Obama Space Plan Under Continuous Assault

160 million to ATK...

put in perspective..that is I think 3 Falcon9's that could have well actually launched something into orbit...

Robert G. Oler

Actually, that is 3 rockets that would put a boiler plate into orbit or a hunk of metal. A first stage that they didn't get back as planned, hasn't gone through the rigor of NASA qualification, 50 year old technology and not thermally protected well. An upper stage that has problems with rotation after separation, didn't hit it's orbit, shut down early.

All this from a company that is funded who is cash poor, arrogant, thinks Armstong is only a pilot and doesn't realize he actually has an education. And then the company who claims they are privately funded when in fact they receive a substantial donation from you and I.

Oh that's right... the 50 million is first article hardware cost only. Not the money that it actually took to design and test, lose 3 Falcon 1's which they got close to ZERO data, sit on the pad for months, do reconstructive TPS processing on the fly (which didn't work anyways since it burned up during reentry).

For the first somewhat successful flight. It sure was expensive wasn't it... NOT the 50 million that they said it actually cost. Oler, think just a little!

ATK rocket motors have helped launch thousands of tons of payload to LEO. I await with bated breath for Falcon to catch up. Do all you guys have the inside track on the IPO? I mean what is up with the band wagon. I mean its mostly sizzle and one very small steak!

The dogs bark but the caravan moves on...

Adam K, you are so angry you aren't thinking straight.

The money for ATK is a political compromise to save 2000 jobs for a few months. Ironically they will now get laid off just before Christmas, which may be even worse.

Your comparison of Falcon 9 to a ground SRM test is ridiculous. If you weren't so hateful you wouldn't have even typed it up.

Are you negatively comparing putting a boilerplate into orbit against Ares-IX failing to put a boilerplate in orbit for twice the entire development cost?

"hasn't gone through the rigor of NASA qualification"

Please remind us of what rockets have gone through that rigor.

Robert, your math makes me laugh. From just public data we know SpaceX has about 900 employees. Assuming they pay them about 50K each that amounts to 45 million per year. It took them 3+ years to get here. So, while I applaud SpaceX for changing the paradigm I do not believe their numbers of 50 million per launch. It just does not add up.

Also I like the headline Keith "Obama Space Plan...". It was hilarious. Were you trying to be sarcastic with the word "plan" or did I misunderstand?

"Actually, that is 3 rockets that would put a boiler plate into orbit or a hunk of metal."
That statement would work better if it wasn't for the fact that the Falcon 9 is a good ways ahead of the Ares I which has yet to put a boiler plate into orbit.

"didn't hit it's orbit,"
Last I checked the Falcon 9 payload was placed within 1 percent of its intended orbit.

"And then the company who claims they are privately funded when in fact they receive a substantial donation from you and I."
The main issue though is that all signs point to the Falcon 9 being significantly cheaper than the Ares I even if you look at only the per launch cost.

"Oh that's right... the 50 million is first article hardware cost only. Not the money that it actually took to design and test,"
That criticism works much better with the Ares I and its estimated $40 billion development cost.

"Actually, that is 3 rockets that would put a boiler plate into orbit or a hunk of metal."

or more correctly the Falcon 9 as is can toss 25000 or so lbs into LEO so for three of them that would be roughly 75000 lbs that could be "orbited" in some form or fashion for the cost of the ATK test.

But to a few other points you made.

First I find people musing pejoratively about the age of one piece of the technology on Falcon...and yet those who support Ares/Jupiter or any SDV entertaining. The entire shuttle system (from "consoles to rocket technology) is easily 40 years old..there is nothing cutting edge about any of the Ares/Jupiter/SDV concepts. The technology that matters in Falcon, the part that reduces the number of people sitting console for a launch, or allows a relight after a few minutes, or puts the entire ground crew at probably less then the folks who sit console at KSC fora shuttle launch...is very modern.

But worse...technology is not a "age" alone concept. The question is 1) does the technology do the job coupled with 2) is it affordable. The USAF has flown the B-52 for about half a century, it still does the mission. The Ares/Jupiter/SDV combinations are neither new technology nor really affordable.

Second NASA qualification. Who cares? This is the same NASA qualifications that said Columbia was ready to reenter and Challenger ready to launch. It is the same qualification that has made Ares unaffordable or spent 1/2 billion dollars on a suborbital test of something that was not even close to an operational launch vehicle. It is the same qualification system that one person here who is supposedly "on the inside" says allows Node 3 software to be "less".

But most important (and last) while Musk has had his failures, it is hard to argue that SpaceX is not running a cost effective program. Since Ares/Orion combination has consumed 10 billion dollars and probably needs another 30 to even being close to going to orbit.

Had we bought three falcon 9's and flown some payload on them. or two Falcon 9's and paid for the payload we would be farther ahead then a test of a rocket that is never going to be built using technology that is neither new nor affordable.

Robert G. Oler

AdamK,
gone through the rigor of NASA qualification

These are the same rigorous qualification process for launch vehicles and spacecraft that have killed
18 NASA astronauts, a 4.1% MORTALITY rate (Challenger, Columbia, Apollo 1). I'm not counting fatalities during training. Plus there were 3 near-fatalities on Apollo 13.

And if we want to talk about launch failures . . . If you count the period Jan 1957 - Dec 1965 you have 78 Launch vehicle failures by NASA/NACA/USAF/US Army.

1964 September 1 - Launch Vehicle: Titan. Transtage pressurization failure caused premature shutdown.
1964 October 8 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Failure
1964 November 5 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Launch fairing failure
1964 March 24 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Failure
1964 March 19 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Insufficient third stage thrust.
1964 June 30 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Centaur hydraulics failure.
1964 June 25 - Launch Vehicle: Scout. Second stage exploded.
1964 August 28 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Agena-B cut off too early. Partial Failure.
1964 April 21 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Failure
1963 September 27 - Launch Vehicle: Scout. Failure.
1963 November 9 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Failure
1963 March 18 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Failure
1963 June 12 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Failure
1963 February 28 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Failure
1963 April 5 - Launch Vehicle: Scout. Failure.
1963 April 26 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Attitude sensors were misaligned. No orbit.
1963 April 26 - Launch Vehicle: Scout. Failure.
1962 May 24 - Launch Vehicle: Scout. Failure.
1962 May 10 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Able-Star failed to ignite.
1962 July 22 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Destroyed by range safety.
1962 January 26 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Agena B second stage guidance system failure
1962 January 24 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Failure
1962 January 13 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Failure
1962 February 21 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Partial failure. Agena failed to restart to circularize orbit.
1962 December 17 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Failure
1962 April 26 - Launch Vehicle: Scout. Failure.
1961 September 9 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Exploded on launch pad.
1961 October 23 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Failure
1961 November 22 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Failure.
1961 November 18 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Agena B Second Stage failed to restart.
1961 November 1 - Launch Vehicle: Scout. Failure
1961 May 24 - Launch Vehicle: Jupiter. Second Stage failed to ignite.
1961 March 30 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Failure
1961 June 8 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Failure
1961 June 30 - Launch Vehicle: Scout. Third stage did not ignite, and the vehicle was destroyed.
1961 July 21 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Failure
1961 February 25 - Launch Vehicle: Jupiter. Third Stage failed to ignite.
1961 August 4 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Failure
1961 August 25 - Launch Vehicle: Scout. Partial Failure.
1961 August 23 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Agena B second stage failure.
1961 April 25 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Destroyed by range safety.
1960 September 25 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Second stage exploded.
1960 October 26 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Failure
1960 October 11 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Second stage failure.
1960 November 30 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Failure
1960 May 13 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Second stage attitude control failure.
1960 March 23 - Launch Vehicle: Jupiter. Upper stage failed to ignite. Third stage failed to ignite due to loss of radio contact.
1960 June 29 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Failure
1960 February 4 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Failure
1960 February 26 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Second stage failed to separate.
1960 February 19 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Failure
1960 February 15 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Vehicle exploded in static firing.
1960 December 4 - Launch Vehicle: Scout. Second stage malfunction.
1960 December 15 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Atlas exploded 70 seconds after liftoff.
1960 August 18 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Exploded 2.5 minutes after launch.
1959 September 24 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Vehicle exploded on pad.
1959 September 17 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Third stage failed.
1959 November 26 - Launch Vehicle: Atlas. Payload shroud failed after 45 sec, broke away prematurely.
1959 June 3 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. No telemetry after Agena ignition.
1959 June 25 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Insufficient stage 2 velocity.
1959 June 22 - Launch Vehicle: Vanguard. Stage 2 propulsion malfunction.
1959 July 16 - Launch Vehicle: Jupiter. Control lost after 5.5 sec. Destroyed by range safety.
1959 January 21 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Launch vehicle failure.
1959 August 15 - Launch Vehicle: Jupiter. First stage shut down too early; no attitude control for upper stages.
1959 April 14 - Launch Vehicle: Vanguard. Stage 2 damaged at separation.
1958 September 26 - Launch Vehicle: Vanguard. Insufficient 2nd stage thrust - unknown cause.
1958 October 23 - Launch Vehicle: Redstone. Upper stages separated prior to burnout. Structural failure after 149 sec due to vibration disturbances generated by the spinning payload.
1958 October 11 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Third stage produced insufficient thrust. Partial Failure.
1958 November 8 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Third stage ignition unsuccessful.
1958 May 28 - Launch Vehicle: Vanguard. Improper third stage trajectory - unknown cause.
1958 March 5 - Launch Vehicle: Redstone. Fourth Stage failed to ignite.
1958 June 26 - Launch Vehicle: Vanguard. Premature second stage cutoff. Unknown cause.
1958 February 5 - Launch Vehicle: Vanguard. Control system malfunction - control lost after 57 sec.
1958 December 6 - Launch Vehicle: Jupiter. First Stage shut down too early. Partial Failure.
1958 August 24 - Launch Vehicle: Redstone. First Stage collided with upper stages. Second Stage ignited in wrong direction.
1958 August 17 - Launch Vehicle: Delta. Thor exploded after 77 sec.
1958 April 29 - Launch Vehicle: Vanguard. Third Stage failed to ignite.
1957 December 6 - Launch Vehicle: Vanguard. Vehicle lost thrust and exploded after 2 seconds.

I'm amused. Falcon 9 had a successful launch, no question. And for all anyone here knows, did so cheaply. Actual numbers my differ, but I think all can agree it is cheaper than a NASA rocket. That said, I find it amusing that those that have probably never worked for NASA, much less have seen or built an actual rocket directly compare Falcon 9 with Ares I. That would be like comparing a Cessna to an F-22, or a Kia to a Mercedes. Now I'm not putting the Falcon down. I'm just saying that the argument that a rocket is a rocket is just as silly as saying a Cessna and the F-22 are both planes or a Kia and a Mercedes are both cars and there is no difference. Falcon was designed from the ground up to be a cheap, reliable launcher with minimal to no government involvement. Ares was designed to (by US government standards) be affordable, but also be 99.996% reliable, launch to not only the ISS, but the Moon and beyond, and do so while carrying the massive NASA workforce along. This doesn't come cheaply. The requirements, both as rockets and as business cases are completely different. A different comparison is naive at best. Also, if Space X had to deal with the level of NASA involvement as the current SSP and Ares contractors do, and they eventually will for HSF, expect even the great Space X bargin prices to soar.

So you are comparing NASA 45 years ago to Space X today. I admire your dedicate in putting the list together, but doesn't the argument seems just a little silly? I mean, under that logic we could have ended WWI with just one ICBM. How silly they were back in 1914. Or why didn't Roosevelt just get a Polio vaccination?

Space X and all other commercial companies are successful because they built on top of what NASA has done in the past or the lessons they have learned. Elon just didn't up and invent the Merlin engine. His team took the best from all designs and experience and built on it.

Bust on NASA all you want, but without NASA and the test successes and failures, there would be no Space X.

Space-X has demonstrated that they can build a rocket more cost-effectively than the Constellation team. Period. Which gives us hope that they can build better and more capable vehicles and systems cost-effectively in the future.

Constellation, including Ares I, on the other hand is a pure dog because they wasted billions of dollars of taxpayer money and want to keep on with the same program. I say no. I say Hell No! They had their chance and they failed.

There's no doubt they could eventually build and launch an Ares I type vehicle after spending many more billions of dollars and after some years. That's not the argument as far as I know. The argument is whether we, as stewards of the taxpayers' money, should allow them to do so. I am firmly against it. It's a boondoggle. A white elephant. A piece of crap of a program.

As for the Ares I system specifically; If the builders want to finish that system and put it on the open commercial market that would be fine with me. But I don't want another dime of taxpayer money spent on it's development.

If the builders feel they have a viable product then they should market it.

99.996% reliable. wow. One accident in 25,000 launches. I want some of what you're smoking.

NASA standards? As in STS? The launch system with two different engine types in an asymmetrical configuration and no launch escape system? Right. Man-rated my ***.

And what will Ares-1 do if there's (for example) a hydraulic pressure loss after the engine is lit? You can't abort on the pad, and there's no engine redundancy. So you're down to the crew escape system for almost every fault. Brilliant.

Oh - and put together by an organization that took 10 Billion dollars and 4 years to come up with the pathetic Ares-1X from the starting point of having the working STS SRB system... If the organization is this inept, why would you think that the vehicle will be any good?

And yeah, of course without NASA there would be no SpaceX. But right now, without SpaceX, we will not move forward.

"easily 40 years old..there is nothing cutting edge about any of the Ares/Jupiter/SDV concepts"
Okay, so you believe J-2X and RS-68 are 40yr old technology. Seriously? Even today's SSME is not your daddy's SSME. These engines look like the old engines, but many cutting edge features are sprinkled throughout. And, do you believe the thrust oscillation mitigation designs are straight out of vonBraun's old notebook? Are you becoming part of the "they're building a new saturn" crowd? Maybe you really do have some detailed knowledge of these vehicles, but are letting your emotions drive your responses.

"That would be like comparing a Cessna to an F-22, or a Kia to a Mercedes"

that would not be the comparison I would make. It would be like comparing a Cessna 172 with a Cirrus or say an F-14 with the F-22. It is unfair to compare an airplane that must function in battle with one that does not. Nor is the destination of a payload a valid in my view delimiter for a rocket. The "rocket" function doesnt really care for destination. In other words other then "thrust" the rocket doesnt care if the vehicle goes LEO or Pluto.

the F-14/22 comparison seems valid to me. Both were complex airplanes (the 22 doesnt have to work on the "boat"), both had to survive in battle....both stretched the state of the then art equal amounts..and yet the F-14 went from plans to IOC in 2 years and the F-22 took far longer.

Understanding the reason that acquisition among a modern military hardware has gone "decades" ....makes one understand the prime difference in the Falcon and Ares. part of it you mention:

"and do so while carrying the massive NASA workforce along"

and this is the fault of NASA. NASA has mismanaged acquisition of vehicles for over 30 years allowing the complexity of them to grow to levels that are even to high for the funding...and I would argue that reliability has suffered in the process. (the same can probably be argued for the F-14/F22 mix).

NASA has mismanaged Ares. Part of that is claiming reliability numbers that are simply fiction. There is no way a vehicle which is still largely on CAD can state with any certainty what its reliability would be. NASA fell into that trap with the shuttle and it has stayed there ever since.

Part of the "joy" of Falcon is that they are trying (I dont know if they have been successful...only time will tell) to achieve reliability with simplicity. Fifty years after rocket lift started in this country (with people) we should be able to "simplify" things...not make them more complex.

Finally, there should be no real difference in the reliability of a "rocket" that is tossing up multi hundreds of millions dollar payloads and "people". The "people" need a LAS (just as a combat plane needs a "seat")...but other then that the reliability for one should do for the other.

There really is no excuse for the Ares program costing as much as it does. It shows an agency that has lost not only its technical chops, but mostly its managerial ones.

Robert G. Oler

@ Robert Oler:
"The technology that matters in Falcon, the part that reduces the number of people sitting console for a launch, or allows a relight after a few minutes, or puts the entire ground crew at probably less then the folks who sit console at KSC fora shuttle launch...is very modern."

So...what is this technology that you refer to? I mean...*specifically*. Or is it a secret that only a few know? I read many posts here (like yours) that refer to these marvelous SpaceX advances, but you never cite exactly what they are. Could you enlighten us on a couple? And I don't mean in a referential way, I mean an explanation that clearly justifies your assertions of superiority.
As a trivial example, you said SpaceX "reduces the number of people sitting console for launch." How many and what positions did they reduce? Would these same ones be eliminated if it wasn't a test launch?
I wonder because the numbers in this example don't seem to add up. KSC doesn't have that many people sitting in the firing room to begin with, plus it's not like eliminating a couple dozen console jockeys is going to save millions of dollars; these are engineers, not lawyers!

If you could come up with $50 million, you could buy a Falcon 9 launch, i.e. that is the cost. The fact that they've spent several hundred million dollars to develop and make this product available has nothing to do with the cost per launch. They're charging $50 million. That is the cost to you, not them, get it? They're selling product. Unlike NASA, where you have to pay the whole cost regardless of how many times you launch. A total cost of $160 billion for 134 Shuttle launches means it cost $1.2 billion per launch.

SpaceX has contracts for more than 2 dozen launches over the next 5 years, that's about a billion dollars worth of business. They will recover their development costs even at $50 million per launch. All they have to do is perform, but only history will tell that tale. The 3 failures they had were test flights, certainly not uncommon for a new launcher family. Soyuz, Delta, Atlas, and Ariane all had their share of failures during their development. Given the Falcon I test experience, I would not be surprised to see Falcon 9 fly 20 or more times before its first failure. If they can get through the next 5 years on the manifest without a failure, Falcon 9 would be in the same reliability class as any other launcher. Let's see how they do over the next 5 to 7 years.

I wouldn't call it "Obama's Space Plan", but "Obama's Power Point."

Anyway, you can find another opinion about the Falcon 9 flight at http://www.rv-103.com/?p=665

SpaceX has yet to prove they can consistently put payloads into orbit and haven't even sent anything to the ISS yet. But, we want to move them to the head of the line and trust them with our Astronaut's lives? They aren't ready.

Just because a little leaguer gets lucky and hits the ball out of the infield does not qualify him to play in the majors.

Valid points. I think we both agree that is Ares just an expensive rocket and there are cheaper, more efficient ways to do the ISS mission.

Regarding Costs:

Elon can do everything in house at SPACE X to keep his costs down.

Remember, every outside organizational interface a project has to deal with creates inefficiencies. Elon knows this.

NASA can not develop projects this way. Money from the tax payer must come into NASA, then be 'shared' with industry; this creates organizational complexities inside the project/mission and drives up costs.

The ISS costs more to operate and build and test and etc. because it is 'international'. All those international interfaces take time to work through and are costly.

Also, the history of technological innovation shows that those company's on the outside of the technology monopoly are the ones that advance breakthroughs...not those that hold the monopoly on the technology. We are seeing that play itself out with Space X and NASA.

NASA has great people working for it, but they are not allowed to play by some of the same rules that Space X can play by.

"NASA standards? As in STS? The launch system with two different engine types in an asymmetrical configuration and no launch escape system? Right. Man-rated my ***."

Are you suggesting Falcon 9 is superior to Shuttle? Now you're the one smoking.

"And what will Ares-1 do if there's (for example) a hydraulic pressure loss after the engine is lit?"

Double and triple redundant systems are typical on man rated systems. That's part of the man-rated standard and part of the reason HSF is expensive. But you already knew that right? Otherwise you wouldn't have asked such a naive question.

"You can't abort on the pad, and there's no engine redundancy."

Perhaps you missed this. A successful test of the Ares I LAS in the event of an on pad abort.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1005/06padabort1/

As for engine redundancy, that is why all the "rigorous" NASA testing. The solid motor is just as you said, light and go, not much redundancy needed and hence its use. Like a bullet, fire it and it goes off reliably every time. In the case of the J-2X, it has Apollo heritage for reliability hence its use (and all the additional testing as well). Falcon 9 is in the same boat for upper stage. Just one engine too. If it doesn't work, you've lost the payload.

I do so like our little educational sessions Blogger.

Add the $4.5 billion NASA says it will cost to develop a "stripped-down' Orion capsule with no launch costs-how many operational Dragon/Falcon 9 vehicles would that buy?

Latest: WSJ.com - U.S.-Obama Seeks Global Cooperation on Outer Space http://on.wsj.com/bw6OA1

Now we understand why Bolden is going to Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, etc. - outsourcing? Spreading the cost?
Still no changes in ITAR regulations? Shouldn't the regs be worked first, prior to cutting deals with other countries? Or do the international agreements being put in give license to sensitive technologies and our national security? Just curious? How does all this work?

STS's track record speaks for itself. With all triple redundant theory, it failed catastrophically twice, and almost-failed many other times, saved by circumstances rather than by redundancy.

STS regularly flies with failed components, depending on management's mood of the day, or it would never fly anyway. Redundancy is not a cure for complexity.

And define "superior to". Able to deliver people and cargo to orbit? F9 will be far superior to STS, as are today's EELVs. It will be cheaper, more flexible, and more reliable.

One day I'd like to see an elegant lifting reentry vehicle that can land at an airport, but it needs to fit on top of a rocket. The whole concept of integrating the launcher with the vehicle was ridiculous to begin with, leading to am unsafe 90 ton vehicle that carries 20 tons of payload. Other than in complexity, STS is not superior to anything, and I personally wince every time I see it fly. A superb demonstration of how brute-force engineering can salvage bad top-level design, but it can't overcome its inherent shortcomings.

spacedout, I think, if anything, you're lowballing your numbers. Remember that SpaceX is in Hawthorne, CA. Thanks to cost of living out there, the going rate for a engineer out there is substantially more than 50k (my job hunting a couple of years ago out there confirms this). Throw in benefits and training costs, too (an engineer costs a company more than just the base salary). Also, I'd like to know how much their facilities are running them too...again, we're talking SoCal here, not exactly the cheapest place to base a business. Ultimately though, this reinforces the point you were trying to make.

The Rat makes some good points, too. Constellation carries additional exploration requirements that SpaceX doesn't have to worry about - of course Constellation is overdesigned for the ISS mission. Ultimately, what I'd like to see is commercial get to the point where they can pick up the ISS mission, and clear all the ISS requirements out of Constellation and focus it as a pure exploration architecture.

Here is a measure of the cost savings.

Assume that SpaceX has 1000 total employees. Now go add up how many people are going to get laid off if Constellation ends...somewhere in there is a dividing line between Ares and Orion (and SpaceX is both Falcon and Dragon).

I've heard a number of 5000 people going overboard if Constellation croaks...

Why is it taking five times the number of people to build Ares 1/Orion as it is to build Falcon9/Dragon?

there is the money

Robert G. Oler

"You can't abort on the pad, and there's no engine redundancy."

Perhaps you missed this. A successful test of the Ares I LAS in the event of an on pad abort.

Fire off the LAS every time there's a major pad abort? You know there's a reason why NASA waits until the VERY last moment to file the twin SRBs on Shuttle.

Liquids give you a chance to shut everything down w/o having to fire off the LAS every time.

I think we both agree STS is probably the most complicated way to deliver cargo to space and agree that added complexity to make up for poor overall design is never the best fix. Its amazing what cold war funding and the threat of an "Evil" foe will drive country and engineers to come up with.

The triple whammy of reduced budgets, lack of public interest, and the virgining of a significantly cheaper commercial alternative have overtaken the POR. I think NASA can change and be a better steward of taxpayer funds, but change comes slow. The proposed change may be overdue, but we'll just have to find out how quickly change can really be tolerated in the halls of Congress.

> Robert, your math makes me laugh. From just public data we know SpaceX has about 900 employees. Assuming they pay them about 50K each that amounts to 45 million per year. It took them 3+ years to get here. So, while I applaud SpaceX for changing the paradigm I do not believe their numbers of 50 million per launch. It just does not add up.

By that calculation, SpaceX then only has to launch one rocket at year at a price of $50M to make a profit.

Does political wrangling or party bickering help us get the hell outta LEO . Ive said it before , I don't give $%# who builds it . I ,just like everyone else is sick of being stuck in LEO for the last 40 years. Listen if the Argument is that Space X can build a cheaper safer rocket, Let them prove it with a few more launches and if they can NASA should be all in. Ares was flawed and failed over budget under funded and extending the shuttle with keep us stuck in LEO plain and simple, I'm not for that.If they(space x) can build it and " man rate " ( whatever that means) it and if a version that can be used for BEO is in the mix. I say no problem.

Damn the Gravity!

neuronexmachina, your math also does not add up. The totally unknown development costs for Falcon 9 (which are probably > 1 billion) need to be recouped or their is no commercial case. So how many Falcon 9s do you need to do this assuming 50 mil per launch? Do the math. Assuming all of the 50 mil per launch is profit, which is not the case, then it would take about 20 Falcon 9 launches to recoup the initial investment.

Don't get me wrong. I think SpaceX did something great. But Elon's numbers for launch costs are bogus. And it does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

@RobertOler:

Unfortunately, your reply is exactly what I expected. Nothing definite, nothing substantial, and loads of speculation.

"Assume that SpaceX has 1000 total employees..."
*Assume*? Right off the bat, let's agree on the fact that neither of us have a clue how many people SpaceX employs or has employed. As you know, Elon is quite secretive; he could have twice as many or half as many.

"Now go add up how many people are going to get laid off if Constellation ends...ve heard a number of 5000 people..."
I've heard lots of numbers too, and again, they vary quite a bit. For what it's worth, I'm on the inside and *I* don't know what the actual number is, so I'm pretty darn sure you don't know.

My point is; by definition, from your 2nd sentence forward your example is erroneous. You are basing a comparison on data that is not known, and highly speculative at that. And I'm not even getting to the technical arguments inherent with you comparing 2 different vehicles, with different capabilities/requirements and apparently arguing that the development programs should cost the same and employ similar numbers of people...

I take it your profession is not in engineering or accounting? Let me guess: science? marketing?

@"crazy" eddie:

"And define "superior to". Able to deliver people and cargo to orbit? F9 will be far superior to STS, as are today's EELVs. It will be cheaper, more flexible, and more reliable."

Interesting. Suddenly Falcon can simultaneously deliver 7 people to orbit and 50,000+ lbs of cargo! Amazing the things I lean on this blog! And what EELV is it that can do that?....I must have missed the news release...
And I guess this (these?) EELV(s) can also deliver large components to the ISS and support the astronauts on EVAs while they install and repair things? Cool! No wonder you guys are ragging NASA so much!

/sarcasm

@spaceout:
"Don't get me wrong. I think SpaceX did something great. But Elon's numbers for launch costs are bogus. And it does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out."

Exactly. And so far, we're only bickering over *cargo* flight costs. When SpaceX learns what it takes to develop and field manned systems, their business case will completely fall apart... Since we'll have stupidly thrown away any government capability, we'll have no alternative other than to bail them out (or start over with something else).
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out either.
It makes one wonder how much more f***** this "plan" could be.

"The totally unknown development costs for Falcon 9 ... Do the math"

GIGO?