The numbers don’t lie—NASA’s move to commercial space has saved money

"Together, we have become stronger for this nation.”

Read the whole story

 

[Thaisen]

Great article, didn't know much about the early days of the program. Would love to see more on the early days of SpaceX's falcon rocket /COTS, or a neutral article on Boeing as it has gone through the adjustment to a non-cost+ world.

The majority of that, likely about $20 million, would have been spent on the Ares I rocket. Twenty billion dollars for a rocket capable of lifting about 25 metric tons to low-Earth orbit.

I believe a million is supposed to be a billion there at the start.

 

[adaschmac]

This says $20 million instead of $20 billion:

The majority of that, likely about $20 million, would have been spent on the Ares I rocket. Twenty billion dollars for a rocket capable of lifting about 25 metric tons to low-Earth orbit.

 

[jhymesba2]

I once wanted to be an astronaut. I had the Spaceshuttle Manual printed out in the 80s and studied that thing like the back of my hand.

I'm glad I didn't go that route, now, because I'm glad I'm not Scott Horowitz. Schilling for a large, expensive, wasteful rocket, and outright lying about costs. What an utter disgrace to the profession. I like to think I'd rise above that, but a few hundred grand here, and a few hundred grand there, and soon, you're talking real money. :|

 

[Danathar]

"No private company has ever launched humans into orbit before."

Not trying to be critical or anything, just want to understand that statement a little more. Is it because SpaceX is in charge of the entire launch as opposed to what was done with NASA back in the 60's and 70s? The old Rockets and vehicles were built by private companies, so I'm trying specifically to understand the roles and responsibilities of the companies that built and created rockets and vehicles back then vs today.

The Article does go into some detail on how things were done back then, but it would be good to have an operational comparison between how a launch was done back then vs today in terms of roles and responsibilities.

Can anybody illuminate some on that?

 

[khoadley]

Nice article. One editing question:

"The rocket that thundered aloft from NASA’s Launch Pad 39B sure looked like an Ares I," Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin said at the time. "But that’s where the resemblance stops. Turns out the solid booster was—literally—bought from the Space Shuttle program, since a five-segment booster being designed for Ares wasn’t ready. So they put a fake can on top of the four-segmented motor to look like the real thing.

There's either a superfluous or missing quote mark there - where does the second part of the quote from Aldrin ("But that’s where the resemblance stops.) end, if that is indeed still Aldrin's words ...

 

[peterford]

I recently encountered some apparent old space supporters on Twitter and this seemed to be the last line of defence:

Is cheap > reliability and precision when the payload is irreplaceable and the cost of an expendable launch vehicle doesn’t even put a dent in the overall price whatsoever?

And

It’s not like it’s more efficient to go expendable. Or that reusability has Litterally zero benefits other than cost saving. Nah nah. Not that at all

I'm not sure the evidence agrees with them there.

 

[sapphir8]

I’m excited for next weeks launch. If this works successfully, hopefully some in Congress will see that SLS is a joke and the private sector is where it the future of NASA is. Leave LEO and moon missions to the private sector and deep space to NASA.

 

[wrylachlan]

I recently encountered some apparent old space supporters on Twitter and this seemed to be the last line of defence:

Is cheap > reliability and precision when the payload is irreplaceable and the cost of an expendable launch vehicle doesn’t even put a dent in the overall price whatsoever?

And

It’s not like it’s more efficient to go expendable. Or that reusability has Litterally zero benefits other than cost saving. Nah nah. Not that at all

I'm not sure the evidence agrees with them there.

The part of the equation that they’re missing is low cost = more launches with the same resources = more data = faster iterative improvements to everything - including safety!

Low cost is the key that unlocks everything else.

 

[titiomm]

Funny how all those people suddenly become "socialists" as soon as they can't control job creation politically anymore....

 

[peterford]

Another really good article Eric.
I'm thinking this is one that got read by the lawyers at one point

 

[Peevester]

Great article, didn't know much about the early days of the program. Would love to see more on the early days of SpaceX's falcon rocket /COTS, or a neutral article on Boeing as it has gone through the adjustment to a non-cost+ world.

The majority of that, likely about $20 million, would have been spent on the Ares I rocket. Twenty billion dollars for a rocket capable of lifting about 25 metric tons to low-Earth orbit.

I believe a million is supposed to be a billion there at the start.

If you skip to about the halfway mark of this Esquire article, there's a nice section about the early days of spaceX, and why "we don't go to Russia anymore" could be a spaceX catchphrase. Search for "Adeo Ressi" in the article text if you want to jump right to it.

I recently encountered some apparent old space supporters on Twitter and this seemed to be the last line of defence:

Is cheap > reliability and precision when the payload is irreplaceable and the cost of an expendable launch vehicle doesn’t even put a dent in the overall price whatsoever?

And

It’s not like it’s more efficient to go expendable. Or that reusability has Litterally zero benefits other than cost saving. Nah nah. Not that at all

I'm not sure the evidence agrees with them there.

The part of the equation that they’re missing is low cost = more launches with the same resources = more data = faster iterative improvements to everything - including safety!

Low cost is the key that unlocks everything else.

And of course there's no shortage of precision and reliability in a spaceX launch, so it's a false dichotomy anyway. Oldspacers gotta oldspace.

 

[DeeCee546]

At this point I prefer the terminology “next week” to describe the launch date rather then “later this month”. Seems like a closer in time.

I personally can’t wait to watch. All the best to all involved.

 

[HeleVole]

"...could go a long way toward quieting those who say what NASA can and cannot do, in an era when Dragons breathe fire and rockets return by sea."

I must admit, that last line made me tear up just a little
Great article!

 

[Jeff Jorgensen]

Ares would have never been rated for human flight. If the SRB failed is rained down burning fragments of solid rocket fuel over many square miles. This tended to destroy parachutes used in capsule escape systems.

 

[Wickwick]

Ares would have never been rated for human flight. If the SRB failed is rained down burning fragments of solid rocket fuel over many square miles. This tended to destroy parachutes used in capsule escape systems.

You just need a rocket abort system with enough range to get you clear of any possible debris. It's not easy, but it's a solvable problem.

 

[Why0Why]

"No private company has ever launched humans into orbit before."

Can anybody illuminate some on that?

In the past NASA contracted private companies to build, but NASA was the owner. Now, NASA states a spec and private companies design, build and own the finished product.

 

[Danathar]

"No private company has ever launched humans into orbit before."

Can anybody illuminate some on that?

In the past NASA contracted private companies to build, but NASA was the owner. Now, NASA states a spec and private companies design, build and own the finished product.

I get that, I'm looking for how launch responsibilities are different operationally on launch day today vs then.

 

[Wickwick]

"No private company has ever launched humans into orbit before."

Can anybody illuminate some on that?

In the past NASA contracted private companies to build, but NASA was the owner. Now, NASA states a spec and private companies design, build and own the finished product.

Also, all the launch personnel were NASA employees or contractors. Every decision went up the food chain to NASA in some form. Now, SpaceX has the call on many aspects of the launch.

 

[jcolbyk]

Thanks Obama!

 

[JohnDeL]

These results are surprising to nobody except those who have a vested interest in "old space". It has always astonished me how so many in Congress could claim that private enterprise would be better at everything except space.

 

[Droiddest]

We can privatize everything else, including prisons, but not spacecraft? Who are these people?

 

[isidorem]

Boy is this cost plus stuff familiar. I was involved in a project many years ago to bring the building of a series of small container ships to the US- they needed to be built there because of the Jones Act. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/j/jonesact.asp. None of the US yards we spoke to (and there were lots!) would even consider a fixed price contract, even though we were offering them a design that had had over a hundred copies built and the man hours to construct were known practically to the millisecond. Firstly they didn't want a fixed price contract because it was manifestly less lucrative for them. But the other reason? They no longer had the expertise to cost a project. Due to cost plus contracting, the skills to properly establish a real price had become redundant and withered away. I wonder if this has also happened to the established players in the rocket business?

 

[DanNeely]

Ares would have never been rated for human flight. If the SRB failed is rained down burning fragments of solid rocket fuel over many square miles. This tended to destroy parachutes used in capsule escape systems.

You just need a rocket abort system with enough range to get you clear of any possible debris. It's not easy, but it's a solvable problem.

It's not just a solvable problem; but one that was solved (we hope) to make Orion safe to fly on top of SLS with it's double helping of firebomb starter kit.

 

[nimelennar]

"No private company has ever launched humans into orbit before."

Can anybody illuminate some on that?

In the past NASA contracted private companies to build, but NASA was the owner. Now, NASA states a spec and private companies design, build and own the finished product.

I get that, I'm looking for how launch responsibilities are different operationally on launch day today vs then.

If you want an answer in any detail, you might want to ask an astronaut.

 

[peterford]

Ares would have never been rated for human flight. If the SRB failed is rained down burning fragments of solid rocket fuel over many square miles. This tended to destroy parachutes used in capsule escape systems.

You just need a rocket abort system with enough range to get you clear of any possible debris. It's not easy, but it's a solvable problem.

It's not just a solvable problem; but one that was solved (we hope) to make Orion safe to fly on top of SLS with it's double helping of firebomb starter kit.

Isn't that part of the reason orion is so heavy?

 

[DanNeely]

Ares would have never been rated for human flight. If the SRB failed is rained down burning fragments of solid rocket fuel over many square miles. This tended to destroy parachutes used in capsule escape systems.

You just need a rocket abort system with enough range to get you clear of any possible debris. It's not easy, but it's a solvable problem.

It's not just a solvable problem; but one that was solved (we hope) to make Orion safe to fly on top of SLS with it's double helping of firebomb starter kit.

Isn't that part of the reason orion is so heavy?

Orion is a big fat pig even after it jettisons its massive SRB abort motors.

 

[Cloudgazer]

Ares would have never been rated for human flight. If the SRB failed is rained down burning fragments of solid rocket fuel over many square miles. This tended to destroy parachutes used in capsule escape systems.

You just need a rocket abort system with enough range to get you clear of any possible debris. It's not easy, but it's a solvable problem.

It's not just a solvable problem; but one that was solved (we hope) to make Orion safe to fly on top of SLS with it's double helping of firebomb starter kit.

Isn't that part of the reason orion is so heavy?

Orion is a big fat pig even after it jettisons its massive SRB abort motors.

Pigs in Spaaaaaaaaaaaace?

 

[hecksagon]

"No private company has ever launched humans into orbit before."

Not trying to be critical or anything, just want to understand that statement a little more. Is it because SpaceX is in charge of the entire launch as opposed to what was done with NASA back in the 60's and 70s? The old Rockets and vehicles were built by private companies, so I'm trying specifically to understand the roles and responsibilities of the companies that built and created rockets and vehicles back then vs today.

The Article does go into some detail on how things were done back then, but it would be good to have an operational comparison between how a launch was done back then vs today in terms of roles and responsibilities.

Can anybody illuminate some on that?

The new commercial crew program is like shipping something UPS. The package is yours but UPS is responsible for getting it to it's destination. Besides checking the tracking information periodically there isn't anything you really need to do.

Old programs were like buying a box truck from UPS. You handle pickup, driving it to the destination, delivery, tracking, and everything else involved in getting the package from A to B. UPS will help you if the truck breaks down.

 

[Photon_plumber]

We can privatize everything else, including prisons, but not spacecraft? Who are these people?

The general concept, taken to the extreme, should frighten you.

 

[Photon_plumber]

Put aside the technical or historical merits of the issue. This should all be a conversation about the excesses of 'cost plus' contracting and steadily rising line item creep increasing the prices from these aerospace contractors.

I see no difference between something they were contracted to build, for profit, for some entity versus building and operating it all themselves, for profit, and charging proportionately for the 'use' services to arrive at the same numbers.

 

[mhalpern]

"No private company has ever launched humans into orbit before."

Can anybody illuminate some on that?

In the past NASA contracted private companies to build, but NASA was the owner. Now, NASA states a spec and private companies design, build and own the finished product.

I get that, I'm looking for how launch responsibilities are different operationally on launch day today vs then.

While NASA has the final say on if the rockets and spacecraft are technically ready for flight particularly with crew, after that the companies have operational control and responsibility over the system, to the point where the control interface for manual maneuvering exists purely as a backup system, it also means that they can offer the product to customers outside of NASA, which means that the commercial partners can afford to take greater internal development risk. This has been particularly beneficial to SpaceX with COTS development, as that includes the initial version of Falcon 9, early commercial resupply missions and the first commercial customers helped pay for further development of F9 to v1.1 and later F9 Full Thrust (blocks 3-5 grouped together as main differences are reuse related but they are functionally very similar). The Falcon 9 that will fly crew is very different from the one used for the first CRS missions, basically the only things that are the same are the number of engines on each stage, and the diameter of the rocket. Even the propellant has changed slightly, being kept at a lower temperature


Edit back on topic, when the rocket is on the pad the company has say over if it launch today and such.

 

[jaminb]

"No private company has ever launched humans into orbit before."

Not trying to be critical or anything, just want to understand that statement a little more. Is it because SpaceX is in charge of the entire launch as opposed to what was done with NASA back in the 60's and 70s? The old Rockets and vehicles were built by private companies, so I'm trying specifically to understand the roles and responsibilities of the companies that built and created rockets and vehicles back then vs today.

The Article does go into some detail on how things were done back then, but it would be good to have an operational comparison between how a launch was done back then vs today in terms of roles and responsibilities.

Can anybody illuminate some on that?

The new commercial crew program is like shipping something UPS. The package is yours but UPS is responsible for getting it to it's destination. Besides checking the tracking information periodically there isn't anything you really need to do.

... but if you want you can get them to paint your logo onto the UPS truck.
And also you get to completely insinuate yourself into how the truck gets parked, and also its maintenance schedule/history/record-keeping. And maybe force a redesign all the seat-belts and airbags.

 

[mhalpern]

"No private company has ever launched humans into orbit before."

Not trying to be critical or anything, just want to understand that statement a little more. Is it because SpaceX is in charge of the entire launch as opposed to what was done with NASA back in the 60's and 70s? The old Rockets and vehicles were built by private companies, so I'm trying specifically to understand the roles and responsibilities of the companies that built and created rockets and vehicles back then vs today.

The Article does go into some detail on how things were done back then, but it would be good to have an operational comparison between how a launch was done back then vs today in terms of roles and responsibilities.

Can anybody illuminate some on that?

The new commercial crew program is like shipping something UPS. The package is yours but UPS is responsible for getting it to it's destination. Besides checking the tracking information periodically there isn't anything you really need to do.

... but if you want you can get them to paint your logo onto the UPS truck.
And also you get to completely insinuate yourself into how the truck gets parked, and also its maintenance schedule/history/record-keeping. And maybe force a redesign all the seat-belts and airbags.

To an extent, but remember NASA is also paying at least in part for the development, even between companies in the private sector, if you pay to help develop a product you are essentially buying insight and authority into the development of the product.

 

[greybeardengineer]

Shame how some ex astronauts tarnished their legacy by becoming lying corporate whores.

 

[mhalpern]

Put aside the technical or historical merits of the issue. This should all be a conversation about the excesses of 'cost plus' contracting and steadily rising line item creep increasing the prices from these aerospace contractors.

I see no difference between something they were contracted to build, for profit, for some entity versus building and operating it all themselves, for profit, and charging proportionately for the 'use' services to arrive at the same numbers.

Well there's at least one difference other than cost incentives for each method, when they own and operate it themselves, they can sell to other customers, this is less of a difference in Commercial Crew, because while there are some other customers interested in it, there aren't many, but it absolutely made a difference for COTS, as that wasn't just Dragon and Cygnus but F9 as well (Antares too but any non NASA market it could have had was eaten by Falcon 9)

 

[seekified]

The stuff about the Ares I is frightening. I shouldn't be surprised that such a thing is possible, but I am.

 

[greybeardengineer]

Ares would have never been rated for human flight. If the SRB failed is rained down burning fragments of solid rocket fuel over many square miles. This tended to destroy parachutes used in capsule escape systems.

You just need a rocket abort system with enough range to get you clear of any possible debris. It's not easy, but it's a solvable problem.

It's not just a solvable problem; but one that was solved (we hope) to make Orion safe to fly on top of SLS with it's double helping of firebomb starter kit.

Firebomb? Worst case accident is more like pipe bomb.

 

[gmyx]

"No private company has ever launched humans into orbit before."

Not trying to be critical or anything, just want to understand that statement a little more. Is it because SpaceX is in charge of the entire launch as opposed to what was done with NASA back in the 60's and 70s? The old Rockets and vehicles were built by private companies, so I'm trying specifically to understand the roles and responsibilities of the companies that built and created rockets and vehicles back then vs today.

The Article does go into some detail on how things were done back then, but it would be good to have an operational comparison between how a launch was done back then vs today in terms of roles and responsibilities.

Can anybody illuminate some on that?

The new commercial crew program is like shipping something UPS. The package is yours but UPS is responsible for getting it to it's destination. Besides checking the tracking information periodically there isn't anything you really need to do.

Old programs were like buying a box truck from UPS. You handle pickup, driving it to the destination, delivery, tracking, and everything else involved in getting the package from A to B. UPS will help you if the truck breaks down.

Don't forget to chuck it into the drink when your delivery is done!

 

[fenris_uy]

I recently encountered some apparent old space supporters on Twitter and this seemed to be the last line of defence:

Is cheap > reliability and precision when the payload is irreplaceable and the cost of an expendable launch vehicle doesn’t even put a dent in the overall price whatsoever?

And

It’s not like it’s more efficient to go expendable. Or that reusability has Litterally zero benefits other than cost saving. Nah nah. Not that at all

I'm not sure the evidence agrees with them there.

For the first quote, Falcon 9 + Crew Dragon is cheap, reliable and has better precision than Atlas V + Starliner. At least from what we had seen in their tests. Crew Dragon reached it's intended orbit and target. Starliner missed both, they damaged some thruster, and almost blew the whole craft while returning to Earth. So it isn't about cheap vs reliable and precision, the cheaper option, is also the most reliable and the most precise.