NASA would still end up footing the bill. Lol, people don't seem to remember that you have to PAY commercial companies for things you cannot just have them DO something.
Add to that the fact that NASA cannot FORCE them to do anything except meet certain safety requirements. Beyond that NASA cannot tell them what to do.
And if there was a cost overrun at a commercial firm it would result in 1. bailout, 2 program cancellation, 3 bankrupt. I would remind everyone of Sea Launch.....
Ohhh. So NASA is going to become the FAA of space and "regulate" all the companies going out and doing spaceflight. I see now.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/10/2010 05:11 pmOhhh. So NASA is going to become the FAA of space and "regulate" all the companies going out and doing spaceflight. I see now. So making commercial companies meet safety requirements is a bad idea?EDIT - I guess you missed this. Does the FAA do that?They'll serve a regulatory function for the companies and still conduct science and exploration missions by purchasing their services to get to LEO. Least that's the goal.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 05:06 pmNASA would still end up footing the bill. Lol, people don't seem to remember that you have to PAY commercial companies for things you cannot just have them DO something.Are you suggesting NASA just has contractors like LM and Boeing "DO something" without payment?Quote from: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 05:06 pmAdd to that the fact that NASA cannot FORCE them to do anything except meet certain safety requirements. Beyond that NASA cannot tell them what to do.NASA doesn't "force" contractors either. They make a contract and have them meet milestones, just like they're doing to the commercial guys.Quote from: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 05:06 pmAnd if there was a cost overrun at a commercial firm it would result in 1. bailout, 2 program cancellation, 3 bankrupt. I would remind everyone of Sea Launch.....1. No. If they do that then it's not commercial space, it's business as usual.2. So, stuff gets canceled all the time already. It's nothing new.3. Again, if a business fails, that's what happens. And Sea Launch are planning to launch this year again IIRC.
OK, but this is a near term problem. Is NASA so slow that they can't come up with a set of requirements by the end of the year or sooner? They already have man rating standards so they can use that as a baseline.
Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/10/2010 05:13 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 05:06 pmNASA would still end up footing the bill. Lol, people don't seem to remember that you have to PAY commercial companies for things you cannot just have them DO something.Are you suggesting NASA just has contractors like LM and Boeing "DO something" without payment?Quote from: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 05:06 pmAdd to that the fact that NASA cannot FORCE them to do anything except meet certain safety requirements. Beyond that NASA cannot tell them what to do.NASA doesn't "force" contractors either. They make a contract and have them meet milestones, just like they're doing to the commercial guys.Quote from: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 05:06 pmAnd if there was a cost overrun at a commercial firm it would result in 1. bailout, 2 program cancellation, 3 bankrupt. I would remind everyone of Sea Launch.....1. No. If they do that then it's not commercial space, it's business as usual.2. So, stuff gets canceled all the time already. It's nothing new.3. Again, if a business fails, that's what happens. And Sea Launch are planning to launch this year again IIRC.1. "Are you suggesting NASA just has contractors like LM and Boeing "DO something" without payment?"No, I am suggesting that cost savings under the new plan will be minimal because you still have to pay spacex, orbital, ect. to do things. Therefore you will save some money but overall savings as opposed to doing it the old way will not be as significant or "game changing" as they are being touted to be. 2. "NASA doesn't "force" contractors either. They make a contract and have them meet milestones, just like they're doing to the commercial guys." True but, What milestones where? Beyond cots and crs I see no milestones. After 2020, under the new plan, I see no reason to even have the commercial providers. Except for the fact that ULA, spacex, and Orbital can find buisness in launching things for other people and companies. Spacex launched a sattilite for the Malaysian government a while back. Perhaps other countries would be interested too? 3. "No. If they do that then it's not commercial space, it's business as usual." Which is what will happen under the new plan eventually one way or another.4. "So, stuff gets canceled all the time already. It's nothing new."If it happens under the new plan and its a spacecraft, like cygnus for example, that gets cut by its parent company because it is wrecking their buisness with overruns, it will not be "nothing new" it will put a serious dent in the ability of new space to carry out its objectives especially at ISS which is by far not a low maitenence place. 5. "3. Again, if a business fails, that's what happens. And Sea Launch are planning to launch this year again IIRC."The irony of this comment has me laughing. The reason is simple. Its not "thats what happens". Under the new plan (fy 2011) if that happens it literally puts a massive whole in the entire thing. What if Spacex failed? That would be disasterous for the new plan and would significantly reduce both cargo and crew resupply capabilities to Iss. Same with Orbital, ULA, ect. You cannot just pass that off as "thats what happens", if you are going to support fy 2011 and the new plan you must understand that a key provider going under would be a disaster. And it would be hard for the remaining providers to pick up the slack.
Everyone:Right. So let's all just keep doing everything the same way it's going right now. After all, the colony on Mars is already out-competing Earth businesses. Their commercial ventures don't need any help from us. Seriously, is just doing everything the same as we have in the past a good idea? Is competition really so ineffective? I'm no libertarian and I understand there are huge macroeconomic inefficiencies in having an idle workforce, but what is really the point of NASA? Is it just to provide very high-paying jobs? Are we going anywhere other than LEO with the Shuttle (as amazing as it is)? Is there really no way to do transport to ISS cheaper than the Shuttle or Ares I? I mean, I understand that for many of you, you are in some really deep kimchi when it comes to your job. But there's a finite amount of money. Is it worth just doing what we're doing, or should we take a risk and actually try for something that will be far better in the long-term if it works out at all?The alternative is a gradually reduced NASA budget. Heck, the POR means that Shuttle is retired THIS YEAR and ISS in 2015. Obama's budget is far better than that. The real issue is that people are finally realizing that their jobs are at stake. It's now crunch time, and it doesn't look good. So, people are understandably upset and are unfortunately lashing out at everything else.
Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/10/2010 05:25 pmOK, but this is a near term problem. Is NASA so slow that they can't come up with a set of requirements by the end of the year or sooner? They already have man rating standards so they can use that as a baseline.Then give them a new plan with key objectives and timelines and clean up the managment and its practices. Do not just throw money at them for unspecified r&d for no goals or timelines. Also the excuse that timelines should not be used because they cannot be met is both baseless and flawed. Everyone else in the world has timelines they must meet for things and they do. NASA has in the past and can again. But not without a plan. That goes for r&d as well. If you want them to do all this wonderful tech development they need an organized timeline and plan for doing it. Fy 2011 does not provide this. I also have my doubts as to how far commercial will get without a plan too. The details of how to run the commercial crew vehicle contract competition or if there even would be one have not be specified in the new plan.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 03/10/2010 05:31 pmQuote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/10/2010 05:25 pmOK, but this is a near term problem. Is NASA so slow that they can't come up with a set of requirements by the end of the year or sooner? They already have man rating standards so they can use that as a baseline.Then give them a new plan with key objectives and timelines and clean up the managment and its practices. Do not just throw money at them for unspecified r&d for no goals or timelines. Also the excuse that timelines should not be used because they cannot be met is both baseless and flawed. Everyone else in the world has timelines they must meet for things and they do. NASA has in the past and can again. But not without a plan. That goes for r&d as well. If you want them to do all this wonderful tech development they need an organized timeline and plan for doing it. Fy 2011 does not provide this. I also have my doubts as to how far commercial will get without a plan too. The details of how to run the commercial crew vehicle contract competition or if there even would be one have not be specified in the new plan. I fail to see how your reply addresses safety requirements. And again I DO NOT SUPPORT THE NEW PLAN AS IS! Stop straw maning me.
Glad to know where you stand. A clearly defined set of goals, destinations, and a timeline will address safety better than a lofty program with no set dates. That goes for commercial too. As to how safety protocol will be implement for commercial vehicles, lvs, other equipment I do not know.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/10/2010 05:28 pmEveryone:Right. So let's all just keep doing everything the same way it's going right now. After all, the colony on Mars is already out-competing Earth businesses. Their commercial ventures don't need any help from us. Seriously, is just doing everything the same as we have in the past a good idea? Is competition really so ineffective? I'm no libertarian and I understand there are huge macroeconomic inefficiencies in having an idle workforce, but what is really the point of NASA? Is it just to provide very high-paying jobs? Are we going anywhere other than LEO with the Shuttle (as amazing as it is)? Is there really no way to do transport to ISS cheaper than the Shuttle or Ares I? I mean, I understand that for many of you, you are in some really deep kimchi when it comes to your job. But there's a finite amount of money. Is it worth just doing what we're doing, or should we take a risk and actually try for something that will be far better in the long-term if it works out at all?The alternative is a gradually reduced NASA budget. Heck, the POR means that Shuttle is retired THIS YEAR and ISS in 2015. Obama's budget is far better than that. The real issue is that people are finally realizing that their jobs are at stake. It's now crunch time, and it doesn't look good. So, people are understandably upset and are unfortunately lashing out at everything else.Wrong on many many levels. This is taking the stance that its ethier all NASA, which would result in cancellation, or its all commercial, which would the "holy grail" of all space exploration. That is a very extreme position to take and it allows for no chance of sucess. One extreme or another will not work, it must be a middle of the road option that uses the good parts of both sides. EXAMPLE: Not ares 1, sdhlv, not sdhlv or orion to ISS, commercial to ISS (when they are online), not all NASA designed and built hardware or micromanagment of contractors more contractor freedom and less micromanagment; commercial designed componenets (like propellant depots), and finally: A SET OF CLEAR SET IN STONE DATES, GOALS, AND BETTER MANAGMENT. NO MORE CHANCE OF SEEING ANOTHER "GRIFFIN" TYPE MANAGER! I do not want to keep doing things the way they are now I want something sustainble. Fy 2011 is not that. CXP is not that. Ares 1 or V is not that. All commercial is not that. A compromise is.
If fy 2011 passed what do you think would happen the first time there is an overun, be it under commercial or the NASA STP (space tech program i.e. the big r&d game changing tech thingy).
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2010_record&page=S1254&position=allNelson's speech begins halfway down the middle column