but it's so high priority that risking program failure with a fixed-price contracting setup or even a cost cap isn't an option. So I can see the government being leery of using fixed-price, especially since they're so new at it in this field.
The only thing that has priority about the SLS is to make sure that ATK and Boeing keep getting government money, like they used to for the STS.
Do your contractors have to routinely invent bleeding-edge technology that has to fly into outer space and work perfectly the first time?
You know, bleeding edge technology is not just flying into space. Space technology is just like any other technology development. I dont think that developing an RLV is any more complex than developing a modern state of the art airliner. It certainly is not any cheaper.
And why does it have to work perfectly the first time? This is such a stupid pointless attitude! Ever since the shuttle (again) any prototype or test article that is built by or for NASA is expected to work the first time, or it is made into a big drama and a giant failure. I would much rather see the cost lowered and cuts made and instead some test articles wasted. You can learn a lot, even from a failure, maybe more than from a success.
Any RLV will require some nominal refurbishment before reflight, even if it's just checking the TPS for dings and replacing damaged panels
Difference between reusable within a matter of a couple of weeks and refurbishable within months. The shuttle had a standing army of thousands of workers to refurbish it between flights. It was NOT practical.
The DC-X was meant to be reusable within days. I am not sure what SpaceX is planning, but I am sure it wont be that long.
And I personally doubt (not an expert opinion) that SpaceX is going to get to the SSME Block III level of engine reusability right off the bat, though their engines are simpler and lower pressure, so they'll hopefully get there faster.
Well all their engines already have many hours of full thrust tests behind them, when they are used.
The Shuttle was a partially reusable launch vehicle (that should have been stepped to a fully reusable one, like Shuttle II or some such). It was thus more of an RLV than anything SpaceX has ever done.
As I said, for me reusability means that it does NOT need a standing army of thousands of people to fix it up between flights (one way or the other).
But ok, lets say NASA did have an RLV with the shuttle. Then I can still argue that SpaceX has achieved more in regards to RLVs than NASA has within the past 30 years, which is still quite impressive.
Your whole argument seems predicated on Grasshopper being an RLV, or at least closer than Shuttle. It's not. It's not even close. It's a testbed to mature technology and retire risk so that SpaceX can build a flyback first stage. Which will give them a partially reusable launch vehicle, like Shuttle but with none of the additional capabilities (and hopefully a lot cheaper). After that they still have to figure out how to get the upper stage back intact...
My point is that NASA does not even have a reusable first stage. They never even managed to build a prototype of one, or even a test article like the Grasshopper is.
That was my point.
And Grasshopper will (at least from what I understand) be more reusable, because it will require less maintenance than the shuttle. And I just cant call the shuttle reusable. I think it was and is a big mistake to callt he shuttle reusable, because it brought about this whole wrong stigma that RLVs cant be done. It is always used as an example for why it is impossible and I think that has severely harmed LV development in the past 30 years.
Stay on point. The appropriate comparison is with what it would have cost NASA, with fixed-price contracting, to get one of those ISS servicing spacecraft/LV combos. Say, Falcon/Dragon.
Ares1 plus CEV would be a good comparison.
Or lets take a look at what the OSP would have cost NASA, had it been continued...
Lets look at any NASA LV program in the past 30 years and see how much they got for their money...