May 2008
Privatize
the Space Shuttle
Coordinated by: Don A. Nelson, Retired NASA Aerospace
Engineer
Contact: nasaproblems@yahoo.com
“A countdown clock has started, but unfortunately it is not to launch;
rather, it is a countdown to crisis.” Sen. Bill Nelson
NASA has failed to meet
their development goals for the space shuttle replacement. Their Ares I Orion,
the promised “safe, simple, and soon” space shuttle replacement
which was to the cornerstone for human space transportation in their
Constellation Program, has instead become a crisis that threatens to devastate
the
Funding that is needed for
research and exploration programs will be diverted for years to purchase
foreign launch service support to space station. Even “if” the numerous development problems with Ares
I Orion could be solved it would be a sub-standard, costly, and unsafe launch
system.
The President and Congress
have three options for addressing this crisis:
One:
Continue on the course NASA management has set and be willing to accept the
devastating consequences.
Two:
Abandon the space station and renege on the agreement with the international
partners.
Three:
Continue to support space station with space shuttle and restructure the goals
of the Constellation Program.
There is only one solution
to this crisis…continue with the space shuttle. However, the shuttle must
be privatized to make it a safe and affordable space transportation system.
Privatization lowers the launch cost to competitive commercial levels, provides
crew escape pods, saves shuttle technology, saves thousand of skilled space
jobs, and eliminates the space station supply gap, and most importantly
provides a feasible and realistic space transportation system for access to
space. HOWEVER, ACTION MUST BE IMMEDIATELY
IMPLEMENTED…OR THE SHUTTLE VENDORS WILL BE LOST!
Commercial Space Shuttle Business Plan
Commercial Orbital Transportation
Services (COTS) Problems
Ares I Orion (shuttle replacement
vehicle) Warning Signs of Failure
Constellation Funding Problems
NASA’s “Pig in a Poke”
Modus Operandi
Foreign Space Agencies Select Reusable
Next Generation Vehicles
21st Century Reusable Space
Based Transportation Plan
Contact for Additional Information
Commercial Space Shuttle Business Plan
Executive Summary
The existing space shuttle
fleet and assets will be transferred to a government corporation and be
operated in the current flight and support modes. The government corporation
will initiate plans to transfer the fleet and assets to a privately operated
company. The procedure will be the same as was conducted with the transfer of
the
Commercial Space Shuttle
Privatization Business Plan
Preface
There is an old axiom that governs
all space endeavors… “If you can’t get it into
space…you can’t use it in space.” The ability of the
Why the space shuttle fleet must
be privatized:
·
There is
compelling evidence that the success of the Ares I Orion space shuttle
replacement is threatened by costly development problems which will extend the
space station supply launch gap beyond the current five years. NASA has
conceded that more funding will not eliminate the launch gap.
·
The Commercial
Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) launch systems do not exist and their
development success is extremely questionable.
·
A human space
transportation using the heavy lift Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles cannot
be developed in time to prevent a launch gap. These launch vehicles cannot
compete in the commercial launch market because of high labor cost.
·
There are
feasible and realistic cost effective approaches for making the space shuttle a
competitive launch system.
Why the space station supply
launch service gap must be eliminated:
·
The troubling
relationship with the Russian government puts in question the availability or
affordability of the Soyuz transportation system.
·
The space station
could be lost because critical components (control moment gyros) can only be
delivered by the space shuttle.
·
Thousands of
critical skilled space jobs and are at risk of being lost.
·
The increasing
development problems of the Ares Orion shuttle replacement vehicle are warning
signs of cancellation.
======================
Commercial Space
Shuttle Development Phases
PHASE I
·
Shuttle fleet
operations will be conducted jointly by NASA and the government corporation
teams from NASA facilities during the Phase I transition period. The government corporation will be
permitted to continue to use NASA facilities until the private company has
established operations facilities.
Phase II
·
Third orbiter
is removed from flight operations and transferred to the private company which
will modify the orbiter to reduce launch cost and improve safety (Commercial
Space Shuttle II). The private company will be permitted to sell bonds and
stock to finance modifications and startup cost.
·
The company
will establish control and launch facilities for the Shuttle II operations
·
Launch market
demands will determine when the remaining orbiters will be scheduled
for upgrades.
Phase III
·
Space Shuttle
III will be a launch vehicle development in coordination with NASA and the
company for improvements in operations and increased safety.
=======================
Chart 3
The Current Space
Shuttle... Too Many Negatives
Too Expensive to
Operate:
The current space
shuttle’s operation consumes over 20 percent of NASA’s budget. The NASA management structure is too
fragmented to effectively direct flight operations. There are too many employees (17,000) at too many
centers. This results in excessive operation cost.
Extremely Difficult to
Upgrade:
Since 1994 NASA has
invested over $8 billion in upgrades for the shuttle launch system. The space shuttle integrated avionic
system was not designed to be upgraded.
The glass cockpit upgrade is a dismal example of the upgrade problem. This
project was started in 1992, was first flown in April 2000, and was not
completed until 2006. The cost soared to over $300 million for an upgrade that
provided only a cosmetic effect and marginal flight safety.
Flight and Ground
Systems are Obsolete and Fragile:
Since 1999 the
aging shuttle fleet has sent 20 warnings of an impending disaster. There is no reason to believe that these warnings
will not continue and that one of these warnings will be missed!
No Acceptable Crew
Escape System:
It was a mistake to
believe that the shuttle flight safety could be that of aircraft safety. The space shuttle must have a crew escape system for launch,
on-orbit, and re-entry phases of flight.
The privatized Commercial
Space Shuttle solves these problems!
========================
Chart 4
Commercial
Space Shuttle reduces operations expense:
Proven automated flight and ground systems will drastically reduce
operations cost. Modular system components provide cost effective upgrades. Corporate
consolidation of flight and launch operations significantly reduce operation
cost and increase flight rate. Commercial Shuttle launch costs of $205
mil/mission are realistic.
Million $
===========================
Chart 5
Space Shuttle Flight
Safety Comparisons
Space Shuttle had
completed 67 consecutive missions before having a catastrophic mission. The two
fatal missions were survivable if crew escape pods have been available.
Russian Soyuz had
completed 68 consecutive missions before having a catastrophic mission. Two
flight crews have been lost, both during entry phase of mission.
Sea Launch had completed
20 consecutive launches before the January 30th 2007 failure.
Atlas V has launched 76
times without a failure.
Delta II had 72
consecutive launches.
Ariane has 68 consecutive launches.
Ariane 5 has 19 consecutive launches since the December
2002 failure.
SPACE SHUTTLE HAS PROVEN TO BE AS
RELIABILE AS ANY LAUNCH SYSTEM…ALL IT NEEDS IS A CREW ESCAPE SYSTEM!
======================================
Commercial
Space Shuttle Crew Escape Pods System
Automation of the flight
control system provides enough weight saving (see wt. chart)
to install four to five crew escape pods. The pods provide
protection for all phases of flight
=======================================
Privatizing the Space Shuttle Fleet
- The government enables space shuttle
privatization by the transfer to a US Government corporation and then at a
later date, a sale to the private sector (example: the United Stated
Enrichment Corporation (USEC).
- The government would provide indemnification,
tax exempt status, and government loans until the corporation establishes
a profitable operating mode. (Example: Arianespace Corporation).
- During the period of operation as a US
Government Corporation the private operator would use existing NASA facilities as a
non-interference operator to the NASA’s Ares/Orion program.
- The private corporation will upgrade the fleet
and construct private launch facilities (Space
- NASA would be tasked to conduct technology
research projects that expand the capability of the private space
launch industry.
========================================
Chart 8
Shuttle II / CEP Development Cost Estimate
Phase II Four Years Program
|
|
Cost ~ $ Mil |
|
Escape Pods |
500 |
|
Avionics |
1200 |
|
Ground Support |
800 |
|
|
|
|
Contingency/Fees(40%) |
1000 |
|
Got. Support(15%) |
375 |
|
|
===== |
|
TOTAL |
3875 |
Escape
pods cost of $500
million is for the development and delivery of 12 pods.
Avionics cost of $1.2 billion is for all
remaining Orbiters and includes integrated vehicle health management systems,
automated flight control, and replacing wiring with fiber optics. Avionics
design is to be based on modular subsystems to permit uncomplicated system
upgrades.
Ground
systems cost of
$800 million is for new pre-mission planning support, ground monitoring, and
integrated assembly/launch pad facilities. NO SS II VEHICLE COMMAND
FUNCTIONS WILL BE REQUIRED FROM THE NASA-JSC OR NASA-KSC FACILITIES.
============================================================
Chart 9
Commercial Space
Shuttle III Safety and Performance Upgrade Priority List
Phase III
Unlike the Ares launch
vehicles there are viable avenues for improving the performance and safety of
the commercial SS II. The following systems are high priority candidates for
the SS III configuration:
·
Thermal
Protection System - consideration must be given to TPS improvement. The X-37
flight test for thermal protection must be reinstated.
·
External Tank
- investigate lowering the cost of the tank.
o
Retractable
thermal ground blanket at launch pad.
o
Explore using
the tank for on orbit storage and deep space facilities.
·
Solid Rocket
Booster Motors
o
Test large
diameter hybrid motors.
o
Investigate
removing thrust vectoring.
o
Consider
additional manufacturer.
·
Mechanical and
Power
o
Replace APU
and hydraulics. Develop long life high density batteries.
·
Non Toxic
OMS/RCS
o
Sole source
for OMS/RCS hypergolic propellants unacceptable.
Removing
flight operations from NASA permits the agency to conduct these technology needs !!!
It is feasible
that the Space Shuttle III can compete for commercial payloads and efficiently
deliver enough payload mass to low earth orbit for construction of large space
based vehicles. This would preclude development of a heavy lift launch vehicle.
============================================================
Chart 10
Shuttle III / Technology Programs Development
Cost
Estimations
Cost
~ $Mil.
Thermal
Protection 1250
Rocket
Booster Motors 750
External
Tank 650
Replace
Fuel Cells 750
Replace
APU/Hydraulics 950
Non
Toxic OMS/RCS 650
Contingency/Fee
(40%) 2000
Govt.
Support (15%) 750
====
TOTAL 7750
=======================================
Chart 11
Shuttle III / EELV / Ares I Launch
Costs Comparison
International Space Station
There have been extensive
undertakings to reduce the cost of expendable launch vehicles which has
resulted in significant reductions in their operations costs. There has NEVER
been any determined effort to reduce the cost of space shuttle operations.
·
Space
Shuttle (SS) 2006 cost to deliver crew and cargo to station.
·
Predicted
commercial Space Shuttle III cost for station mission.
·
Boeing
EELV heavy cost for two launches does not include cost of crew and cargo
vehicles.
·
Ares
I / ATV station support requires the Ares I for crew and two ATV launches on Ariane V to achieve SS payload capability.
Note: In
the last five years only 17 of 97 commercial payloads were on
=============================
Chart 12
Conclusions
·
Expanded space exploration and utilization has
been stymied in the
·
Allowing
a contractor to own (or lease) the orbiters and market launch services would
give the contractor vested interest for reducing operations costs.
·
Privatization
permits the
·
The commercial space shuttle fleet eliminates the
space station launch supply gap.
·
Privatization
solves the space station critical replacement components problem.
·
Privatization
provides access to the space station for the $1.5 billion Alpha Magnetic
Spectrometer.
·
The
United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) is a successful example of
transferring government property to the private sector.
·
Privatization
of the space shuttle provides a path of minimum obstacles for the development
of a 21st century competitive space transportation system.
Now is time for the
aerospace community to:
”Speak
out…or forever suffer the consequences of remaining silent!”
Join the challenge…petition the
President and Congress to:
Stop our jobs from going
overseas…privatize the Space Shuttle…and refocus the vision for
space exploration.
Contact them at:
http://mygov.governmentguide.com/mygov/dbq/officials/
===============================
Backup Information and Charts
Feasible and
Realistic Goals for the Commercial Space Shuttle
·
Significant
commercial space shuttle launch cost reductions are feasible ($200 million per
flight?).
·
Support an
initial flight rate of seven flights per year and expand the flight rate to
twelve flights per year.
·
Provide launch
services for civil and military endeavors.
·
Establish a
competitive commercial launch service.
·
Incorporate a
crew escape pods system that provides escape avenues for all phases of flight.
·
Establish the
foundation for a space based (reusable) transportation system, developed by
NASA and commercially operated.
In
response to the 107th Congress’s request to investigate
privatizing the space shuttle program (SSP), NASA issued the following
statement: “Privatization of the SSP has the
potential to provide significant benefits to the Government. However,
timing is critical.”
Privatization of the space
shuttle fleet eliminates the sole reliance on the questionable Ares I /Orion
launch system. Allowing the space shuttle infrastructure to be dismantled or
gather dust in museums will be a costly mistake.
The President
and Congress must take immediate action for space shuttle privatization!
Ref.: “Concept of
Privatization of the Space Shuttle”, Space Shuttle Program Office,
Sept. 28, 2001
================================
Commercial Space Shuttle
Development Phases
Phase I
·
Complete the
space station assembly and Hubble repair missions with current NASA shuttle
operations and integrated support from the government sponsored space shuttle
corporation. Operate two Orbiters from current facilities during phase over to
private corporation control.
·
Third Orbiter
is removed from flight operations and modified to reduce launch cost and
improve safety (Commercial Space Shuttle II). Private corporation will
be permitted to sell bonds and stock to finance modifications and startup cost.
·
Launch market
demands will determine when remaining two Orbiters will be scheduled for
upgrades.
·
Space
Shuttle III will be placed in
service when NASA and DARPA second generation technologies become available.
Shuttle II Development Concept
Phase II
The commercial Space
Shuttle II is a four year development and flight test program. It is based
on existing technology and proven ground and flight control systems. The
operational savings are gained from reductions in support personnel made
possible by flight automation and consolidating operations at KSC. This is a
similar approach used to reduce the Ariane 5 and
Evolved Expendable Launch vehicles launch costs. Automated operation was also
the program baseline for the X-33/VentureStar project.
·
The shuttle pilot
training facilities will be closed. All flight monitoring will be conducted
from the corporation flight control center(Space
·
Automation
provides nearly 3,700 pounds weight margin which permits installation of four
escape pods.
·
This launch
vehicle concept is to be tailored for a private operator. NASA will continue to
have responsibility for flight crew operations as related to payloads.
·
A
GOVERNMENT AGENCY DOES NOT HAVE THE “INCENTIVE” TO OPERATE A COST
EFFECTIVE LAUNCH SYSTEM.
======================
Phase II Potential Launch
Rate
Space Station 4
to 5
Earth/Deep Space
Science
1 to 2
Military 0 to 2
Commercial
2 to 3
Note: Launch rate is
limited to 12 flights per year which is maximum number of solid rocket motors
sets which can be built in one year.
======================
Other Space Shuttle Privatization Options
Government Owned Company
Operated – Contract with government must allow company to compete in
launch market.
Long Term Lease –
would allow company to market shuttle services. Option to
purchase at lease termination (U.S. Energy Corporation).
Government Corporation
– permits corporation to use business market methods while assets still
in ownership of government (U.S. Postal Service).
======================
Autonomous Shuttle with Four Crew Pods Crew Escape Weight Summary
(Data from January 2004 Shuttle Project Office FOIA*)
Ref. Boeing DRM 2
(page 92)
Removed Weight (lbs)
Crew (5) Crew and
suits
-1285
Crew Survivability
-364
Flight deck seats (4)
-326
Seat (1 m/d)
-128
Window shades
-68
Ref. Boeing DRM 3
(page 95)
Windows top &
front
-1475
Displays and controls
-800
Total
removed
-4446
Required for
automation and four crew
Automation hardware “Kit”
(page 90)
1000
Docking Sensor
70
Range Safety
package
150
Window closeouts
205
Crew (4)
1029
-------
Total
less Pods
2454
Available weight
margin for four escape pods
1992
*Ref.
pages from: Autonomous Shuttle Previous Studies
Assessment, Nov. 2003, Boeing/USA, Shuttle Project
Office FOIA release.
NOTE: This evaluation proves weight margin is
available to provide crew escape. It was NEVER EVALUATED
by NASA!!! This is unacceptable!
==========================================
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Problems
NASA’s COTS
requirement is to demonstrate the capability to deliver cargo to the ISS,
disposal and return of cargo, and have an option for crew transportation.
NASA’s budget of $2.1 billion for COTS is grossly under-funded.
Rocketplane-Kistler
Space X
ATV
&nb