Author Topic: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program  (Read 9725 times)

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2508
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #20 on: 05/16/2012 03:20 AM »
The funding mechanism also has an impact on cost and schedule.

If you down-select to one provider now, they are going to have to allow plenty of margin in price and schedule to cover their risks through to the end of development. NASA will also impose additional requirements to monitor and mitigate these risks.

With multiple providers and limited, near-term milestones, (whether by SAA or FAR), the providers and NASA have gretly reduced risk (and hence cost) in each contract.

There has to be a break-even point after which it will be cheaper & faster to down-select to one.  I don't know if we've reached it yet.

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #21 on: 05/16/2012 03:32 AM »
The funding mechanism also has an impact on cost and schedule.

If you down-select to one provider now, they are going to have to allow plenty of margin in price and schedule to cover their risks through to the end of development. NASA will also impose additional requirements to monitor and mitigate these risks.

With multiple providers and limited, near-term milestones, (whether by SAA or FAR), the providers and NASA have gretly reduced risk (and hence cost) in each contract.

There has to be a break-even point after which it will be cheaper & faster to down-select to one.  I don't know if we've reached it yet.

Why?  COTS & CRS never downselected to one - do you think they would've benefited from it? 
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2508
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #22 on: 05/16/2012 05:34 AM »
Why?  COTS & CRS never downselected to one - do you think they would've benefited from it? 

COTS no, because it was a one-off with a relatively short time frame.

CRS seemed a bit premature to me, with neither provider having a demonstrated capability yet, but I guess they needed early funding to start ramping up to an operational capability.

Perhaps if NASA had paid for that through another COTS program then awarded the whole contract to one provider, it would have cost less overall.

On the other hand, since they wanted two providers for more assured access, maybe not.

I don't think NASA intends to have two Commercial Crew providers in the long term.
« Last Edit: 05/16/2012 11:57 PM by kkattula »

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #23 on: 05/16/2012 01:40 PM »
Why?  COTS & CRS never downselected to one - do you think they would've benefited from it? 

COTS no, because it was a one-off with a relatively short time frame.

CRS seemed a bit premature to me, with neither provider having a demonstrated capability yet, but I guess they needed early funding to start ramping up to an operational capability.

Perhaps if NASA had paid for that through another COTS program then awarded the whole contract to one provider, it would have cost less overall.

On the other hand, since they wanted two providers for more assured access, maybe not.

I don't know think NASA intends to have two Commercial Crew providers in the long term.
two comments on that
1.  Why do you think NASA intends to only have 1 CCrew provider in the long term?  Then you are back to having only 1 way to access space.
2.  If nothing else, getting to a fly-off for commercial crew may prove to be very interesting, and push further the development of a LEO marketplace (I can just imagine a discussion of "we've developed this hardware, and built one, and NASA's isn't buying it?  Can we sell it to anyone else?")
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9684
  • Liked: 1401
  • Likes Given: 877
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #24 on: 05/16/2012 03:55 PM »
The funding mechanism also has an impact on cost and schedule.

If you down-select to one provider now, they are going to have to allow plenty of margin in price and schedule to cover their risks through to the end of development. NASA will also impose additional requirements to monitor and mitigate these risks.

With multiple providers and limited, near-term milestones, (whether by SAA or FAR), the providers and NASA have gretly reduced risk (and hence cost) in each contract.

There has to be a break-even point after which it will be cheaper & faster to down-select to one.  I don't know if we've reached it yet.

Why?  COTS & CRS never downselected to one - do you think they would've benefited from it? 

If you read the CRS selection statement, down selection to one cargo provider was actually considered by NASA but in the end, Gerst decided to opt for two contractors because he believed that the assured timely access to the ISS outweighted the downside of spreading budget across multiple contractors.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15518.0

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22479
  • Liked: 799
  • Likes Given: 295
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #25 on: 05/16/2012 04:24 PM »
If you read the CRS selection statement, down selection to one cargo provider was actually considered by NASA but in the end, Gerst decided to opt for two contractors because he believed that the assured timely access to the ISS outweighted the downside of spreading budget across multiple contractors.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15518.0

But you have to recognise that NASA did not have as much insight into the integrated sc/lv and the providers had much more freedom in COTS/CRS as NASA only cared about cargo delivery and ISS operations.  CC will require significantly greater NASA insight in all phases in flight.  That should be more assuring to NASA management that a single provider can provide assured access.
And this is a good reminder that just because one of your fellow space enthusiasts occasionally voices doubts about the SpaceX schedule announcements or is cautious about believing SpaceX has licked a problem before actually seeing proof that's true, it doesn't mean they hate SpaceX.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2294
  • Likes Given: 778
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #26 on: 05/16/2012 05:25 PM »
If you read the CRS selection statement, down selection to one cargo provider was actually considered by NASA but in the end, Gerst decided to opt for two contractors because he believed that the assured timely access to the ISS outweighted the downside of spreading budget across multiple contractors.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15518.0

But you have to recognise that NASA did not have as much insight into the integrated sc/lv and the providers had much more freedom in COTS/CRS as NASA only cared about cargo delivery and ISS operations.  CC will require significantly greater NASA insight in all phases in flight.  That should be more assuring to NASA management that a single provider can provide assured access.

Well yes, right up until it doesn't provide assured access. Between the recent almost decrewing of ISS due to the Soyuz launch, and previous stand-downs and delays due to shuttle, I'm not sure I'd trust insight alone to guarantee assured access. I think the better approach is to find commercial crew providers who can also do cargo. Between crew and cargo needs, there's enough to provide for at least two providers. That way you don't keep repeating the same mistake over and over again. If we have to step in a steaming pile of dog doo, I'd prefer it to be a fresh, new pile, not one that already has several of our previous footprints in it.

YMMV,

~Jon

Offline TrueGrit

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #27 on: 05/16/2012 07:18 PM »
But you have to recognise that NASA did not have as much insight into the integrated sc/lv and the providers had much more freedom in COTS/CRS as NASA only cared about cargo delivery and ISS operations.  CC will require significantly greater NASA insight in all phases in flight.  That should be more assuring to NASA management that a single provider can provide assured access.

Until an unfortunate failure occours and then you are stuck on the ground...  Assured access to Space as defiend by DoD for EELV and NASA for CRS is based on the assumption that with two independant launch systems wouldn't leave them stranded on the ground.  And the failure doesn't need to be a launch or on orbit event...  Could be a flight computer failure during checkout that identifies a design fault, or a fire at a critical supplier....  Putting all your eggs in one basket increases the risk of beign stuck on the ground.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 701
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #28 on: 05/16/2012 11:27 PM »
Why?  COTS & CRS never downselected to one - do you think they would've benefited from it? 

COTS no, because it was a one-off with a relatively short time frame.

CRS seemed a bit premature to me, with neither provider having a demonstrated capability yet, but I guess they needed early funding to start ramping up to an operational capability.

Perhaps if NASA had paid for that through another COTS program then awarded the whole contract to one provider, it would have cost less overall.

On the other hand, since they wanted two providers for more assured access, maybe not.

I don't know think NASA intends to have two Commercial Crew providers in the long term.
two comments on that
1.  Why do you think NASA intends to only have 1 CCrew provider in the long term?  Then you are back to having only 1 way to access space.
2.  If nothing else, getting to a fly-off for commercial crew may prove to be very interesting, and push further the development of a LEO marketplace (I can just imagine a discussion of "we've developed this hardware, and built one, and NASA's isn't buying it?  Can we sell it to anyone else?")

No the it is written in the law, that Orion is the backup.  Also the Russian seats would still be avail.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
  • Liked: 75
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #29 on: 05/17/2012 12:57 AM »
Why?  COTS & CRS never downselected to one - do you think they would've benefited from it? 

COTS no, because it was a one-off with a relatively short time frame.

CRS seemed a bit premature to me, with neither provider having a demonstrated capability yet, but I guess they needed early funding to start ramping up to an operational capability.

Perhaps if NASA had paid for that through another COTS program then awarded the whole contract to one provider, it would have cost less overall.

On the other hand, since they wanted two providers for more assured access, maybe not.

I don't know think NASA intends to have two Commercial Crew providers in the long term.
two comments on that
1.  Why do you think NASA intends to only have 1 CCrew provider in the long term?  Then you are back to having only 1 way to access space.
2.  If nothing else, getting to a fly-off for commercial crew may prove to be very interesting, and push further the development of a LEO marketplace (I can just imagine a discussion of "we've developed this hardware, and built one, and NASA's isn't buying it?  Can we sell it to anyone else?")

No the it is written in the law, that Orion is the backup.  Also the Russian seats would still be avail.

When it comes to Orion as a backup, sorry but I subscribe to my boss' logic

As for Soyuz remaining a backup - I'd prefer to have more than one backup. 
« Last Edit: 05/18/2012 01:12 AM by Political Hack Wannabe »
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline MP99

Why?  COTS & CRS never downselected to one - do you think they would've benefited from it? 

COTS no, because it was a one-off with a relatively short time frame.

CRS seemed a bit premature to me, with neither provider having a demonstrated capability yet, but I guess they needed early funding to start ramping up to an operational capability.

Perhaps if NASA had paid for that through another COTS program then awarded the whole contract to one provider, it would have cost less overall.

On the other hand, since they wanted two providers for more assured access, maybe not.

I don't know think NASA intends to have two Commercial Crew providers in the long term.
two comments on that
1.  Why do you think NASA intends to only have 1 CCrew provider in the long term?  Then you are back to having only 1 way to access space.
2.  If nothing else, getting to a fly-off for commercial crew may prove to be very interesting, and push further the development of a LEO marketplace (I can just imagine a discussion of "we've developed this hardware, and built one, and NASA's isn't buying it?  Can we sell it to anyone else?")

No the it is written in the law, that Orion is the backup.  Also the Russian seats would still be avail.

Soyuz is backup in that law. Orion is backup to Soyuz.

cheers, Martin

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 701
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #31 on: 05/17/2012 10:56 PM »
Why?  COTS & CRS never downselected to one - do you think they would've benefited from it? 

COTS no, because it was a one-off with a relatively short time frame.

CRS seemed a bit premature to me, with neither provider having a demonstrated capability yet, but I guess they needed early funding to start ramping up to an operational capability.

Perhaps if NASA had paid for that through another COTS program then awarded the whole contract to one provider, it would have cost less overall.

On the other hand, since they wanted two providers for more assured access, maybe not.

I don't know think NASA intends to have two Commercial Crew providers in the long term.
two comments on that
1.  Why do you think NASA intends to only have 1 CCrew provider in the long term?  Then you are back to having only 1 way to access space.
2.  If nothing else, getting to a fly-off for commercial crew may prove to be very interesting, and push further the development of a LEO marketplace (I can just imagine a discussion of "we've developed this hardware, and built one, and NASA's isn't buying it?  Can we sell it to anyone else?")

No the it is written in the law, that Orion is the backup.  Also the Russian seats would still be avail.

Soyuz is backup in that law. Orion is backup to Soyuz.

cheers, Martin

Let's get Orion on a delta launcher and get it done.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2012 10:57 PM by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22479
  • Liked: 799
  • Likes Given: 295
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #32 on: 05/18/2012 02:43 AM »
Let's get Orion on a delta launcher and get it done.

Already is......

It is not getting Orion on a Delta that is the hard part, it is getting the RS-68 Human rated.  Remember, while the RD-180 is of a lineage designed for lifting humans (ie RD-170/Zenit) the RS-68 is optimized as a cheap hydrogen engine and would require a major program to become human rated.

Edit: Now how about Orion on an Atlas V Heay, that would be a good backup.....
« Last Edit: 05/18/2012 02:44 AM by Ronsmytheiii »
And this is a good reminder that just because one of your fellow space enthusiasts occasionally voices doubts about the SpaceX schedule announcements or is cautious about believing SpaceX has licked a problem before actually seeing proof that's true, it doesn't mean they hate SpaceX.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5539
  • Liked: 1068
  • Likes Given: 671
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #33 on: 05/18/2012 06:45 AM »
Let's get Orion on a delta launcher and get it done.

It's written in the law that SLS is the back-up launch vehicle.

Offline Riley1066

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
  • Upstate New York
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #34 on: 05/26/2012 09:58 AM »
When the US Secret Service needed a Limousine for the President, they had General Motors build it, then hand over the keys and the transaction was, by and large finished.  General Motors doesn't operate and own the Presidential Limo, the US Government does.

Now I understand that there is a huge difference between an automobile (even one as fancy as the Presidential Cadillac) and a Space Vehicle/Rocket system, but I believe NASA's COTS and CCDev programs should function in more or less the same way that the US Air Force bought two Boeing 747s to function as Air Force One and the way the US Secret Service bought a fleet of Limousines for presidntial transportation.
Go at Throttle Up!

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8653
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3586
  • Likes Given: 843
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #35 on: 05/26/2012 10:00 AM »
NASA's been doing that for 50 years. We've all seen the results.
I hear those things are awfully loud. It glides as softly as a cloud. What's it called? Monowhale!

Offline Riley1066

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 343
  • Upstate New York
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #36 on: 05/26/2012 10:10 AM »
NASA's been doing that for 50 years. We've all seen the results.


Yes and I want more of what NASA gives us, not what Elon Musk gives us ...
Go at Throttle Up!

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8653
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3586
  • Likes Given: 843
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #37 on: 05/26/2012 10:12 AM »
NASA's been doing that for 50 years. We've all seen the results.


Yes and I want more of what NASA gives us, not what Elon Musk gives us ...

Okay, well thanks for your opinion.
I hear those things are awfully loud. It glides as softly as a cloud. What's it called? Monowhale!

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6190
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2294
  • Likes Given: 778
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #38 on: 05/26/2012 02:17 PM »
NASA's been doing that for 50 years. We've all seen the results.


Yes and I want more of what NASA gives us, not what Elon Musk gives us ...

Overbudget and canceled programs with lots of pretty powerpoints to go with them, instead of flying hardware at a fraction of the cost?

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

~Jon

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2238
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Congressional Approval for a Crewed commercial program
« Reply #39 on: 05/26/2012 03:22 PM »
When the US Secret Service needed a Limousine for the President, they had General Motors build it, then hand over the keys and the transaction was, by and large finished.  General Motors doesn't operate and own the Presidential Limo, the US Government does.

Now I understand that there is a huge difference between an automobile (even one as fancy as the Presidential Cadillac) and a Space Vehicle/Rocket system, but I believe NASA's COTS and CCDev programs should function in more or less the same way that the US Air Force bought two Boeing 747s to function as Air Force One and the way the US Secret Service bought a fleet of Limousines for presidntial transportation.

And for the routine stuff - shuttling government employees around the country - the government buys seats on commercial airlines. You don't see it operating its own fleet of airliners. That's a much closer analogy to LEO HSF.

Tags: