Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Rocket’
February 16th, 2018 at 12:21 pm
Image of the Day: SpaceX Also Means Lower Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
Posted by Print

Earlier this week, we continued our efforts to highlight how Elon Musk and SpaceX have propelled American space exploration from the private sector.  In that vein, UnbiasedAmerica illustrates vividly how this month’s SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch also means significant savings for U.S. taxpayers over equivalent predecessors:

.

SpaceX Success

SpaceX Success

February 12th, 2018 at 3:34 pm
SpaceX: Private Sector Propels Space Exploration
Posted by Print

Quick:  Name some areas in which government outperforms its private sector counterpart.

Give up?  Don’t be too hard on yourself.  It’s difficult, even impossible to recall any.

That includes space technology.

Last week, Elon Musk’s SpaceX launched the most powerful rocket in the world, the Falcon Heavy, as reported by The Wall Street Journal:

Space Exploration Technologies Corp. successfully launched the Falcon Heavy rocket Tuesday on its initial test flight, marking another coup for founder Elon Musk…   With throngs of spectators on hand, the closely held Southern California company defied industry critics by flying the world’s most powerful rocket since U.S. astronauts landed on the moon almost five decades ago.  The 230-foot rocket, which featured 27 engines with the combined thrust of some 18 Boeing Co. 747 jumbo jets, climbed into clear skies at 3:45 p.m. local time.  It carried a Tesla roadster as a dummy payload and publicity stunt.”

Importantly, the article notes that cost-efficiency stands among the Falcon Heavy’s paramount accomplishments:

Large, reusable rockets such as the Falcon Heavy are ideal for deep-space transport from a cost perspective, according to Howard McCurdy, a space historian who teaches at American University.  ‘That’s where the heavy-lift design truly shines,’ he said before the launch.  Given President Donald Trump’s official policy of combining federal and private assets to explore the Moon, Mr. McCurdy called the SpaceX rocket ‘a very important step in that direction…  SpaceX has revolutionized the launch business by vertically integrating operations, slashing prices and reusing the main engines and lower stage of its existing workhorse rockets, the Falcon 9 fleet.”

Additionally, SpaceX’s success marks further progress in remedying a problem that we at CFIF have highlighted for some time:  the dangerous and embarrassing U.S. reliance upon Russian rocketry to continue our space program.

So congratulations to Mr. Musk and SpaceX.  Going forward, it offers cause for optimism and yet another example of private sector success and superior efficiency.

June 23rd, 2017 at 1:43 pm
Analysis: SpaceX Cuts Rocket Launch Costs for USAF
Posted by Print

In recent months CFIF has highlighted the danger of relying upon Russian rocket technology, and the need to leverage the U.S. private sector in providing effective, lower cost, domestic rocket engines for space launches.

Now, a new analysis reveals how much one of those private sector entities, SpaceX, can save the U.S. Air Force.  Previous cost estimates occurred when Air Force launch vehicles consisted entirely of United Launch Alliance (ULA) rockets, but the Government Accountability Office (GAO) complained that ULA’s rendered accurate cost assessment and price negotiation impossible.  Then, new rocket enterprise SpaceX began offering launch services at lower prices, and cost comparison has become more feasible.  And it’s already apparent that SpaceX significantly undercuts launch costs.  Here’s what new Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson had to say earlier this month:

The benefit we’re seeing now is competition.  There are some very exciting things happening in commercial space that bring the opportunity for assured access to space at a very competitive price.”

The arstechnica.com analysis by Eric Berger merits a full read.

It’s just the latest confirmation that we must leverage market competition to increase effectiveness and cut costs, rather than narrow the field or rely upon Russia for our launch capability.

October 7th, 2016 at 5:16 pm
Bipartisan Congressional Coalition: Don’t Politicize SpaceX Launch Mishap to the Benefit of Russia
Posted by Print

Should Russia be allowed to become America’s exclusive source of rocket engines for space launches?

The question answers itself in the negative, but some members of Congress unfortunately advocate policies that would create  that straightjacket.

In the wake of a SpaceX Falcon 9 pre-launch failure on a commercial mission at Cape Canaveral, which resulted in no loss of life, or even injuries or damage to third-party property, several members of Congress wrote to NASA, the FAA, and Air Force suggesting that those entities should sever ties with SpaceX.

The problem, as we at CFIF have previously highlighted, is that their preferred course would mean exclusive reliance upon Russian rockets for U.S. space launches.  As confirmed by American military leaders, Russia remains our foremost global antagonist, and the last thing the U.S. should be doing is subsidizing the Russian defense industry with our own taxpayers’ dollars.  That would also further undermine global security, reward Russian aggressive behavior, and even benefit nations like Iran that are primary beneficiaries of Russian rocket technology.  That’s precisely why Congress imposed a phaseout of future U.S. purchases of Russian rocket engines in two consecutive National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs).

Fortunately, a bipartisan Congressional coalition that included more than twice as many members pushed back against the prior letter and set the record straight:

We recognize that the space business is technologically challenging.  Given these challenges, Congress passed many years ago bipartisan legislation governing the issue of launch and reentry licenses for commercial spaceflight activities by the Secretary of Transportation.  Accordingly, the FAA has established regulations that govern licensing as well as mishap and accident investigations.  Consistent with regulations, the Falcon 9 anomaly has been properly classified as a ‘mishap’ under federal law and is being resolved under applicable regulatory procedures.

We are pleased that the FAA is maintaining a strong and prudent oversight role that appropriately draws upon private sector insight in ensuring a robust investigative process and safe return to flight for SpaceX.  We encourage the FAA to continue to leverage its considerable investigative expertise to help SpaceX come to resolution swiftly and safely, and we urge the FAA to continue implementing its role in accordance with applicable federal law…  We are confident that current NASA and Air Force procedures will ensure that future U.S. Government missions that utilize the Falcon 9, and any other launch vehicle system, will undergo appropriate flight worthiness evaluations prior to flight.

Accidents are unfortunate events, and accident investigations should not be politicized.  We encourage you to reject calls for your organizations to abandon established, well-considered, and long-standing procedures.” (emphasis added)

They are correct.

America can’t afford to undercut our own private sector space industry, particularly when the primary beneficiary will be Russia, and at the expense of U.S. taxpayers to boot.

June 8th, 2016 at 12:13 pm
Dangerous Idea: Senator Proposes Extension of U.S. Reliance on Russian Rockets
Posted by Print

As we at CFIF have recently detailed, the U.S. simply must end military and space program purchases of Russian rocket engines.

As America’s military leaders confirm, Russia remains perhaps our foremost global threat, and continuing to subsidize its defense industry with U.S. taxpayer dollars only undermines global security by rewarding its aggressive behavior.  Additionally, rogue nations like Iran remain prime beneficiaries of Russian rocketry and its ongoing technological advances, and continuing support for Russian rocketry comes at the expense of our own domestic rocket industry.

With those concerns in mind, and following Russian aggression against Ukraine, Congress rightly imposed a phaseout of future U.S. purchase of Russian rocket engines in two consecutive National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs).  Unfortunately, some in Congress seek to reverse that phaseout and hope to to spend $540 million or more on at least 18 new Russian RD-180 engines.

And now, Senator Bill Nelson (D – Florida) has introduced an amendment to extend U.S. reliance upon Russian rocketry to 2023.

Although CFIF has had its well-known disagreements with Senator John McCain (R – Arizona) over the years, he is the last person whose devotion to national security or fiscal responsibility can be questioned.  And on this issue, Sen. McCain remains unequivocal:

Today, we have two space launch providers – ULA and SpaceX – that, no matter what happens with the Russian RD-180, will be able to provide fully redundant capabilities with ULS’s Delta IV and SpaceX’s Falcon 9, and eventually, the Falcon heavy space launch vehicles.  There will be no credibility gap.  The Atlas V is not going anywhere anytime soon.”

And in response to Sen. Nelson’s proposed amendment, Sen. McCain was equally cogent:

This amendment, which is the largest subsidy of the Russian military industrial base proposed since the invasion of Ukraine, is the worst proposal yet from ULA and its Congressional allies.  In an apparent effort to further dependence on Russia for access to space, this amendment exceeds the Administration’s request for 18 Russian rocket engines and provides taxpayer subsidy for the purchase of an unlimited number of Russian engines.”

We cannot afford to neglect our own thriving space industry to the benefit of Russia, particularly on the backs of U.S.  taxpayers.  Senator Nelson’s misguided proposed amendment exceeds any request from the U.S. Department of Defense, and would only extend reliance upon Russia’s RD-180 well into the 2020s (if not longer).   CFIF therefore urges Senators to oppose any reversal of the current phaseout of U.S. future purchase of Russian rocket engines in the NDAA, including Sen. Nelson’s amendment.

April 26th, 2016 at 3:30 pm
Congress: Don’t Reward Russian Aggression by Purchasing Their Rockets
Posted by Print

During the 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney presciently identified Russia as America’s foremost global threat.  Barack Obama and his apologists immediately heaped scorn upon Romney, including Obama’s sophomoric “the 1980s called” remark during one debate.

History, however, has vindicated Romney’s pronouncement.

Reflecting upon events since that date, Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James stated in July 2015, “I do consider Russia to be the biggest threat.”  And none other than Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Joseph Dunford proclaimed that same month, “If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I would have to point to Russia, and if you look at their behavior, it’s nothing short of alarming.”

To its credit, Congress acted accordingly.  Following Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and its broader pattern of malfeasance across the globe, Congress, as part of two consecutive National Defense Authorization Acts, overwhelmingly supported a gradual phase out of purchases of Russian rocket engines through no sooner than 2020. The law could not have been any more accommodating without allowing indefinite purchases of these engines.

Sadly, today some seek to reverse that prudent Congressional action by sending some $540 million more to the Russian government for at least 18 new Russian RD-180 engines. Despite the law unambiguously allowing engines through at least 2020, they claim that they’re needed until a new domestically-manufactured engine arrives in 2019.  Those claims, however, do not accord with reality.  Senator John McCain (R – Arizona) summarized that reality cogently:

Today, we have two space launch providers – ULA and SpaceX – that, no matter what happens with the Russian RD-180, will be able to provide fully redundant capabilities with ULA’s Delta IV and SpaceX’s Falcon 9, and eventually, the Falcon Heavy space launch vehicles.  There will be no capability gap.  The Atlas V is not going anywhere anytime soon.”

He further noted that ending reliance would not result in increased costs to the taxpayer.

In fact, according to [the Department of Defense Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation], the cost of meeting assured access to space requirements without the use of Russian rocket engines could be similar to what we pay today.”

Reversing America’s existing prohibition would merely reward Russian behavior and thereby undermine global and national security.  As evidence, consider the words of Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin:

The sale of engines benefits our engine making enterprises, in that they use the money for their own modernization…  We need the most modern engines that produce more thrust.  In order to design them, we need free money.”

Notably, rogue nations like Iran remain prime beneficiaries of Russian rocket technological advances.

The Obama Administration’s infamous “reset” attempt with Russia several years ago stands among its most costly foreign policy misjudgments.  We cannot afford to repeat that mistake by failing to learn from our mistakes and rewarding Russia’s worldwide menace.