Space Access Update is Space Access Society's when-there's-news publication. Space Access Society's goal is to promote affordable access to space for all, period. We believe in concentrating our limited resources at whatever point looks like yielding maximum progress toward this goal.
For the moment, our main focus is on supporting the government's "SSRT" (Single Stage Rocket Technology) program, DC-X and its recently funded followon, SX-2. Space Access Update is thus for the moment largely about the technology and politics of DC-X and SX-2.
We anticipate a change of focus in a couple of months, if all goes well. Once SX-2 startup is (with your help!) assured, we plan to begin working on establishment of a healthy second X-rocket development track at NASA, and on getting development of suitable engines started for the fully reusable orbital ships that should come after SX-2 and NASA's X-rocket.
With luck and hard work, we should see one or more fully reusable SSTO testbeds flying to orbit toward the end of this decade, with production prototypes underway shortly thereafter. Join us and help us make this happen.
Henry Vanderbilt, Editor, Space Access Update
[For more info on Space Access Society, on our upcoming affordable access engineering/politics/economics conference "Space Access '94" (March 11-13 in Scottsdale, Arizona) or on the DC-X/SSTO video we have for sale, write us at 4855 E Warner Rd #24-150, Phoenix AZ 85044, or email hvanderbilt@bix.com.]
[Editors note -- For those of you seeing this for the first time who need a bit more context, look for our post entitled "DC-X Background". Honest, we'll be updating and reposting it Real Soon Now.]
The Department of Defense "Rescission Proposals", the list of projects DOD would rather return funding for than do, was sent to Congress on schedule today, and this year's DC-X/SX-2 funding that we fought so hard for is still on it. The people at DOD who control RDT&E have now officially said they don't want to do DC-X or SX-2.
The text of the rescission request is as follows.
<begin excerpt, page 1013>
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
(Rescission Proposal)
[several lines of bookkeeping info omitted for brevity - HV]
Budget Plan (in thousands of dollars)
(amount for research, development, test, and evaluation programmed)
______________________________________________________________________________
07.03 Advanced technology development.................. -50,000 ...........
______________________________________________________________________________
This proposal would rescind appropriations for development of medium
launch vehicles. The Bottom-Up Review did not approve development of
an SSTO vehicle. No funds are budgeted for 1995 through 1999.
<end excerpt>
This description of the item being cut is, uh, misleading? Incorrect? We hesitate to characterize this as a damnable lie; it's at least possible that whoever decided it is sincerely mistaken, as a lot of misinformation has been circulating about SX-2 in recent months.
This appropriation is NOT for development of medium launch vehicles, it's for continued test of the DC-X reusable rocket experimental testbed ($5 million of this $50 million rescission is supposed to be used for finishing DC-X test) and for initiation of design, construction and flight test of the SX-2 suborbital experimental reusable rocket testbed ($35 million for FY'94). The remaining $10 million also has nothing to do with "development of medium launch vehicles", being for some sort of parasail development.
Neither DC-X nor SX-2 is in any conceivable way mistakeable for a "medium launch vehicle". They both are experimental testbeds, intended to develop reusable rocket technologies and provide flight experience that can at some point in the future be factors in making sensible decisions about new reduced-cost medium launch vehicles.
The DOD Bottom Up Review, for that matter, specifically called for work to go forward on advanced technologies that could be of future use. The BUR's lack of support for immediate development of an operational SSTO is a red herring; none such is proposed with this money.
There have been repeated accusations that SX-2 is the front end of a multi- billion dollar full-scale launcher development project. It is true that various contractors with a shot at winning the SX-2 competition would love to sell the government such a multi-billion project as an SX-2 followon -- but the government is under no obligation to buy any such.
What SX-2 actually is is a standalone experimental reusable rocket testbed. SX-2 will be similar in scope and in cost to recent X-aircraft programs - a couple of flight vehicles plus test program, costing about $300 million over three to four years. For purposes of comparison, the X-29 forward- swept-wing demonstrator cost $340 million total, while the X-31 vectored- thrust demonstrator has cost $170 million to date. (We note in passing that the X-31 is being run by the same person at ARPA who will likely be in charge of SX-2, if it ever gets past this rescission.)
The implication has been that SX-2 is the camel's nose of a fullscale multi- billion launcher project poking into the tent, and that the rest of the camel would inevitably follow.
This is simply not true. SX-2 is a standalone project to develop experience with reusable single-stage rockets. There is a clear breakpoint at the end of the SX-2 project. The lessons learned can then be applied to the decision on what (if anything) to do next.
If in fact SX-2 works out as well as hoped, the main decision the US government then would face might well be how much to encourage commercially funded SSTO development based on the SX-2 technology. The data from SX-2 would lower the cost of SSTO development, while the repeated flight demos would increase investor confidence. The combination might well mean the government would not have to foot the bill by itself when the time comes to build affordable new space transports.
The motivation behind these lies about SX-2 we'll leave as an exercise for the reader, but we suggest considering as a factor the ongoing campaign for a massive contractors-in-every-district consortium to build and operate a new "National Launch System" expendable booster. Such a multi-billion dollar decade-long aerospace porkbarrel would be in grave danger of being shown up as obsolete before its first test-flight, if SSTO technology development is allowed to continue. "Spacelifter" and its kin are an idea whose time has passed. Cheap reusable SSTO space transports will ultimately produce far more hi-tech white collar employment than "Porklifter", and they'll do it while producing new tax revenue rather than consuming current tax dollars.
On the lighter side, "Roll Call" reports that late last month, someone snuck into the House Science, Space & Technology Committee's hearing room, removed a (now obsolete) model of Space Station Freedom from its display case, and replaced it with a model of a Klingon battlecruiser. At least one Committee briefing was held with the Klingon ship on display before Freedom was restored to its rightful place.
Meanwhile, a letter of ours to Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine has been printed in the 2/7/94 issue. AWST devoted half the letters page to SSTO issues; we note in regard to Mr. Escher's letter that payload as a percentage of gross liftoff weight is far from the sole measure of reusable launcher "goodness", and indeed can be quite misleading when used to compare air-breathing to pure rocket designs - hypersonic airframe costs thousands of dollars per pound, while a pound of LOX goes for pennies.
We are quite grateful to AvWeek for airing our views, but feel we should mention that the published version was edited for brevity, and while our main points about the DC-X/SX-2 rescission danger got through intact, the letter as printed could leave the casual reader with the impression that SAS supports going forward with the NLS/"Spacelifter" project. We don't; we believe that there's near-zero chance it would be set up and managed sensibly, but we soft- pedalled this as not being the main point of the letter. The full text as sent follows. Note that we've since heard that ARPA itself now supports SX-2; the opposition seems to be above ARPA, near the top levels of DOD. Also note that the DC-X program shutdown has been postponed temporarily due to the $990,000 NASA donated to the program last week; thanks are due to Dan Goldin.
Dear sirs,
This is in response to Jerry Grey's Forum piece in your 1/10/94 issue,
"Engineering Reality Must Guide SSTO".
On the whole we agree with his ideal national launch policy: Have DOD
build NLS quickly and (relatively) cheaply under sensible management
practices, have NASA work on specific SSTO-enabling technologies, and
build and fly the suborbital SX-2 SSTO technology demonstrator to gain
experience with/build confidence in reusable rockets.
That's an ideal, though; in the real world we see two problems with this.
One is the current budget climate. Congress is unlikely to fund NLS even
if they are persuaded that it in fact would be done faster and cheaper.
The Pentagon Bottom-Up Review alternative of evolutionary upgrades to
existing launchers fits the budgetary constraints of the next few years
much better.
The other problem is immediate: The BMDO SSTO initiative that led to DC-X
and the proposed SX-2 is in imminent danger of dying. Not from lack of
funds; Congress appropriated $40 million in FY'94, to complete DC-X's
interrupted flight test program and to get the SX-2 project underway.
BMDO's recent narrowing of focus caused the SSTO project to be moved to
ARPA in this year's budget. Unfortunately, ARPA seems unimpressed with
SSTO's potential and with the rapid progress to date. After spending the
last two months sitting on the project's FY'94 funding, ARPA has now
offered up the money for rescission, for return to the Treasury unspent.
The opportunity to finish flying DC-X is rapidly slipping away; the layoff
notices are even now going out to the test crew. USAF, meanwhile, stands
ready to get the SX-2 project rolling, using the same management team
that built DC-X in less than three years for less than $70 million - just
as soon as the money arrives from ARPA.
Japan and the Europeans are both showing interest in SSTO. We have perhaps
a three-year lead over them in this field. Time's a-wasting.
sincerely,
Henry Vanderbilt
Executive Director,
Space Access Society
"Promoting Affordable Reliable
Access to Space For All"
We have no action to recommend at the moment, beyond informing any Congressmen or Congressional staffers you may be talking to that the DC-X/SX-2 rescission request has occurred. Stand by while we find out just what is supposed to happen next, now that the rescission is in Congress's hands.
Henry Vanderbilt "Reach low orbit and you're halfway to anywhere
Space Access Society in the Solar System."
4855 E Warner Rd #24-150 - Robert A. Heinlein
Phoenix, AZ 85044
602 431-9283 voice/fax "You can't get there from here."
(hvanderbilt@bix.com) - Anonymous
"SSTO? C'mon, the only people who support that are Trekkies
and right-wingers." - The Unknown Staffer
-- Permission granted to redistribute the full and unaltered text of this --
-- piece, including the copyright and this notice. All other rights --
-- reserved. In other words, intact crossposting is strongly encouraged. --