic success. Much of current HSF problems are
partly the result of the shuttle failing to live up to its economic promise. Of
course, I'm assuming your not someone who sees no value at all in HSF.
NASA critics in general:
If however, one sees no value in HSF. Then I won't bother trying to covince you of
it. I would however suggest you put an economists hat on and ask yourself, if you
think cutting NASA budgets would help with earthly problems...how can that
possibly happen when NASAs budgets have gone down over those four decades?
And during that period, other government spending has gone up. Most government budgets
are at record levels today. NASAs last record budget was 1966. If your thinking of better
uses for NASA money...you should look at where the money is being wasted in amounts that
exceed NASAs entire annual budget and then some. The national debt is fifty NASA budgets
and counting. In fact, you could close NASA down and the debt will still rise at the
rate of forty nine NASAs. How does that cut the debt, much less solve earthly
problems?
Alan, what about some of the more revolutionary propulsion systems (e.g., VASIMR)? To me, the spaceships noted above are just updated versions of what we have already done. We really need some newer, more efficient technologies to make launches (and missions outside of LEO) cheaper and safer. Is VASIMR still planned for an ISS assist motor sometime soon? A 200MW VASIMR could go from an Earth orbit to Mars in 39 days. How about the several launch-capable technologies to, hopefully, replace our inefficient chemical rockets? An update on these possible/promising technologies would be appreciated...
You are right, todays plans involve rockets with essentially half century old
technology but refined. However, VASIMR is not designed to get rockets off the
ground and to orbit. It is designed for deep space propulsion on missions such
as a human mission to mars. Rockets are at the stage where cars are. The
refinement stage. The VASIMR/ISS plan was still being pursued last I
checked.
As you know, cars operate on century old internal combustion tech in large part
because of the expense involved in converting them. Of course, research is underway
to convert cars to new engine technologies, but that will be expensive.
Same, and actually more so with rockets expense wise. To my knowledge, there is
nothing more powerful that is safe and available than chemical rocket technology.
Some promising research was done on laser light propulsion but I haven't seen
much out of that research lately, as in nearly a decade.
Nuclear thermal propulsion stages were researched in the 1960s both as upper stages for
the Saturn-V and engines for transport to Mars. Nuclear rocket stages as replacements
for chemical stages are too expensive considering the performance gains do not justify
the expense. Not to mention safety issues.
NASA would probably be more aggressive about pursuing technologies for mars etc. if they had an actual plan with budget to go by.
Understand that VASIMR needs a respectable source of electricity. That means large solar arrays (which can be done), and/or the development of a space-rated nuclear reactor with the necessary output. (with all the PR problems that comes with nuclear power, especially one that must be launched from Earth first, even though 'cold.')
Even on ISS, it will be a proof of technology test, altitude raising is secondary. ISS can't provide enough power, long enough to do more.
Mercury, Gemini and Apollo was were all the technology has come fromnot the Space Shuttle. It was intended to be for low orbit flights not moon shots or destroying asteroids coming to smack earth. The shuttles one big ability is to be able to push the ISS into a higher orbit when needed. These small vehicles will not and it will be only a matter of time before the orbit of the ISS will become unstable and burn up just like Sky Lab. The dollars spent over the years have not yielded a 7 for 1 profit over the Space Shuttle years, but a drain since it really never did anything, but be a shuttle.
If it was laid out there very clearly then NASA has to do a better job of explaining what in the world they are doing. They have been doing all kinds of experiments, but what have they done for humanity, not a hill of beans. No focus since the testosterone fest ended when we landed on the moon.
"The shuttles one big ability is to be able to push the ISS into a higher orbit when needed."
Incorrect. The shuttle is not the only means of raising the altitude of ISS (how did it survive the Columbia downtime?) That is also done with Soyuz, Progress and Europe's ATV.
Dejavue forty years later! We had the technology 40 years ago!? This is not new, only a new cosmetic change. We have regressed 40 years in our thinking.
Talk about frustrating! Open up the black-ops and start using the zero-point energy and propulsion technology that we have back engineered.
Talk about a diservice to humanity. Secrecy destroys a civilization.
whowhatwhenwherewhy-3184952:
NASA HSF is coming to an end as evidenced by retirement of the shuttle with no viable
replacement in hand. Therefore, NASA has been tasked to fund the most promising of the
upstart companies such as Space "X". NASA tried to make space less expensive to access
with the space shuttle. Contrary to what you mentioned. We did not have all the tech
necessary to do private spaceflight in the 1960s. Particularly computer technology
which has advanced in near quantum leaps just since the advent of PCs.
GPS did not exist then, HSFs had to be tracked by ships and ground stations deployed
all over the world just for partial tracking of spacecraft.
The shuttle was underfunded and look what the result was. A great technical success
but an economic failure. Part of that failure was reliance on the old way of doing
business. Large aerospace interests with political ties to Washington. The wealth
being spread to as many voting districts as possible. Large companies with
bureacratic mentalities...too many chiefs and not enough grunts.
Part of the cost of doing business the old way is the fact that the traditional companies
could charge whatever they wanted. Knowing the government wasn't that concerned since tax
money is not their money. Fact is, NASA tried for nearly two decades to replace the
shuttle only to encounter the cost barrier. That barrier that causes the public to
believe ending HSF will be better spent on earthly problems while the debt rises
at the rate of fifty NASAs annually and rising. The last example being the
Venture Star which was axed when technical problems caused Lockheed to
exceed a NASA mandated spending limit on development of the craft.
NASA can't even get funding for model moon rockets these days, much less an actual
program for doing something in deep space. NASA has been forced to outsource in an
entirely new way.
Private enterprise is the only hope for the continuance of HSF. Lean companies like
Space "X" may be able to pull it off. Only time will tell. If they can't. We are certainly
not going back to the glory days of Apollo.
K. Kammeyer:
Lockheed Martin, ULA, Boeing represent traditional large aerospace giants who have over
the decades, been able to rely on very lucrative contracts with NASA. Contracts that eventually
translated into diminishing HSF activity. To my knowledge, non of those companies are trying
to position themselves to compete in the way that Space "X" and other upstart companies have.
Now that NASA is funding the upstarts, there is a danger they will expect larger contracts
of the kind that priced the aerospace giants out of the emerging HSF market.
neverpar
In addition to the safety factor TReed mentioned, another difference between solid and
liquid propellant rockets is performance. There is a rating for measuring rocket performance
called ISP. Think of it as horsepower. A 1 million pound thrust solid propellant rocket is
less powerful for each pound of propellant burned than a liquid (Cryogenic) propelled
rocket of the same thrust.