May 8, 2008
Lobbying To Shrink The Gap
"With the breakup of the Soviet Union, the concern is less about national security and proving which country's worldview is correct than it is with more terrestrial worries like money and jobs. With some irony, lobbyists note in meetings on Capitol Hill that America's former communist foe would have monopolistic powers to charge what it likes to take astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS), a program led by the United States and Russia that is scheduled to be completed in 2010. ... Meanwhile, the United Space Alliance added the Breaux-Lott Leadership Group to its roster of outside lobbyists, which already included Van Scoyoc Associates."
Posted by kcowing at May 8, 2008 9:01 AM
$308M for COTS ISS crew support, or $2,000M more for Ares 1/Orion. Hmmmm ... one sounds a bit more expensive. Taxpayer, which do you choose?
We're getting Ares 1/Orion anyway, right, just a few months later than the $2,000M will buy? Getting a COTS alternative sounds a lot more worthwhile, since:
- COTS Capability D would be a new capability, not just an earlier version of a capability we're getting already.
- The commercial crew service should be able to provide redundancy in case there's a problem with Ares 1/Orion (during development or operations). Of course Ares 1/Orion can back up a COTS crew vehicle, too. What we can't have is Ares 1/Orion backing itself up. If you don't want another 3 year U.S. gap after this gap, make sure you have 2 or more U.S. options.
- The commercial crew service should be able to perform missions for private customers (tourists, Bigelow hotels, etc). That's a new market that would be useful to our space goals, and if NASA had a part in starting it, NASA would be justified in taking some credit.
- As Administrator Griffin has said, Ares 1/Orion are optimized for the lunar mission, not ISS transportation. If they are needed for that role in a significant way, the lunar mission will not have the budget it needs. Presumably without the need to meld with Ares V the COTS vehicle(s) would be optimized for crew transportation to stations like ISS and therefore cheaper for those missions, especially if shared costs with commercial customers (and perhaps government ones, too - eg, the launchers) are considered.
Let's try for that $308M that SpaceX is pushing for. Better yet, double it and get 2 competitors in the running. Do not hand it to SpaceX, though. Let the EELVs and whoever else shows up compete - including proposals that mix U.S. hardware with existing foreign hardware. After all, as much as we might hope for the best for them, SpaceX has yet to launch Falcon 1. Certainly do not be lax on safety requirements, business credibility, or other important factors, but let everyone have a shot.
Plan A for Ares 1/Orion should be the lunar mission, perhaps JWST servicing, and only minimal ISS crew support.
Posted by: Ray at May 8, 2008 9:53 PM