Author Topic: NASA Notifies Congress About Space Station Contract Modification with Russia  (Read 63483 times)

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Ok, if you were Bolden what would you be doing differently?

I'm not Bolden. It's his administration's responsibility to come up with a workable program within the budget decided by Congress. He hasn't.

It really does seem like you're trying to suggest there's no way for this program to be run on schedule with the budget given. If that's the case, it should be cancelled.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Ok, if you were Bolden what would you be doing differently?

I'm not Bolden. It's his administration's responsibility to come up with a workable program within the budget decided by Congress. He hasn't.

It really does seem like you're trying to suggest there's no way for this program to be run on schedule with the budget given. If that's the case, it should be cancelled.

What would canceling the program solve?  Nothing because the dependency on Russia still exists for transportation to ISS. 

Commercial Crew Program was put in place to remove that dependency on Russia for crew transport.  Congress hasn't not provided the funding to run the program on a schedule that minimizes the US dependency on Russia and the amount of money that we have to pay Russia.   The fact that Congress hasn't provided the funding requested to run the program on a schedule that NASA and the Obama Administration proposed to minimize the time frame between Space Shuttle retirement and Commercial Crew capability is fully online.  Is the fault of Congress not NASA or the Obama administration. 

The good thing is the program can still run on reduced year/year funding just at a slower pace.  However this reduced funding for Commercial Crew by Congress has only resulted in the US having to pay more money to Russia for Soyuz seats.  That is NASA's and Bolden's plan, stretch out the development.  The infuriating thing that any Budget savings by not funding the program at the Administration's requested level is a illusion when any money saved just winds up going to Russia.   I would call Congresses actions, "Penny wise, pound foolish."  NASA is trying to do the best they can with the money allocated.  However Congress is still the one playing Politics with Commercial Crew, not NASA or the Obama administration. 
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
It really does seem like you're trying to suggest there's no way for this program to be run on schedule with the budget given. If that's the case, it should be cancelled.

No it should not be cancelled. The other option is to FUND it!

You seem to be suggesting that it must run on schedule so de-scope the program to a single CC provider. That won't work because Congress would then just reduce the funding even further so that the program - even with a single CC provider - will  remain underfunded. What you are missing is that Congress isn't interested in Commercial Crew at all. That's the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Congress would just as soon kill the entire program out-of-hand because funding CC doesn't put any money in those crook's re-election pockets, while OVER-funding SLS does! So no, de-scoping the program is just playing into the hands of the extortionists that have the unmitigated bloody gall to call themselves legislators.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2015 02:07 am by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
You continue to live in this alternate reality where the NASA administration decides the budget. They don't. Their job is to make the program work with the budget they are given. If they can't, then the program gets cancelled. "Go as you pay" is one way to deal with this - slipping the schedule to match funding, but in the case of commercial crew this doesn't work. We all agree on this - the ISS has an expiration date (extended or not) and every year that commercial crew isn't ready is another year of Soyuz flights. Grinding your teeth over the "stupidity" of Congress isn't going to get this program back on track. They're not going to cede their authority to set the budget. Congress made no secret of the fact that NASA would not be getting the kind of money this administration had been putting in their budget requests, why did the administration continue with this fantasy?

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
You continue to live in this alternate reality where the NASA administration decides the budget. They don't.

I think it's safe to say we know this.

Quote
Their job is to make the program work with the budget they are given. If they can't, then the program gets cancelled.

You're ignoring a whole lot of history on how this program came to be, which was with the specific support of Congress.

And because there are real consequences to the binary choices you suggest, it's not a subtle situation here - it's an international situation that affects more than one agency.

Quote
Grinding your teeth over the "stupidity" of Congress isn't going to get this program back on track. They're not going to cede their authority to set the budget.

Now who is ignoring politics.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as the saying goes, and Bolden & company are squeaking as much as they can to get as much attention as possible.  This is a normal part of the political process - what some small part of Congress decides does not always mean other parts of Congress won't end up taking up an interest.  Maybe Bolden is trying to get McCain to get interested in getting involved?

Quote
Congress made no secret of the fact that NASA would not be getting the kind of money this administration had been putting in their budget requests, why did the administration continue with this fantasy?

This is the way our government works.  Dick Cheney tried for years to cancel the V-22 Osprey, but Obama did show when he got Congress to cancel the Constellation program that things can change rather quickly.  So every budget year is a new opportunity, not the final word.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Now who is ignoring politics.  The squeaky wheel gets the grease, as the saying goes, and Bolden & company are squeaking as much as they can to get as much attention as possible.

Bolden has been whining about the commercial crew budget for years. Congress has been funding less than the request for years. Bolden whining some more obviously isn't the solution.


Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Dante80

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 893
  • Athens : Greece
  • Liked: 835
  • Likes Given: 539
Congress made no secret of the fact that NASA would not be getting the kind of money this administration had been putting in their budget requests, why did the administration continue with this fantasy?

But - if I understand the situation correctly - they ARE getting the overall NASA budget they requested these last years. Its just that the allocation of program funding inside the budget is skewed according to what Congress deems "important". How else can you explain the fact that SLS is historically getting more money than requested, while CC isn't?

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Congress made no secret of the fact that NASA would not be getting the kind of money this administration had been putting in their budget requests, why did the administration continue with this fantasy?

But - if I understand the situation correctly - they ARE getting the overall NASA budget they requested these last years. Its just that the allocation of program funding inside the budget is skewed according to what Congress deems "important". How else can you explain the fact that SLS is historically getting more money than requested, while CC isn't?
And with that we are back at what Chuck told us. The reason why CCP is not getting the requested funds is because almost none of that money would be classified as 'pork', whereas the funds allocated to SLS is nothing but 'pork'.
Basically the question is (from the perspective of US Congress): "what's in it for me?".
Answer for CCP: not a whole lot
Answer for SLS: a whole lot.

Guess where the money goes?

It's as simple as that. Has nothing to do with actions (or lack there of) from the Obama administration and/or administrator Charlie Bolden. It has everything to do with 'bringing home the bacon'. And the cold hard fact is that SLS brings home a lot of bacon while CCP doesn't.

Here is a prediction: the minute US Congress forces a down-select for CCP, they will push extremely hard to make sure that the remaining contractor will be Boeing, AND from that moment forward the program will be funded to requested levels. Reason: Boeing provides more pork than SpaceX does.

Here is another prediction: If Charlie Bolden would stand up to US Congress and down-select (if forced to do so) to SpaceX only, US Congress will make sure that the level of funding for CCP is reduced in such a manner that the program will fail completely.

US Congress does not like CCP because it is not typical government-style fat-contracting. They tried to change that by enforcing FAR contracting for CCtCAP. The only reason why they haven't all together canned the program, by setting the provided level of funding to zero, is because Boeing is involved.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Let's say you're right.. doesn't that prove that Bolden is wasting time by keeping SpaceX in the game? What's the point of this program... to get crews flying to the ISS before it splashes into the pacific or to stick it to Congress? I think the program is about flying crews, but it would appear this administration has decided it is about challenging Congress.


Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Let's say you're right.. doesn't that prove that Bolden is wasting time by keeping SpaceX in the game? What's the point of this program... to get crews flying to the ISS before it splashes into the pacific or to stick it to Congress? I think the program is about flying crews, but it would appear this administration has decided it is about challenging Congress.

They will be flying crews before the ISS splashes down into the pacific.  Even at reduced funding levels they are still on track for having Commercial crew capability before the end of this decade.  The requested funding levels by NASA would allow that capability sooner and the level of funding that Congress is providing will push that capability closer to the end of the decade.  Congress has decided that funding Commercial crew at below requested budget level is more about sticking it to the Obama administration.  They are certainly not saving any money by not funding Commercial crew at the level requested by NASA. 
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Let's say you're right.. doesn't that prove that Bolden is wasting time by keeping SpaceX in the game? What's the point of this program... to get crews flying to the ISS before it splashes into the pacific or to stick it to Congress? I think the program is about flying crews, but it would appear this administration has decided it is about challenging Congress.

It's not a matter of sticking it to Congress. The Administration has always said that it wanted to maintain competition. In other words, they have no intention of downselecting unless they are forced to do so by Congress. There is still a possibility that downselection will happen after CCtCap but I doubt it. NASA believes that commercial crew should have competition just as CRS does.  They have pointed out to the Orbital accident as proof that two providers for commercial crew is also needed. Furthermore CCtCap might last until 2023. I am not sure that there is any point of downselecting that late into the program. My guess is that the ISS will eventually be extended to 2028.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2015 05:05 pm by yg1968 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Let's say you're right.. doesn't that prove that Bolden is wasting time by keeping SpaceX in the game? What's the point of this program... to get crews flying to the ISS before it splashes into the pacific or to stick it to Congress? I think the program is about flying crews, but it would appear this administration has decided it is about challenging Congress.

Those two things (flying crew to ISS and challenging US Congress) are not mutually exclusive simply  because of the word 'commercial'. The minute a down-select to one provider is forced the program can drop the word commercial because the program will have reverted to an old-style, single-provider, non-commercial, fat-contracting program. And that is exactly what US Congress wants.

They don't like the fact that NASA, and by extension US Congress, are not fully in control of this part of the manned US space program.

But one of the main points of CCP is the same as COTS: redundant providers. That requirement was known AND agreed-upon when the program was first started and funded. NASA made a big deal of it to have redundant providers.

Over the past five years, US legislators have made multiple attempts to get rid of this redundancy by constantly bringing up the 'need' to down-select. But NASA never obliged and in my opinion the continued under-funding of CCP by US Congress is a deliberate attempt to force NASA to oblige to the down-select demand.
However, US Congress cannot force a down-select because they initially agreed to having redundant providers for CCP.
I can perfectly understand why Charlie Bolden chooses to fight US Congress on this one. Choosing not to fight this Congressional madness would be the easy, but also the cowardly thing to do. But Bolden didn't become a US Marine Corps Major General by being a coward.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11086
Let's say you're right.. doesn't that prove that Bolden is wasting time by keeping SpaceX in the game? What's the point of this program... to get crews flying to the ISS before it splashes into the pacific or to stick it to Congress? I think the program is about flying crews, but it would appear this administration has decided it is about challenging Congress.

I want two providers... (I wanted SN and SpaceX, as you know)  but if there must be a downselect I want the "better" provider selected. And by any yardstick **I** care about, that's SpaceX. Cheaper, and advances the state of the art more, and has better knock on effects.

However I'm a SpaceX amazing people and live in fantasy land, that's not how Congress works. It's all about pork.

I hope Bolden has the stones, if forced to downselect, to select SpaceX as the sole provider.  But he won't.

That was amazing people hat on. Mod hat on, this thread has had to get a fair bit of mod attention... I think most participants know where the other participants stand by now, eh? Doubt any of us will convince any of the rest of us. So let's just be excellent to each other.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2015 02:16 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Let's say you're right.. doesn't that prove that Bolden is wasting time by keeping SpaceX in the game? What's the point of this program... to get crews flying to the ISS before it splashes into the pacific or to stick it to Congress? I think the program is about flying crews, but it would appear this administration has decided it is about challenging Congress.

It's not a matter of sticking it to Congress. The Administration has always said that it wanted to maintain competition. In other words, they have no intention of downselecting unless they are forced to do so by Congress. There is still a possibility that downselection will happen after CCtCap but I doubt it. NASA believes that commercial crew should have competition just as CRS does.  They have pointed out to the Orbital accident as proof that two providers for commercial crew is also needed. Furthermore CCtCap might last until 2023. I am not sure that there is any point of downselecting that alte into the program. My guess is that the ISS will eventually be extended to 2028.
Another way to look at this is to ask what is the cost of that competition for the program. If the goal of the program is to develop a means of domestically launching a crew to ISS, which appears to be how congress sees it, than having more than one provider is superfluous. Two providers do offer some benefits beyond simply getting to ISS such as redundancy but there is a cost associated with those non essential benefits. For example if there were already a means of getting to the ISS it is unlikely that NASA or Congress would see funding another provider as a worthwhile program to pursue.

SpaceX is believed to currently be the front runner in the race to get a crew to ISS. That has been true throughout the program. From CCDev2 through their first missions SpaceX will use $3.125 billion. The total program cost is $8.211 billion. Granted that they may have bid for more money if the competition were not there. However they bid so much under the their rivals that even a greedy SpaceX would still have taken less than half of the total. So the cost to bring Boeing or another competitor along through the whole thing has been over half the cost of the program.

There is likely an argument that the added value is worth the extra money. Bolden has not done a good job of justifying all that extra cost to Congress though. However Congress is funding the program beyond what is strictly necessary to get to ISS. It is important for NASA to have both providers reach IOC withing months of each other. SNC lost because it lagged behind. They would rather hold both competitors back than fund both equally and let the cheaper provider be ready sooner. There is some logic to NASA's instance in that because once one provider is up and running Congress could easily kill the program before the other one is ready. The prevailing wisdom though is that Congress loves Boeing. If that is really true than they will not kill the program before Boeing flies even if SpaceX gets there a year or two ahead.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8862
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11934
I think the program is about flying crews, but it would appear this administration has decided it is about challenging Congress.

You seem to be basing a lot of our assumptions on things that involve politics, and U.S. politics are not always logical, nor are they always based on immediate payback.

The reason for that is that every two years the balance of power can shift, and sometimes dramatically, and Obama has had this happen a couple of times.  Plus Congress is made up of 535 individuals that each have their own constituencies, wants and desires.  So assuming Congress is monolithic is simplistic and wrong - each funding law is the result of a unique set of negotiations and conditions.

Plus you seem to ignore the basic political dynamic between Presidents and Congress, that both will take stands based on principles, and not change those principles even in the face of defeat.  That is what the Obama Administration has done with Commercial Crew.

You think the Administration should give up their principles, to cave to Congress.  Sometimes Presidents do that, but sometimes they don't, and clearly Obama feels that Commercial Crew is worth supporting, and worth being an irritation to Congress.  And Bolden's job, as Obama's political appointee, is to be the public face of that irritation.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
Let's say you're right.. doesn't that prove that Bolden is wasting time by keeping SpaceX in the game? What's the point of this program... to get crews flying to the ISS before it splashes into the pacific or to stick it to Congress? I think the program is about flying crews, but it would appear this administration has decided it is about challenging Congress.
Commercial crew and ISS have at least the potential to reduce the cost of human spaceflight to a sustainable level. SLS/Orion unsustainable due to cost. Indeed, its use of SRBs, the VAB, the MLPs and crawlers all commit it to operating costs so high it cannot put more than four Americans in space per year. while consuming most of the NASA budget. 

Unfortunately the members of Congress who oppose Commercial Crew are either committed to SLS simply because it brings jobs to their districts or so bitter in their hatred of Mr. Obama that they are convinced anything his administration supports is evil, including commercial crew, the conservative principles of competition and entrepreneurship notwithstanding. The best thing the administration can do is to make clear to the Congressional committees that failure to adequately fund Commercial Crew will continue to result in American tax dollars supporting Russian enterprises.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
SpaceX is believed to currently be the front runner in the race to get a crew to ISS.

According to McAlister's presentation, the first post certification mission for SpaceX will also be scheduled for December 2017 (same month as Boeing). So Boeing and SpaceX are tied in that respect. If there had been only one provider, it likely would have been Boeing because NASA seems to prefer them.
« Last Edit: 08/10/2015 05:13 pm by yg1968 »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
They will be flying crews before the ISS splashes down into the pacific.  Even at reduced funding levels they are still on track for having Commercial crew capability before the end of this decade.

I think you'll find that these predictions assume funding will go up. The existing program can't be completed at existing funding levels. That's the point.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
I want two providers... (I wanted SN and SpaceX, as you know)  but if there must be a downselect I want the "better" provider selected. And by any yardstick **I** care about, that's SpaceX. Cheaper, and advances the state of the art more, and has better knock on effects.

I agree, but woods170 seems to think that Boeing is the only provider who can get the required funding from Congress to complete the program. I asked him, given his self-imposed restraints, whether he wanted to see the program actually completed. He dodged the question.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
They will be flying crews before the ISS splashes down into the pacific.  Even at reduced funding levels they are still on track for having Commercial crew capability before the end of this decade.

I think you'll find that these predictions assume funding will go up. The existing program can't be completed at existing funding levels. That's the point.

You are in-correct.  The program can be completed at existing funding levels, just not in 2017.  The development will just drag into 2019.  The only way the existing program cannot be completed is if Congress completely cuts off funding.  Development cost is just dragged into outlying years that NASA hadn't planned on in it's requested long range planning budgets.  They assumed in 2018-2019 that they would be paying for crew transport, and development costs would be ramping down.  What this will probably cut down on is the number of potential missions in the the original contract, unless ISS on-orbit time is extended.   W

I show total development Costs for Commercial crew of 3.4 Billion.  If we assume continued allocations of around $800 Million in 2016, 2017, 2018 for Commercial crew.  We can assume that around 2018 we should see the first Commercial crew flights with operational capability in 2019.   If Congress decides to lower the Commercial crew budget allocation in 2016-18  below $800 million then we will see the program schedule further shift.  If Congress decides to allocate more than $800 Million for 2016 budget year then we can see first flight shift closer back to 2017. 

"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1