NASA isn't looking for services to buy, they're looking for hardware to buy. Unless SpaceX has decided to start selling hardware rather than services then talk of ITS, Dragon, or anything else is moot.
I agree, NASA shouldn't be Elon's personal bank...
...if a change of direction is needed then it should be openly competed and preferably multiple providers should be selected.
But I think SLS + Orion funding is more than enough to support both ITS and anything Blue Origin/ULA can come up.
Orion is already beholden to one company. SLS is already beholden to one company.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 11/11/2016 03:05 amOrion is already beholden to one company. SLS is already beholden to one company.Orion has Lockheed Martin doing the capsule and Airbus Defence and Space and Thales Alenia Space are doing the Service Module. That's three companies.SLS has Boeing doing the core and upper stage, Orbital ATK doing the boosters and Aerojet Rocketdyne doing the core and upper stage engines. That's three companies.
But normally new programs are not proposed as 1:1 replacements for programs that are being cancelled. And if the SLS and Orion do get cancelled, it will be because they are not needed for any known U.S. Government efforts in space. So if the SLS and Orion are not needed, why would Congress fund a replacement program?Let's be rational about our expectations here...
By the way, regarding Orion IP, the article also says:QuoteThe original structure of NASA’s contract with Lockheed Martin is such that NASA “owns” the design work when it is completed, so another contractor, if it could demonstrate a compelling cost advantage, could take over for Exploration Mission-3 and beyond.
The original structure of NASA’s contract with Lockheed Martin is such that NASA “owns” the design work when it is completed, so another contractor, if it could demonstrate a compelling cost advantage, could take over for Exploration Mission-3 and beyond.
To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0
Quote from: EE Scott on 11/11/2016 03:54 pmAny talk of ITS in the context of this RFI just seems way beyond the pale. It is so far from being a reality and so not compatible with NASA's mission plans (so far that they have conceptualized them), that IMO, it's really not helpful.Also, just IMO, it makes sense to de-couple Orion and SLS if one seeks to salvage at least one of those programs going forward. To me it seems that SLS (if it is deemed worthy of survival by the next Administration) would make a formidable cargo-only LV that can work nicely as part of multi-launch missions where the alternative crew vehicle selected (if it shakes out that way) is launched by an LV from Blue, ULA, SpaceX, or even ESA (Ariane 6?). It also could have great utility as an LV for unmanned planetary probe missions, as we have read a lot about.What payloads? The Europa missions were opportunities to keep SLS flying annually so that it would be safe for crewed missions. Without crew, what justifies the cost of SLS launches? if you think Science Mission Directorate will carry the cost of SLS, think again.Without Orion, SLS is history.
Any talk of ITS in the context of this RFI just seems way beyond the pale. It is so far from being a reality and so not compatible with NASA's mission plans (so far that they have conceptualized them), that IMO, it's really not helpful.Also, just IMO, it makes sense to de-couple Orion and SLS if one seeks to salvage at least one of those programs going forward. To me it seems that SLS (if it is deemed worthy of survival by the next Administration) would make a formidable cargo-only LV that can work nicely as part of multi-launch missions where the alternative crew vehicle selected (if it shakes out that way) is launched by an LV from Blue, ULA, SpaceX, or even ESA (Ariane 6?). It also could have great utility as an LV for unmanned planetary probe missions, as we have read a lot about.
Quote from: rayleighscatter on 11/11/2016 11:56 amNASA isn't looking for services to buy, they're looking for hardware to buy. Unless SpaceX has decided to start selling hardware rather than services then talk of ITS, Dragon, or anything else is moot.Making a distinction between buying hardware and buying services for expendable systems is not rational. Either way, they have to pay for a new one each time. The only real difference is how much of the launch cost goes to government employees versus contractor employees.If you're only interested in the mission, not in which district the jobs are in, buying services versus buying hardware to perform the same mission doesn't matter.
SLS/Orion would compete with all costs through FY 2017 ignored, but full cost accounting thereafter. Existing industrial team would be required to propose this option, but each member would be free to propose alternatives or team with others.
Quote from: AncientU on 11/12/2016 11:44 amSLS/Orion would compete with all costs through FY 2017 ignored, but full cost accounting thereafter. Existing industrial team would be required to propose this option, but each member would be free to propose alternatives or team with others.Not feasible SLS/Orion is a gov't/contractor team. It is not a contractor managed/operated system. Part of the reason for SLS and Orion existing is for NASA to have "hands on" work.
Lockheed Martin issued a short statement in response to Eric Berger's story (see attachment).
1. So, include the cost of NASA's hands-on effort. This 'feature' can be evaluated for it's cost/benefit like any other.2. (I'm sure NASA can find other hands-on tasks to keep themselves busy, like developing payloads, for instance.)
Quote from: AncientU on 11/12/2016 01:41 pm1. So, include the cost of NASA's hands-on effort. This 'feature' can be evaluated for it's cost/benefit like any other.2. (I'm sure NASA can find other hands-on tasks to keep themselves busy, like developing payloads, for instance.)1. It doesn't matter what the costs are compared to the others. The others don't provided the hands on2. Not the same, they aren't rockets. And JSC, MSFC and KSC don't develop payload
So, if they cannot develop a launch system that is affordable or reasonably competitive, time to move on to someone that can.
Quote from: AncientU on 11/12/2016 02:32 pmSo, if they cannot develop a launch system that is affordable or reasonably competitive, time to move on to someone that can.That has never been the mandate, especially competitive since it is the gov't
Time to make it the mandate. Past time.
Quote from: Navier–Stokes on 11/11/2016 01:17 pmLockheed Martin issued a short statement in response to Eric Berger's story (see attachment).So Lockheed Martin says it will be able to reduce Orion's recurring production costs by 50% -- but from what level? Do we have any figures as to what Orion will cost to produce? Without out that, the 50% comment is just about meaningless.