(Page 2 of 2)
The problem is, that money may not be coming, at least not at the level requested by the White House. On July 15, the Senate Commerce Committee approved a NASA authorization bill that would provide $1.3 billion for commercial crew development in fiscal years 2011 through 2013. The Obama administration had requested $3.3 billion for commercial crew during that time.
The House version of the legislation, approved a week later by the House Science and Technology Committee, proposed even deeper cuts. The House bill provides only $150 million over three years for the development of crew transport vehicles, as well as $300 million for a new loan-guarantee program to help companies secure funding for developing those vehicles.
Both the House and Senate propose the cuts to help pay for the development of government-operated launch vehicles and spacecraft not in the White House's original proposal. The Senate version includes $6.9 billion over three years for a "Space Launch System," a heavy-lift rocket capable of placing at least 70 tons into low-Earth orbit, and $3.9 billion for a crew capsule similar to the Orion spacecraft NASA had been developing. The House version includes $13.2 billion for the combined development of the spacecraft as well as a launch vehicle closely derived from the Ares I, which the administration sought to cancel.
Members sought to portray these bills as compromises between NASA's previous Constellation program and administration proposals to put more emphasis on technology development and commercial capabilities. "The goal was to preserve U.S. leadership in space exploration and keep as much of the rocket-industry talent as possible employed," said Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee's space subcommittee.
Commercial crew advocates are now gearing up for a long battle in the months to come as the full House and Senate take up their respective bills, as well as separate appropriation bills that would actually provide the funding.
Jim Muncy, president of PoliSpace, a space industry lobbying firm, predicted at NewSpace 2010 that a final bill that works out differences between the House and Senate versions would not be completed until after November's congressional elections, giving supporters time to win support for a more palatable compromise. "The good part is that the fight isn't over," he said. "And, arguably, the real fight hasn't even begun."
The supply of new spacecraft, launchers, and spaceports could soon exceed the demand.
A successful launch moves commercial space companies toward human spaceflight.
Firms look to provide automated landers and inflatable modules.
I have another idea: how about NASA commissions a private entity to construct a nuclear thermal solid-core rocket engine, only providing guidance as needed and regulatory authority to ensure safety and environmental protection. Then, commercial space operations can commence at low costs that allow a huge increase payload size. As long as we are fighting over chemical rocket politics, there's not much to fight about and we'll just get more of the same.
The solid core reactor is not much of an improvement over liquid H2 and O2. For a REAL improvement in ISP, try the nuclear light bulb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_lightbulb
Gary 7
At this time, there's no commercial need for a nuclear-thermal rocket, whether solid or gas core. NASA would be the only US customer (okay, maybe, just *maybe* the DoD), and I can't see this getting even slightly past ITAR for international availability.
And assuming you're thinking of Earth-surface launch of NTRs (possible, but technically questionable with solid core, too many current engineering unknowns with gas core), you'll have a hard time getting this past a public that freaks out over launches of payloads that use simple RTGs (Cassini).
Which should not be taken to mean that I don't favor nuclear thermal rocket development, even if the only near-term use is government-funded exploration. I absolutely do.
Not any better than L H2/O2? Solid core NTR gives a 2x increase in specific impulse. Is there a tradeoff I am not aware of? Gas core NTR would be better, certainly, but we can do solid core now and get immediate benefits including lowering launch costs. Gas core will take more time to develop. I think most of the public would be just fine with a ground-launched NTR. The crazies will always be there but I don't think they have nearly as much power as it seems. Perhaps a more likely issue is that a whole bunch of chemical rocket engineers will have to find other jobs. But I would really like to know if there is a technical reason why this technology is not that great or some reason why we really shouldn't do it. I can't find one [that I believe or agree with].
Why not use NTR for ground launch into LEO? Is this one of its greatest strengths? And how much cheaper will it ever be to achieve ground to LEO with LH2/O2? Haven't we reached the limit there? It is legal to use NTR from the ground - I spoke with a space lawyer about it and the international agreement that we have [with Canada] not to do it is not even a law. It is basically treated that way but it is not legally binding and it can be changed if the administration wanted to. Many point to test-ban treaty and such but they do not preclude us from doing NTR.
NTR seems the best way to build a simple, safe, reliable and potentially cheap-to-operate heavy lift vehicle and we could do it now. The French have a cool design, too: they add an induction coil behind the nozzle such that they can run the reactor at a lower temperature which extends its lifespan while reducing the need for fancy materials - and the coil heats up the exhaust H2 to the final exit temperature to generate more thrust. Eventually, if we don't do it, maybe they will.
If we're talking about access to Lower Earth Orbit, then nuclear propulsion is not an option.
To get cheap access to space, we need to develop multi-stage systems that are reusable.
For example:
Stage #1: Magnetic acceleration of all equipment to take off speeds (using the technology currently used on trains and Six Flag rides.)
Stage#2: Air-breathing sub-sonic vehicle
Stage#3: Air-breathing super-sonic vehicle
Stage#4: Chemical Rocket
Stage#5: (If going to Geo-synch orbit) Electric propulsion over many days (Hall thruster, etc...)
From the work I did in the area 10 years ago, this was the best way to get to LEO or GEO. The problem is how to design the equipment to detach effectively from the vehicle...like taking apart a Russian doll.
Any thoughts?
This is a cool idea and one mother of a way to create a plethora of engineering jobs! Wouldn't all this cost too much and present too many sequential risks?
Aren't you tired of references to shitty Hollywood flicks like "Apollo 13th"?
Do you know AME's meaning? It means Annually Managed Expenditure.
What will you do if you don't know what the acronym stands for? Acronym List currently keep track of more than 80,000 acronyms and abbreviations in different specialized categories. You're able to browse according to the alphabet or by selecting the category that fits your search. Find out what meanings are for the acronyms, abbreviations, initials, lingo, jargon or slang and what they stand for.
Business-And-Finance-Acronyms offer you what you need. You can learn acronyms here and help us to make them rich. Any help are welcome. Thank you for your help.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Gaetano Marano
246 Comments
>>> a TRUE commercial company doesn't need government funds >>>
.
.
.
a TRUE (space or non-space) "commercial" company MUST develop and build its products using ONLY its own funds and/or private investors' funds
.
a company that asks, wants, needs and receives governments' funds to develop its products and that sells its products and services only or mainly to governments' agencies ISN'T a TRUE "commercial" (space) company but only a "small sized government contractor"
.
so, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences are EXACTLY like the Constellation contractors... but just smaller...
.
also, their "commercial" services aren't so "cheap" but up to FIVE TIMES more expensive than the Space Shuttles' price-per-ton to LEO:
.
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/061comparison.html
.
.
.
Reply
martinaatayo
112 Comments
Re: >>> a TRUE commercial company doesn't need government funds >>>
Mr. Marano, you are not right !! In a
competitive enterprising economy,no rule
precludes any government or state from
holding shares in any business venture.
Such a government, on its willing, might
decide to hold a certain percentage of
investment shares. This serves to target
stability,efficiency and profit turn over.
Make no mistake, the US Government has
percentage investments in some of its national
business ventures. The same government could
decide to hold a declared percentage investment
in commercial spaceflight corporations for so
many reasons,especially, if conceived
and perceived from my
humble angle of view.
Martin Atayo
Washington, DC 20013
Reply
Gaetano Marano
246 Comments
Re: >>> a TRUE commercial company doesn't need government funds >>>
.
.
SpaceX planned the launch a cargo-Dragon, but they're doing that ONLY thanks to the COTS funds
.
they planned to carry tons of cargo to the ISS, but they'll do that ONLY thanks to the CRS funds
.
they claimed that could launch a crewed Dragon, but now want $300 million of NASA funds to develop a LAS
.
so, where would be gone SpaceX as "private space company" without these NASA/government funds???
.
they don't need these funds to develop some advanced space program but to make real all their BASIC space programs, so, SpaceX isn't a true "commercial" space company, but a NASA contractor like thousands other in last 50 years
.
nothing bad in this, but, please, don't call it a "new.space" company, since, it's ONLY a baby-Boeing... :)
.
.
Reply
M. Report
9 Comments
Re: >>> a TRUE commercial company doesn't need government funds >>>
Clearly, you are No True Scotsman, but an
apologist for NASA in its assigned role of
spoiler of any attempt at commercial
space exploitation. (No Smiley)
If the US government wants a particular result,
say a crew recovery capsule, all it need do
is offer a Prize, and the private sector will provide.
NASA will never do this, because to ensure no
winner, they would have to set the prize at a
laughably low level; No need to take my word
for it - ask them for a dollar amount, but do
not hold your breath waiting for an answer.
Reply
Gaetano Marano
246 Comments
Re: >>> a TRUE commercial company doesn't need government funds >>>
.
.
.
if the space “plan A” was perfect, WHY has been modified dozens times, then, changed with the space “plan B”???
.
and, if the space “plan B” was perfect, WHY has been modified dozens times, then, changed with the space “plan C”???
.
and, if the space “plan C” was perfect, WHY has been modified dozens times, then, changed with the space “plan D”???
.
and, if the space “plan D” was perfect, WHY has been modified dozens times, then, changed with the space “plan E”???
.
and, if the space “plan E” was perfect, WHY has been modified dozens times, then, changed with the space “plan F”???
.
now, the politics seems close to approve that space “plan F”… but, are they/you/we SURE that this space “plan F” is (finally) the “perfect” space plan???
.
or, as I think, also the space “plan F” is SERIOUSLY FLAWED, like (or more than) the (deleted) “plan A”, “plan B”, “plan C”, “plan D” and “plan E”???
.
.
.
Reply
Shootist
39 Comments
Re: >>> a TRUE commercial company doesn't need government funds >>>
Interesting point about the cost to LEO.
NASA, of course, costs a billion or two a year whether it launches a shuttle or not . . .
Perhaps what the gob'mint should do is fund development of Single Stage to Orbit vehicles with the goal of reaching orbit at the same cost per kilo of flying first class LA to Sydney, AUS.
Reply