NASA’s high hopes for the commercial space game

NASA’s high hopes for the commercial space game

NASA was set to hold a news conference at noon Monday, but Big B couldn’t wait — Boeing announced Monday it’s setting up an office at Kennedy Space Center, where it hopes to build a new crew capsule for tomorrow’s spacefarers. NASA will let Boeing use the space shuttles’ old Orbiter Processing Facility-3 to work on its Crew Space Transportation 100 spacecraft — — that is, if everything goes right.

The company is clearly excited, but get a load of all these caveats in its statement Monday:

“We selected Florida due to the cost benefits achieved with a consolidated operation, the skilled local workforce, and proximity to our NASA customer,” said John Mulholland, vice president and program manager of Commercial Programs for Boeing Space Exploration. “Pending the continued selection of Boeing for future Commercial Crew development and service contracts, and sufficient NASA funding, we project a Commercial Crew program workforce ramping up to 550 local jobs by our scheduled operational date of December 2015. The CST-100 will provide NASA with reliable, safe, and affordable transportation to the International Space Station and other destinations in Low Earth Orbit.”


NASA, Boeing and Florida space industry officials hope that a rising space tide lifts all space boats — that Boeing, its sub-contractors and other big players not only will help fill the gap left by the space shuttle program, but put humans back into orbit for “less” than it might have cost NASA by itself.  Here’s what the company said about its capsule’s planned capabilities:

The Commercial Crew program consists of developing, manufacturing, testing and evaluating, and demonstrating the CST-100 spacecraft, launch vehicle and mission operations — all part of Boeing’s Commercial Crew Transportation System (CCTS) — for NASA’s new Commercial Crew human spaceflight program that will provide flights to the International Space Station. Boeing’s system will also be capable of supporting Bigelow Aerospace’s planned orbital space complex. The program is based on the company’s experience and innovation over the past 50 years of human spaceflight and nearly 100 years of commercial aviation.

The CST-100 is a reusable capsule-shaped spacecraft based on proven materials and subsystem technologies that can transport up to seven people, or a combination of people and cargo. Boeing has designed the spacecraft to be compatible with a variety of expendable rockets and selected the United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V launch vehicle for initial CST-100 test flights in 2015.

Join the Conversation

What a shock, they selected the Atlas V as their test vehicle, oh yah they make em. Given that the DoD is opening up launch services I bet Boeing is trying to monopolize as many over priced launches as it can for ULA.

GAO REPORT RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS OVER ULA BLOCK BUY
http://​www​.gao​.gov/​n​e​w​.​i​t​e​m​s​/​d​1​1​6​4​1​.​pdf

Boeing almost has a defacto monopoly on launch vehicles right now anyway, at least those that could possibly be man-rated. Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy are both ULA rockets. SpaceX has got a serious chance to take a bite out of Boeing’s market share if the Falcon9 and Falcon Heavy come along on time and are as cheap as Musk promises.

Next announcement — Boeing buys competitors in space industry, while their congressional support from the states of Washington, Kansas and now South Carolina pressure the Obama administration to block further contracts to SpaceX and take sole source (like the did the Tanker, Future Combat Systems, JTRS, C-130 maintenance — doesn’t matter if one of their former executives went to federal prison or not) ownnership. If not, then their congressional committees will threaten to vote no on the spending bill for 2012 hanging up funding DoD programs — now that’s a political monopolistic move if I’ve ever seen one.

I see a lot of complaining but no real suggestions about what else can be done. The costs involved with developing the advanced technologies involved in something this involved are astronomical. Boeing uses hundreds, maybe thousands of subcontractors to come up with a C-17, an F-18, or Delta lV; so the work gets spread around. Boeing just has the facilities to do the final assembly. It’s unlikely that another Boeing is going to come along, so we just have to be sure we continue to get as much as we can for our money with the system we have.
Some of the best aviation and aerospace systems and craft are made in this country.

RIP Space Shuttle Program.

I thought we are outsourcing our money and space program to Russia.

I think that you might soon be seeing the “answer” in action in the commercial space launch business. For all of the Virgin money going into the Scaled Composites space launch systems, think about what it would have cost from NASA! The bottom line is that some of the smaller companies, who are less invested in the “standard way of doing business” are doing things differently.

These companies are not “doing it” in Russia or China or some third world nation where labor, even highly skilled labor, is dirt cheap. They are doing it in the US, with US salaries and no preconceived notion on how much oversight, management and bureaucracy is needed to get to space! Bravo Zulu, guys!

Yeah but the Scaled Composites spacecraft is a toy compared to the heavy lifters NASA has produced.… I think SpaceX is an interesting operation and Boeing isn’t doing a horrible job at getting their launch vehicle programs running, although they have a distinct advantage of legacy equipment and experience.

Wow! We are actually talking about maybe one day having a space program! I thought that NASA was already dead.

We have some small hope that once the current NASA administrator is done with his Muslim world out-reach program that our space adminstration might try to go back to space.

Boeing are crooks, period. Go to SpaceXs site and realize everything that company has accomplished has been done for under $1 billion. Everything, that includes all overhead and personnel costs.

If you knew what you were talking about it might make a difference. EVERYTHING that SpaceX has moving forward was transferred to them from NASA and her contractors. In point of FACT a major component that Boeing built for NASA was HANDED OVER to SPACEX for ZIP Dollars. Yep, old Elon got all you mugs fooled. Good salesman, lousy integrity challenged person.

Starship 1 is not a pickup truck to space, but neither was the shuttle! My point is that the new round of ventures into space are redefining the ‘rocket science’ without the very questionable benefit of NASA’ s oversight! Sent from my iPhone

If STemplar had knowledge of the booster industry, he would know that the Atlas engines are made by a Russian company (partly in) the Ukraine. What is the most expensive part of a booster?
The Delta uses a version of the Space Shuttle Main Engine, made in the USA. For that reason it is a bit more expensive than the Russian engine.

Post a link or shut up.

did you read the GAO report? What I posted has nothing to do with where engines are manufactured. It has to do with shady business practices by Boeing ala ULA.

Key GAO findings include:

No Justification for Five-Year Duration. When asked why a block buy period of 5 years was optimal,
“ULA [was] at a loss to explain the rationale.” (p. 18)

Studies Rely on Faulty Inputs from ULA.

A survey on the U.S. industrial base conducted by ULA and provided to DoD was not “administered in a manner consistent with sound survey methodology practices.” (p. 11)
The survey cover letter included “ULA’s Chief Executive Officer’s views on the ‘inefficient’ method used by DoD to acquire launch vehicles” and stated “that the goal of the survey is to “justify” a new acquisition strategy “that will enhance our collective business.”” (p. 11)
One ULA official admitted: “We wanted certain answers.” (p. 11)

Excess Purchases Would Kill Competition. “The expected block buy may commit the government to buy more booster cores
than it needs.”

On Friday the Air Force, NASA and NRO issued a memorandum of understanding (MOU) setting the strategy to allow new companies to compete for launch contracts.
For every year between FY 05 and FY 09, fewer than 50% of planned ULA missions actually launched. (p. 17)
If ULA produces more cores than the USAF needs, there will be no competition for additional missions.

Competition Offers “Unprecedented” Opportunity to Lower Costs. “ [A]s new launch providers emerge who may be able to compete for EELV launches, providing the government with an unprecedented opportunity to incentivize efficiencies at ULA.” (p. 15)

ULA Costs Are Not Well-Understood; DoD Cannot Effectively Negotiate with Current Information.

“According to Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) reports, ULA proposals contain inadequate cost or pricing data that make it difficult for DoD to assess the adequacy and fairness of launch prices and the cost-effectiveness of launch operations.” (p. 13)
Since ULA’s formation, every DCAA audit of EELV pricing found “unsupported or questioned costs ranging from 20–60 percent” and DCAA audits “consistently find ULA proposals and estimating techniques inadequate for evaluation.” (p. 14)
“DCAA officials believe that program contracting officials have an inadequate basis on which to negotiate launch contracts.” (p. 14)Key GAO findings include:

Didn’t you mean the previous administration’s “plan” to “save” the Middle East with US blood and treasure at any cost? While that wimpy Obummer threw it all away because of the recent sovereign Iraqi government decree for unilateral kangaroo courts of US troops on Iraqi soil for “attempted” crimes (there is no “attempt” when you are the infidel)?

The rapid decline of space industry presages what is going to happen to the defense contractors as they are pulled of the government teat. The problem is the same — too much money for too long with too little competition.

Just like the space industry the defense contractors will eventually die, leaving in their place a handful of small toy like operations similar to space X. It will look like a catastrophe but in 50 years maybe we will have something worth paying for.

Starship 1 doesn’t go to space any more than walking out your front door is going to Hong Kong.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement