Commercial 130+ Metric Tonne Rocket Competition Imagined

COTS; Courtesy of NASA

The current Space Launch System (SLS) rocket that is in development is a 70 metric tonne vehicle.  By comparison, SpaceX's Falcon Heavy is a 53 metric tonne rocket.  The Falcon Heavy is slated to make its maiden flight towards the end of 2014.  SLS is slated for a 2017 maiden flight, but that time seems to be slipping.  These dates often slip, even for commercial companies like SpaceX.  The SLS program is also slated to create a 130 metric tonne rocket to explore the solar system.  Consider that commercial space services have already been successful and saved NASA money.  Consider also that a new space services market has been created and is growing.  I do not think that SLS will survive long in a commercial space services dominant environment.  I think a competition for a 130 metric tonne rocket is in order for NASA.

In 2006 NASA's Commercial Cargo & Crew Program Office (C3PO) created the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) which was a competition for companies to create rockets and spacecraft to provide the International Space Station (ISS) with cargo.  COTS also lead to Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) which was the operational missions to supply the cargo.  While there were many entrants into COTS, including Boeing and Lockheed Martin, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences won, and are supplying cargo today.  The CRS contracts were fixed price versus the traditional Cost Plus contracts which is how SLS is being developed.  Under CRS the companies retain ownership of their rockets and spacecraft, and also the risk associated with development and operation.  Risk is one of the potentially most costly aspect of any project or program.  By giving companies the risk, NASA has also given the companies freedom for innovation.  Essentially NASA has helped create new competition in the space launch world and has saved money at the same time.  SpaceX's Dragon first berthed with ISS in 2012.  Orbital Sciences' Cygnus first berthed with ISS in 2013.  The success of COTS is historic for the planet.  For the first time, orbital commercial services became a reality.

Think of the future where commercial space companies dominate launch and operation services. What place does a costly SLS have in this environment?  Already Falcon Heavy encroaches on the lifting capability of the 70 metric tonne SLS.  SpaceX has plans to launch cargo and people to Mars.  They will make a very large rocket that competes with 130 metric tonne SLS.  What future does SLS have?  Even is SLS functions perfectly, its cost will make it obsolete.  With a constraint budget, NASA would be tempted to launch the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) on a commercial launch service.  They might even be tempted to use a commercial capsule for missions like a new version of SpaceX's Dragon.  To me, the mighty dollar is going to doom SLS the scrap heap.

In the aerospace industry, competitions is what spur innovation and development.  Charles Lindbergh won the Ortieg prize in 1927 by crossing the Atlantic Ocean in a non-stop flight with his plane the Spirit Of St Louis.  This resulted in our current transatlantic flight market.  This also resulted in round the world air commercial air travel.  Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites won the X-Prize in 2004 by flying their space craft SpaceShipOne to suborbital space twice in a two week period.  This has spurred the new commercial space market.  Now Virgin Galactic, Xcor, and others are competing for customers for their first suborbital passenger space flights.  These competitions work.  Let us go a step further and make a competition that will result in more than one commercial launch system of 130 metric tonnes or greater.

Why would we need such monster rockets you may ask.  Commercially, the bigger the rocket, the less money per kilogram is needed to launch anything.  Who would use these?  Besides NASA, there are current companies and organizations with big plans and ideas.  Bigelow Aerospace makes inflatable habitat modules for future commercial space stations/space ships/moon bases.  The Mars Society members long to get to Mars.  Google Lunar Xprize participants have big plans for the Moon. B612 is an organization with a mission to help protect Earth from asteroids. Our current rocket only can start these big ideas.  These represent many people from many countries.  They want to go to space.  They need very large rockets to get to their endgame.

As wonderful an idea SLS is, it is just not cut out for the future that is just around the corner.  If NASA is not relieved of the burden of a 130 metric tonne SLS, the agency will be bypassed by commercial companies in the field of exploration.  NASA should take the lead in exploration, not lag behind.  They should not make any more rockets.  They should hold a competition to develop 130+ metric tonne rockets.  Then they could use those commercial rockets and services to get their spacecraft out in the solar system.  Then they can make more of the wonderful discoveries they have been doing since the 1970s.  These discoveries have helped people on Earth through the decades.  New discoveries can only help those on Earth and those out in the solar system.

Congress is at it again....SLS underfunded.

Well, here we are again.  For some reason, Congress cannot fund a rocket once it demands it.  Congress should desist from demanding rockets from NASA.  Somebody please sue Congress for overstepping their constitutional bounds.

On July 23rd, 2014, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said that NASA didn't have enough money to complete the Space Launch System (SLS) in time for the 2017 first launch of the rocket according to Marcia S. Smith's of SpacePolicyOnline.com article entitled "GAO Warns NASA $400 Million Short to Finish SLS by 2017" (click here to see article).  What the hell?

The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 "required immediate development" of the SLS.  Where does it say in the Constitution that Congress can require development of anything?  Such a demand would lie in the executive branch of government, not the legislation.  Well, legally I'm sure I am wrong here, but logically I am right.  NASA, DARPA, and other government research agencies ought to be directed by the executive branch only and not by the legislative.  The reason is obvious, research drives military power and economic health of the nation.  Yes, it's national security.  See, I think economic health should be a part of national security and not just national secrets.  Yet, we have to live with these short sited authorization acts.  Ideally, any legislation authorizing money to a very large project ought to grantee funding for the projected life of the porject.  But the authorization act of 2010 only gave money to 2013. What the hell! 

 I knew this was coming, and when it came I still felt mad and betrayed.  This is exactly why we are not further in our space program as we expected to be.  This questionable way of financing large NASA projects puts into question Congress' concern for the nation's welfare.  This system is broken.  It needs to be redone, rethought over.  I think its time for the US people to start thinking of better ways to proceed in space.  The space research has expanded to a point where there is more space projects than there is available money.  There are commercial alternatives now to launching spacecraft.  There are new spacecraft designs with cost in mind.  Tell Congress to grow a brain and get smarter about space.  It's no longer about jobs in a particular state.  It's about the economy as a whole benefiting from research that is waiting to be done.

Warp Theory

We have a warp theory.  We have a warp theory.  I still can't wrap my head around it.  Thanks to Einstein, and some very intelligent Star Trek fans who became scientists, we have a warp theory. Check out the following video put out by Huffpost UK.  If your a Sci-Fi fan, a space enthusiast, a math student, science fan, or even if you have a heart beat watch this video.  Caution, your mind will be blown.




Far out, man!  What this means is that we are tinkering with the math model to find the best engineering model.  It's warp theory in the making.  

You too can tinker with the numbers.  Download Dr White's pdf document entitled Warp Field Mechanics 101.  If you don't understand it all, at least you know where you stand in learning this level of math and physics.

IXS Enterprise - artist envisioned warp ship

Things like this are reasons why we so desperately need students to go into Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) fields.  Sure, the economy doesn't look great or even good now.  But were talking the future.  We need to make the future.  The first ingredient to make a great future is always enthusiasm.

As an added bonus for the public, Dr White got together with artist Mark Rademaker to produce a pic of what a warp capable ship could look like according to the math of the warp theory.  They called the ship IXS Enterprise.  How cool is that?

Could Atlas V Days Be Numbered?

Atlas V

The Atlas V was derived from what is called the family of Atlas rockets.  This family started launching in 1957, so Atlas V has a great heritage.  It has also been the main workhorse launcher for NASA and USAF satellites for about 12 years now.  As such, it was a rocket that was built strictly on government money.  It is now under scrutiny because its main engines, RD-180, are from Russia and Putin's administration is threatening to stop providing them.  The response to this is that the US government will put up money to research a new engine.  Wow!  Taxpayers are still paying full price for this rocket system.

With the advent on NASA COTS (commercial orbital transportation services) and CRS (commercial resupply services), the taxpayer has been getting a break.  NASA invested some money for the development of two launch vehicles and spacecraft from two different companies; SpaceX and Orbital Sciences.  These companies paid the rest of the development and own the risk for each launch.  In contrast, United Launch Alliance owns no risk to the Atlas V launches.  NASA deems the COTS and CRS programs successful and successful at reducing launch costs.  Will Atlas V survive in such a stark contrasted means of doing launch business?

Now, the Antares rocket is in a similar predicament with its main engines as Atlas V, though for different reasons.  The Antares main rocket engines are from the old Russian N-1 rocket, and those are of limited supply.  So Orbital Sciences is seeking a new rocket engine as well.  The difference is that they are flipping the bill themselves.  After all, they own the rocket.

 So we can see the inconsistencies for the taxpayer.  On one hand we have the old way of paying for the rockets as in Atlas V's case (the so called Cost Plus contracts).  That is, taxpayers pay for the launcher development, the launch service, and the launch risk.  Doing things the COTS and CRS way (services contracts), taxpayers only partially paid for initial development and for each launch service.  They don't pay for further development nor for the launch risk.

If the USAF got on board with paying only for launch services, they could save a lot of money, have companies competing for launches, and have national security all at the same time.  Sounds like the holy grail for the Department of Defense.  In my opinion, this would require a major change to EELV or even a replacement.  My reasoning is that the word 'expendable' might become a thing of the past since SpaceX is actively developing reusable multistage rockets.

I highly doubt that Atlas V could be converted to take on contracts for launch services only.  The reason is that it was developed under the attitude of limited savings as opposed to the drastic savings now sought after by the US.  No, Atlas V would have to be retired.  Of course engineers are pretty crafty guys.  If, by chance, Atlas V becomes reusable then I will rethink my position.  Otherwise, you really need to design a rocket with cost effectiveness in mind like Falcon 9 and Antares.

Now, SpaceX's Falcon 9 and Orbital Sciences' Antares do not have the lifting capabilities on Atlas V.  So for now, the USAF and NASA needs Atlas V.  Future developments from SpaceX and Orbital Sciences could change all that.  SpaceX is planning to make the Falcon Heavy which will eclipse the Atlas V by a factor of __ in launch capability.  Orbital Sciences is creating the rocket for Startolaunch that will go after the Delta II payload market.  Could there be any more developments in affordable launch vehicles?  I would say yes as long as the market holds up and funds become available.  In such a case, we may see the end of the Atlas family.  Atlas V still needs to get over a couple of hurdles.  One is, as mentioned before, getting new main rocket engines made in the United States.  Another hurdle is the Commercial Crew Development for NASA.  Atlas V is slated to carry one of two crewed vehicles to space: Dream Chaser lifting body by Sierra Nevada, and CST-100 capsule by Boeing.  What would the pricing be to take these to orbit by Atlas V?  Will such pricing be competitive?  Will such pricing be acceptable by NASA?  In other words, can Atlas V compete with Falcon 9 in the market?

SpaceX and ULA

SpaceX and ULA are fighting.  It started when Elon Musk went before the Senate Appropriations Committee to testify how unethical it was for the Air Force to grant ULA a large contract for EELV missions while SpaceX is in the middle of the registering with the EELV program.

In the process, Musk not only made clear the successes of SpaceX but the fact that all Falcon rockets parts are made in the US while the Atlas engines are made in Russia and are subject to Putin.  Then they hyperbole started.  ULA claimed sixty some odd successful launches in a row.  Well, as a company, ULA is not that old.  In fact ULA (6 years old) is younger than SpaceX (12 years old).  But it's the two companies behind ULA that have the successful launches, Boeing and Lockheed Martin.  In my mind, ULA is just a front man.  ULA is really a ploy to compete with the new space companies.  I question that ULA should even be in the EELV program.  Instead it should be Boeing and Lockheed Martin competing still.  The government should have never allowed a sole company to compete for EELV launches.  That's a monopoly.

Now the fight is still ongoing.  It's becoming a 'he said' and 'she said' thing.  It's really pathetic and sad.  What it should boil down to are the price tag.  SpaceX claims it can launch satellites at at fraction of what ULA charges.  In the end that is what matters.  The government has to save money.  It has to keep national security assets and at the same time lower the cost.  That's for all our sakes.

On commercial principles, Congress has a dilemma.  Clearly the Air Force has disregarded competition and fair trade principles in favor of keeping assets flying to orbit.  Should Congress punish the Air Force?  Or, should the EELV program be overhauled?  Some might say that the word 'evolved' could be taken out if all they are going to launch are old Atlas Vs and old Delta IVs.  Maybe the 'expendable' word could be taken out since SpaceX is about to make the rocket reusable.  In any case the program seems broken and/or mismanaged.

In the meantime, let's sit back and watch the drama unfold.  Maybe the fireworks will come before the 4th.  Perhaps some popcorn and a lounge chair is in order.  At any rate, in the end SpaceX seems to be holding all the cards.  It's just a matter of time.  Really, I guess time is what this feud is all about.  After all, time is money.

I am discontinuing this blog because of personal and medical reasons.

Thank you for your readership and support over the last year.  It has been really fun looking at current planes and spacecraft, and speculating about possible future developments.

EC Holm
Ad Astra.

Ammendment 6/20/2014

I am reconsidering the 'discontinue' of this blog.  I have decided to keep writing, but periodically and not weekly.  I still love aerospace and have comments about it.  Yet it is a slow going industry, and I found it hard to find material that is interesting.

Thank you kindly for your reading.  I see that people still read this blog, and it's much appreciated.

EC Holm

Interview With A Commercial Astronaut

The following is a work of fiction. The characters are fictional.  Any resemblance of characters to real people is a mere coincidence and unintentional.

"Test, test.  Is this thing on?" said Tom checking his microphone.  He tried to look past the blinding lights to see his audio guy.  All he could see was the camera men.

"It's working, Tom," came a voice in his earphone.  He adjusted his suit and got ready for the mission at hand.  Then he looked straight into the nearest camera.

"2030 is the year of more commercial space progress.  The Dragonfly project is going to take off tomorrow around 6 am in the morning.  The project will test an in-line air boost to orbit concept in the hopes of competing with the reusable rocket family from SpaceX.  This is Tom Townsend live from Cape Canaveral.  Here with me is the pilot of the mission, Dan Darger.  Dan, what got you interested in space?" Tom looked starlight at his guest in a silver pressure suit that had several logos of sponsors on it.

"Well, Tom.  That's a good question," Dan said trying to calm himself to say the right thing. "I think it started when I was pretty young.  You see, my Dad got me and himself tickets to ride a Virgin Galactic spaceplane.  I guess it was love at first launch."  Dan felt really good about that answer.

"Was that the SpaceShipTwo class or later classes?  I think were up to SpaceShipFive if I'm not mistaken."

"Uhh. Yeah.  It was a small ship that seated six passengers and took us up to about 100 clicks."  Dan paused a moment with his finger ponting to Tom with a up an down motion. "The thing that struck me was the view of the Earth.  I always thought the rocket ride up would be the coolest, but the Earth....Man!  That was something." Dan's mind went back to that moment, that emotion.

"I heard it's a magnificent site."

"You haven't been up? Oh man! You gotta go, you just gotta.  You don't know what your missing until you go." Dan smiled at Tom feeling a little superior.

"Well, I guess I just might.  But let's talk about your mission tomorrow.  What is the significance of it?" Tom attempted to gain control back after feeling a little put down.

"Well, Tom.  It's a winged craft with scram jets and a orbiter attached to its nose.  I will be riding in the orbiter.  The two crafts will take off from the space runway here at the Cape with the first stage rocket.  Then that will be jettisoned.  It will scream up into the atmosphere gaining acceleration as it goes using the scram jets.  At about 100,000 ft, the orbiter will detach with a small rocket and go into space.  Once in initial orbit, that small rocket is jettisoned, and the orbit is stabilized by the orbiter's main engines."  Dan could feel himself relaxing and getting the hang of this interview.

"OK.  What will happen to the mothership?"

"Oh, right! It will fly back down to the runway."

"I know the project is about the mothership, but tell us a little about the orbiter."  Tom put on the best interested tone he could muster.

"Well, the orbiter has been to space before.  In fact, it's been in orbit more than a hundred times and was retired about 5 years ago.  It was built by SNC and it was the original Dreamchaser.  It's a lifting body style craft that flies well in space and the atmosphere.  It was refurbished and retrofitted for this mission." Dan went through the data in his mind to see if that was enough for the answer.

"So, why are you not piloting the mothership rather than the orbiter?" Tom smiled smugly at the camera then at Dan.

"Well...uh....isn't it obvious?" Dan looked quizzically.

"Not everyone is a rocket scientist, Dan.  The folks out there want to hear your expert viewpoint.  So tell us why your in the orbiter."

"Oh...right!  Well the project is about getting to space cheaply.  So the mothership was designed to fly without a pilot on board.  The actual pilots will be on the ground.  It is also smart so it can fly independently if need be.  I'm in the orbiter to do orbits.  Yeah, for the system to be proven, I have to get the orbiter to orbit and then land back safely on the runway."

"Good.  That sums the mission up pretty good." Tom felt back in control and Dan was all smiles patting himself on the back. "So, Dan, what are you wearing?"

"This is my pressurized flight suit.  It keeps me alive in case of a loss of pressurization."  Dan looked down at his silver suit. "As you can see it has logos of my sponsors."

"Yes, it's very colorful.  And loss of pressurization means when the orbiter looses air Dan won't die because of the suit."  Tom felt a little ticked that Dan didn't elaborate on that detail.

"Yeah, that's it!  On top of this I will be wearing a parachute."

"A parachute?"

"Uh....yeah! In case something bad happens." Dan felt that was enough said.

"Something bad?  Like you blow up?"

"Ah...well....yes, but not exactly.  If the orbiter blows up I blow up with it and the chute is no good.  But if the mothership has a bad failure I can just detach the orbiter and fly it down to safety.  Now if the mothership is badly damaged and the orbiter is damaged as well but in one piece but can't get back to land, then I have the chute to bail out and fly another day."  Dan felt that that was a blunder of an explanation and it was uncomfortable to say.

"Oh I see.  You just want to live no matter what."  Tom stated the obvious but he felt it needed to be said.

"Ah, yeah! Don't you?" Quizzical look again showed up on Dan's face.

"Sure I do.  And we all do." Tom laughed his way through embarrassment.

"Well, good luck on your flight tomorrow.  I hope the Dragonfly project is a success," said Tom concluding the interview.

"Thanks Tom," said Dan with a big smile.

Tom gave a cut sign to the camera men.  The cameras lenses dropped like horses stopping to graze.

"Feel nervous about tomorrow?" asked Tom.

Dan slumped back in his seat with a sigh. "Not as much as I do about this interview."

Tom looked at him quizzically.