Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?

From: Eric Chomko (echomko_at__at_polaris.umuc.edu)
Date: 03/24/05 

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 21:35:35 +0000 (UTC)

Jeff Findley (jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" <echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote in message
: news:d1v1g5$15bd$1@news.ums.edu...
: > Jeff Findley (jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com) wrote:
: > : Ignoring the prizes for a moment, what I want is akin to the USPS paying
: > : airliners to deliver mail. The current situation is akin to having the
: USPS
: > : spec, buy, and operate its own airliners in order to deliver mail.
: >
: > Suppose USPS simply went away, what incentive is their for Company X to
: > spec, buy and operate the plane? In hopes that USPS will simply come along
: > in the future?!

: There would still be UPS, FedEx, DHL, and etc, all using the same standard
: cargo containers flying on the same types of cargo aircraft. In addition to
: these "big players", many other companies ship items by air.

Right and at one time Bell had a monopoly on the telephone. You used to be
forced to buy their phone service and rent their equipment. The government
forced the modular design and the phone equipment monopoly soon went away.

: Many (most?) cargo aircraft are simply passenger airliners with the seats
: and overhead bins removed (and other relatively minor modifications). The
: way the plane operates and flies isn't changed, so these cargo aircraft
: aren't really unique at all. They are a commodity item you can buy new or
: used.

And many commercial customers exist for it not just the USPS.

: The point is that these cargo companies don't go to Boeing and have them
: design a new aircraft type for them. They pick and choose from what Boeing
: has to offer. Many times, they simply buy used passenger aircraft and rip
: out the seats (among other minor modifications). Boeing, in turn, listens
: to *all* of its customers when it is designing new aircraft types.

: This isn't how NASA obtained the space shuttle. NASA had nearly complete
: control over the design and contiues to have nearly complete control over
: its operation.

That is because NO ONE knows best how to build a commercial spacecraft due
to the fact that there is no real commercial need for them like airplanes.

: > : NASA needs to get out of running its own launch vehicle business and buy
: > : space on launch vehicles based on who is the lowest bidder. Let the
: private
: > : companies decide how to make their vehicles cheaper in order to keep
: getting
: > : business from NASA.
: >
: > I believe that that is what is going on with unmanned launches to some
: > degree. I mean no one is complaining that the MER mission launch vehicle
: > was too expensive, etc.

: Too some degree. Notice that Boeing has just now returned the Delta IV to
: the commercial market under pressure from the US Air force. It's possible
: that without such pressure, Boeing would have been content at keeping Delta
: IV alive solely on the US taxpayer's dime. And the shuttle is still
: operated by NASA, despite the fact that many of the paychecks say USA on
: them. NASA has, in the past, gotten contractor employees fired. You
: wouldn't think they'd have that kind of control over a private company's
: employees, but they do.

I know that they do. And they can get employees that they like hired as
well. Again, NASA being the only large customer of the US space industry
isn't NASA fault as you imply. It is simply where we are in the industry.
Remvong them isn't necessarily going to make the industry better. In
fact, it may kill what we have of it now.

: > : The current "cost plus" style of contracts provides a negative incentive
: to
: > : lower launch costs. That is to say that the contractor is better served
: by
: > : making sure there is always a "plus" to the initial "cost" that won them
: the
: > : contract.
: >
: > But the "+" also means that the company has garnered favor for future
: > work.

: You got it. That's why Boeing and Lockheed Martin remain the only two big
: players in the US ELV market. That's why they're pushing for evolutions of
: their ELV's for future NASA missions. They have low development "cost" at
: the beginning, but high "plus" value on every launch.

It seems like your gripe with NASA could easily be with USA, yet you seem
to not mention that part.

: > : > : Because we don't want NASA to be in competition with the private
: > : companies
: > : > : we're trying to stimulate.
: > : >
: > : > Squelching competition, regardless of where it comes from, is the
: > : > antithesis of industry. Somewhere your plan is lacking substance and
: puts
: > : > a scapegoat unto the government for a fledgling industry that is
: lacking
: > : > direction.
: >
: > : You really don't want to be in direct competition with the US
: government.
: >
: > And the government shouldn't be in the profit making business as are
: > corporations.

: True, which would theoretically mean that you'd never be able to turn a
: profit if your business was in competition with the government. Not is the
: government agency prohibited from making a profit, but who's to stop the
: government from heavily subsidizing their agency, making it impossible for a
: private corporation to compete?

Well another govt. agency should oversee that to make sure it doesn't
happen.

: Note that is exactly what the US government was trying to do with the
: shuttle. It was to be *the* US launch vehicle, so commercial launches on it
: *were* heavily subsidized by the US government. It's a bit hard to compete
: with the US government in that situation.

NASA isn't and shouldn't be in the commmercial launch business, it should
be more for science and the like.

: > : That makes it very hard to convince investors that you have a good
: business
: > : plan.
: >
: > Make CATS for real and NASA and other govt. agencies will use it.

: Without investors, CATS will never happen. Without a gaurentee that the US
: government will stay out of the marketplace, investors won't want to bet
: their money against the US government.

You make it sound like the US Govt. wouldn't take advantage of CATS. I
disagree.

: CATS won't come cheaply, especially if the US government doesn't openly
: support it. Their current policies simply don't support CATS. As we both
: seem to agree, the US government seems content to keep giving huge cost plus
: contracts to the usual suspects (Boeing and Lockheed Martin).

Well force them to use 8-A firms and you might get them to follow. It
works in other areas in NASA.

: You keep saying CATS will somehow break this cycle, but CATS won't come for
: free, so where do you suppose the money will come from?

It will have to come from govt. customers despite the barrier you see. It
is a chicken and egg problem and the only big customer IS the govt. So,
the govt. will have to actually pay for it and some sort of breakthrough
will have to be made. Once done, and the cat is out of the bag (pun!),
CATS will be the norm, despite what you perceive as a conspiracy.
I don't think that a commercial space industry will bootstrap itself into
existence in any likely timeframe before the aforementioned breakthrough.
Find the breakthrough!

: > : I don't necessarily feel that the industry would have been better off
: today
: > : if NASA had not existed at all. But NASA has done great damage to the
: > : industry. In the 70's, everyone pinned their hopes on the shuttle as
: being
: > : the Space Transportation System (i.e. the STS prefix used for mission
: > : numebring). It was to launch *all* NASA, military, and commercial
: > : satellites for the US. When the shuttle failed to live up to its
: promises,
: > : commercial launches were banned and the military pulled out of the
: program
: > : and started launching Titain IV's (which weren't cheap, even compared to
: the
: > : shuttle).
: >
: > : The launch industry in the US remains today an industry that is
: dominated by
: > : government contractors who just happen to sell a few private launches on
: > : their goverenment sponsored ELV's. This is arguably a direct
: consequence of
: > : the US government trying to provide all US launch services with the
: shuttle.
: >
: > Who launched IntelSat and other commercial sattelites?

: http://samadhi.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/Programs/intelsat.html

: Looks like they started off using Delta D and then used various other
: Delta's, then switched to Atlas Centaur. Following that, they used
: Ariane's and Titans in addition to the Atlas Centaur. Please note that all
: of these launch vehicles were developed with heavy government subsidies and
: most (the US models) were directly derived from military missiles and/or
: launch vehicles.

So even the soc-called commercial satellites need govt. funding.

: > : If NASA were banned from developing its own "NASA specific" launch
: vehicles
: > : in the future, it would go a long way to insuring investors that NASA
: won't
: > : try to create STS-II (which is what some at NASA were pushing when it
: became
: > : clear that the first STS wouldn't capture the entire launch market in
: the
: > : US).
: >
: > 2nd generation shuttle or STS-II doesn't exist yet. No one can agree on
: > what to make. This is your chance. Make it! Make it cheap and how can NASA
: > then compete? They will be forced to buy. The problem there is that there
: > isn't enough venture capital to make STS-II without a customer as is your
: > want. So you are stuck with nothing. Eventually something will give, but
: > until it does govt. agencies like NASA are the only game in town. The
: > reality of the situation is that SS1 is a long way away from becoming the
: > next shuttle.

: Let's see you convince investors that the US government can be forced into
: buying your luanch vehicle, when they've got a vested interest in keeping
: jobs at KSC and Vandenburg AFB.

Depends on where I'm located. I huess if I answered an RFP and bid and
wone the contract then I'd actually be in rather than outside looking in.

: > : > If NASA wasn't going into
: > : > space then no one would be going into space in the US. The commercial
: > : > space industry is where it is because THAT is where it is, not because
: > : > something is in the way preventing them from developing their
: products.
: > : > And developing their products for exactly whom if NASA wasn't around?
: >
: > : Then how do you explain NASA selling commercial launches? Wasn't that
: > : taking away revenue from the existing US ELV business? Didn't that
: stifle
: > : investment in improvements in US ELV's until it became clear that the US
: > : wasn't going to allow anymore commercial launches on STS? Didn't the
: USAF
: > : have to dump billions into the Titan IV program as a replacement for the
: STS
: > : in order to get its payloads launched?
: >
: > Maybe the DOD should have been forced to live with the shuttle? Why did
: > they get a pass?

: Because the shuttle flight rate wansn't ever going to be high enough for
: them to fly all the birds that they needed to fly. The Challenger disaster
: let them use the "safety" issues at VAFB as an excuse to pull out. The
: reality was that they couldn't live with the low flight rate coupled with
: multi-year stand downs whenever a disaster happened. And as history has
: shown, there was another disaster which caused another multi-year shuttle
: stand down.

But is the shuttle disater rate high based upon DOD standards of death due
to engineering failure? I think not. I think the DOD simply doesn't need
or want a shuttle.

: DOD did the right thing. They put national security first and pulled out of
: the shuttle program at the first opportunity.

"National security" is a euphemism for cheap access to oil (CAT0-TM).
Since the shuttle doesn't lend itself to that, you're right, why use it?

: > : I just don't want history to keep repeating itself. If NASA is banned
: from
: > : developing its own vehicles, then we will have learned from our mistakes
: > : made with STS.
: >
: > ...and have nothing as a result as there is no incentive to leap from SS1
: > to a commercial shuttle due to lack of a self-sustaining industry. Face it
: > we are at least a decade away and squelching govt. agencies from
: > doing manned sdpaceflight isn't the answer.
: >
: > Create a proposal that does CATS and do it!

: There are many proposals and many startups. What they lack the most is
: funding. My suggestions would include a guarantee from the US government
: that NASA won't develop its own launch vehicle to replace the shuttle,
: making private investors more likely to invest. My suggestions would also
: have the US government provide prizes and/or contracts to startups which
: actually develop a vehicle that meets certain goals, like getting people and
: supplies to ISS and back.

Well the shuttle does do that, though not cheaply.

: Sending people and supplies to ISS is something the US is committed to do
: *anyway*, so why not use that money to pay startups for their services
: rather than awarding the money as cost plus contracts to the usual suspects?

I would agree with that. I guess getting a payload to ISS would guarantee
another paid-for launch and extra based upon the payload.

Eric

: Jeff
: --
: Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Relevant Pages

  • Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide
    ... The following is the Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide. ... HAM frequencies for listening to and watching NASA ... http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/view/view_shuttle.html (NASA KSC ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide
    ... The following is the Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide. ... HAM frequencies for listening to and watching NASA ... http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/view/view_shuttle.html (NASA KSC ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide
    ... The following is the Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide. ... HAM frequencies for listening to and watching NASA ... http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/view/view_shuttle.html (NASA KSC ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide
    ... The following is the Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide. ... HAM frequencies for listening to and watching NASA ... http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/view/view_shuttle.html (NASA KSC ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide
    ... The following is the Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide. ... HAM frequencies for listening to and watching NASA ... http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/view/view_shuttle.html (NASA KSC ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
Loading