Much has been said recently regarding the cost and schedule related to NASA’s successor program to the Space Shuttle. However, this is a subject where considerably more heat than light has been generated, so let’s review the bidding as objectively as possible.
First, some facts: NASA’s commitment has been and continues to be to achieve the first human launch of Orion by March 2015. We see that as eminently achievable, but it’s not a guarantee – there is no such thing in any large scale development program and especially for one where the available funding is never known more than one year in advance.
While there has been moderate growth relative to early cost estimates, these increases are contained within the projected budget profile to which the agency has worked to for the last three years. The development cost for achieving the first crewed flight today is roughly $30 billion, far short of estimates which have been recently bandied about.
How We Got Here
The Constellation Program, now in its fourth year, has nearly completed its ‘formulation’ phase – this is the phase in which concepts are developed, capabilities are defined, requirements are written, and contracts are established with industry.
When the program began, one of the many constraints it was called upon to honor was a ‘go as you pay’ plan – that is, the pace of the program would be dictated largely by the share of NASA’s annual budget that human spaceflight has historically been allocated.
Based on that constraint, it was always recognized that funding for a new development program would be exceedingly tight in the years 2008 thru 2010.
A second constraint, the key to achieving our exploration goals beyond low Earth orbit, was to make our early investments in Orion and Ares I so as to ensure that they could support missions to the moon, the near-Earth asteroids, and Mars, while nonetheless providing the capability to service the International Space Station
A third constraint embodied in legislative guidance was to use as much shuttle infrastructure and workforce as makes sense in the design of NASA’s new human spaceflight architecture.
All of this was in compliance with national policy. That policy, which was born out of the findings of the
An additional desire (regrettably, never a policy mandate) was to do whatever possible to ‘close the gap’ between the last shuttle flight and the start of Constellation launches from KSC.
In short, Constellation is not ‘NASA’s plan’ – it is the manifestation of national policy.
Moreover, Orion and Ares I are not standalone products – the Constellation Program is a collection of seven product lines to conduct operations in and beyond Low Earth Orbit… servicing the ISS, returning U.S. astronauts to the Moon, and enabling exploration beyond – to Mars, Near Earth Asteroids, or other destinations in the solar system. This entire range of product lines encompasses the Constellation architecture.
So with these constraints, and many more, NASA’s Constellation team has executed this early phase – called ‘formulation’ – at historically low cost for a human spaceflight development program. Compared to Apollo, and to Shuttle, and to Space Station, Constellation has been markedly leaner in its efforts to date.
So Why Can’t Orion Fly Sooner?
As we have openly discussed, it is true that inside NASA we challenged our team during this ‘formulation’ phase of Constellation to do better than March of 2015 for flying Orion for the first time with a crew.
Our earliest plans had the first crewed mission targeted for September of 2013. While none of the cost estimates showed that date to be likely, we still felt that being internally aggressive would help us clarify what was really necessary to do the job. In that respect, as a program management strategy, it has succeeded.
It is also true that over the last year, as we approached the end of this formative period, we have adjusted our internal schedules to align with the reasonable projection of our ever-improving cost estimates.
We have thus gained a level of understanding of the ‘work to go’ that is very rich in detail, and a depth in understanding of what each of our requirements costs in time and money – perhaps as well as NASA has ever done. I will leave that to others to judge, but I’m quite proud of what we have been able to achieve.
It is simply a matter of money at this point, not technology. Further, it is not merely a matter of total cost, but also of the time-phasing of when the money becomes available.
Of ‘Unk-Unks’ and Schedules
We have been asked consistently for the last three years ‘what would it take to fly as early as possible’? Study after study of that question has revealed roughly the same answer – not more money, but money earlier, is the key to flying sooner, more confidently, and ultimately with the smallest amount of delay due to ‘problems’.
This is simply because, with sufficient early funding, engineers can investigate the riskiest parts of an emerging design for a spacecraft system or a rocket component and discover hidden problems early, before the design is ‘locked down’.
We call these ‘unknown unknowns’ or unk-unks, and if discovered early they can be accounted for in the design before building the final vehicle or system.
If discovered too late, after the design is ‘locked down’, then there is considerable cost required to rework the design, while the rest of the team waits until it is fixed.
We have done as much early risk mitigation as we have been able to afford in parallel with actually doing the design. But we have been forced to defer or eliminate some of that work in order to remain within our 2009 and 2010 funding limits – which have themselves changed as a result of Administration and Congressional decisions.
So those unk-unk’s we should be discovering now are lying in wait for us, and are of concern as we formulate our plan for achieving a March 2015 first crewed Orion launch, let alone anything earlier.
Keys to Success
NASA’s plans and programs are strictly a reflection of national policy. If the policy is to ‘go to the Moon by 2020’ and ‘go as you pay’, we respond with ‘here is how we propose to do it and, as best we can gauge it, here is how much it will cost’.
A few keys to success – and they are nothing new to program and project managers in any industry – are:
· stable funding – don’t keep changing the money
· stable requirements – don’t keep changing the plan
· early investments to investigate the riskiest parts of a complex design such as a human spaceflight system will save billions in delays and overruns
· a clear vision of the desired outcome – help the team ‘see’ the end game
NASA has done what it said it would do, indeed what it has been directed to do under national policy.
We have a functioning successor program to the shuttle. It is employing and re-invigorating the NASA institution across all of its 10 centers in
We are today producing detailed designs and preparing to perform flight testing this year from test facilities in
We have laid out a plan and architecture, not just to replace the space shuttle, but to take astronauts beyond Low Earth Orbit. Not only are the Orion spacecraft and Ares I rocket progressing well in their designs, but early concept work is proceeding on the heavy-lift Ares V rocket, which will be more powerful than Apollo’s Saturn V, and the Altair Lunar Lander.
Construction is progressing at the
Large scale facilities are being renovated or built anew in
NASA’s Constellation Program is rejuvenating an agency and an industry.
NASA’s value lies in the trails that it blazes, the things we do that are hard, so that industry can follow and create new markets. Our role is to occupy the pinnacle of a $300B ‘space economy’ that generates products and services that bolster the nation’s broader economic productivity. We are doing so in a highly constrained ‘go as you pay’ environment, in parallel with meeting the nation’s commitment to completing the International Space Station, retiring the Space Shuttle, and mapping a course for human endeavor beyond our experience.
Contributed by Jeff Hanley, Constellation Program Manager
Since most of the delays are caused by lack of consistent funding in the early stages of the program, perhaps then the public should be pushing for a faster launch of the Ares V. Since there are technologies that are essential to both rockets, surely if you had more funding, or assurance of funding, you could develop both Ares I and Ares V together, rather than starting Ares V much later. I think people wouldn’t mind the gap as much, if they knew that Ares V was coming earlier than 2018.
Obama should direct NASA (and give then the money) to fly out Shuttle until Orion is flying. If Soyuz has a re-entry accident between 2011 and 2015 how are you going to get the six crew off ISS? Do they stay in orbit for 2 years while Soyuz is fixed? Does NASA ring China and ask for their help? If USA grounds Shuttle in 2010 it will regret it as much as gap between Apollo and Shuttle (also 6 years). The Russians are buidling a new six person spacecraft – are the Russians planning a gap between Soyuz and their new spacecraft – no way!
The GAP is just plain stupid, dumb and bad planning. NASA should have never agreed to it.
Very interesting and refreshingly straight forward explanation of NASA’s role in implementing America’s national space policy.
Still vague on rationale for abandoning pursuit of second generation shuttle design in favour of return to rocket ships with Orion/Constellation program – other than greater mission flexibilty regarding servicing space station and moon mission, etc. Implication is shuttle less safe/dependable following tragic losses of Challenger and Columbia(?)
Rationale for Mars mission seems pretty thin. Other than for pure science and exploration, seems like a long way to go for a photo op.
Whatever became of permanent space habitat concept (colony)? Or is it just too frakin’ costly to consider realistically?
Wonderful post about the state of the program – thank you for that. I wish the gov. would give NASA more budget (it’s not even 1%!!) but at least we are finally moving onto a system to get us out of LEO.
Inspiring and somewhat reassuring, Mr. Hanley, BUT: “The development cost for achieving the first crewed flight today is roughly $30 billion.” *$30 BILLION DOLLARS?!*
Oh. My. GOD!!
spaceflight isn’t cheap…nor would we want it to be. Cost controls are important and is’t important we try to meet cost estimates but not at the expense of nicle and diming and second guessing every decision these project managers make. If someone else (the Cninese, the Russians, SpaceX) can build a system to take us back to the Moon any cheaper, fine let them try.
Jeff,
You have the support of myself, family, and friends. I can only hope that the belly button lint watchers on the hill will follow thru with funding for the program. Please do what you can to close the gap safely, (and with a eye on beyond LEO). Remember W.V.B. had to break a few eggs to get the final Saturn 1B & V configurations, (Planning, Funding, & Testing). Push hard, and keep in mind we respect, and support You. Thank you, and your work groups, for the time and effort.
God Bless You, Your Family, and Fellow Workers,
Carl
P.S.
Draft John Young for the new administrator! We need a Him at the helm!
Much as I admire John Young as an astronaut, reports of his role as head of the astronauts office is less than laudatory. The basic problem was he lacked the grit needed to be a forceful administrator He’s a good man, he was a good astronaut, he didn’t have what it took to be a good leader outside those that venue.
Without a true threat, as existed in 1979, the money will never materialize. The Soviet Union said your system works because you have the shuttle, & Jimmy Carter allocated $600 million to finish it.
Jeff, I have been working as a subcontractor to NASA for about 25 years now so clearly remember when the kind of information and strategic analysis you’ve provided in this blog were not even imaginable. No matter what my viewpoints on Constellation might be, your willingness, as Program Manager to clearly share yours is commendable and promises the best hope for a good outcome. By doing so you greatly help the discussion to focus on the merits of Constellation, and not the politics. May your example be highly contagious.
Jeff, I have been working as a subcontractor to NASA for about 25 years now so clearly remember when the kind of information and strategic analysis you’ve provided in this blog were not even imaginable. No matter what my viewpoints on Constellation might be, your willingness, as Program Manager to clearly share yours is commendable and promises the best hope for a good outcome. By doing so you greatly help the discussion to focus on the merits of Constellation, and not the politics. May your example be highly contagious.
The kernel of truth behind the large amount of misgivings with the current state of Constellation is the decision to go with the current Ares I/V architecture. $30 billion to develop a launch vehicle to a first crewed flight is beyond shameful – there are rockets with nearly the same capability flying right now. $30 billion to basically duplicate the lifting capability of currently flying rockets – must be a government project! NASA could have developed and flown a simpler CLV for much less and not had any gap to be worrying about had they built upon the knowledge base from the OSP program. Instead NASA chose the current sub-optimal Ares launch vehicles, continually touting the fact that Ares I development will help pay for Ares V development, while in fact Ares V is turning into a vehicle that uses almost nothing from Ares I development beyond the J-2X. I fully expect that the Ares I launch vehicle will be cancelled when it is shown to the new Administration/Administrator that is it a colossal waste of taxpayers money. NASA’s formidable talent base should be put toward developing the space vehicles and systems needed by the VSE, not to developing the vehicles to deliver those systems to the “job site” (moon, mars, etc.)
$30 billion is still too much. One’s back should not be patted for this.
Would love to know the breakdown between Ares-1 and Orion costs. I understand Ares-1 itself costs more than $10b.
I remember an estimate for crew rating an EELV was $600m. (Delta IV). Even if it was ten times as much it would have been a bargain in comparison. I’d like one of these blogs to address why EELV’s were not chosen. The abort black zones have been shown to be avoidable via trajectory modifications. The higher cost per launch is obviously worth it in comparison to the extra development costs of ‘The Stick’.
Choosing an EELV would allow development money to be diverted to Ares V – which is the real goal (as it will launch the lunar hardware).
I just don’t get how $30b is a bargain.
The “Vision for Space Exploration” document states exactly what the goal of the NASA exploration effort is:
“The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.”
In case that wasn’t enough, it says the United States will “Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests.” … “Acquire crew transportation to and from the International Space Station, as required, after the Space Shuttle is retired from service.” … “Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other services supporting the International Space Station and exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit.”
One of the big reasons there is so much opposition to the current Constellation program, and Ares 1 in particular, is that this effort doesn’t do much to promote the goals of science, security, and economics. In fact, it could be seen as taking funding away from other efforts that would promote these important goals. To survive, I think Constellation needs to change to address those goals in the short term (not 2020!). There are many ways it could do this.
Jeff,
I realise NASA has moved on from Ares V architecture to design. However, I still question after a year whether the 1700 designs NASA considered actually covered the possibilities that make use of existing technology. I have never seen any NASA discussion of the design below.
Ares I is a great design – a first stage that can’t explode – only burn. One SRB instead of STS’s two SRBs and three SSME’s is less complex and safer. Half the reason we watch space launches is out of concern something will go hugely wrong during first stage flight. Ares V will have six larger liquid fuel engines and two longer SRBs. Even greater complexity. The concern for first stage explosions won’t go away, even though Ares V will be unmanned.
The desire to recycle existing technology meant the 1700 Ares V designs considered were limited in architecture. A four SRB first stage was ruled out on launch pad issues. A three SRB first stage was ruled out at some point and no other efforts were made to repeat the safe, less complex architecture of Ares I.
The six RS-68Bs will waste 200 tonnes of LOX/LH2 in pre-lift-off burn (SRB ignition not commenced until RS-68s all reach 90% power)and low Isp (409vac versus 450vac for the SSME).
While RS-68s are half the price of SSME’s, 200 tonnes is a big waste of rocket mass. RS-68 efficiency is low, in part, due to the size of the nozzle when six need to be stacked under the tanks and atmospheric turbulence at low altitudes.
I think a lower mass, safer and less complex Ares V can be achieved with a first stage of a single SRB (to a new design) that has three nozzles. The second stage is then about 1000 tonne lighter than the current Core. The second stage will have three RS-68s with much larger nozzles and an Isp vac of about 440 seconds (see below for discussion of 440 seconds). The EDS is the same.
The basis principle of the current SRB designs is the fuel is in the shape of a tube adhered to an outer shell. The fuel is burnt by igniting the inside of the tube.
Thicker fuel ‘tubes’ don’t burn fast enough. Rather than make longer SRBs, the new design has concentric fuel elements outside the inner tube. The middle fuel element is adhered to the outside of first shell. The outer fuel element is adhered to the inside of a shell ten metres in diameter (for Ares V). There is an annular space between middle and outer fuel elements which is ignited by a ring-shaped charge. The structure connecting the inner and outer shells will need to be protected by an ablative material where it will be exposed to hot gas.
This new design should, in my view, results in an Ares V of slightly lighter weight and slightly lesser height. The three nozzles of the SRB can have a nozzle bell of about 5.4 metres diameter giving a larger Isp. Larger nozzles are possible if their axis can be moved further from the rocket axis and closer to the ten metre diameter shell.
The new design presents a smaller cross-section for the journey through the atmosphere, deducing atmospheric drag by about 20%.
Three engines/three nozzles appears to strike a good risk balance between complexity and loss of power fro failure of engine/nozzle.
There will be arguments as to whether an Isp vac of 440 seconds can be achieved in an RS-68 style engine. In space engines like the CECE now achieve an Isp of 465 seconds with greater heating of the fuel as it flows through the bell of the nozzle. The SSME has an Isp vac of 450 seconds. The PWR family of rocket engines share scalable designs. Work on the J-2X design is relevant to a high altitude start version of an RS-68.
The disadvantages of this new design is that the SRB (first stage)will need to be made at/near Michoud and filled and tested at Stennis as it will weigh about 2600 tonnes once complete. It can’t be transported over land from ATK in Utah.
It will also produce about 70% more solid fuel exhaust than the current design.
An advantage of the new design is load can be separately matched to the length of first stage fuel elements and second stage tanks. The present Ares V design requires the Core to be matched to the SRBs.
In the next 50 years (the life span of Ares V) we will surely want to build much larger and cheaper space stations for research and luxury tourism (where people travel up only by LOX/LH2 only launches).
Building in small sections like the ISS is very expensive. Lifting 200 tonnes into orbit in one go is much more efficient. While there is an effective 55MN thrust limit on launches at KSC due to noise (proximity of Titusville), Stennis is permitted to test rocket groups at well over 60MN thrust. There is no reason larger launches could not be done from a minimalist launch pad on an island in the Pacific Ocean.
I think it is wonderful that NASA has finally decided to take the next step in space exploration. I hear many people talk about the cost as the biggest issue with it and i do understand this thought. Though when you look deeper in to it you start to understand. First off things cost more then they did in the 70’s and 80’s. Technology has advanced and become even more expensive on the high end, and we aim to put more safety in to the project. I think this is work the cost.
I support NASA and hpe they will be granted a greater funding. We waist to much in taxpayer money on other countries and poorly run projects that could be put to something more usefull such as expanding Americas undertanding and presence in space.
I wish I could help provide more for NASA to help them along.
Well done NASA. In my opinion, your plans are rock solid. Unfortunately, you have a limited budget and must do a constant balaning act. In response to those who seem to constantly complain about the cost (of things), NASA is generating employment and stimulating your domestic economy. Given the current state of global economics and the noble ends of NASA’s activities I repeat, Well done NASA!
bitch
What has happened to the Augustine enquiry into human space exploration. Its nearly one third the way through its enquiry time and not another word about it sine the announcement.
I have a paper ready to send, but no email address to send it to.
NASA media office, who responded several times within seconds would give no information apart from the public enquiries email address.
What’s going on?? The White House can’t be happy.
Peter Egan
The really big costs in reworking a design do not happen until you done all the reviews,testing and sent the plans to contractors who began to tool up for production.
While a product is still just cad files and mockups changes are still pretty easy and cheap.
Orion and Ares are still at an early stage of development so changes at this point should still be relatively easy.
A good historical example would be the evolution of the Apollo spacecraft and Saturn launch vehicles.
Those guys didn’t even had cad and computer modeling programs it was all slide rules and drafting tables.
On the RS-68 my big complaint on six rs-68s is not the wasting of fuel as that is cheap but the fact that many RS-68s would use a lot of helium which is not very cheap at all.
Please email me back about this matter in private…Since the Space Shuttles are due to be retired in 2010…Is this really a wise thing to do? My concerns are as follows…
Granted I was only a dining services supervisor for Eastern Airlines here in Atlanta, Georgia. I don’t pretend to be an expert with all of NASA’s programs. However, I grew up during the time of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. To me, Aries and Constellation seems like a step backward back to that era.
Obviously I am not an expert in the field of NASA…even though I follow you constanly.
We only have three shuttles left. I have to tell you that I was devastated when both Challenger, and then, Columbia experienced a cataspropic event. Flying is always slight risk even on a major airline. Every major airline has had a catastrophic event.
We are going to have to use a foreign nation to access the ISS. Is this a wise approach? Before Eastern’s bankruptcy, (“cease and desist operations,” came down) we had a place called ‘remote’ here at ATL. We had spare aircraft if needed. I have a really uneasy feeling about retiring all three shuttles. Our shuttles are the pride of space vehicles. Soyuz is an easy answer, but for how long will we have to depend on that type of antiquated technology?
This is just a thought from someone who follows NASA constantly. Instead of retiring the fleet of shuttles…keep them available and in good shape. We may need them…There must be a place at KSC, JPL, Langley, Huntsville, Houston or even create a place to house the shuttles where they could be protected instead of farming them out to just anyone.
I am concerned
Michael Langley
Atlanta, Georgia
I am so bored looking at astronaughts doing repair work in LEO. By now that should be serviced by companies – I think we should plan for a missions to the asteriod belt. We cannot go to mars with current technology and going to moon is a diversion – we need deep space exploration and space docking betwwen asteriods and earth – potential collisions with asteriods – traing for long term duration in space potential . We need to develop whole new set of technologies – . This is a 20 year plan – each administraion will be devoted to completing specific sections. New rocket engines – protection for people in space – artificial gravity – communications – AI systems – holgraphic projections 3D – AND MOST OF ALL – FULL INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION – every nation on earth has to brought into program, that is why I believe in a 20 year time frame – what is the rush anyway. that will give us the the time to test new technologies- maybe if all nations are focussing on 1 thing for humanity – mankind might actually progress in the 21’st century.
We went from nothing to the moon in 7 years in the 1960’s and now we can’t build a ship to get to the space station until 2015, this makes me sick!! and maybe never back to the moon.
But we can spend billions on other wast full programs like cash for clunkers!! NASA could have used that 3 billion dollars for the Orion to finish it now. With all the super computers and CAD stuff it should be a breeze today. Oh I forgot we have no manufacturing base any more it’s in China.
We could have the Orion ready to fly by 2011 if we wanted too, we have lots of smart people here if we just get out of there way and let them build it, Oh, and keep the Space Shuttles flights going until the Orion is flying with astronauts.
I grew up with the space program and it make me sick that we are so impudent today in building stuff fast. In the 1960’s we went to the moon with a slide rule and pocket protector.
I wish the Gov. would realize that the space programs are America and we need to build on that so we can produce jobs in the USA and engineers, we need engineers! all technology around us can from NASA or the military programs, don’t forget that.
Has NASA considered dublicating a portion for the ISS for a second station to be used by the scintific community as a low cost alternative to ARES. Maybe making this one mobile with thrust to move out to a higher orbit and back?
Custom writing service provide students with custom papers written exclusively for you. Need custom essay or essay writing help – we got it.
from custom writings help. We write all custom papers that you need.
Well done NASA. In my opinion, your plans are rock solid. Unfortunately, you have a limited budget and must do a constant balaning act. In response to those who seem to constantly complain about the cost (of things), NASA is generating employment and stimulating your domestic economy. Given the current state of global economics and the noble ends of NASA's activities I repeat, Well done NASA! AND
AMSER is a portal of educational resources and services built specifically for use by those in Community and Technical Colleges but free for anyone to use AND AND
It is simply a matter of money at this point, not technology. Further, it is not merely a matter of total cost, but also of the time-phasing of when the money becomes available. I agree with this fact. I will use similar topic for my , and in my college. Thanks.
I think the really big costs in reworking a design do not happen until you done all the reviews,testing and sent the plans to contractors who began to tool up for production.
While a product is still just cad files and mockups changes are still pretty easy and cheap.
Orion and Ares are still at an early stage of development so changes at this point should still be relatively easy.
A good historical example would be the evolution of the Apollo spacecraft and Saturn launch vehicles.
Those guys didn’t even had cad and computer modeling programs it was all slide rules and drafting tables.
On the RS-68 my big complaint on six rs-68s is not the wasting of fuel as that is cheap but the fact that many RS-68s would use a lot of helium which is not very cheap at all.
I really think it is wonderful that NASA has finally decided to take the next step in space exploration. I hear many people talk about the cost as the biggest issue with it and i do understand this thought. Though when you look deeper in to it you start to understand. First off things cost more then they did in the 70’s and 80’s. Technology has advanced and become even more expensive on the high end, and we aim to put more safety in to the project. I think this is work the cost.
I support NASA and hpe they will be granted a greater funding. We waist to much in taxpayer money on other countries and poorly run projects that could be put to something more usefull such as expanding Americas undertanding and presence in space.
In 2008, there was same problem like inadequate funding from the concerned authorities. But from 2008-09 most of the nations facing economic sink down problem, i would say concerned authorities or group must focus on this, which will lead us bright future. Thanks:
. This is a
Dear Sir,
I am intetested about Air and Space matter.,Looking for more information on Constellation which I found.Thank You very much for all your information.
Regards
Kumar Som
There comes a time when we will all need to use … even NASA will have too. Ha.
Thanks for the post..
Give me new information..
Thanks for this great post about your Constellation Program.
.
thanks for all the marvelous info much appreciated
So far, I managed to go though only some of posts you discuss here, but I find them very interesting and informative. Just want say thank you for the information you have shared. Regards James from
Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful and beneficial to your readers.
Mike,
from
thank you for this interesting info. i was looking for something like this.
i enjoy reading your blog
, , , ,
thanks
keep up the good work and thanks for this.
WOW.I was searching for some info and i came across this.Thanks
Looking for how to get a six pack fast?
This ab machine will rip your abs into six pack
When you play game you can use , is do the task, Do you know how to buy ,you can at there, We offer the , the Best Service and the Latest Warhammer Information Here.
Thanks for this informative information!
– – – –
go go go NASA!! we hope you can make it go to the Moon on 2020..yeah!
Usually I do not post on blogs, but I would like to say that this blog really forced me to do so! Thanks, really nice post.
nice info, thanks