Senate Passes Space Commercialization Act
WASHINGTON (US Commercial Committee PR) – U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.), Ranking Member Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), and Space, Science, and Competitiveness Subcommittee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Space, Science, and Competitiveness Subcommittee Ranking Member Gary Peters (D-Mich.) issued the following statements on the passage of H.R. 2262, the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, a bicameral, bipartisan bill that encourages competitiveness, reflects the needs of a modern-day U.S. commercial space industry, and guarantees operation of the International Space Station until at least 2024. The bill builds on key elements in S. 1297 that the Commerce Committee approved earlier this year and passed the Senate on August 4, 2015.
“Today, the Senate passed a bill with far-reaching implications for the future of space exploration and the U.S. space industry,” said Chairman Thune. “I appreciate the efforts of my Senate colleagues, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith who, among other congressional space policy leaders, were critical to building consensus around the bill that passed today.”
“This will help bolster an already thriving U.S. commercial space industry, especially in Florida where we are seeing an amazing transformation of the Kennedy Space Center into a bustling space port,” said Ranking Member Nelson, who sponsored the original Commercial Space Launch Act over thirty years ago. “It also paves the way for NASA to begin launching astronauts to the International Space Station on American-made commercial rockets while providing jobs for the economy.”
“This law makes a commitment to supporting the continued development of a strong commercial space sector and recognizes the major stake Texas has in space exploration,” said Subcommittee Chairman Cruz. “It also provides NASA and the International Space Station with nearly a decade of mission certainty by extending the operation and utilization of the International Space Station until 2024. Most importantly, it solidifies America’s leading role in the commercial space sector and builds upon the work of President Reagan. ”
“The researchers, entrepreneurs and manufacturers that make up our commercial space industry are driving innovation that helps grow our economy and furthers NASA’s research and human exploration priorities in space,” said Subcommittee Ranking Member Peters. “I am pleased that we were able to come together with our colleagues in the House to craft a final bipartisan bill that promotes new research, creates jobs and encourages the next major advancements in space exploration.”
The Senate-passed substitute amendment to H.R. 2262 renames the measure as the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act and merges agreed upon provisions based on the previously passed bills in the Senate and House. The amendment was sponsored by U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz (R- Texas), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), and Patty Murray (D-Wash.). The bill now heads back to the House for final approval.
Key provisions include the following:
Extends the Operation of the International Space Station
Provides a four-year extension of the International Space Station (ISS) until at least 2024 by directing the NASA Administrator to take all necessary steps to ensure the ISS remains a viable and productive facility capable of utilization including for scientific research and commercial applications.
Ensures Stability for Continued Development and Growth of the Commercial Space Sector
Provides an extension of the regulatory learning period through September 30, 2023 so that the commercial space sector can continue to mature and innovate before the Department of Transportation transitions to a regulatory approach. The current learning period expires on March 31, 2016.
Extends Indemnification for Commercial Launches
Extends through September 30, 2025 a key risk sharing provision in current law critical to keeping a level playing field in the global market for U.S. commercial space enterprises.
Identifies Appropriate Oversight for the Commercial Development of Space
Directs the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with the Department of Transportation, Secretary of State, NASA and other relevant Federal agencies, to assess and recommend approaches for oversight of commercial non-governmental activities conducted in space that would prioritize safety, utilize existing authorities, minimize burdens on industry, promote the U.S. commercial space sector, and meet U.S. obligations under international treaties.
Space Resource Exploration and Utilization (Asteroid Mining)
Establishes a legal right to resources a U.S. citizen may recover in space consistent with current law and international obligations of the United States. Directs the President to facilitate and promote the space resource exploration and recovery.
Updates Space Launch System
Provides a use policy for NASA’s heavy-lift rocket, the Space Launch System.
74 responses to “Senate Passes Space Commercialization Act”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I wonder what ”…use policy for NASA’s heavy-lift rocket, the Space Launch system” was established.
I’ve heard some disturbing proposals floated, such as requiring all astronaut flights beyond LEO to use SLS/Orion (iirc) and putting a secondary payload carrier on the SLS to carry commercial satellites as secondary payloads (thus competing with our own private launch industry).
From SpacePolicyOnline: “Provides a use policy for NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS). SLS may be used for missions to extend human presence beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), for other payloads that can benefit from its unique capabilities, for government or educational payloads consistent with NASA’s mission to explore beyond LEO, and for “compelling circumstances” as determined by the NASA Administrator.”
The only way astronauts can leave LEO in the near future is via SLS/Orion so there is no competition in that. You might say, “Well Dragon can……” Maybe, but the best it can do in the near future (with FH manrated, which it won’t be for at least a number of years, and a deep space worthy Dragon) is fly around the moon on a free return trajectory. SLS/Orion can do far more.
As for the rideshare opportunity we are talking about deep space cubesats and things of that nature. That hardly competes with the private satellite launchers. If the rocket is launching anyway why not use it?
That’s a little premature. SLS/Orion won’t carry astronauts until early next decade, and won’t be capable of missions beyond beyond cis-lunar space until the after end of next decade.
That’s more than enough time for commercial systems to mature, and upgrade, and mature again.
“SLS/Orion won’t carry … of
next decade.”
50/50 odds Musk walks on Mars before SLS puts anyone into LEO. 1 in 10 odds SLS never flies.
You’re almost certainly wrong on both counts. SpaceX won’t be putting people on Mars until the 2030s, and two SLS rockets have already been put on the manifest, EM-1 and EM-2. Those two are going to fly unless the next administration cancels the entire program outright, and with it as far along into engineering, test, and flight hardware production as it is ( http://www.planetary.org/bl… ), that seems very unlikely. So the SLS will be flying its first test mission in 2018 or 2019, the crew flight by 2023 at the latest.
Falcon Heavy has TWO launch pads almost ready!
And the third starts construction soon!!
Doug wrote: “So the SLS will be flying its first test mission in 2018 or 2019, the crew flight by 2023 at the latest.”
2023 is only the lastest as of today in 2015 .. who knows about that date five years from now in 2020.. it might have stretched out longer by then.
Maybe. The development process seems to be going pretty smoothly right now, and barring some sort of catastrophe, the date shouldn’t move too much.
http://www.nasaspaceflight….
No. Unless cancelled beforehand, SLS will launch crew Orion around 2023. BFR/MCT will not be flying by 2023. (And as HD said, it’s unlikely that SLS will be cancelled before EM-1/2 have flown.)
As much as I dislike the SLS/Orion program because of its waste, it’s much better managed than Constellation’s Ares/Orion. The schedule is slipping, and it will go well over budget, but Constellation was slipping right by a year per year.
Look I am a commercial space fan. That said I don’t share your boundless optimism. In 2004 it was said that commercial tourist suborbital flights would be routine by this time by people who were just as optimistic. How has that turned out?
SLS/Orion are on a funded path to send astronauts beyond LEO in 2021 (Since SLS/Orion are consistently given higher amounts than the President’s budget). Nothing else at the moment is. Also no system in the near future can come close to the capability SLS/Orion have.
Instead of trying to make it a competition SLS/Orion and the commercial launchers should be allowed to work together to strengthen our BEO presence (FH can lob a cargo Dragon to an orbital lunar station launched by SLS for example.) SLS/Orion should conduct the initial BEO missions. Once commercial has reached that level SLS/Orion can either be repurposed or phased out.
This has worked in the past. Shuttle and station paved the way for commercial crew and cargo. Why can’t we use the same plan that has succeeded in LEO for BEO?
I was for a NASA heavy lift launch vehicle, then against a NASA heavy lift launch vehicle, then against all HLLV for just the near future and now? Will accept commercial heavy lift.. I have been more of a roller coaster than a road… to an end.
The only problem I have with SLS, as congress is running the program, has always been cost. Does America want NASA hardware and astronauts in space?
OR
Does America want NASA launching monster rockets and that is about it?
NASA’s budget could do a lot more if it was just buying commercial services to put X amount of cargo at point A – B or C.
I understand Vlad. My understanding and opinions have evolved over the years as well. Thanks in part to your passionate arguments and the inspiring success of SpaceX and others I have become far more of a commercial space fan than I once was.
Personally I have to go with NASA and Elon Musk’s assessment of the situation. If we want to go to Mars and do big things in space we need a HLLV. If SpaceX can make a BFR that is an equal or better to SLS I will be the first person to call for SLS to be phased out. That said we aren’t at that point yet so I still support SLS.
When I made the switch to advocating more for commerical than for more funding for NASA, it was because it seemed it would be easier to go around congress to get more capital flowing towards the space. Since no congress or President seems to thrilled at throwing more billions at NASA let the American capital markets do it.
A big part of that was REALLY understanding “Space is a place, not a program”. Like many that I debated with on blogs, it was hard to talk about where we wanted to go in space with adding ‘program’ to the end. Conversations always degenerated into debates about which program was the best to fund. Going back to basic economics I started looking at which program generated the highest multiplier effect of private capital investment to each program dollar spent. Also which would keep producing wealth and investment coming. It was the COTS program and the enormous mutiplier effect that was created, that generated the final straw to place on the camel’s back.
I really believe, going forward, we will have to dump FAR for a lot of projects, granted there are times, but for basic procurement, not any more. SAA’s and milestones that force contractors to put skin in the game, it produces faster results for less cost.
I would like to see that enter more conversations up on captial hill.
Joe, everyone really dog-piled onto you, so if you don’t feel up to responding to one of my inevitably long-winded replies, I promise I won’t be offended…
I’m not optimistic. I’m a realist. Cost matters. NASA has been treading water since Apollo backing Big Expensive Programs, and they never produce ongoing progress. The Shuttle, Freedom then ISS, the X-33 and similar cancelled diversions. Then Ares and Orion, now SLS and Orion.
These unaffordable programs (where merely developing and operating the program consumes all the available funding) prevent progress. They fail to develop an incremental capability.
NASA keeps repeating the same mistake over and over again and expecting a different result. “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
And you’re doing it again: “Look at the capability of SLS”, [b]but[/b] ignore the cost. “Look at what we could achieve”, [b]if[/b] someone gave NASA several billions per year in extra funding, which never ever happens. Close our eyes and imagine, instead of looking at what is happening, because “this time will be different, I know it.”
We need to fundamentally change the way NASA operates. Not just changing programs or picking a different destination.
See? Boundless optimism. In reality, they’ve already started pushing the date back to 2023, and there are growing concerns in the agency about the risk of flying the second only SLS, with an unflown upper stage. But you won’t look at that.
“Capability” is a bit of a weasel-word. As is “near future”.
SLS will cost tens of billions of dollars to launch 70 tonnes-to-LEO about four times in total. Another few tens of billions of dollars to launch 130 tonnes-to-LEO, maybe once every 2-3 years.
FH, for example, should debut around 2017-2018 or so, even without NASA funding. (Should be next year, but I always double SpaceX’s dates.) After that, it’ll launch 50 tonnes into LEO for around $150m per launch (should be $90-100m, but I always add 50% to SpaceX’s suggested prices).
So for say $1b per year, just one third of SLS/Orion funding, you could launch 300 tonnes. Per year. Starting before 2020. And still leave $2b/yr to pay for payloads and missions to use that 300 tonnes per year.
Greater capability, delivered sooner.
“Ah but”, you say, “SLS will have an upper stage capable of throwing about 20-50 tonnes into lunar orbit, or 20 tonnes BEO.”
However, we don’t actually need 300 tonnes per year, that was just to illustrate the “opportunity cost” of SLS. A more realistic launch rate would free up further funding to develop a docking upper-stage for FH. (Similar to LM’s Jupiter.) Ie, for lunar flights, you launch a 50 tonne payload into LEO, and a second launch with a docking upper-stage (5-10t) and 40-45t of fuel. For BEO flights, you launch the payload, Jupiter/etc, 40-45t of fuel, and a separate extra 50t of fuel.
Nothing that has been proposed (unfunded) for SLS to carry masses more than 50 tonnes. So nothing is beyond FH’s capability.
(And, of course, for cargo missions, you’ve freed up enough funding to develop a SEP tug. Off-the-shelf solar panels and ion drives. Just a larger version of what has already flown. That drastically increases your mass BEO.)
Too late. SLS’s defenders in Congress have already made it clear they consider commercial, and particularly SpaceX, to be a direct threat to SLS and hence their enemy. They’ve repeatedly slashed CCDev funding and directed it to SLS/Orion.
There is no way that NASA would be allowed to use FH/Dragon to support a DHS as long as SLS flies. Congress is already trying to restrict future NASA probes to SLS to prevent NASA from using cheaper alternatives. The Europa probe only got funding with the clear statement that it must be launched on SLS, NASA is forbidden from even considering a launcher that doesn’t cost $billions.
You, to Elifritz:
No, in its final years, the Shuttle cost $3b/yr. Same as SLS/Orion. It was cancelling STS that freed up funding for SLS. The total cost of HSF is around $6b, same as it ever was. $3b for ISS+CRS+CC, $3b for SLS+Orion.
Paul, I am used to the dog-piling. My opinions aren’t exactly aligned with what is currently in vogue with fans of commercial space and that brings a lot of heat. It benefits everybody to hear both sides of the story.
Shuttle and ISS weren’t perfect but both were built and had successful careers (currently ongoing with ISS) which helped build the foundation for the commercial sector. X-33 failed largely due to technical problems that SLS/Orion won’t face. Orion hasn’t failed and SLS is a reimagined Ares V. I will grant that Ares I was a failure and that caused ripples that hurt Orion as well.
The reason for the “pushback” to 2023 is the assumption of Presidential level funding in the out years. Congress has consistently funded SLS/Orion above the Presidential level.
By increasing the number of launches by a factor of 3 for the same tonnage to TLI you may be reducing launch costs by using FH but you have vastly increased the complexity of the mission. We aren’t going to be able to use the same assembly process for say an MTV that we used for ISS. Launching it in FH sized chunks will require ISS levels of in-space assembly, which will be incredible costly and time-consuming in DRO.
The SLS program will continue to be funded regardless of whether or not EC launches on it or not. Why not use the capability that SLS offers (direct injection to Europa, which no other launcher can accomplish) if we have to pay for it anyway. Besides its not like SMD will be forced to pay the full cost of an SLS launch.
In its final years the shuttle cost somewhere around $4-5 Billion a year (adjusted for inflation). Today SLS/Orion are getting $3 Billion, CC $1 Billion, and ISS $3 Billion.
If you understood engineering, your opinions might be a bit different. Cost and time value of money and opportunity costs are part of that discipline. Ignoring all of them in favor of a fanboy architecture is unfortunate. There is no payload projected for Orion that couldn’t have been done years ago with Delta 4 and orbital refueling and assembly with far less risk. Sending a BEO manned mission on an untried vehicle like SLS Orion is nuts. And it will be untried well beyond available funding.
If you understood engineering and or politics you would see that you are making a false argument. Your argument about opportunity costs assumes that with SLS/Orion gone all the money will flow into your favorite fanboy architecture. That is far from guaranteed, even if the architecture does work.
Even if the uber commercial space fans are right about their architectures they may very well not get funded if SLS/Orion are canned. I would rather spend a bit more to actually go some place than spend nothing and go nowhere.
Actually, you are the one advocating spending billions to go nowhere with a flawed architecture. Paul covered the points quite well if you can follow them.
What I advocating for is an architecture that can work and is being funded. We can argue about this until we are blue in the face but those facts will remain.
My apologies. I thought you were advocating for SOS/Olien subsidies. I’m glad you said an architecture that can work which means we agree on commercial being the way forward.
(Edit: Split into two posts.)
It depends on what you mean by “success”.
Neither actually achieved the goals they were originally intended to achieve. Neither did what they were meant to do.
Nonsense. I covered this. There is not a single proposed component for SLS-based missions that will mass more than 50 tonnes. The only difference between FH and SLS is that missions planned around FH would preferably need an independently launched docking upper-stage. A “tug”, similar to the Jupiter tug that LM proposed for CRS2.
It only requires docking, not “assembly”: don’t exaggerate. We’ve been docking spacecraft successfully for decades. Creating such a “tug” is a common sense approach that maximises the launch capacity of any launcher.
I suspect we could hold a COTS-like contest for such a vehicle for a couple of billion dollars total. LM’s Jupiter was too expensive for CRS2, but they weren’t… you know, “SLS expensive”. And worse case, even if done as the worst kind of sole-source, cost-plus, chain-of-a-thousand-subcontractors program, it would cost no more than SLS’s various upper-stages by the time Block II flies.
The rest of SLS/Orion’s annual funding is then freed up for actual mission hardware.
Do you understand that? You can start developing missions now. Thirty to forty billion dollars freed up from now until EM-3 is supposed to fly in the mid-to-late 2020’s. Thirty to forty billion dollars.
SLS/Orion can’t develop mission hardware until it either gets more funding or ISS is killed. You can even begin to develop a DSH, or anything else, without eating something else.
Why not eat SLS instead?
This is “capability/cost blindness”. The idea that because a launcher can do something, cost suddenly doesn’t matter. It deliberately ignores that you can usually achieve the same goal by an alternative, lower cost path. Many horrible expensive programs have been supported by exploiting that trick.
Using SLS could double the cost of a Europa mission.
And it will be subject to the delays of waiting for SLS. (Remember there’s only two launches funded. Even the launcher for EM-3 isn’t funded yet.) That same thing happened with science missions forced to use the Shuttle.
By the time SLS has a spare launch available for EC, FH would have been flying for at least five years. Two FH launches, one for EC, one for the boost-stage, will cost a fraction as much as using SLS.
Additionally, you are limited to whichever SLS is flying. The EC team will have to plan around SLS I with ICPS and a 5m shroud. That limits them to 3 tonnes for their spacecraft, including Jupiter-capture and mission-ops fuel.
With FH plus a separate docking throw-stage, you could increase that payload almost as much as you want. Just add more fuel tanks. The cost will be so much less than a single SLS launch, you can just throw any rubbish in there and not go over budget. Need five FH launches? No worries. Accidentally doubled the spacecraft mass? Don’t sweat it. ESA wants to add a Europa lander? Sure, pile it in.
That’s capability.
The boost stage you are talking about doesn’t exist at present or is in the works to be ready by the time EC launches.
EC will cost the same no matter if it launches on SLS or FH. SMD won’t have to pay the full cost of an SLS launch. It would cost the same as a comparable launcher (FH). If NASA was using SLS just to launch probes I would agree it was wasteful and that FH should be used due to the better cost. However, since NASA will have to spend money on SLS anyway for human missions (both for political and logistical reasons) the overall costs will be the same. If the overall costs are the same then it comes down to capability, which SLS has.
Sure the money saved by faster transit time might be minimal but if it helps decrease the LOM probability that is a great asset. No one wants to spend $2 Billion to send a probe to Europa only to have it break on the way.
“The only way astronauts can leave LEO in the near future is via SLS/Orion so there is no competition in that.”
There is always more than one way to do something…
Is any other way funded at the moment? No.
No SLS/Orion beyond LEO is funded either.
Not funded as it should be but funded nonetheless. $3 Billion a year (which is less than shuttle I might add).
Development is funded, not missions to anywhere. As in, “That’s a nice rocket. Too bad you can’t afford to use it.”
EM-1 is funded. They are already bending metal for that. So is EM-2.
Those aren’t missions to anywhere. Those are “Gee, does it work?”
All the Mars and cis-lunar missions don’t need to get their funding all in one year. Once commercial crew comes online around $1 Billion will be freed up for hab module/lander development. Also once ISS is deorbited at least $3 Billion more will be freed up for missions.
Seventeen Trillion Dollars. And counting. Its not going to happen. Sorry.
Even if we cut all of NASA for the next hundred years we wouldn’t make a dent in the debt. The drivers of the debt are the ballooning spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the like. That is what we need to fix to fix the debt. Actually funding NASA properly will enhance US prestige and the US economy.
It’s not NASA’s fault, and NASA can’t fix it, but NASA and everyone else is going to pay for it because its easier (politically) to cut programs than entitlements.
Do you believe it will be “freed up” or transfered to another LEO station? I believe NASA should NEVER leave LEO. There should always be NASA researchers living, experimnenting, working in LEO .. But will they beable to get congress to fund a station farther out? And the supply train?
I agree that NASA should never leave LEO but they are correct in planning for a commercial LEO station. That way the majority of ISS funds can go to BEO.
I can’t wait for NASA researchers going up and doing pure research for 40-60 hours per week and not bogged down with the day to day grind of maintence.
Thanks for your informative reply, Joe.
However, I disagree with your analysis: “The only way astronauts can leave LEO in the near future is via SLS/Orion so there is no competition in that.”
SLS won’t fly astronauts until 2023 according to the latest schedule. This is 2015 — 8 years isn’t “near” future. And beyond that is…nothing (well, nothing concrete). I believe SLS/Orion will probably get a few flights in unless the next president is able to just cancel it outright. On the other hand, the next president could redirect us to a moon return and maybe even moonbase and give the SLS a real purpose, so it may get more use than most expect, we’ll see.
Regardless, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Dragon 2 goes beyond LEO before Orion. 8 years is a long time. You can rightfully point to SpaceX’s considerable schedule slippage, but apply that same critical eye to Orion and you’ll see that, given its history, that 2023 manned debut is likely to slip still further into the future. The current plan of flying the first manned flight on an untested SLS upper stage is already being reconsidered. Expect a cargo flight of some sort with the new upper stage first before SLS/Orion carries humans. Could be 10 years easy, which would further throw the whole program into doubt if considerable progress is being made by other players.
Joe, just a tiny nitpic..
“The only way astronauts can leave LEO in the near future is via SLS/Orion so there is no competition in that.”
Are you talking about government astronauts only? Or all astronauts in general?
Conceivably you could launch a crew in Dragon around the moon on a free return (assuming SpaceX is comfortable with Dragon operating in deep space). Believe me I will be excited as all get out if they do it. Beyond that though that is all that could be done. Dragon doesn’t have enough delta-V to establish any kind of orbit or dock with a station and then perform TEI. Orion is far more capable in that regard.
Pretty well. The ICPS structural test article was just completed and work on the real hardware is beginning soon. Also due to the budget battle ending last month the line item for the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) should be funded this year.
http://www.nasa.gov/explora…
You shouldn’t evaluate a system solely based on cost. Affordability, capability/usability, staying power ect. should all be evaluated. As for the cost angle right now SLS/Orion are getting $2 Billion less than the shuttle did and we flew shuttle for 30 years (as well as building and maintaining ISS). I think SLS/Orion are affordable.
You are comparing what an OPERATIONAL system was getting every year with what another system’s DEVELOPMENT costs are….
Apples and Oranges.. How much will SLS cost once they are launching it with actual payloads?
Well I guess you never have or never will give a gift to your wife or partner because you only think in terms of tangible cost-benefit analysis.
Personally I believe that SLS/Orion are affordable and that they offer many tangible and intangible benefits to cover the cost of what we pay for them.
I think rather than “affordable,” the phrase should be “Congress is willing to pay for it.”
That is because you are a space enthusiast who wants NASA to be out there where Apollo and STS left off. The vast majority of your fellow citizens and the fiscal reality beg differently.
Well the majority of my fellow citizens do want NASA to be out there and that has been confirmed in poll after poll. The fiscal reality is that if we don’t get entitlement spending under control we are going down the tubes regardless. A couple of billion to NASA won’t make a difference in the fiscal long run.
Those polls are the equivalent of, “Do you like puppies?” They mean nothing because the public is disconnected from the costs and decision makers. But when they do start to feel the costs here shortly when they start losing benefits, services, and other government entitlements, and the the value of their money and lives deteriorates, then, sorry again, but the public (and their elected representatives) are going to have zero tolerance pure science and “cool” programs that do nothing practical but line the pockets of a few corporate constituents. Its not an IF, its a fiscal brick wall that is coming.
Competence does not apply to government.
Sometimes there is.
Oh please. If that is your argument then the shuttle was affordable in your view. SLS/Orion are costing us far less than the shuttle. Therefore using your logic they must be affordable.
The NASA DRMs are important steps to determine a plan that will actually get us to Mars. You need more that just a paper napkin to build a viable Mars mission plan.
Yes, the astronauts are heros because they are risking their lives in a dangerous environment for the betterment and expansion of mankind. It isn’t a “joyride” for them, although they certainly enjoy it. You can argue for your points without demeaning them.
I guess landing on the moon, launching Hubble, maintaining a crew on the largest space station ever built for 15 years, expansion of the commercial space sector, and inspiring millions across the world isn’t enough “accomplishment” in your view.
Not a big breakthrough. But getting a deep space hab into cislunar space would be. And teleoperating robots on the moon would be. Good practice for Mars missions. Not that I’m a big fan of SLS. But, if we’re stuck with it, might as well put it to good use.
that is the whole point.. if we end up being “stuck with it” there will be no funding for anything else.
However, there’s no funding for such things. And there won’t be any funding until ISS is cancelled. Currently 2028 or so.
But even if you wind that back to the previous goal of 2024, that makes 2025 the first year ISS funding is available. If commercial crew is also cancelled, along with science missions that previously flew on ISS, that frees up the full $3b funding.
SLS will need an extra $1b/yr to transition to Block II (130t) because of the delays in the current Block 0/Block I program. Add another $1b to upgrade the (almost funded) Block 1b high-throw upper-stage to the larger Block II payloads, plus upgrading Orion to the full 21-day ECLSS and docking system.
That leaves you with $1b/yr to work on the DSH, starting in 2025. NASA won’t be allowed to just buy a couple of Bigelows off-the-shelf, it’ll inevitably be a Boeing contract, with work shared amongst the usual cascade of sub-contractors across a dozen key states. So you’re looking at $5-7b budget, minimum, so launch will be NET 2030-2032. And more realistically, late 2030’s.
Meanwhile, the main SLS program is sucking up $3b/yr just maintaining capability, waiting for something to do. $45 billion spent between now and 2030, to fly around the moon and back once every two years.
Not sure I’m seeing the breakthrough here.
Except that by being stuck with it, you quite literally can’t afford to use it.
You are so snarky. But I must admit that you made me laugh.
You are correct. When I speak of commerical, going forward, reusable is considered ‘in the mix’ for costs now.
It’s just the world we have to live in, and the voters we have to live with. But, the government won’t have the monopoly on space access for too much longer.
‘This legislation totally seals the SLS and Orion cancellation deal.’
I agree with just about everything that everyone is saying. But Obama couldn’t kill the beast, and I doubt that the next president can either. Maybe the one after that. Bottom line…it will all depend on Boeing’s and Lockmart’s bottom line. Will the big bucks be in cost plus contracts? Or will it be in commercial space? Time will tell.
I’m hoping.
Name calling is the mark of a losing argument. You may dislike NASA in the extreme but there are many who are still supportive of their efforts and appreciate their accomplishments. We are not delusional for doing so. If you take NASA out of the equation accomplishments in space for the US would be extremely limited. We would be a 3rd world country in space.
Hillary Clinton? Say it ain’t so.
Reusable
Yeah that’s the ticket
Let’s call the SLS solids reusable again and recover the cores like we did with shuttle. I could hire lots more employees that way.
Reusable hummmmmm
I LIKE IT!!!!!
🙁
You don’t want government building rockets Period!!!!!
Elon Musk sues the government for passing a law that only SLS can be used Beyond Earth Orbit.
Well, if you say so…
Actually, speaking of Texas, I was sorry to see Rick Perry drop out. He was the king of commercial space.
Well, thank god they have Al Gore to lean on. I feel better already.
I thought you might go there. That’s why I didn’t capitalize God.
As I have a degree in Physics I am fully aware of what multidimensional phase space is.
Apparently you live in a place where no one is allowed to disagree with your conclusions and there is only one side to a story.
There are many reasons; enhanced technology, inspiration, national prestige, scientific understanding. Do you want humanity to never look up to the heavens and know there are humans living there?
Thank goodness you weren’t the King of Spain when Columbus came along. You would have dismissed his voyage and said “why to you need to go someplace at taxpayer expense?”
Also if you believe that space exploration can easily be done without taxpayer funding why are you and others so upset about SLS/Orion? After all if taxpayer funds aren’t required then SLS/Orion isn’t in the way of anybody.
It is better to use said SSMEs instead of letting 16 of them just sit on the ground. The SSME’s are reliable and very useful rocket engines. We would the use of them without SLS.
You don’t make any sense. Without SLS the SSMEs would not have been used again at all. The remaining 16 would have sat on the ground for the rest of time. How is that less wasteful than using them one last time?
For the new SSMEs NASA is planning on simplifying the manufacturing process given that the SSMEs aren’t being reused anymore. They will cost less than regular SSMEs.
I will not stoop to your level by responding with name calling.
This will be my last response. It is clear that you in no way want to have a constructive discussion. Your name calling and rude behavior are a disgrace to those on every side of the space exploration spectrum. You can never hope to convince someone that your point of view is correct by calling them idiots or worse.
Finally if you are so convinced that private space (and only private space, no government money) can handle every single aspect of space exploration why are you so incensed about NASA? They aren’t getting in anybody’s way. In fact they are helping commercial space. You don’t need to eliminate NASA to prove private space is superior. It can be proved or disproved on the field.