If anything certain emerged out of the US Senate hearing (go here for archived webcast) yesterday it was that no one really knows how long any space transportation programme will take or how expensive it will be
Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) president Gwynne Shotwell confidently told the US Senate Commerce Science and Transportation committee's science and space subcommittee hearing that "we can guarantee crew flights to the [International Space Station] for less than $50 million a seat. Three years from the time we intitiate".
However former NASA Comptroller Malcolm Peterson (who worked with the agency's administrator Dan Goldin) had said that he did not expect any US provider to be able to beat the Russian price of $150 million for three seats on Energia Soyuz TMA spacecraft and predicted a per flight cost of around $400 million. Of course SpaceX's Dragon can seat up to seven so they can both be right. SpaceX could offer seven seats, or more likely, six, at a cost of up to $300 million, Peterson's mission cost neck of the woods, while beating the $51 million Russia charges per seat
In SpaceX's defence they do have a rocket, the Falcon 9, whose technology has been tested with successful orbital flights of its smaller predecessor the Falcon 1, and the Dragon spacecraft has been designed to work with the Falcon 9 and it could fly later this year in its cargo configuration. According to SpaceX that configuration differs only from the crew transport in that it does not have seats and a control panel for the pilot. Next month could see the maiden flight of Falcon 9 with a instrumented dummy Dragon on top. Its success or failure will no doubt be used during the ongoing debate
The big question for SpaceX is, will the NASA human rating standards it says it has followed be enough to satisfy whatever rigour the agency applies to a commercial crew programme? And how far will NASA expect any commercial crew provider to go in proving how safe they are?
Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) president Gwynne Shotwell confidently told the US Senate Commerce Science and Transportation committee's science and space subcommittee hearing that "we can guarantee crew flights to the [International Space Station] for less than $50 million a seat. Three years from the time we intitiate".
However former NASA Comptroller Malcolm Peterson (who worked with the agency's administrator Dan Goldin) had said that he did not expect any US provider to be able to beat the Russian price of $150 million for three seats on Energia Soyuz TMA spacecraft and predicted a per flight cost of around $400 million. Of course SpaceX's Dragon can seat up to seven so they can both be right. SpaceX could offer seven seats, or more likely, six, at a cost of up to $300 million, Peterson's mission cost neck of the woods, while beating the $51 million Russia charges per seat
In SpaceX's defence they do have a rocket, the Falcon 9, whose technology has been tested with successful orbital flights of its smaller predecessor the Falcon 1, and the Dragon spacecraft has been designed to work with the Falcon 9 and it could fly later this year in its cargo configuration. According to SpaceX that configuration differs only from the crew transport in that it does not have seats and a control panel for the pilot. Next month could see the maiden flight of Falcon 9 with a instrumented dummy Dragon on top. Its success or failure will no doubt be used during the ongoing debate
The big question for SpaceX is, will the NASA human rating standards it says it has followed be enough to satisfy whatever rigour the agency applies to a commercial crew programme? And how far will NASA expect any commercial crew provider to go in proving how safe they are?
The Review of US human spaceflght plans report uses NASA's Gemini programme as a basis for predicting what would be needed for a commecial crew programme
However former Gemini and Apollo astronaut Thomas Stafford told the Senate hearing that Gemini can't be compared to whatever commercial crew transportation programme SpaceX or Orbital Sciences or United Launch Alliance (ULA) engage in. Stafford said Gemini was a high risk effort compared to anything that would be undertaken for commercial development
Peterson also questioned the Review of US human spaceflght plans report for comparing any crew programme with Gemini saying it was not appropriate. He also essentially said that without detailed data the $6 billion figure bandied around for the cost of a commercial crew programme was a guess. Peterson was clear that the government better just make sure there was enough money to assure success because he has grave doubts about the stomach financial investors will have for the sort of deep pockets needed
This theme of a hearing showing that key factors were actually known unknowns was reflected in the responses from the potential commercial crew transport providers about how long such an x-billion dollar programme would take
Orbital gave an answer of five years, and estimated a cost of about $3bn, ULA came up with the figure of four years and eventually Senator Nelson commented that he thought it would take five years whether it was ULA, SpaceX, Orbital or NASA's Ares I crew launch vehicle and its Orion crew exploration vehicle
Three, four, five years, $3 billion, $6 billion, do those figures include matched private financing or are they just government investment? Shuttle retires in four flights and no flights can occur until 2012 even if a decision were made today and nothing US will take to the stars for at least three years after that. Its no small decision on what to do next, as they say in the NASA astronaut corp, no pressure...
However former Gemini and Apollo astronaut Thomas Stafford told the Senate hearing that Gemini can't be compared to whatever commercial crew transportation programme SpaceX or Orbital Sciences or United Launch Alliance (ULA) engage in. Stafford said Gemini was a high risk effort compared to anything that would be undertaken for commercial development
Peterson also questioned the Review of US human spaceflght plans report for comparing any crew programme with Gemini saying it was not appropriate. He also essentially said that without detailed data the $6 billion figure bandied around for the cost of a commercial crew programme was a guess. Peterson was clear that the government better just make sure there was enough money to assure success because he has grave doubts about the stomach financial investors will have for the sort of deep pockets needed
This theme of a hearing showing that key factors were actually known unknowns was reflected in the responses from the potential commercial crew transport providers about how long such an x-billion dollar programme would take
Orbital gave an answer of five years, and estimated a cost of about $3bn, ULA came up with the figure of four years and eventually Senator Nelson commented that he thought it would take five years whether it was ULA, SpaceX, Orbital or NASA's Ares I crew launch vehicle and its Orion crew exploration vehicle
Three, four, five years, $3 billion, $6 billion, do those figures include matched private financing or are they just government investment? Shuttle retires in four flights and no flights can occur until 2012 even if a decision were made today and nothing US will take to the stars for at least three years after that. Its no small decision on what to do next, as they say in the NASA astronaut corp, no pressure...
on March 19, 2010 5:06 PM | Reply
I think they know very well. But (1) who would want to say in front of one's competitors (who then know how much you intend to bid)? And (2) I think some firms, including Orbital, have a reputation of asking for as much as they think the customer will provide. After the Augustine panel mentioned $2.5B for crew demons, an Orbital spokesperson told a reporter they'd need all of it to accomplish the demo.
I was frankly more surprised that SpaceX suggested they would stick close to their original estimate of $300M. A more typical business strategy is to ask for billions in order to cut down on the number of competitors that could be funded, when one knows one is in a good pole position.
on March 19, 2010 5:16 PM | Reply
RocketEngineer.bravehost.com sees that SpaceX must achive at lest a cargo mission to ISS befoe going forward to a crew mission. ULA has a LAS under a degree of test, allOS has to achieve is booster testing and a heat shielding made by OS
All OS will need is a manned capsule for it s booster.
ULA can also do a 7 cluster Delta and get a hLV ready in 8 years,
Obama fails at5 establishing destinations other than LEO. Nelson should focus on getting Heavy Lift and commercial both. Both
holdrenh in the WH and
garver are of little worh to
NASA
Getting missions to the Moon will take cargo capability to lunar orbit. Like a cargo lander and later a crew.
Doing this with a dozen ELLV is difficult. SO Obamma rather do technology demo,s and does ispire anyone with Climater missions. The liberal perspective has no place in spaceflight. Boldin and Nelson have to agree to a plan.
The technology is there and the hardware, lets go do something with it, Yes to VASMIR as well.
Naval Reactors can build a 200 MW power plant to power VASMIR. That would be exciting indeed.
As a former submarine reactor operator and nuuclear engineer
I know what could be built. A gas cooled Helium core to a gas turbine generator. All in a canned rotor design, nso gas leakage is very low. Thermal effiey can reach 45q %. And safer than a commercial nuclear plant
]os
on March 19, 2010 6:01 PM | Reply
Good luck getting $50 million seats after just 3 years. With everything people know about business, it's amazing they will accept an executive's claim just because the president said "commercial" flight is viable. He could have say $1 million seats in 1 year & the voters would buy it.
on March 19, 2010 6:47 PM | Reply
And if SpaceX does do it in three years will any of these people admit they were wrong and realize they don't know what they're talking about? Doubtful...
on March 19, 2010 10:17 PM | Reply
ULA has years of successful flights seems like Atlas and Delta are no-brainers for man rating.
Space-X hasn't even scratched the surface they are way off the mark for commercial man rating. Space-X needs to launch several successful Falcon9's prior to being considered for man rating.
To me it seems Buzz has the answer, reduce the frequency and stretch out the remaining shuttle flights. Until commercial proves a man rated booster, let alone a worthy shuttle replacement. A splash down cargo capsule converted to ferry astronauts to ISS is not a worthy replacement.
on March 20, 2010 3:33 AM | Reply
Actually, a lot of what we don't know about SpaceX at least, can be inferred from their public utterances and public knowledge.
The cost of SpaceX cargo under the SpaceX COTS award is $133M per flight. (see COTS contract)
The Falcon 9 exists - is on the launch pad.
The Dragon exists - is through qualification.
SpaceX will use the same Dragon and Falcon 9 for crew as will be used for cargo with just the addition of a LAS.
Assuming the costs are about the same for crew as for cargo gives a cost of $19M per person to fly on Dragon.
If just adding a LAS turns out to double the cost of crewed flight (to say $250M) then that works out at $35M per person per flight.
For the LAS SpaceX is supposedly going to use a pusher system of a number of high thrust Draco engines using the fuel that would other wise be used for manouvering.
After all if you're aborting you don't need on orbit manouvering fuel.
Now SpaceX has already developed a number of engines in house. Kestrel, Merlin, Merlin 1e and Draco. Developing an abort engine shouldn't be a major problem.
So it looks as though SpaceX ought to be able to develop and field a crew capsule in a timely manner. And cost wise it seems, even allowing for considerable cost over runs (unlikely), that it will turn out to be a cost effective deal for NASA.
on March 20, 2010 5:55 AM | Reply
Can SpaceX do crew in 3 years and for how much?
Falcon 9 exists & is on the pad.
Dragon exists is through qualification. First flight article was used for loading demo with ISS astronauts in Jan (see photos SpaceX site).
Cost.
SpaceX contract for COTS cargo is $133M per flight.
Since the Dragon and Falcon 9 is the same for cargp and crew with the addition of a LAS.
The likely cost of crew would be similar, i.e. $19M a seat.
But if cost of crew turns out to be more, say twice the cost of cargo i.e. around $250M that's still only $35M a seat, way cheaper than Soyuz, and a bargain for NASA.
SpaceX LAS.
The word is they are going to use a pusher arrangement rather than a tractor type LAS.
That means adding extra high thrust Draco style engines to the Dragon that will burn the manouvering fuel on the theory that if you abort you don't need manouvering propellant.
SpaceX has developed several engines in house. Kestrel, Merlin, Merlin 1e and Draco. Developing a new abort engine is not something that is beyond them.
Given all this I think SpaceX is very well placed to deliver crew in minimum time and at a great price.
on March 22, 2010 12:58 AM | Reply
--
Launch the Soyuz from KSC http://bit.ly/9lNqL1
--