Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

NASA's Bold Plan for Private Spaceflight

The space agency wants private partners to launch cargo and crews into orbits. But is the private sector up to the challenge?

By Mark Williams

Thursday, June 29, 2006

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

From its beginnings in the 1950s, through the glory years of Apollo and to the present day, NASA has always owned and operated the rockets with which it launches crew and cargo into space. But last fall the agency attempted to kick start a quiet revolution in near-earth spaceflight.

In an announcement, titled "Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS); Spaceflight Demonstrations," NASA requested proposals from companies interested in building and operating rockets that could reach the International Space Station and serve both government and private-sector customers (see "Private Space," March/April 2006).

SpaceX’s Falcon 1 rocket undergoes a “hot fire” or static engine test in the Kwajalein Islands in February. (Courtesy of SpaceX.)

NASA recently disclosed that it has narrowed down the 20-plus companies that submitted proposals to a group of finalists. The winning companies won't be revealed until August 2006, according to the office of James Bailey, the COTS program's contracting officer. But while NASA isn't talking, six companies have acknowledged they're finalists.

The assumption behind NASA's COTS program is that market competition will reduce launch costs -- especially manned launch costs -- to make it commercially practical. Using the space shuttle, it costs NASA $10,400 to put one kilogram into low-earth orbit -- far more than originally promised when NASA first pitched the shuttle to President Nixon in 1969 -- while commercial prices range all the way from about $4,300 per kilogram for a Proton launch to around $30,000 for a Pegasus launch (the Pegasus is a small rocket, launched from the wing of a B-52, that is usually used to boost small satellites into orbit).

If the private sector doesn't step up, then between 2010, when the space shuttle is scheduled to be phased out, and 2011-2014, when the next-generation Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) is scheduled to take off, the agency will have nothing to carry a crew to the space station but the likes of Russian Soyuz, Zenit, and Proton rockets, which cost between $30 million and $90 million per launch. Even after the arrival of the CEV, though, which is designed mainly for missions to the moon and Mars, NASA says that vehicle will be too costly (at more than $400 million per flight) to use for resupplying the space station if any other capability exists.

So just how affordable can manned launches get? Private companies could do them more cheaply than NASA by developing rocket engines that use hybrid fuels rather than traditional propellants, for example. The six companies who say they're finalists also use money-saving strategies such as building rockets from ceramic matrix composites, which are substantially lighter than conventional steel and nickel-based alloys. SpaceX claims that this approach could help it reduce launch costs by a factor of 10 and expects to be able to offer a price of $1,000 for each kilogram sent into orbit by 2010.

Comments

  • nasa: up or down?
    Couple days ago you guys complained nasa was dropping space flights...and a couple Bush Bashers jumped on board to squak their usual squak.  Now you say nasa's got big plans...make up your mind.  Yet, private sector will always get more done than govco.  And private sector won't be wasting money on PC faux rationalizations.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Menoch)
    06/29/2006
    Posts:1
    • PublicPrivatePartnerships
      Both government and private industry are needed to expand humans into space. The NASA COTS program needs to be expanded to enable at least three of the six fianlists to proceed to the next development stage if we are serious about commercialization of space and staying competitive in the global human-rated booster field.  http://spaceports.blogspot.com
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (JackKennedy)
      06/29/2006
      Posts:1
    • Still down
      Did you read the other article?  It was about cutting science projects within NASA to continue to support the existing shuttle, ISS, and moon/mars program.  So the question is what do you want NASA doing science in the public interest or plant flags and collect rocks on other worlds?  Not that Apollo was bad or did not do any usefull science but that I am concerned that the whole moon/mars program is going to burn billions more than orginally estimated plant a flag or two and then be cut to shreads like the ISS delerving only a fraction of the orginal promise.  When I look at the science and robotic exploration missions we have gotten a whole lot more return on investment in my opinion.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Gurthang)
      06/29/2006
      Posts:1
      • New Politics
        Clearly, the competition between human space and space science is not a good thing when the overarching national goal should be to stimulate economic growth through advancing mutliple technologies. The real trick, in my voew, is getting the larger space community to become more interactive with members of Congress. In the age of globalization and competition, the U.S. must simply dedicate more of its GDP to NASA to more fully fund the imagination capital and keep Americans in the forefront in both science, and, yes perhaps, flags. We can do both rather than making it an 'either or'proposition.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (JackKennedy)
        06/29/2006
        Posts:1
        • Same old politics
          I am cynical about any government funded enterprise spanning anything longer that the longest term a politicatan can serve.  We have the the Russians to thank for Apollo and without a force like them to unify us to a common goal public interest is as long as the next Harry Potter film. Otherwise you must cowtow to every politician's whim for the bugetary table scraps.  So unless we can find some intersellar space terrorists to fight or some awesome new resource we can plunder, manned space flight will be a rare and expensive thing.  After all even the most optimistic LEO cost numbers given in this article put just launching my dead weight equlivent at 100kg * $1000 or $100,000 and that doesn't count even the requirements to keep me alive on the trip.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (Gurthang)
          06/29/2006
          Posts:1
          • But we must try ....
            Yes, I too have been cynical since Nixon cancelled Apollo 18, 19 and 20 returning to the Moon since ONLY one scientist ever walked on its surface - "Jack" Schmitt. Nonetheless, politics does change like ever shifting sand. Those of us who advocate for space techology and space science dollars must toss aside cynical outlook and make contact with the aliens on Capitol Hill. We must pint to the fact that our national economic security depends upon space science and space technology investments endeavoring always to find the unified voice and get more politicans to state their views in the upcoming presidential race and raise the priority level. To do nothing is certain lax policy as you so state.
            Rate this comment: 12345
            Guest (JackKennedy)
            06/29/2006
            Posts:1
  • Private Spaceflight and private interests
    As in the Dan Brown book, the private investors are a good benefit to reduce costs and to enpower the Space utilization. But private money can control the behaviour of Space rules and put in a second plane the research and the pure science. We need a clear view of Space utilization and I think only a Public Central Agency can guarantee this form of research.

    Marco
    http://www.marcodesalvo.it/ 
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Marco de Salvo)
    07/02/2006
    Posts:1
  • The cost of ONE orbital-CEV launch may be OVER $1 billion each!
    .

    $400M per CEV launch is TOO optimistic! The REAL cost per launch (with 24 orbital/lunar CEV launches in 2015-2025) CAN'T BE less than: $200M of Ares_1 hardware + $300M of shared Ares_1 R&D costs + $300M of CEV/SM hardware (a very optimistic evaluation!) + $200M of shared CEV/SM R&D costs + inflation + new launch pads + + + + = $ 1 BILLION per launch... about TWICE a Shuttle launch! (but, without 20+ mT of cargo-bay payload, no canadarm, HALF astronauts, HALF life support time, etc.)

    Gaetano Marano

    Space Articles: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/articles.html
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Gaetano Marano)
    07/05/2006
    Posts:1
    • added notes to my previous post:
      - that costs are NOT NEW for me, since I've evaluated them over TEN months ago (with dozens posts) on a space-forum

      - we must add to CEV launch costs also the R&D cost-grow... +$2B in the less than six months for the 5-segments SRB (just imagine how much costs will grow in TEN years...!)

      - add to the Shuttles' advantages: airlock, assembly tools and ability, 20 mT of payload come back to earth, airplane-like runway landing, etc.

      the REAL cost of a Shuttle launch is: $500M ...less $300M (cost of the same payload launched with EELVs) = $200M / 8 (max # of astronauts) = $25 "per seat" (about the price of a Soyuz)

      CEV: $1B / 3 (max #of astronauts for orbital missions... NASA claim) = $333M "per seat" ...like FIVE Soyuz launches with THREE astronauts each!

      CEV costs may be reduced (a little) with the Ariane5 http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/010arianecev.html
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Gaetano Marano)
      07/05/2006
      Posts:1
      • correction
        (about the price of a Soyuz) ...changed to... (about the price of one Soyuz's seat)
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Gaetano Marano)
        07/05/2006
        Posts:1
        • The real cost of manned space
          Scientists are kinda funny...If we let China take the moon or more..then we will die.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          Guest (Menoch)
          07/06/2006
          Posts:1
  • NOT ONLY THE CEV COST TOO MUCH BUT IT'S ALSO A REGRESS VS. THE SHUTTLE WORK - SEE HERE
    .

    Not only the launch of a CEV+Ares_I will costs TWICE one Shuttle launch, but the entire VSE plan is a REGRESS vs. the Shuttles' launches. payloads, astronauts, missions, etc.

    Here you can find a astonishing VISUAL comparison of CEV launches vs. Shuttle and Apollo: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/008visual.html

    .
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Gaetano Marano)
    07/07/2006
    Posts:1
  • increase flight rate, and costs come down
    "High labor costs could be reduced by downsizing launch teams."  That's exactly the wrong approach; instead, you need to increase the flight rate.  $7.5M/year isn't very much if you're launching 50 rockets in that time.  Ideally, NASA will turn out to be only a minor customer for these new launchers, as commercial markets (including orbital tourism and energy production) finally open up.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Joe Strout)
    07/11/2006
    Posts:1

Resources

Events

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Malleable Maps, Artistic Robots and Bubble Interfaces
Technology Review January/February 2010

Current Issue

Security in the Ether
Information technology's next grand challenge will be to secure the cloud--and prove we can trust it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.