CBO: Major overruns and/or delays likely for Ares/Orion

But but but ... JOBS!

And don't forget ... no bid contracts!

Posted by Grass Hopper at 11/04/08 09:36:04

It isn't really "JOBS" that is at stake. It is congressional pork at its most basic and pure level.

If this kind of money were put to prizes... gosh, I couldn't even imagine the number of jobs that would be created and the number of companies that would spring out of the woodwork.

Mind you, I'm not talking one super mega-prize contest of $18 billion in order to put a team on the Moon, but hundreds of competitions that would help to develop the technologies necessary for getting there. Get a whole bunch of people involved!

Unfortunately, those in political power wouldn't be able to control where these jobs would be created, and instead they are worried about protecting those jobs who are going to be lost anyway.

It is just sad to watch talented engineers run around and try to build a vehicle that is likely to be obsolete even before it gets to its maiden trip. All on the concept of pure political control and building up a constituency built on sucking off the government largess.

Posted by Robert Horning at 11/04/08 11:56:46

SpaceX will slip their schedules further.

But indeed, gutting Orion makes zero sense. Might as well launch it on EELV then.

Posted by Pete Zaitcev at 11/04/08 13:55:54

"zero sense"

Can you even see the absolutism of your remark? Really, no discussion, no nuances, no intricacies of the vagaries of the logic, just 'zero sense'. It's not worth discussing with you the numerous reasons that I can think of for terminating Orion.

It's that kind of attitude which turns rational people off from discussing anything empirical with you, and which is creating the landslide vote today.

Can the attitude, ok?

Posted by Grass Hopper at 11/04/08 14:09:31

Clark, I support you one hundred percent in your assessment. Keep singing the song!

Posted by gravityloss at 11/05/08 15:32:48

"with those tens of billions of dollars and what it could have gotten if the money had gone towards multiple COTS competitors, orbital fuel depot development, space tugs, etc."

Do you have a cost estimate for developing orbital fuel depots, space tugs, etc.?

Posted by anon at 11/05/08 21:07:49

"Do you have a cost estimate for developing orbital fuel depots, space tugs, etc.?"

I estimate that developing an in-space infrastructure with such systems would cost a lot less than Ares I/V/Orion. In fact, what is most exasperating about seeing so much money going for dead end 1960s systems like Ares I/V/Orion is that we have 21st Century technologies very close at hand and for far less money.

For example, at least two of the COTS proposals were based on space tugs. In the 2007 COTS round, the Loral/CSI/Paragon/etc proposal based their tug on the highly reliable Loral 1300 model spacecraft bus. The tug would be refuelable and would operate for at least 10 years in orbit:
http://www.thespacereview.c...
http://constellationservice...

The CSI/L-M/Energia 2006 COTS proposal used the Russian Progress, which in fact, already can provide space tug services:
http://www.constellationser...

Note that the COTS agreements involved a few hundred million dollars from NASA and this money is only paid out as milestones are reached. We're talking one to two orders of magnitude lower costs than Constellation programs.

Fuel depots are also nearly at hand:
http://thespacereview.com/a...
http://selenianboondocks.bl...

Initial tests for in-space refueling have already been done with systems like Orbital Express
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

With fuel depots you no longer need a new heavy lifter because you launch spacecraft separately from fuel. There are many launcher companies that could enter a competition for the lowest cost delivery of fuel to orbit.

This sort of exploration / development architecture involves far more in-space activity than Constellation. The great thing about the ISS, however, is that it has given NASA tremendously valuable experience with in-space assembly, repair, and maintenance operations. (The delays in the ISS program were caused by the transportation problems, mostly with the Shuttle, not by in-space operations.)

So all the elements for an in-space approach to space exploration and development are well within reach and almost certainly well within the budget allocated for Constellation.

Finally I would say that even if this sort of in-space architecture cost just as much as Ares I/V/Orion, it would still be well worth it. You would end up with much lower cost systems to operate and with an infrastructure on which you can build serious space development. The hyper-expensive to operate, all-throwaway Constellation architecture follows the Apollo model that will result in just a lot of relics floating in space or in museums on the ground.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 11/05/08 23:25:08

"I estimate that developing an in-space infrastructure with such systems would cost a lot less than Ares I/V/Orion."

And I estimate that you can fit 1000 angels on the head of a pin.

I'll re-ask the question: Do you have a cost estimate for developing orbital fuel depots, space tugs, etc.?

The reason I ask is simple: you have made a confident assertion that your approach will at least be cheaper (let's leave out discussion of "better") than the current one. Your approach includes at least one technology that has a very low readiness level (fuel depots), which makes cost estimation far more difficult than cost estimation for a new launch vehicle.

I'd like to see some data that supports your position before I decide to agree with you.

Posted by anon at 11/06/08 06:37:07

Anon, why should we care whether or not you agree with Clark's conclusions when we don't even know who the heck you are and hence we don't know the caliber of your credentials in the field?

Posted by Rick Boozer at 11/06/08 07:36:03

"And I estimate that you can fit 1000 angels on the head of a pin."

Estimates of costs in the COTS proposals from Loral, CSI, L-M, etc. have nothing to do with angels on pins.

If anything, it is NASA's estimate of the cost and schedule for its Constellation projects that will require heavenly intervention to come true.

I presented an argument along with data to support my contention that an in-space infrastructure approach to space exploration and development is technologically within reach, is well within the Constellation scale of funding, and is preferable to a dead-end throwaway approach.

If you don't accept the argument or the data, so be it. I usually don't respond to anonymous comments but when I do it's just because I see an opportunity to extend the case made in my post and to talk to the general reader.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 11/06/08 08:37:26

Goes nowhere......same old program up and down, up and down, up and down....year after year, after year, after year! So boring the public won't even notice we have a space program. For sure a cheaper better booster than Ares. However if we sacrifice Constellation program in the process we go nowhere, same old tech, same old same old....status quos, been there done that since 1972! Dead end NASA.

Posted by Doug at 11/06/08 18:47:22

"I presented an argument along with data to support my contention that an in-space infrastructure approach to space exploration and development is technologically within reach, is well within the Constellation scale of funding, and is preferable to a dead-end throwaway approach."

There is no data to support the claim that it is "well within the Constellation scale of funding."

And I note that one of the alternatives you propose is to use Russian hardware, which is politically unacceptable in the current climate.

Posted by anon at 11/06/08 18:51:58

Notice the way anon "cherry picks" from the points Clark raises, gives generalized superficial answers to the points he does address, and conveniently ignores most of the other points? That alone makes it hard to take anything he says seriously. When you add to that the fact that we don't know who he is and what his background in the field is . . .
I'm going to ignore such anonymous postings from now on. If such a person is truly a significant figure in the industry he will use his identity to support his views.

Posted by Rick Boozer at 11/06/08 19:35:41

"There is no data to support the claim that it is "well within the Constellation scale of funding.""

Yes, of course, there is if you would look. Surely you know that the total COTS second round funding was ~$250M. If Loral/CSI got 100%, then that would be the total cost to NASA of a highly capable space tug system. This system included a common carrier module that could be launched to orbit via multiple vehicles, saving the need to develop a new rocket.

In parallel, SpaceX F9/Dragon is already in development and will provide cargo delivery with current funding of around $280M from NASA. If COTS-D is provided, they will deliver crews as well. All this for around ~$600M total.

So with less than a billion dollars, we would have a great start to a highly capable in-space infrastructure with two low cost space delivery systems and a tug. This alone is a far more useful and productive base for further space development than Ares I/Orion. (Bigelow habitats will be there as well to take advantage of these systems. Yet more elements to a growing in-space infrastructure.)

The total Ares I/Orion funding by 2015 looks to be on the order of $25B.

So the major remaining element - propellant depots - would have to cost on the order of $24B to catch up. We are not $24 billion away from fuel depots and the systems that can take advantage of them. I expect with a COTS approach, even a standardized LH2/LOX depot could be had for a billion or less. Much less for non-cryo propellants.

So for the remaining ~$23B we can develop lunar transports (SpaceX is already talking about lunar excursions with the Dragon), Lagrange point systems, etc. COTS competitions should be used for each of these to get the lowest costs.

This is my last post on this and yours too since you are not posting anything substantial, only "no you didn't". I won't be trolled on my own blog.

- Clark

p.s. The Russian ownership of Progress was irrelevant to my original point about the near term feasibility of space tugs. The existence of the Progress shows that such technology is well at hand.

Posted by TopSpacer at 11/06/08 23:39:35