The NEO Investigation Module (NIM) would provide a method of attaching the spacecraft to the asteroid, robotic arms/platform for the astronauts to stand on during the EVA, air lock and scientific instruments.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/24/2011 03:44 pmThe NEO Investigation Module (NIM) would provide a method of attaching the spacecraft to the asteroid, robotic arms/platform for the astronauts to stand on during the EVA, air lock and scientific instruments.The Multi Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) will provide all these functions.
Quote from: Space Pete on 07/24/2011 04:22 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/24/2011 03:44 pmThe NEO Investigation Module (NIM) would provide a method of attaching the spacecraft to the asteroid, robotic arms/platform for the astronauts to stand on during the EVA, air lock and scientific instruments.The Multi Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) will provide all these functions.What are the current and planned levels of funding for that vehicle? The art looks awesome, but I was under the impression that it was likely to stay just art for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: Jason1701 on 07/24/2011 04:43 pmQuote from: Space Pete on 07/24/2011 04:22 pmQuote from: A_M_Swallow on 07/24/2011 03:44 pmThe NEO Investigation Module (NIM) would provide a method of attaching the spacecraft to the asteroid, robotic arms/platform for the astronauts to stand on during the EVA, air lock and scientific instruments.The Multi Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) will provide all these functions.What are the current and planned levels of funding for that vehicle? The art looks awesome, but I was under the impression that it was likely to stay just art for the foreseeable future.It is not a funded project. It is just a study by a group that does advance studies.
And yet without funding they built two units and are building a third.... Something does not sound right there.
Quote from: Downix on 07/24/2011 05:02 pmAnd yet without funding they built two units and are building a third.... Something does not sound right there.Yup - construction of a mock-up has already begun, so somebody must be funding it:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24909.msg756556#msg756556There are also plans to fly a prototype to the ISS.
Quote from: Space Pete on 07/24/2011 06:11 pmQuote from: Downix on 07/24/2011 05:02 pmAnd yet without funding they built two units and are building a third.... Something does not sound right there.Yup - construction of a mock-up has already begun, so somebody must be funding it:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24909.msg756556#msg756556There are also plans to fly a prototype to the ISS.There are no "plans" to fly it to the ISS. It is not a funded flight project. Mockups are cheap and easy and part of studies.
There are no "plans" to fly it to the ISS. It is not a funded flight project. Mockups are cheap and easy and part of studies.
Quote from: Jim on 07/24/2011 06:26 pmThere are no "plans" to fly it to the ISS. It is not a funded flight project. Mockups are cheap and easy and part of studies.Yes, an ISS flight isn't funded *yet*. But I'm talking about later this decade.As for ATHLETE, the reason it isn't flying yet is because it has no work to do yet. It would be pointless to send it to the Moon right now, without any work to do.
From what's been said, it seems there's a high probability of SEV and ATHLETE being sacrificed to SLS, even though they're what we should be funding.
Not only is the ISS flight not funded, neither is any flight vehicle. It is not in the budget.
Quote from: Jim on 07/24/2011 06:46 pmNot only is the ISS flight not funded, neither is any flight vehicle. It is not in the budget.What are the chances of it being funded later this decade (i.e. 2019/2020)?
So we build SLS/MPCV then have to wait several more years to develop the MMSEV? What do with the standing army that produce and operate SLS and MPCV? I see a train wreck in a few years.
Trying to tie this back to the original post, and looking at a mission mode where the Orion SM provides propulsion for at least one maneuver of the combined Orion and MMSEV, what are the chances that the specifications (i.e. mass) of the flight-ready MMSEV can be nailed down enough so that Orion SM requirements could be known?
My apologies if this has been asked, and answered somewhere else -But is not the real question, How far and how fast is the Orion/MPCV going to go being launched on an Atlas (or maybe a Delta)?I was under the distinct impression that Administrator Bolden favors a test flight of Orion/MPCV on one or both of the aforementioned LV's.That test flight, or flights, is the only thing even close to being a real world mission in the next three to five years.
Quote from: Space Pete on 07/24/2011 07:28 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/24/2011 06:46 pmNot only is the ISS flight not funded, neither is any flight vehicle. It is not in the budget.What are the chances of it being funded later this decade (i.e. 2019/2020)?Depends on what NASA wants
Quote from: Jim on 07/24/2011 07:33 pmQuote from: Space Pete on 07/24/2011 07:28 pmQuote from: Jim on 07/24/2011 06:46 pmNot only is the ISS flight not funded, neither is any flight vehicle. It is not in the budget.What are the chances of it being funded later this decade (i.e. 2019/2020)?Depends on what NASA wantsIt's at least in the "recommended portfolio" for the Advanced Exploration Systems program. It's proposed that JSC would get $6M for it per year in FY12-14.
Orion is pretty clearly defined as the stack that includes the LAS, the capsule, and the service module. MPCV is now defined as being baselined on Orion. Ergo the baseline MPCV is the LAS, the capsule, and the service module. Are you asking what might be part of MPCV beyond the baseline?
The MPCV budget is currently funding the development of what now?- Crew capsule? Yes, check- LAS? Yes, check (or funded previously through CxP)- Alternate excape system? Yes, check (don't understand why, though)- Service module? Don't know (previously funded under CxP?)After the Orion crew capsule is developed in a few years, could the MPCV budget shift to development of an MPCV service module, an MPCV mission mission, an MPCV habitation module, and extraterrestrial landing/accent vehicle?
Any news available about the service module? Which status, which engine, what specs?
Would not the Aestus/RS72 be an alternativehttp://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/rs72_specs.shtmlHere's what an ATV derived service module might look like...
Quote from: AndyMc on 10/10/2011 11:10 amWould not the Aestus/RS72 be an alternativehttp://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/rs72_specs.shtmlHere's what an ATV derived service module might look like...Interesting concept. If Orion's Service Module ends up being designed around the ATV, then some interesting synergies become possible. By having NASA fund the SM model of the ATV, ESA may yet be able to afford its own manned spacecraft, employing the same ATV-based SM. This in turn could likely enable (a little further on) an ATV-based mission module base design. International cooperation to design and build the ISS evolves into international cooperation to design and build human spacecraft around internationally shared spacecraft design elements. Hmm. Interesting.
Quote from: AndyMc on 10/10/2011 11:10 amWould not the Aestus/RS72 be an alternativehttp://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/rs72_specs.shtmlHere's what an ATV derived service module might look like...Interesting concept. If Orion's Service Module ends up being designed around the ATV, then some interesting synergies become possible. By having NASA fund the SM model of the ATV, ESA may yet be able to afford its own manned spacecraft, employing the same ATV-based SM. This in turn could likely enable (a little further on) an ATV-based mission module base design. International cooperation to design and build the ISS evolves into international cooperation to design and build human spacecraft around internationally shared spacecraft design elements. Hmm. Interesting.Edit: Does anyone have an image of the RS-72 itself?
The Aestus has a thrust of about 27 kN, compared to 33 kN for AJ10, so slightly worse thrust losses, but not bad. On the other hand, the much better Isp of Aestus (312 sec vs. 271 sec for AJ10) would provide 15% more delta V per given prop mass/volume...EDIT: Ah, just saw the numbers for RS-72 (the PWR licensed gas generator version), and it looks even better in thrust and Isp.
Particularly, would be good if perhaps the lander was built internationally, if not commercially.
It will require a complete redesign, abandonment of any work and funds spent already on our own SM
Quote from: OV-106 on 10/10/2011 04:23 pmIt will require a complete redesign, abandonment of any work and funds spent already on our own SMHow expensive will this "complete" redesign be? Does it matter if NASA doesn't pay for it? How much funds have we spent on our own SM?
It will require a complete redesign, abandonment of any work and funds spent already on our own SM, placing Orion hostage to a collective of nation-states who have been inconsistent in the past which could ultimately lead to yet again more American money moving oversees to employ others instead of some of the people who have just been culled here in the name of "international cooperation".
Quote from: Jason1701 on 10/10/2011 04:26 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 10/10/2011 04:23 pmIt will require a complete redesign, abandonment of any work and funds spent already on our own SMHow expensive will this "complete" redesign be? Does it matter if NASA doesn't pay for it? How much funds have we spent on our own SM?Expensive. Just look at the basic capabilities of the current ATV and Orion. They are not "plug and play" as I said. As far as how much money has been spent, I do not have an exact figure. NASA not paying for it is a lose-lose situation as far as I am concerned. If NASA does not pay for it, we are hostage to ESA and the assumption and hope they will. If they do not, or say they will and then not deliver funding, the US will be forced to divert money there.I see zero practical purpose in any of this.
Quote from: simonbp on 10/10/2011 12:16 pmThe Aestus has a thrust of about 27 kN, compared to 33 kN for AJ10, so slightly worse thrust losses, but not bad. On the other hand, the much better Isp of Aestus (312 sec vs. 271 sec for AJ10) would provide 15% more delta V per given prop mass/volume...EDIT: Ah, just saw the numbers for RS-72 (the PWR licensed gas generator version), and it looks even better in thrust and Isp.Depends on the version of the AJ-10. The OME from the Shuttle, for instance, had a thrust of 26.7 kN but an isp of 316. The AJ-10-137 from Apollo, however, had a thrust of 97.5 kN and isp of 312. And the AJ-10-118K from Delta II has a thrust of 43.4 kN and isp of 321. AJ-10 is a family of engines, not a model of engine. There are units which had thrust in the 600 kN range. Aerojet optimized the engine to the need of the application.
From what I heard from my (ironically enough) ESA source the US have already spent over 1 billion US $ on their own service module design. That's combined over development and test of the OME, additional thrusters, structures, panels, solar panels, etc. The whole works.
Quote from: Downix on 10/10/2011 04:10 pmQuote from: simonbp on 10/10/2011 12:16 pmThe Aestus has a thrust of about 27 kN, compared to 33 kN for AJ10, so slightly worse thrust losses, but not bad. On the other hand, the much better Isp of Aestus (312 sec vs. 271 sec for AJ10) would provide 15% more delta V per given prop mass/volume...EDIT: Ah, just saw the numbers for RS-72 (the PWR licensed gas generator version), and it looks even better in thrust and Isp.Depends on the version of the AJ-10. The OME from the Shuttle, for instance, had a thrust of 26.7 kN but an isp of 316. The AJ-10-137 from Apollo, however, had a thrust of 97.5 kN and isp of 312. And the AJ-10-118K from Delta II has a thrust of 43.4 kN and isp of 321. AJ-10 is a family of engines, not a model of engine. There are units which had thrust in the 600 kN range. Aerojet optimized the engine to the need of the application. Maybe they could trade us engines? Could we use the Vulcain LOX/LH2 engine's 110 tons of thrust.
Quote from: Prober on 10/10/2011 10:24 pmQuote from: Downix on 10/10/2011 04:10 pmQuote from: simonbp on 10/10/2011 12:16 pmThe Aestus has a thrust of about 27 kN, compared to 33 kN for AJ10, so slightly worse thrust losses, but not bad. On the other hand, the much better Isp of Aestus (312 sec vs. 271 sec for AJ10) would provide 15% more delta V per given prop mass/volume...EDIT: Ah, just saw the numbers for RS-72 (the PWR licensed gas generator version), and it looks even better in thrust and Isp.Depends on the version of the AJ-10. The OME from the Shuttle, for instance, had a thrust of 26.7 kN but an isp of 316. The AJ-10-137 from Apollo, however, had a thrust of 97.5 kN and isp of 312. And the AJ-10-118K from Delta II has a thrust of 43.4 kN and isp of 321. AJ-10 is a family of engines, not a model of engine. There are units which had thrust in the 600 kN range. Aerojet optimized the engine to the need of the application. Maybe they could trade us engines? Could we use the Vulcain LOX/LH2 engine's 110 tons of thrust. Are you serious? What good would this do, as it's fuel would boil off before the mission was even part-way over? In addition, you'd increase the systems size and weight from the fuel needed to support that much thrust, *AND* you'd liquify the astronauts from the sheer thrust applied to them. As it was, the AJ-10-137 on Apollo was bordering on too powerful.
Quote from: Downix on 10/11/2011 03:23 pmQuote from: Prober on 10/10/2011 10:24 pmQuote from: Downix on 10/10/2011 04:10 pmQuote from: simonbp on 10/10/2011 12:16 pmThe Aestus has a thrust of about 27 kN, compared to 33 kN for AJ10, so slightly worse thrust losses, but not bad. On the other hand, the much better Isp of Aestus (312 sec vs. 271 sec for AJ10) would provide 15% more delta V per given prop mass/volume...EDIT: Ah, just saw the numbers for RS-72 (the PWR licensed gas generator version), and it looks even better in thrust and Isp.Depends on the version of the AJ-10. The OME from the Shuttle, for instance, had a thrust of 26.7 kN but an isp of 316. The AJ-10-137 from Apollo, however, had a thrust of 97.5 kN and isp of 312. And the AJ-10-118K from Delta II has a thrust of 43.4 kN and isp of 321. AJ-10 is a family of engines, not a model of engine. There are units which had thrust in the 600 kN range. Aerojet optimized the engine to the need of the application. Maybe they could trade us engines? Could we use the Vulcain LOX/LH2 engine's 110 tons of thrust. Are you serious? What good would this do, as it's fuel would boil off before the mission was even part-way over? In addition, you'd increase the systems size and weight from the fuel needed to support that much thrust, *AND* you'd liquify the astronauts from the sheer thrust applied to them. As it was, the AJ-10-137 on Apollo was bordering on too powerful.Think he is tossing the idea to swap the SSME for the Vulcain.
I don't want the US Beyond Low Earth Orbit Program to be reliant on ESA for crucial parts.NASA should source the service module from US Aerospace contractors.
ORION ΔV for TEI 1,492 m/s (4,895 ft/s)(Tanks sized for 1,560 m/s (5,118 ft/s)
Thanks António, Could you please give me a link for PDF that states:“recommended nominal delta-V reduced from 1760 m/s to 1492 m/s (17426 lbs ~7904 kg) with tanks sized for additional 68 m/s (1300 lbs ~590 kg) to be covered from Program Mgr reserve”Do not worry - got it! Lunar Capability Concept Review (LCCR) Transportation Systems Only June 18 – 20, 2008 Report to the PSSPage 34 DRMs/Mission Key Driving Requirements MappingLunar Sortie Design Reference Mission: QuoteORION ΔV for TEI 1,492 m/s (4,895 ft/s)(Tanks sized for 1,560 m/s (5,118 ft/s)But it was Oct 2008, total mass of Orion was 20,125 kg and propulsion system supposed to be LOX/Methane. On SM it's seems to be a decision had been made not to make ANY decisions. Let's wait until NASA/LM/Aerojet would reveal more detailed information.
Orion weight was in Exploration Begins here which I linked here.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29807.0OrionPropellants HypersCM, SM Mass 53,405 lbmLAS 16,300 lbm# Engines / Type 1 / STS OMSTotal Mass 73,738 lbm
Quote from: Riley1066 on 09/06/2012 04:14 pmI don't want the US Beyond Low Earth Orbit Program to be reliant on ESA for crucial parts.NASA should source the service module from US Aerospace contractors.What you want is not of any interest to the powers working at NASA.An answer as to ESA will produce any service module (components or parts) for Orion is likely to be expected coming november, when the issue will be on the table of the ESA ministerial conference.
Quote from: woods170 on 09/06/2012 06:53 pmQuote from: Riley1066 on 09/06/2012 04:14 pmI don't want the US Beyond Low Earth Orbit Program to be reliant on ESA for crucial parts.NASA should source the service module from US Aerospace contractors.What you want is not of any interest to the powers working at NASA.An answer as to ESA will produce any service module (components or parts) for Orion is likely to be expected coming november, when the issue will be on the table of the ESA ministerial conference.As a citizen of the United States, and a taxpayer, my opinion should matter to "the powers working at NASA". Orion should be a US vehicle not an international project.
So, you would rather have no Orion vs an international Orion?
Quote from: Riley1066 on 09/07/2012 03:44 pmQuote from: woods170 on 09/06/2012 06:53 pmQuote from: Riley1066 on 09/06/2012 04:14 pmI don't want the US Beyond Low Earth Orbit Program to be reliant on ESA for crucial parts.NASA should source the service module from US Aerospace contractors.What you want is not of any interest to the powers working at NASA.An answer as to ESA will produce any service module (components or parts) for Orion is likely to be expected coming november, when the issue will be on the table of the ESA ministerial conference.As a citizen of the United States, and a taxpayer, my opinion should matter to "the powers working at NASA". Orion should be a US vehicle not an international project.So, you would rather have no Orion vs an international Orion?
If NASA can't even build a VEHICLE without international participation, then that signals a massive failure of our human spaceflight program.
So if a different citizen's opinion is contrary to your opinion do they cancel out? More seriously, do you even know how many robotic space missions have international partners now days? The performance of these missions speaks very positively for international cooperation. No one is talking about putting an unreliable partner on a critical hardware path. Some people are of the opinion that without the international component of ISS it would have been defunded and splashed by now. Having the international partner gives a program a great shield to weather the ever shifting domestic budget priorities.
No critical operational functions of these robotic joint ventures has ever been outsourced ... the contributions have been add ons.
Quote from: Jim on 09/07/2012 05:06 pmSo, you would rather have no Orion vs an international Orion?Russia doesn't subcontract the Descent Module of their Soyuz spacecraft to another space agency ... why should America subcontract the service module of its Orion vehicle to another space agency?
Quote from: Jim on 09/07/2012 05:06 pmSo, you would rather have no Orion vs an international Orion?If NASA can't even build a VEHICLE without international participation, then that signals a massive failure of our human spaceflight program.
As a citizen of the United States, and a taxpayer, my opinion should matter to "the powers working at NASA". Orion should be a US vehicle not an international project.
It doesn't matter what the Russians do. Fiscally, if is a difference of having Orion or no Orion, then yes, America should subcontract out the SM.
The US human spaceflight program is doing great with 3 manned systems in development.
Quote from: Jim on 09/08/2012 02:24 pm The US human spaceflight program is doing great with 3 manned systems in development.Subjective.Flying 3 manned systems would be "great", developing them is just that. Development.
Quote from: Jim on 09/07/2012 05:06 pmQuote from: Riley1066 on 09/07/2012 03:44 pmQuote from: woods170 on 09/06/2012 06:53 pmQuote from: Riley1066 on 09/06/2012 04:14 pmI don't want the US Beyond Low Earth Orbit Program to be reliant on ESA for crucial parts.NASA should source the service module from US Aerospace contractors.What you want is not of any interest to the powers working at NASA.An answer as to ESA will produce any service module (components or parts) for Orion is likely to be expected coming november, when the issue will be on the table of the ESA ministerial conference.As a citizen of the United States, and a taxpayer, my opinion should matter to "the powers working at NASA". Orion should be a US vehicle not an international project.So, you would rather have no Orion vs an international Orion?If I see the former as a nearly-inevitable result of the latter (int'l Orion will be delayed and cost more due to re-work of the CM), then yes, I say stop the charade and cancel Orion now.
Quote from: Riley1066 on 09/07/2012 09:04 pmQuote from: Jim on 09/07/2012 05:06 pmSo, you would rather have no Orion vs an international Orion?If NASA can't even build a VEHICLE without international participation, then that signals a massive failure of our human spaceflight program.Wrong, it has nothing to do with the success or failure of the "US" human spaceflight program. It has to do with the US Gov't priorities on the US Gov't operated human spaceflight program. NASA does not equate to the US human spaceflight program. The US human spaceflight program is doing great with 3 manned systems in development.
Quote from: Jim on 09/08/2012 02:24 pmQuote from: Riley1066 on 09/07/2012 09:04 pmQuote from: Jim on 09/07/2012 05:06 pmSo, you would rather have no Orion vs an international Orion?If NASA can't even build a VEHICLE without international participation, then that signals a massive failure of our human spaceflight program.Wrong, it has nothing to do with the success or failure of the "US" human spaceflight program. It has to do with the US Gov't priorities on the US Gov't operated human spaceflight program. NASA does not equate to the US human spaceflight program. The US human spaceflight program is doing great with 3 manned systems in development.Unless we're actually buying CST-100s, Dragons, and Dreamchasers and launching them with NASA employees the way we bought the Space Shuttles from Rockwell/Boeing, then they are not NASA vehicles. There is only one NASA vehicle being developed ... that is Orion ... and that vehicle should be US sourced.
Better than just one gov't developed system
Unless we're actually buying CST-100s, Dragons, and Dreamchasers and launching them with NASA employees the way we bought the Space Shuttles from Rockwell/Boeing, then they are not NASA vehicles. There is only one NASA vehicle being developed ... that is Orion ... and that vehicle should be US sourced.
It would make more sense to me if NASA did the SM, but used commercial crew for the capsule. Yes, that would require a more generic design, and yes that would involve a mass penalty, but I'd say suck it up and get on with the program. Having Orion Lite would be another way of achieving the same result, provided it would be economical enough for commercial use.
I agree the SM's specs should be driven by the mission requirements and having the ESA may cause delays and cost overruns.
Quote from: Riley1066 on 09/09/2012 02:34 amUnless we're actually buying CST-100s, Dragons, and Dreamchasers and launching them with NASA employees the way we bought the Space Shuttles from Rockwell/Boeing, then they are not NASA vehicles. There is only one NASA vehicle being developed ... that is Orion ... and that vehicle should be US sourced.Oh the irony... All the commercial crew vehicles in development are 100% US sourced. And the offical NASA vehicle might not be. But then again I've never understood why so many people have such an emotional attachment to the idea of NASA having its "own" vehicle.
I want the American people to have a safety net in case these new private contractors decide to screw us in pricing. Having an in-house government option keeps the private contractors honest.
I have no faith in SpaceX, Boeing or SNC keeping their agreements on cost.
I want the American people to have a safety net in case these new private contractors decide to screw us in pricing.
I want the American people to have a safety net in case these new private contractors decide to screw us in pricing. Having an in-house government option keeps the private contractors honest.I have no faith in SpaceX, Boeing or SNC keeping their agreements on cost.
Quote from: Riley1066 on 09/11/2012 03:57 pmI want the American people to have a safety net in case these new private contractors decide to screw us in pricing. Having an in-house government option keeps the private contractors honest.I have no faith in SpaceX, Boeing or SNC keeping their agreements on cost.Huh? There is no safety net as you propose. You have no clue on how things work. "In-house government" option would nothing of sort and actually would more susceptible to cost increases because it is supported by cost plus contracts. LM builds Orion on a cost plus contract and then NASA operates it with another cost plus contract. Commercial crew with SpaceX, Boeing or SNC would be firm, fixed cost contract, with each year having agreed to prices. They eat the costs above the contract prices and can't ask for compensation. Their only way out is to default on the contract which you won't see happening and that is why having two is better than one. That is the safety net. Anyways, Boeing is not a new private company.
There is no reason NASA could not decide to use an FFP for any operations contracts.Of course scope changes to those are much more difficult to manage.
Quote from: Go4TLI on 09/11/2012 09:09 pmThere is no reason NASA could not decide to use an FFP for any operations contracts.Of course scope changes to those are much more difficult to manage.Huh? Wrong, that is exactly why they are not FFP except for the simplest of tasks.Where dd I say that FFP wasn't a valid mechanism.
Quote from: Jim on 09/11/2012 11:48 pmQuote from: Go4TLI on 09/11/2012 09:09 pmThere is no reason NASA could not decide to use an FFP for any operations contracts.Of course scope changes to those are much more difficult to manage.Huh? Wrong, that is exactly why they are not FFP except for the simplest of tasks.Where dd I say that FFP wasn't a valid mechanism. I don't know why you are "Huh'ing" me. I simply said operations could be FFP and there is no reason why they could not be. It would just require that there would be little to no scope changes, all based on milestones, etc so that we are not got in a never-ending contract negotiation cycle to change the baseline contract....that ultimately increases cost.
Because there are always changes in operations contracts, that is why most can not be FFP
Quote from: Jim on 09/12/2012 01:46 amBecause there are always changes in operations contracts, that is why most can not be FFPYou are totally missing my point. They can be FFP if they wanted to do it that way. And since you are saying "cost plus equals cost increase" I was pointing out an alternative. Besides you always point to LSP. Is that not FFP and is that not operations?
Quote from: Go4TLI on 09/12/2012 01:52 amQuote from: Jim on 09/12/2012 01:46 amBecause there are always changes in operations contracts, that is why most can not be FFPYou are totally missing my point. They can be FFP if they wanted to do it that way. And since you are saying "cost plus equals cost increase" I was pointing out an alternative. Besides you always point to LSP. Is that not FFP and is that not operations?Operations does not produce hardware.
Ok, I didn't realize that rockets grew on trees ready for launch.
Quote from: Go4TLI on 09/12/2012 02:17 amOk, I didn't realize that rockets grew on trees ready for launch. I can tell there are many other thing you haven't realized. Launch preparations are part of production, not operations. Operations contracts use completed hardware like managing the AFSCN or TDRSS.
Huh? There is no safety net as you propose. You have no clue on how things work. "In-house government" option would nothing of sort and actually would more susceptible to cost increases because it is supported by cost plus contracts. LM builds Orion on a cost plus contract and then NASA operates it with another cost plus contract. Commercial crew with SpaceX, Boeing or SNC would be firm, fixed cost contract, with each year having agreed to prices. They eat the costs above the contract prices and can't ask for compensation. Their only way out is to default on the contract which you won't see happening and that is why having two is better than one. That is the safety net. Anyways, Boeing is not a new private company.
Quote from: Go4TLI on 09/11/2012 09:09 pmHuh? There is no safety net as you propose. You have no clue on how things work. "In-house government" option would nothing of sort and actually would more susceptible to cost increases because it is supported by cost plus contracts. LM builds Orion on a cost plus contract and then NASA operates it with another cost plus contract. Commercial crew with SpaceX, Boeing or SNC would be firm, fixed cost contract, with each year having agreed to prices. They eat the costs above the contract prices and can't ask for compensation. Their only way out is to default on the contract which you won't see happening and that is why having two is better than one. That is the safety net. Anyways, Boeing is not a new private company.I'd still rather have NASA own the vehicles that it sends its astronauts into space with. I'll eat the extra cost of whatever this "cost plus contract" would be to get that security.I'm just afraid that after a while, the commercial crew tail will start wagging the NASA dog.
I'd still rather have NASA own the vehicles that it sends its astronauts into space with. I'll eat the extra cost of whatever this "cost plus contract" would be to get that security.I'm just afraid that after a while, the commercial crew tail will start wagging the NASA dog.
I'd still rather have NASA own the vehicles that it sends its astronauts into space with. I'll eat the extra cost of whatever this "cost plus contract" would be to get that security.
I'm just afraid that after a while, the commercial crew tail will start wagging the NASA dog.
Quote from: Lars_J on 09/10/2012 04:14 pmQuote from: Riley1066 on 09/09/2012 02:34 amUnless we're actually buying CST-100s, Dragons, and Dreamchasers and launching them with NASA employees the way we bought the Space Shuttles from Rockwell/Boeing, then they are not NASA vehicles. There is only one NASA vehicle being developed ... that is Orion ... and that vehicle should be US sourced.Oh the irony... All the commercial crew vehicles in development are 100% US sourced. And the offical NASA vehicle might not be. But then again I've never understood why so many people have such an emotional attachment to the idea of NASA having its "own" vehicle.I want the American people to have a safety net in case these new private contractors decide to screw us in pricing. Having an in-house government option keeps the private contractors honest.I have no faith in SpaceX, Boeing or SNC keeping their agreements on cost.
Is Lockheed Martin better?If Boeing, SNC, or SpaceX doesn't keep their agreement on cost, then they have to eat it (not that there's no effect on NASA).Remember, Orion is cost-plus, so if LM doesn't keep their agreement on cost (i.e. if the cost goes higher than they expect), then NASA has to eat it, and pay LM a guaranteed profit!(I'm not an enemy of Orion necessarily, but I just thought I'd point that out...)