Author Topic: CSF reaction to Aerospace Corporation White Paper on NASA’s Commercial Crew  (Read 34976 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

And aren't happy to say the least.


Commercial Spaceflight Federation Responds to Recent Aerospace Corporation White Paper on NASA’s Commercial Crew Program

Washington, D.C., April 4, 2011 – The Commercial Spaceflight Federation released the following statement on the Aerospace Corporation’s Space Launch Projects Group/Launch System Division’s recent white paper on the business case of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, entitled “The Financial Feasibility and a Reliability Based Acquisition Approach for Commercial Crew”:


NASA’s Commercial Crew Program is a critical program for NASA’s future, serving as the fastest way to regain an American capability to fly astronauts to the Space Station and resulting in significant savings to US taxpayers.  While the Commercial Spaceflight Federation agrees with the Aerospace Corporation’s Space Launch Projects Group on its recognition of the importance of commercial spaceflight to NASA, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation finds many of the model inputs, assumptions and assertions in the white paper to be incorrect or inaccurate, and strongly disagrees with the white paper’s resulting conclusions.

As the authors of the white paper state, “The model and the results cannot validate the detail [sic] financials of any one commercial enterprise.”  Without appropriate inputs and assumptions, models cannot and should not be interpreted as generating real-world findings.

The white paper authors did not consult with industry in the course of their work, resulting in significant inaccuracies in the model inputs and assumptions.  The white paper authors did not seek out real-world cost data, business case financials, or market assessments from potential commercial crew providers, such as United Launch Alliance, Sierra Nevada Corporation, SpaceX, Blue Origin, or others, nor did they contact the Commercial Spaceflight Federation.  The white paper authors likewise did not consult any of the private investors who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into the commercial spaceflight industry based on this proprietary information.  As a result, many of the model inputs and assumptions used in the white paper are erroneous, contributing to conclusions that are incorrect and inaccurate.

The white paper primarily focuses on hypothetical spacecraft that are unlike those actually being developed.  The white paper findings almost entirely revolve around the business case for spacecraft that have 4 seats, while most of the leading contenders for the Commercial Crew Program are developing vehicles with a capacity of 7 seats, including Boeing, SpaceX, and Sierra Nevada Corporation.  For a given launch cost, a 7-seat capacity results in a significantly lower cost when compared with a 4-seat capacity.


The white paper assumes that commercial providers would sell seats to space tourists at a loss, but gives no explanation as to why a commercial business would sell its products or services at a loss.  The commercial spaceflight industry categorically rejects this notion.  Industry further rejects the white paper’s additional notion that commercial providers would then increase rates to the government to subsidize that loss.  The Commercial Spaceflight Federation strongly disagrees with any of the white paper’s conclusions arising from these inexplicable assumptions.

The white paper ignores cases where sales of seats to other customers would actually decrease the per-seat cost to NASA.  As one example, the white paper ignored the case where NASA purchases 4 seats on board a spacecraft that has a capacity of 7 seats.  Should no other customers participate, those three seats would fly empty, and NASA would pay the full cost of the flight.  However, if those empty seats are sold to other parties, the increased revenue from the flight could decrease the per-seat cost to NASA.  Alternatively, the extra volume and payload mass could be sold to NASA as room for additional cargo, generating additional revenue.

The white paper assumes a large fixed cost of $400 million per year per company, but gives no basis for this number.  This assumed fixed cost, which would be in addition to the marginal cost of a given flight, is a primary driver for many of the resulting findings of the white paper.  Industry believes this number to be a significant over-estimate.  By comparison, SpaceX's total expenditures over eight-and-a-half years as a company since it was founded are less than $800 million.  That includes the cost of developing two new launch vehicles from scratch (Falcon 1 and Falcon 9), developing the Dragon spacecraft, conducting seven launches, including an orbital test flight of Dragon, and building out the infrastructure for two separate launch sites.  It is highly unlikely that an additional $400 million per year in fixed costs would be required to conduct human spaceflight missions.  The Aerospace Corporation typically uses cost models based on historical costs of government systems, and is not equipped to do cost analysis for commercially developed systems, such as with the NASA Commercial Crew and COTS Cargo development programs.

The large assumed fixed cost appears to include significant double counting.  Launch vehicle fixed costs are distributed between all launch vehicle customers, including: DoD and intelligence community national security missions, NASA science missions, commercial satellite missions, NASA technology demo missions, and unmanned cargo missions.  It is unclear if the white paper author’s fixed-cost number accounts for these effects.  In addition, this fixed-cost number is assumed to be a constant $400 million per company even when there are multiple winners, despite the fact that multiple winners may share launch vehicles, launch site infrastructure, training and medical facilities, recovery vessels, or other major components of fixed-cost estimates.

The white paper ignores the possibility of reductions in cost due to reusability.  The Boeing CST-100, the SpaceX Dragon, and the Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser have all been explicitly designed to be reusable, which would result in a significant reduction in the marginal cost of each mission.  The white paper made no effort to include this additional source of cost reductions.

The white paper ignores the "sovereign client" market entirely.  The “sovereign client” market is well-established, and is defined as the sale of seats to other space agencies, other national governments, or similar entities.  By some estimates, this market could be equal to or larger than the orbital space tourist market.  Since 1978, the United States and Russia have flown almost 100 guest astronauts representing 30 countries, either in exchange for in-kind services or for payment.  There remains significant pent-up demand for additional spaceflight missions within these countries, and almost 150 nations have never had a citizen fly in space.  At least eight countries have active duty astronauts who have yet to fly in space and who are not currently manifested to fly on the Space Shuttle or Soyuz.  An example of this international interest is represented by the work of Bigelow Aerospace, which has already signed a number of MOUs with national space agencies, government entities, and companies in a diverse array of countries including the United Arab Emirates, Japan, and the Netherlands.

The white paper likely underestimates the demand for orbital space tourism to a significant degree.  According to at least one study (Futron Space Tourism Market Study, 2002), the white paper authors significantly underestimate the demand for space tourist seats.  For example, the white paper assumes only 20 people in the world are willing to pay $30 million per seat.  There are currently approximately 30,000 people in the world worth $100 million or more who could purchase such a ticket.  Given that past experience shows people are willing to spend a significant fraction of their personal net worth in order to fly in space, such a minute market penetration seems unrealistic.

The white paper assumes a NASA demand of only 8 seats per year, which may significantly underestimate NASA’s demand over the long term.   By comparison, NASA's current demand for seats is approximately 40 seats to space per year, either through flights of the Space Shuttle or through Soyuz seat purchases.  It is reasonable to expect that with a robust, cost-effective U.S. commercial crew capability with large seat capacities, the government may in the future seek to restore NASA’s astronaut flights to 2010 levels in order to fully utilize the Space Station, to ensure a return on the $100 billion investment made in its construction, and to retain the national prestige that comes with having a vibrant astronaut corps.

The white paper ignores the potential for multiple winners to significantly keep development and operations costs low.  The white paper does not model how competition in the market place would result in lower prices and work to prevent the significant cost overruns and schedule slips that have been the historic norm for government programs with a single winner.  The virtuous cycle of increased demand from NASA and other governments that would then result from these lower costs is likewise not modeled.

The white paper underestimates the rate of price increases by the Soyuz.  The white paper assumes Soyuz prices are increasing at the rate of 5% per year and will have an average price of only $70 million per seat over 10 years of operations.  In reality, Soyuz prices have recently increased at the rate of 9-13% per year.  Even at steady (linear) increases of seat prices, current increases indicate an average price over 10 years of $87 million, a price level 24% higher than the price assumed by the white paper. 

The white paper refers to the EELV’s as “government developed systems”, yet these systems were in fact commercially developed under a program structured almost identically to COTS and Commercial Crew.  The EELV’s were developed using Other Transaction Authority (OTA) agreements, with a fixed investment by the U.S. Air Force supplemented by private investment in order to meet government requirements.  Both EELVs, have had a distinguished record of success, with Atlas V having launched 24 of 24 flights successfully and Delta IV having launched 15 of 15 successfully.

In conclusion, any model that does not make use of appropriate assumptions or real-world data will be of limited use.  Given that the commercial spaceflight industry finds many of the model inputs, assumptions and assertions in the white paper to be incorrect or inaccurate, no findings or conclusions from the white paper’s analysis should be considered accurate or of significance in any real-world setting without significant further review and industry input.
« Last Edit: 04/05/2011 12:27 am by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
And aren't happy to say the least.

Is there a link to the white paper as the CSF don't provide one, which makes this reaction highly subjective.


http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/Other%20Content/CSF%20Press%20Release%20-%20CSF%20Releases%20Response%20to%20Aerospace%20Report-%204-4-11%20FINAL.pdf

EDIT: Sorry Chris, this is only the PDF version of the release, not the white paper in question that you asked for.
« Last Edit: 04/05/2011 12:16 am by robertross »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
CSF reaction is better readable here with headings:
http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/?p=1473
« Last Edit: 04/04/2011 11:09 pm by Chris Bergin »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
Yeah, not so much fun being on the receiving end of such a study, is it CSF guys?

Now you know what the JSC Sidemount and DIRECT teams went through during the Augustine review. Aerospace was overly-conservative with those efforts, might as well apply the same approach to CCDev. Sauce for the goose and all that.

Edit: Ha ha, the more I look at it, the more it looks just like the DIRECT rebuttal to the NASA analysis / hatchet-job of their proposal. To quote one of our great modern philosophers, "Welcome to the party, pal!"
« Last Edit: 04/05/2011 04:30 pm by Mark S »

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Wow, the CSF pretty thoroughly eviscerated the Aerospace study. The 13 errors they point out are pretty huge. I would've expected quite a bit more diligence from Aerospace.

For readability's sake, here's the 13 points from the CSF letter with the explanatory text removed:

Quote
* The white paper authors did not consult with industry in the course of their work, resulting in significant inaccuracies in the model inputs and assumptions.
* The white paper primarily focuses on hypothetical spacecraft that are unlike those actually being developed.
* The white paper assumes that commercial providers would sell seats to space tourists at a loss, but gives no explanation as to why a commercial business would sell its products or services at a loss.
* The white paper ignores cases where sales of seats to other customers would actually decrease the per-seat cost to NASA.
* The white paper assumes a large fixed cost of $400 million per year per company, but gives no basis for this number.
* The large assumed fixed cost appears to include significant double counting. Launch vehicle fixed costs are distributed between all launch vehicle customers, including: DoD and intelligence community national security missions, NASA science missions, commercial satellite missions, NASA technology demo missions, and unmanned cargo missions.
* The white paper ignores the possibility of reductions in cost due to reusability.
* The white paper ignores the “sovereign client” market entirely.
* The white paper likely underestimates the demand for orbital space tourism to a significant degree.
* The white paper assumes a NASA demand of only 8 seats per year, which may significantly underestimate NASA’s demand over the long term.
* The white paper ignores the potential for multiple winners to significantly keep development and operations costs low.
* The white paper underestimates the rate of price increases by the Soyuz
* The white paper refers to the EELV’s as “government developed systems”, yet these systems were in fact commercially developed under a program structured almost identically to COTS and Commercial Crew.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The funny thing is that many on here and others pointed to previous Aerospace studies when it suited them.  Now that the shoe is on the other foot......

The huge take-away here is that nothing about "commercial" is certain.  That the business case is hugely important.  That "commercial" cannot happen with just NASA funding alone.  For those who have been so dismissive of that, here is some data that things are not as "solid" as one would like to believe.

Here's another interesting point.  They go on and on about SpaceX and there total cost being 800 million for everything over their 8 years of existance.  Yet if you take 1000 employees burden them with an average of $100,000/employee (meaning total compensation) and multiply that by 8, you get 800 million right there.  Granted, they didn't always have that many people, but they have more now.  Perhaps something isn't adding up here and the greater danger is over-selling something.

So there are threats.  There are risks.  It's time the CSF and others recognize that and stop trying to just spin everything there way. 
« Last Edit: 04/05/2011 12:30 am by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
I agree with it except for this
Quote
It is reasonable to expect that with a robust, cost-effective U.S. commercial crew capability with large seat capacities, the government may in the future seek to restore NASA’s astronaut flights to 2010 levels...

That would be 23 astronauts, now that the assembly state is over NASA has no reason to send that many to the station.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline John Gedmark

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Good catch - that is a typo, and should have read "2009 levels".

Although in fairness, if the Shuttle hadn't suffered delays and had flown on NASA's original planned flight schedule for 2010, as put in place earlier in the year, the number of seats it would have flown to space in 2010 would also have been around 40.


--
John Gedmark
Executive Director
Commercial Spaceflight Federation

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
The funny thing is that many on here and others pointed to previous Aerospace studies when it suited them.  Now that the shoe is on the other foot......

The huge take-away here is that nothing about "commercial" is certain. 

The other take away is that, like all studies, they are just that: studies. And I don't know if I've ever seen (in my time) someone going back to have a study re-done at the firm's own expense for correcting innacuracies or flaws. Governments are great for that: "Ooo, let's do a study". Another document for the shelf.

So at the end of the day, we take whatever data we want, use it for our own self interests & goals, and go with it. Nice. ???

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Good catch - that is a typo, and should have read "2009 levels".

Although in fairness, if the Shuttle hadn't suffered delays and had flown on NASA's original planned flight schedule for 2010, as put in place earlier in the year, the number of seats it would have flown to space in 2010 would also have been around 40.


--
John Gedmark
Executive Director
Commercial Spaceflight Federation

The other point in manboy's post remains valid, though: with assembly complete, there is no justification for shuttle-type levels of crews to ISS.

Aerospace was unreasonably conservative in selecting eight per year, though. That is sufficient to meet ISS USOS manning levels, but I suspect NASA would fully utilize any commercial flights it buys to ISS. At the very least, put new astronauts in the other three seats for short-term spaceflight training, as the Russians used to do with Mir taxi crews. That would raise the rate to 14 per year. Anything beyond that would require more flights, which I don't see happening.
JRF

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Good catch - that is a typo, and should have read "2009 levels".

Although in fairness, if the Shuttle hadn't suffered delays and had flown on NASA's original planned flight schedule for 2010, as put in place earlier in the year, the number of seats it would have flown to space in 2010 would also have been around 40.


--
John Gedmark
Executive Director
Commercial Spaceflight Federation

The other point in manboy's post remains valid, though: with assembly complete, there is no justification for shuttle-type levels of crews to ISS.

Aerospace was unreasonably conservative in selecting eight per year, though. That is sufficient to meet ISS USOS manning levels, but I suspect NASA would fully utilize any commercial flights it buys to ISS. At the very least, put new astronauts in the other three seats for short-term spaceflight training, as the Russians used to do with Mir taxi crews. That would raise the rate to 14 per year. Anything beyond that would require more flights, which I don't see happening.

I was expecting something more like 4 flights of 4 astronauts per year. The remaining 3 seats per flight could either be sold to spaceflight participants or to international partners (in a barter type exchange for other ISS needs). I believe that Bolden has said that he wanted at least 2 providers. The CCDev requirements state that the providers should be able to supply at least 2 flights per year.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
The other take away is that, like all studies, they are just that: studies. And I don't know if I've ever seen (in my time) someone going back to have a study re-done at the firm's own expense for correcting innacuracies or flaws. Governments are great for that: "Ooo, let's do a study". Another document for the shelf.

I'm the lead author (though I shouldn't have been - some dope did it alphabetically) on a study like this (cost estimation and modeling) that has been praised for some things and criticized for especially one area that was modeled in pretty much the most simplistic way possible (a single constant not based on much industry data).  We are at this very moment updating that model and study (at considerable expense) to enhance that particular portion with quite a bit more detail - around a hundred spread sheets worth of data, every bit of it based on real-world industry data from a highly-credible source (the largest member of that industry in the country).  And we are a GOCO.

So, sometimes it does happen.   ;)
« Last Edit: 04/05/2011 01:21 am by Lee Jay »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Good catch - that is a typo, and should have read "2009 levels".

Although in fairness, if the Shuttle hadn't suffered delays and had flown on NASA's original planned flight schedule for 2010, as put in place earlier in the year, the number of seats it would have flown to space in 2010 would also have been around 40.


--
John Gedmark
Executive Director
Commercial Spaceflight Federation

The other point in manboy's post remains valid, though: with assembly complete, there is no justification for shuttle-type levels of crews to ISS.

Aerospace was unreasonably conservative in selecting eight per year, though. That is sufficient to meet ISS USOS manning levels, but I suspect NASA would fully utilize any commercial flights it buys to ISS. At the very least, put new astronauts in the other three seats for short-term spaceflight training, as the Russians used to do with Mir taxi crews. That would raise the rate to 14 per year. Anything beyond that would require more flights, which I don't see happening.

I was expecting something more like 4 flights of 4 astronauts per year. The remaining 3 seats per flight could either be sold to spaceflight participants or to international partners (in a barter type exchange for other ISS needs). I believe that Bolden has said that he wanted at least 2 providers. The CCDev requirements state that the providers should be able to supply at least 2 flights per year.

Two providers, yes.  He was hoping for redundancy.  The current crew rotation puts that at each provider essentially flying once a year to ISS. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
The other take away is that, like all studies, they are just that: studies. And I don't know if I've ever seen (in my time) someone going back to have a study re-done at the firm's own expense for correcting innacuracies or flaws. Governments are great for that: "Ooo, let's do a study". Another document for the shelf.

I'm the lead author (though I shouldn't have been - some dope did it alphabetically) on a study like this (cost estimation and modeling) that has been praised for some things and criticized for especially one area that was modeled in pretty much the most simplistic way possible (a single constant not based on much industry data).  We are at this very moment updating that model and study (at considerable expense) to enhance that particular portion with quite a bit more detail - around a hundred spread sheets worth of data, every bit of it based on real-world industry data from a highly-credible source (the largest member of that industry in the country).  And we are a GOCO.

So, sometimes it does happen.   ;)

Never heard of that acronym before, but now I do:

Government Owned, Contractor Operated.

Not that it really matters, but are you suggesting this 'update' is being done free of charge?

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Not that it really matters, but are you suggesting this 'update' is being done free of charge?

No, as I said we're paying for it, and the labor to integrate it into the study and model (my time, for example).

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Not that it really matters, but are you suggesting this 'update' is being done free of charge?

No, as I said we're paying for it, and the labor to integrate it into the study and model (my time, for example).

Well, I'm shocked.. (that's 1...lol)

(and your statement saying it was being covered was ambiguous, so thanks for clarifying)

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Maybe this will be the first nail in the coffin of Aerospace.  For space people, they are alarmingly Luddite, unenthusiastic, stuck in their ways, and, worst, inaccurate.  Make them get real jobs.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
Not that it really matters, but are you suggesting this 'update' is being done free of charge?

No, as I said we're paying for it, and the labor to integrate it into the study and model (my time, for example).

Well, I'm shocked.. (that's 1...lol)

(and your statement saying it was being covered was ambiguous, so thanks for clarifying)

Well it should probably be obvious that everything we do has to be paid for.  No one works for free.

My point is, we're spending the money and time to go back and work on a previously-completed study.  Why didn't we do that in the first place, you might ask?  Well, for a number of reasons, but the main one is that the information just wasn't really available at the time anywhere.  A very good opportunity to get that data came up and we're seizing it to capture it into the model.  No, that's not free, but at least we were able to get the funds to go do it!

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Not that it really matters, but are you suggesting this 'update' is being done free of charge?

No, as I said we're paying for it, and the labor to integrate it into the study and model (my time, for example).

Well, I'm shocked.. (that's 1...lol)

(and your statement saying it was being covered was ambiguous, so thanks for clarifying)

Well it should probably be obvious that everything we do has to be paid for.  No one works for free.

My point is, we're spending the money and time to go back and work on a previously-completed study.  Why didn't we do that in the first place, you might ask?  Well, for a number of reasons, but the main one is that the information just wasn't really available at the time anywhere.  A very good opportunity to get that data came up and we're seizing it to capture it into the model.  No, that's not free, but at least we were able to get the funds to go do it!

Well now I'm only half-sold...LOL  ;)

[rant]
I find it commendable to go back and address a study that may be better served with up-to-date information. The PROBLEM is, that when they [Aerospace Corp] were doing these studies for the A-Com (and likely for others), POLICY was being drafted based on those 'results'. Now granted we all knew the A-Com study was rushed, which does no one any good, but it gives everyone a false sense of the state of things.

We can't go back and re-do study after study - for one the numbers can be dynamic as situations change daily, or monthly. I'm calling into question the vast sums of money to generate these studies, only to know that their 'conclusions' MAY NOT be wholy based on the true facts, only a point of view.

[/rant]

Back to our regularly scheduled sparring matches  :)

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
That's always a problem when you base policy on the results of a study.  By definition, a model is a reduced-complexity version of reality, and the more "reduced" it is, the less "reality" is actually in there.  Plus, the studies are done by people and those people can both make mistakes and also apply their own personal bias to the results in subtle and often undetectable ways.  It's really tough (*really* tough) to create an error-free unbiased model that has enough complexity to model reality well enough to be useful but is also simple enough to be usable.  The real problem in my opinion is that people base too much decision making on model results and too little on real-world testing or data.  Depending on the situation, that may be unavoidable (as it probably is in this case), but that doesn't keep it from being a big problem.

People are too trusting of and not skeptical enough about studies (mine included).
« Last Edit: 04/05/2011 02:15 am by Lee Jay »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
That's always a problem when you base policy on the results of a study.  By definition, a model is a reduced-complexity version of reality, and the more "reduced" it is, the less "reality" is actually in there.  Plus, the studies are done by people and those people can both make mistakes and also apply their own personal bias to the results in subtle and often undetectable ways.  It's really tough (*really* tough) to create an error-free unbiased model that has enough complexity to model reality well enough to be useful but is also simple enough to be usable.  The real problem in my opinion is that people base too much decision making on model results and too little on real-world testing or data.  Depending on the situation, that may be unavoidable (as it probably is in this case), but that doesn't keep it from being a big problem.

People are too trusting of and not skeptical enough about studies (mine included).

Not bashing yours, or anyone's in particular, but that's why - I HATE STUDIES.

Time for a computer to do it for us. ;)  HAHA

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
Not bashing yours, or anyone's in particular, but that's why - I HATE STUDIES.

Time for a computer to do it for us. ;)  HAHA

That wont solve anything, as the computer relies on us for the inputs just like these studies.

Aeospace has always been conservative, but I would not rule their findings out completely.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Not bashing yours, or anyone's in particular, but that's why - I HATE STUDIES.

Time for a computer to do it for us. ;)  HAHA

That wont solve anything, as the computer relies on us for the inputs just like these studies.

(hence my 'winkie')  ;)

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
This "study" isn't worth the paper it is printed on.  Absolute "crap" comes to mind.

not even worth a VR.

RE327

You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Wow, the CSF pretty thoroughly eviscerated the Aerospace study. The 13 errors they point out are pretty huge. I would've expected quite a bit more diligence from Aerospace.

For readability's sake, here's the 13 points from the CSF letter with the explanatory text removed:

Quote
1. The white paper authors did not consult with industry in the course of their work, resulting in significant inaccuracies in the model inputs and assumptions.
2. The white paper primarily focuses on hypothetical spacecraft that are unlike those actually being developed.
3. The white paper assumes that commercial providers would sell seats to space tourists at a loss, but gives no explanation as to why a commercial business would sell its products or services at a loss.
4. The white paper ignores cases where sales of seats to other customers would actually decrease the per-seat cost to NASA.
5. The white paper assumes a large fixed cost of $400 million per year per company, but gives no basis for this number.
6. The large assumed fixed cost appears to include significant double counting. Launch vehicle fixed costs are distributed between all launch vehicle customers, including: DoD and intelligence community national security missions, NASA science missions, commercial satellite missions, NASA technology demo missions, and unmanned cargo missions.
7. The white paper ignores the possibility of reductions in cost due to reusability.
8. The white paper ignores the “sovereign client” market entirely.
9. The white paper likely underestimates the demand for orbital space tourism to a significant degree.
10. The white paper assumes a NASA demand of only 8 seats per year, which may significantly underestimate NASA’s demand over the long term.
11. The white paper ignores the potential for multiple winners to significantly keep development and operations costs low.
12. The white paper underestimates the rate of price increases by the Soyuz
13. The white paper refers to the EELV’s as “government developed systems”, yet these systems were in fact commercially developed under a program structured almost identically to COTS and Commercial Crew.

There's nothing "huge" about them.  I just read through the paper.  Here are a couple of things I noticed and/or have questions about. 

1.  Why would these companies share their proprietary data with Aerospace for this study?  Why would the CSF have it?  In this white paper, they even call it "proprietary" so how do they know it "leads to conclusions that are incorrect and inaccurate".

If the CSF does have this proprietary data, will they be releasing more information to rebuke this analysis that does not violate seemingly all the proprietary information they imply they have from many potential companies that will be, in theory, competing against each other?

2.  "Significantly lower cost", implying 7 seats is much cheaper to operate.  Given number one above, shouldn't the CSF be less subjective and clearly and articuately state exactly what they believe "significant" means?

3.  They probably have a point here in that a company would not sell seats at a loss.  However, depending on the specific conditions of such a hypothetical sale, they could sell those seats at a reduced rate as a kind of "introductory offer".  Given these companies will have to produce a profit, the only other place is to then increase the cost to other customers, i.e NASA.

4.  Why would NASA purchase only 4 seats?  NASA is likely to purchase the entire spacecraft and ask for it configured as their needs require. 

5.  I already commented on SpaceX earlier.  Are there models out there, and any/sufficient data, so the cost models more accurately reflect what the CSF believes?  Why no recommendations on such?  In addition, this is government funded and these providers will need to meet NASA requirements, which are still unknown, and therefore so are the cost and schedule impacts. 

6.  There is more to commercial crew than the rocket that launches the actual space vehicle.  For example, Boeing, Orbital and Sierra Nevada are not LV providers in this instance.  The vehicles are essentially a "payload", not to mention different companies entirely.  Furthermore, their rebutal contains their own assumption with "may share launch vehicles, launch site infrastructure, training and medical facilities, recovery vessels, or other major components of
fixed-cost estimates."

7.  "The possibility of cost reductions" and "significant reduction in the marginal cost of each mission. The white paper made no effort to include this additional source of cost reductions."  Ironically, neither did this white paper and again relied on their own assumptions of a possibility and again used a highly subjective term in their rebutal. 

8.  If the "soverign client" market is so well established, why does NASA need to invest at all?  If the market is really as good as they suggest, why have these companies not been scrambling to capture it before now?

9.  Here they are replacing one assumption with another assumption but one that better suits their objectives.  Again, if there is such a demand, why does NASA need to invest at all or why is the CSF pushing for more investment than has been authorized?

10.  This is also replacing one assumption with another and one that again better suits their arguement. 

11.  This ignores the fact that NASA wants two providers at a minimum.  If that is all that materializes, and with NASA's demand for redundancy, that effectively neutralizes any competition.  They also ignore that what they are calling for is essentially for this to be largely government funded and the consequences that brings.  For example, the more money NASA provides, the bigger the stick they have to make sure certain requirements are met.  Again, requirements that are not certain and therefore uncertain as to the cost and schedule impacts. 

12.  I agree with them here.  Russia will screw us the first oppurtunity they really get after we are at the point of no return.  We gave them a monopoly. 

13.  The CSF white paper also ignores that the lack of market also nearly killed the EELVs and ultimately brought about the creation of ULA because of the investments that these companies made.  It also ignores that the DoD subsidizes ULA. 

So at the end of the day, this white paper reads to me as "spin".  It comes from essentially a commercial spaceflight lobby who, ironically, wants more government money.  Don't get me wrong, I REALLY want a commercial space industry and think it is worthy of some government seed money.  However, I think over-selling something has a tendency to backfire. 

If a true commercial space industry is to be successful, it has to be tolerant of "sensitivity analysis" just like any vehicle system in order to perform in the way intended.  The Aerospace paper showed what many suspected and the CSF response did little to dispell that notion at this point. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1662
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 71
Maybe this will be the first nail in the coffin of Aerospace.  For space people, they are alarmingly Luddite, unenthusiastic, stuck in their ways, and, worst, inaccurate.  Make them get real jobs.

All large organizations have personnel that fit the above description.

I've also encountered situations where TAC was a royal pain in the backside.

That said, I've worked with great TAC personnel on a recent launch campaign.  One individual in particular was very much the studied expert that TAC purports to have and to offer.

From one Jim to another (and the TAC Jim is not the NSF Jim  ;)  ) if you're reading this, thank you, Sir for your support!

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
I've known a few good ones, but it's well south of 20%.  Too many academics to be working on non-academic systems.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline STS Tony

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1677
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 106
Maybe this will be the first nail in the coffin of Aerospace.  For space people, they are alarmingly Luddite, unenthusiastic, stuck in their ways, and, worst, inaccurate.  Make them get real jobs.

I assume you were posting this same thing when they were armwaving over shuttle safety? Just wondering.

Offline MP99

Aerospace was unreasonably conservative in selecting eight per year, though. That is sufficient to meet ISS USOS manning levels, but I suspect NASA would fully utilize any commercial flights it buys to ISS. At the very least, put new astronauts in the other three seats for short-term spaceflight training, as the Russians used to do with Mir taxi crews. That would raise the rate to 14 per year.

Thanks, Jorge, that's useful insight, and sounds sensible. Also provides a crew surge in addition to the training.


4.  Why would NASA purchase only 4 seats?  NASA is likely to purchase the entire spacecraft and ask for it configured as their needs require.

SpaceX are offering a service rather than selling hardware, and as such I was assuming that a SpaceX pilot would be at the controls, leaving 12 seats on two flights. IE difference between a taxi and a rental car.

Of course, NASA's future includes MPCV, so they will need pilots and CC may be an opportunity for them to get flight hours. Another "service" provided?

cheers, Martin

PS example is SpaceX only because I remember an interview with Glyn Shotwell where she highlighted the "services" point. The Space Show, I think.

Offline Diagoras

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 99
Quote
If the "soverign client" market is so well established, why does NASA need to invest at all?  If the market is really as good as they suggest, why have these companies not been scrambling to capture it before now?

Reminds me of that old story about the economist who believed in the efficient market hypothesis and his friend. They're strolling down the sidewalk when his friend notices a fifty dollar bill on the pavement and point it out. The economist shoots his buddy a patronizing smile and says, "Don't be silly, if there really were a bill there someone would have picked it up already."

So let me answer your question with another question - why has Virgin Galactic/The Spaceship Company only pursued suborbital tourism after the X-Prize? Surely if the market already existed companies would have been scrambling to capture it before the Ansari X-Prize was announced? So why was it only after it was announced did people build vehicles, and after a good bit into it that people tried to commercialize suborbital space?
"It’s the typical binary world of 'NASA is great' or 'cancel the space program,' with no nuance or understanding of the underlying issues and pathologies of the space industrial complex."

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
As pointed out in other threads, crew hours on the ISS are incredibly valuable.  Getting extra people there even for just a few days or weeks at a time is well worth it.

Up to now, they've been focused on crew rotation and assembly. Full scientific use of the ISS is going to want more frequent access and often short stays.

Offline MP99

That's always a problem when you base policy on the results of a study.  By definition, a model is a reduced-complexity version of reality, and the more "reduced" it is, the less "reality" is actually in there.  Plus, the studies are done by people and those people can both make mistakes and also apply their own personal bias to the results in subtle and often undetectable ways.  It's really tough (*really* tough) to create an error-free unbiased model that has enough complexity to model reality well enough to be useful but is also simple enough to be usable.

Surely it is incumbent on the report that it make clear the limits of applicability (or limitations) of that report.


Quote
The real problem in my opinion is that people base too much decision making on model results and too little on real-world testing or data.

To what extent are studies commissioned in expectation that the experts will gather exactly that data?

cheers, Martin

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692

3.  They probably have a point here in that a company would not sell seats at a loss.  However, depending on the specific conditions of such a hypothetical sale, they could sell those seats at a reduced rate as a kind of "introductory offer".  Given these companies will have to produce a profit, the only other place is to then increase the cost to other customers, i.e NASA.

Pretty good run down of countering the issues there.

I would note for #3 above, that selling seats at a 'loss' means you don't necessarily make a profit, meaning you only cover your costs (obviously something you know, just for the reader's benefit). And even if there is a slight loss, you retain the workforce, ensuring a robust workflow for your 'high value' NASA client. It also keeps your suppliers happy, keeps your contract costs down with large-volume orders, and goes towards keeping flight rates high (which looks good for the company).

Of course I sometimes lose that argument where I work...lol

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Quote
If the "soverign client" market is so well established, why does NASA need to invest at all?  If the market is really as good as they suggest, why have these companies not been scrambling to capture it before now?

Reminds me of that old story about the economist who believed in the efficient market hypothesis and his friend. They're strolling down the sidewalk when his friend notices a fifty dollar bill on the pavement and point it out. The economist shoots his buddy a patronizing smile and says, "Don't be silly, if there really were a bill there someone would have picked it up already."

So let me answer your question with another question - why has Virgin Galactic/The Spaceship Company only pursued suborbital tourism after the X-Prize? Surely if the market already existed companies would have been scrambling to capture it before the Ansari X-Prize was announced? So why was it only after it was announced did people build vehicles, and after a good bit into it that people tried to commercialize suborbital space?

Ahh, I see you can't really answer the question either but instead just offer bad analogies in order to distract from the original question.

How much government money has Scaled and Virgin received?  Where's the X-prize for orbital flight?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Diagoras

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 99
Quote
If the "soverign client" market is so well established, why does NASA need to invest at all?  If the market is really as good as they suggest, why have these companies not been scrambling to capture it before now?

Reminds me of that old story about the economist who believed in the efficient market hypothesis and his friend. They're strolling down the sidewalk when his friend notices a fifty dollar bill on the pavement and point it out. The economist shoots his buddy a patronizing smile and says, "Don't be silly, if there really were a bill there someone would have picked it up already."

So let me answer your question with another question - why has Virgin Galactic/The Spaceship Company only pursued suborbital tourism after the X-Prize? Surely if the market already existed companies would have been scrambling to capture it before the Ansari X-Prize was announced? So why was it only after it was announced did people build vehicles, and after a good bit into it that people tried to commercialize suborbital space?

Ahh, I see you can't really answer the question either but instead just offer bad analogies in order to distract from the original question.

How much government money has Scaled and Virgin received?  Where's the X-prize for orbital flight?

That's rather uncalled for. Just because you're on the Internet does not give you the right to be uncivil to people. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt however.

You've now shifted the goal posts to asking why NASA in particular should open the orbital frontier rather than suggesting that if it could be opened it would be open. I will attempt to address both concerns, however.

There is no X-Prize for orbital flight, perhaps due to a combination of the relatively higher costs involved in stimulating investment, and the private prizes are mainly suborbital (with CRUShR and other NASA initiatives also in play). However, the idea behind them is the same - the stimulation of market activity and commercial enterprise in a previously unexploited field by a relatively small prize/seed money investment. This encourages private actors to examine the possibility of commercialization of the field where before the lack of an obvious goal to aim for has stymied development.

Note that it was much easier to sell the idea of suborbital tourism when a working vehicle existed, likewise it may be easier to sell the idea of orbital tourism with a defined anchor destination (ISS) and working vehicle.

The analogy was meant to demonstrate a common mistake people make about markets - yes they're good, but that doesn't mean that everything that can be done has been done. It is completely possible that profitable industries remain unexploited for a variety of reasons and the opening of these fields to private use is a function of government even the most Austrian of economists is willing to concede. Of course, you may be such a strict minarchists that you feel that the government should not be trying to encourage industry to commercialize orbital space, but then I doubt you'd back publicly funded space travel as well. ;)

If you have additional questions or would like clarification, feel free to ask. However, I ask that your response remain polite or else I won't feel inclined to respond.
"It’s the typical binary world of 'NASA is great' or 'cancel the space program,' with no nuance or understanding of the underlying issues and pathologies of the space industrial complex."

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
That's always a problem when you base policy on the results of a study.  By definition, a model is a reduced-complexity version of reality, and the more "reduced" it is, the less "reality" is actually in there.  Plus, the studies are done by people and those people can both make mistakes and also apply their own personal bias to the results in subtle and often undetectable ways.  It's really tough (*really* tough) to create an error-free unbiased model that has enough complexity to model reality well enough to be useful but is also simple enough to be usable.

Surely it is incumbent on the report that it make clear the limits of applicability (or limitations) of that report.

A lot of times those limits are unknown.  And don't call me Surely.

Quote
Quote
The real problem in my opinion is that people base too much decision making on model results and too little on real-world testing or data.

To what extent are studies commissioned in expectation that the experts will gather exactly that data?

cheers, Martin

Many times that data is just simply not available.  If you are trying to cost out launchers or spacecraft that have never been built, where are you going to go to collect the cost data about them?  You can't.  So you have to model it, often times with gaps in the data used to create the model.  So you fill in those gaps with best guesses, interpolations or extrapolations from other data, or even just place holders if you have little on which to even base a guess.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
1.  Why would these companies share their proprietary data with Aerospace for this study?  Why would the CSF have it?  In this white paper, they even call it "proprietary" so how do they know it "leads to conclusions that are incorrect and inaccurate".
It very common for proprietary firms to share very sensitive information with well respected analysts. More in particular if it can make the analysis show a better prospect of their business. I've done it for the health industry, the energy industry and the internet industry. It's very common, but they have to trust you. In particular, it's usually very simple if you go through their trade body. What they don't want to do, is to be the only one to share that info.

Quote
3.  They probably have a point here in that a company would not sell seats at a loss.  However, depending on the specific conditions of such a hypothetical sale, they could sell those seats at a reduced rate as a kind of "introductory offer".  Given these companies will have to produce a profit, the only other place is to then increase the cost to other customers, i.e NASA.
There's a difference between average cost and marginal cost. On a 7 passenger vehicle (I'm assuming robotic return, since else it would be a 6 passenger), if NASA buys 4 seats, and assuming the vehicle has fixed performance (i.e. no dial a rocket). Then, there's the point of what happened to the extra weight. The company has three extra seats, or 300kg extra (I'm saying, possibly more). Let's propose that NASA pays 5000USD/kg. That's 1.5M. Then as long as they are charging above 500k/seat they are selling it at a profit, on the margin. But I'm sure they would offer the NASA the option of paying a bit more for the payload. How much? As much as there are (tourist) passengers willing to pay. That's Economics 101.
You could of course combine the sovereign market, and have NASA sell a 1 week visit to the ISS for other nations (like Brazil, Norway, etc.) at a price that's higher than the average. That way you'd have other nations subsidizing NASA.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
I can't say that I am very impressed with this study. But there may be some positives resulting from it in the sense that NASA will have to find synergies in order to make commercial crew work.

For example, allowing the same commercial company to provide services for both cargo and crew (on separate flights) may allow such synergies (e.g. a cargo and crewed Dragon, a cargo and crewed CST-100 or a cargo and crewed Dream Chaser). 

Another idea would be to have more trips to the ISS rather than less. For example, having at least 4 commercial crew flights of 4 astronauts to the ISS would be better than having only two flights of 7 astronauts as it would stimulate the commercial market. The other 3 seats could be sold to either space flight participants or to international partners (in a barter type exchange). For international partners, there will be very few trips to space after Shuttle is retired, commercial crew will be an opportunity for them to fly astronauts in exchange for them spending on other things for space (which could be ISS related or BLEO related). 
« Last Edit: 04/05/2011 02:05 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
If you have additional questions or would like clarification, feel free to ask. However, I ask that your response remain polite or else I won't feel inclined to respond.

What?  You first gave an analogy, one that I happened to think was bad.  Then you supposedly "answered my question with another question".  I responded and obviously you are easily offended even though there was no offense intended, direct, but no offense. 

Your latest response still doesn't answer anything.  CSF claims the market is "well established".  What does that mean exactly?  They just state it and essentially move on.  If that is the case, then that better assures a business case.  The better the business case, the lower the need for NASA money, yet CSF wants an increase.  Why?  I believe a person can want a commercial spaceflight industry but ask logical questions and not just buy into spin. 
« Last Edit: 04/05/2011 02:15 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Shuttle is retired, commercial crew will be an opportunity for them to fly astronauts in exchange for them spending on other things for space (which could be ISS related or BLEO related). 

Per the ISS barter agreement, the United States is already on the hook for flying Japanese, European and Canadian astronauts.  NASA will pay for it already regardless if it is on a Soyuz or a commercial vehicle. 

If they fly additional crew beyond what is in the barter agreement, then that will be on their dime for said crew service. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
1.  Why would these companies share their proprietary data with Aerospace for this study?  Why would the CSF have it?  In this white paper, they even call it "proprietary" so how do they know it "leads to conclusions that are incorrect and inaccurate".
It very common for proprietary firms to share very sensitive information with well respected analysts. More in particular if it can make the analysis show a better prospect of their business. I've done it for the health industry, the energy industry and the internet industry. It's very common, but they have to trust you. In particular, it's usually very simple if you go through their trade body. What they don't want to do, is to be the only one to share that info.

Quote
3.  They probably have a point here in that a company would not sell seats at a loss.  However, depending on the specific conditions of such a hypothetical sale, they could sell those seats at a reduced rate as a kind of "introductory offer".  Given these companies will have to produce a profit, the only other place is to then increase the cost to other customers, i.e NASA.
There's a difference between average cost and marginal cost. On a 7 passenger vehicle (I'm assuming robotic return, since else it would be a 6 passenger), if NASA buys 4 seats, and assuming the vehicle has fixed performance (i.e. no dial a rocket). Then, there's the point of what happened to the extra weight. The company has three extra seats, or 300kg extra (I'm saying, possibly more). Let's propose that NASA pays 5000USD/kg. That's 1.5M. Then as long as they are charging above 500k/seat they are selling it at a profit, on the margin. But I'm sure they would offer the NASA the option of paying a bit more for the payload. How much? As much as there are (tourist) passengers willing to pay. That's Economics 101.
You could of course combine the sovereign market, and have NASA sell a 1 week visit to the ISS for other nations (like Brazil, Norway, etc.) at a price that's higher than the average. That way you'd have other nations subsidizing NASA.

On your first point, I am suspicious that these companies shared their proprietary cost data with the CSF.  All of them just openly gave this information to what is essentially a lobby giving the CSF some sort of exclusive insight into every single member company.  These companies gave so much information that CSF is able to very boldly declare that the model inputs and assumptions were "significantly inaccurate". 

On your second point, I honestly didn't follow everything you were saying.  However, why would NASA be a middle man and "sell" anything to a third party for commercial vehicles?  While there would have to be certain NASA approvals relative to any ISS ops, the transportation there and back will likely be independent of NASA.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Shuttle is retired, commercial crew will be an opportunity for them to fly astronauts in exchange for them spending on other things for space (which could be ISS related or BLEO related). 

Per the ISS barter agreement, the United States is already on the hook for flying Japanese, European and Canadian astronauts.  NASA will pay for it already regardless if it is on a Soyuz or a commercial vehicle. 

If they fly additional crew beyond what is in the barter agreement, then that will be on their dime for said crew service. 

Yes I know. But you could increase the number of short term flights for international partners. Let's take Canada as an example. Canada has only one flight on a Soyuz in December 2012 for Chris Hadfield for a 6 months mission. There is no other flight for Canadian astronauts for the foreseable future. Shuttle flew many Canadian astronauts back and to the ISS on short term trips.  But once Shuttle is retired, Canadian astronauts will not go on short term Soyuz trips to the ISS. But short term trips could be done under commercial crew in a barter type exchange in order to allow for more Canadian astronauts to go to space.

The biggest problem for Canada is that the Canada arm has now been paid for and NASA does not owe them that much in the future.  Canada is not willing to pay $60 milion in cash for ferrying an astronauts. It prefers to barter as this type of exchange creates jobs in Canada. They may be willing to build a moon rover or a new Canadian arm that would be used in BLEO in exchange for NASA ferrying its astronauts to and from the ISS.
« Last Edit: 04/05/2011 02:32 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Shuttle is retired, commercial crew will be an opportunity for them to fly astronauts in exchange for them spending on other things for space (which could be ISS related or BLEO related). 

Per the ISS barter agreement, the United States is already on the hook for flying Japanese, European and Canadian astronauts.  NASA will pay for it already regardless if it is on a Soyuz or a commercial vehicle. 

If they fly additional crew beyond what is in the barter agreement, then that will be on their dime for said crew service. 

Yes I know. But you could increase the number of flights for international partners. Let's take Canada as an example. Canada has only one flight on a Soyuz in December 2012 for Chris Hadfield for a 6 months mission. There is no other flight for Canadian astronauts for the foreseable future. Shuttle flew many Canadian astronauts back and to the ISS on short term trips.  But once Shuttle is retired, short term trips wil no longer be done. But short term trips could be done under commercial crew in a barter type exchange in order to allow for more Canadian astronauts to go to space.

The biggest problem for Canada is that the Canada arm has now been paid for and NASA does not owe them that much in the future.  Canada is not willing to pay $60 milion in cash for ferrying an astronauts. It prefers to barter as this type of exchange creates jobs in Canada. They may be willing to build a moon rover or a new Canadian arm that would be used in BLEO in exchange for NASA ferrying its astronauts to and from the ISS.

I guess it's possible but that just seems over-complicated.  If and when these vehicles ever exist, Canada could just purchase a seat or vehicle for a short-term trip after getting approval for ISS ops from the ISS Program. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
If Canada is unwilling to pay $60 million in cash for a fifth Soyuz, I don't see why they would be willing to pay commercial crew companies $60 million. Canada's space budget is $300 million. The $60 million would have to provide jobs in Canada for the Canadian government to justify spending one fifth of it's space budget on a short term flight to the ISS.

I am giving Canada as an example but the same could probably be said of ESA. (Japan wasn't really interested in short term flights even for Shuttle. So I don't think that they would be interested for short term flights under commercial crew.)
« Last Edit: 04/05/2011 02:41 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
If Canada is unwilling to pay $60 million in cash for a fifth Soyuz, I don't see why they would be willing to pay commercial crew companies $60 million. Canada's space budget is $300 million. The $60 million would have to provide jobs in Canada for the Canadian government to justify spending one fifth of it's space budget on a short term flight to the ISS.

I am giving Canada as an example but the same could probably be said of ESA. (Japan wasn't really interested in short term flights even for Shuttle. So I don't think that they would be interested for short term flights under commercial crew.)

Ok, so by this logic Canada is unwilling to fly their crew anywhere on their own dime because it is too expensive.  However, if we pay for it then they may be willing to pay even more to create jobs?

However, they may not be willing to pay more, so the US gets stuck with a higher cost again to send the Canadians somewhere and maybe we get something of less value.

Do I have that correct?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
If Canada is unwilling to pay $60 million in cash for a fifth Soyuz, I don't see why they would be willing to pay commercial crew companies $60 million. Canada's space budget is $300 million. The $60 million would have to provide jobs in Canada for the Canadian government to justify spending one fifth of it's space budget on a short term flight to the ISS.

I am giving Canada as an example but the same could probably be said of ESA. (Japan wasn't really interested in short term flights even for Shuttle. So I don't think that they would be interested for short term flights under commercial crew.)

Ok, so by this logic Canada is unwilling to fly their crew anywhere on their own dime because it is too expensive.  However, if we pay for it then they may be willing to pay even more to create jobs?

However, they may not be willing to pay more, so the US gets stuck with a higher cost again to send the Canadians somewhere and maybe we get something of less value.

Do I have that correct?

Actually, as sad as that sounds, he does make a case...lol

I kid you not, it's pathetic, but that's the politics of it. Doing a barter for SSRMS parts, or a 'future gen' for ISS would also work. As long as the money keeps flowing to MDA (one of the few heavy hitters for us in space), the politicians would be open to it.

Not much different across the border it seems, eh?  ;)
« Last Edit: 04/05/2011 03:13 pm by robertross »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
If Canada is unwilling to pay $60 million in cash for a fifth Soyuz, I don't see why they would be willing to pay commercial crew companies $60 million. Canada's space budget is $300 million. The $60 million would have to provide jobs in Canada for the Canadian government to justify spending one fifth of it's space budget on a short term flight to the ISS.

I am giving Canada as an example but the same could probably be said of ESA. (Japan wasn't really interested in short term flights even for Shuttle. So I don't think that they would be interested for short term flights under commercial crew.)

Ok, so by this logic Canada is unwilling to fly their crew anywhere on their own dime because it is too expensive.  However, if we pay for it then they may be willing to pay even more to create jobs?

However, they may not be willing to pay more, so the US gets stuck with a higher cost again to send the Canadians somewhere and maybe we get something of less value.

Do I have that correct?

Space is a jobs program in Canada also. They don't mind paying $60 million per seat but only if it creates jobs in Canada. That's why barter is used for ISS arrangements.
« Last Edit: 04/05/2011 06:04 pm by yg1968 »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
On your first point, I am suspicious that these companies shared their proprietary cost data with the CSF.  All of them just openly gave this information to what is essentially a lobby giving the CSF some sort of exclusive insight into every single member company.  These companies gave so much information that CSF is able to very boldly declare that the model inputs and assumptions were "significantly inaccurate". 
The big issue I was stating was that when I worked an this sort of analysis, the whole point of doing it was to get the data from all the competitors. That's what AC should have done. You have to go through the trade body, CSF in this case, so all the participants know two things:
1) Everybody else is going to give you their data.
2) You're going to keep it private.
I'm quite sure the cost structure of Orbital and SpaceX ar widely different, not to mention ULA. And the truth is, the market is still out if some of the business models are really viable in the long term. So it's trying to do market forecasting here as if "commercial" is a single business model is an oversimplification, to say the least. In fact, at this stage you can only propose which approach seams more workable.

Quote
On your second point, I honestly didn't follow everything you were saying.  However, why would NASA be a middle man and "sell" anything to a third party for commercial vehicles?  While there would have to be certain NASA approvals relative to any ISS ops, the transportation there and back will likely be independent of NASA.
Do you understand the concept of marginal cost? Basically is cost of opportunity. What do you do with your excess payload capacity? The report assumed that the commercial companies would sell the extra seats at a loss. That would mean that those 100kg of an extra passanger, would get less money than what NASA is willing to pay for 100kg of equipment or supplies. Then, obviously they wouldn't sell it at a loss. What might happen, is that if NASA isn't willing to pay as much for payload as for passangers weight, then the commercial might sell the seat at a lower price than to NASA. That isn't a loss since the company would still earning more money than the other option (NASA's supplies).

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Maybe this will be the first nail in the coffin of Aerospace.  For space people, they are alarmingly Luddite, unenthusiastic, stuck in their ways, and, worst, inaccurate.  Make them get real jobs.
I assume you were posting this same thing when they were armwaving over shuttle safety? Just wondering.

Thinking it, yes.  Didn't matter enough to post since Shuttle is supposed to end soon.  In this case, they're doing their inaccurate best to stop something before it starts.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
If Canada is unwilling to pay $60 million in cash for a fifth Soyuz, I don't see why they would be willing to pay commercial crew companies $60 million. Canada's space budget is $300 million. The $60 million would have to provide jobs in Canada for the Canadian government to justify spending one fifth of it's space budget on a short term flight to the ISS.

I am giving Canada as an example but the same could probably be said of ESA. (Japan wasn't really interested in short term flights even for Shuttle. So I don't think that they would be interested for short term flights under commercial crew.)

Ok, so by this logic Canada is unwilling to fly their crew anywhere on their own dime because it is too expensive.  However, if we pay for it then they may be willing to pay even more to create jobs?

However, they may not be willing to pay more, so the US gets stuck with a higher cost again to send the Canadians somewhere and maybe we get something of less value.

Do I have that correct?

Space is a jobs program in Canada also. They don't mind paying $60 million but only if it creates jobs in Canada. That's why barter is used for ISS arrangements.

I see.  So isn't that a problem for commercial?  When CSF advocates that we can sell this to other governments, and what you say is true about space only being a "jobs program", then that places another potential hole in their response. 

Which is true?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
If Canada is unwilling to pay $60 million in cash for a fifth Soyuz, I don't see why they would be willing to pay commercial crew companies $60 million. Canada's space budget is $300 million. The $60 million would have to provide jobs in Canada for the Canadian government to justify spending one fifth of it's space budget on a short term flight to the ISS.

I am giving Canada as an example but the same could probably be said of ESA. (Japan wasn't really interested in short term flights even for Shuttle. So I don't think that they would be interested for short term flights under commercial crew.)

Ok, so by this logic Canada is unwilling to fly their crew anywhere on their own dime because it is too expensive.  However, if we pay for it then they may be willing to pay even more to create jobs?

However, they may not be willing to pay more, so the US gets stuck with a higher cost again to send the Canadians somewhere and maybe we get something of less value.

Do I have that correct?

Space is a jobs program in Canada also. They don't mind paying $60 million but only if it creates jobs in Canada. That's why barter is used for ISS arrangements.
That seems entirely rational, to me. For a national government, it doesn't make sense to off-shore your project to another country just to save 5%, because that means all those jobs go away. You don't get to tax the folks in that other country, but you do have to pay for the increased use of social services because the people in your country no longer have a good job. You get hit on both sides of it, so saving 5% is penny-wise but pound-foolish. Only if there's strict reciprocity does it make sense to off-shore.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
And the truth is, the market is still out if some of the business models are really viable in the long term. So it's trying to do market forecasting here as if "commercial" is a single business model is an oversimplification, to say the least. In fact, at this stage you can only propose which approach seams more workable.

Exactly my point on if the business case is still viable!  But the CSF is suggesting they know more and they know better, yet they don't let on why that is.  I simply do not buy that every company gave CSF their proprietary data and their business plans on how to try to close the business case to CSF and "promise" that it will be kept secret.  And, they gave them so much information that the CSF is able to make such a statement as it did. 

Yet, if everything was so "solid", why does the CSF want more government money?


Do you understand the concept of marginal cost? Basically is cost of opportunity. What do you do with your excess payload capacity? The report assumed that the commercial companies would sell the extra seats at a loss. That would mean that those 100kg of an extra passanger, would get less money than what NASA is willing to pay for 100kg of equipment or supplies. Then, obviously they wouldn't sell it at a loss. What might happen, is that if NASA isn't willing to pay as much for payload as for passangers weight, then the commercial might sell the seat at a lower price than to NASA. That isn't a loss since the company would still earning more money than the other option (NASA's supplies).

As I said previously, I don't believe that the commercial providers would sell the seats at a loss unless under specific circumstances.  I also said I believe NASA will "purchase" the entire vehicle and have it configured as it will or use all the seats for short-term US astronaut trips to the station.  I suspect that whenever these providers sell anything to NASA, it will ever be at a "loss". 
« Last Edit: 04/05/2011 04:06 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
The funny thing is that many on here and others pointed to previous Aerospace studies when it suited them.  Now that the shoe is on the other foot......

I was thinking the exact same thing....

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
If Canada is unwilling to pay $60 million in cash for a fifth Soyuz, I don't see why they would be willing to pay commercial crew companies $60 million. Canada's space budget is $300 million. The $60 million would have to provide jobs in Canada for the Canadian government to justify spending one fifth of it's space budget on a short term flight to the ISS.

I am giving Canada as an example but the same could probably be said of ESA. (Japan wasn't really interested in short term flights even for Shuttle. So I don't think that they would be interested for short term flights under commercial crew.)

Ok, so by this logic Canada is unwilling to fly their crew anywhere on their own dime because it is too expensive.  However, if we pay for it then they may be willing to pay even more to create jobs?

However, they may not be willing to pay more, so the US gets stuck with a higher cost again to send the Canadians somewhere and maybe we get something of less value.

Do I have that correct?

Space is a jobs program in Canada also. They don't mind paying $60 million but only if it creates jobs in Canada. That's why barter is used for ISS arrangements.

I see.  So isn't that a problem for commercial?  When CSF advocates that we can sell this to other governments, and what you say is true about space only being a "jobs program", then that places another potential hole in their response. 

Which is true?

I didn't say that space was only a jobs program (nor do I think that) and I don't think commercial companies care who pays them (NASA or the foreign governments). There may be other countries that are willing to pay cash but Canada and ESA will not be willing to pay cash because they prefer to spend this money in their own country/region (which is understandable). They will prefer paying commercial companies through barter. That's just the way it is.
« Last Edit: 04/05/2011 04:33 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
They will prefer paying commercial companies through barter. That's just the way it is.

I see.  And in order to help keep commercial providers viable, NASA will pay these providers whatever the cost may be, even if NASA is getting something of less value from these other governments?

Does that make strategic sense from a government spending perspective and with ISS complete and us discarding everything and everyone else that is remotely conncected to the recent past? 

Heck, if we need widget X, why don't we just build it here and apply your jobs arguement to American citizens. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
They will prefer paying commercial companies through barter. That's just the way it is.

I see.  And in order to help keep commercial providers viable, NASA will pay these providers whatever the cost may be, even if NASA is getting something of less value from these other governments?

Does that make strategic sense from a government spending perspective and with ISS complete and us discarding everything and everyone else that is remotely conncected to the recent past? 

Heck, if we need widget X, why don't we just build it here and apply your jobs arguement to American citizens. 

Because commercial crew provides jobs to American citizens. In other words, both countries are getting jobs in their respective country through this barter arrangement. Through barter each country concentrates on its own speciality (Canada on robotics; the United States on spacecrafts and vehicles). In the end, the U.S. doesn't have enough money to build everything. So letting other countries build certain components for ISS or for BLEO exploration is necessary. Barter is a form of payment. In a good barter agreement, each party should be able to get the same value from the other party.
« Last Edit: 04/05/2011 05:24 pm by yg1968 »

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
I nothing prevents private companies from doing such barter. Let's say, for example, that SpaceX wants a canarm, they could take one Canadian astronaut to visit the ISS in exchange for one such arm. Or they might want some LE-5B. So they could take a couple of Japanese visitors to ISS for those engines. I'm just saying that bartering might also be used by the private companies.
For example, Alcantara is probably the best spot in the world for GTO launches. So I wouldn't put past a private company to make an arrangement with the Brazilian govt. Just for the cost of construction they would allow them a very low lease. If they also put a couple of launches or trips to ISS (even from the Cape), I'm sure they could get the best GTO launch spot. The only trouble is the ITAR control. But Brazil is generally very well behaved in that respect.

Offline Diagoras

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 99
If you have additional questions or would like clarification, feel free to ask. However, I ask that your response remain polite or else I won't feel inclined to respond.

What?  You first gave an analogy, one that I happened to think was bad.  Then you supposedly "answered my question with another question".  I responded and obviously you are easily offended even though there was no offense intended, direct, but no offense. 

Your latest response still doesn't answer anything.  CSF claims the market is "well established".  What does that mean exactly?  They just state it and essentially move on.  If that is the case, then that better assures a business case.  The better the business case, the lower the need for NASA money, yet CSF wants an increase.  Why?  I believe a person can want a commercial spaceflight industry but ask logical questions and not just buy into spin. 

Apologies for the delay in responding.

Quote
Ahh, I see you can't really answer the question either but instead just offer bad analogies in order to distract from the original question.

That is not the most delicate way to respond to someone else's point. Namely, implying that the other person is not only arguing in bad faith but also deliberately attempting to muddle the discussion usually occurs at the end of a discussion rather than the beginning. However, the Internet is notoriously incapable of conveying the subtleties of conversation so let's just forget it.  ;)

Once again the goal posts have shifted from "why do these people need money" to "why should NASA be the ones to give them it" to "what market exists for them to service". I'm stating this merely to remind myself of the shifting goals of this discussion.

You'd have to ask the CSF, but I'd hazard that they're referring to the demand offered by Bigelow and space tourism specifically - which is probably more demand than suborbital flight had before the X-Prize, I'd say. As I recall, there was also a Futron study which indicated an impressive amount of demand for private orbital services.

Quote
If that is the case, then that better assures a business case.  The better the business case, the lower the need for NASA money, yet CSF wants an increase.  Why?

Well, there's the obvious possibility that the currently offered NASA money is not enough to provide even for an effective business case, and thus the increase requested is from a small amount to a reasonable amount. Note also that getting funding for industries with low profitability is difficult at best, meaning that even if there is a healthy demand for private space NASA may need to front some seed money.

However, my impression is that increases to commercial crew are justified by time rather than viability. The argument is less "we need more money or we'll fail" and more "we more need money or the gap will get longer/Russia will charge us more".

Quote
I believe a person can want a commercial spaceflight industry but ask logical questions and not just buy into spin.

Absolutely. In fact, if a person wants a commercial spaceflight industry the best possible thing they can do is to ask hard questions.

You said that my earlier post didn't answer anything. If I failed to explain why NASA funding rather than private prizes may be needed to incentivize commercial space, I can try again using a different angle.
"It’s the typical binary world of 'NASA is great' or 'cancel the space program,' with no nuance or understanding of the underlying issues and pathologies of the space industrial complex."

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
More on this Aerospace report and on another commercial market report that will be submitted to Congress in the next few days:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/110406-commercial-market-study-firestorm.html
« Last Edit: 04/07/2011 01:57 am by yg1968 »

Offline mr_magoo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 21
Quote
Los Angeles-based Aerospace Corp., in an undated explanation of the study and its methodology, said the analysis was merely intended to develop a modeling tool that could be applied to a variety of data.

“The results shown to NASA and Congress recently were not intended to represent any specific real world scenario,” the company said in a memo obtained by Space News. “We modeled a scenario utilizing data from as long as 10 months ago in order to demonstrate the tool’s viability, not the viability of any specific commercial crew transportation system.”

Aerospace Corp. said it initiated the work on its own in late 2009. Some time later Hawes’ office asked for, and funded, an expanded and refined analysis of the initial work, which relied on historical data to develop its business-case model.

“The results were not expected to reflect what the commercial community has been developing,” the Aerospace memo says, adding that different assumptions could be used “to produce significantly different results.”

 :D

Offline Jason Sole

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 225
  • Chicago
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 3
I agree Magoo, the house of cards of the FY2011 scandal is falling down around Obama's knees.

Offline mr_magoo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 21
I agree Magoo, the house of cards of the FY2011 scandal is falling down around Obama's knees.

You agree with who?   I don't know what you are talking about.  Best of luck.

Offline MikeAtkinson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1980
  • Bracknell, England
  • Liked: 784
  • Likes Given: 120
Quote
Los Angeles-based Aerospace Corp., in an undated explanation of the study and its methodology, said the analysis was merely intended to develop a modeling tool that could be applied to a variety of data.

“The results shown to NASA and Congress recently were not intended to represent any specific real world scenario,” the company said in a memo obtained by Space News. “We modeled a scenario utilizing data from as long as 10 months ago in order to demonstrate the tool’s viability, not the viability of any specific commercial crew transportation system.”

Aerospace Corp. said it initiated the work on its own in late 2009. Some time later Hawes’ office asked for, and funded, an expanded and refined analysis of the initial work, which relied on historical data to develop its business-case model.

“The results were not expected to reflect what the commercial community has been developing,” the Aerospace memo says, adding that different assumptions could be used “to produce significantly different results.”

Well, that doesn't stack up with the presentation slides.

Slide 1
"Presentation to Administator Bolden" - you do not present to the NASA administrator just a "modeling tool that could be applied to a variety of data".

"SENSITIVE INFORMATION / APPROVED FOR RELEASE TO US GOV'T ONLY", implies this contains real data, not "We modeled a scenario utilizing data from as long as 10 months ago".

Slide 3
"Summary of Findings"

Yes we really found out things from this model although they "were not intended to represent any specific real world scenario”.

"Given the model we developed and the assumptions we made"

Weasel words

"Price Pre [sic] Seat for four government passengers per launch and no failures is in excess of $100M in order to make the business case close for most business cases studied"

They have just clarified they have “We modeled a scenario”, so which is it, lots of business cases or one scenario?

Moreover it is not interesting what "most business cases studied" say, only the best, are they suggesting that NASA should pick a higher cost per seat than needed?

"sensitivities moving away from aggressively low cost forecasts"

I think that is saying that they varied things until low costs became high costs and then reported the high costs.

Slide 4
"Business Case Model Assumption"

GIGO


Slides 5 & 6

Price per seat and total cost to NASA as a function of government investment.

They don't show what they purport to show, nice straight lines like that would only occur if everything else stayed the same as government investment went from $1B to $5B. About the only thing that is certain is that everything else would not stay the same.

Slide 7

"Total cost is substantially higher for two providers each supplying one flight annually compared with one provider supplying two flights annually."

The a monopoly will be cheaper fallacy, with pretty graphs to back it up.

Slide 8

"No one knows what this relationship looks like", but we will show it anyway.

Slide 9

Shows cost per seat for the government increasing as the number of commercial passengers increases.

Something is very wrong with their model if that is the output.

Slide 10

A business case that closes at $8B cost to the US government over 15 years (10 years of flight).

This is an existence proof that > $10B is not needed, summary in slide 3 is wrong. If one business case exists there are probably others some of which will be better, it is arrogant to assume that you can come up with the best.

 
Slide 11

"Summary of Financial Feasibility"

Ignore what you saw on the previous slide, "cost to NASA $10B to $20B".


Slide 12
"Questions raised by the business case analysis"

These are reasonable questions, but I don't see how they have come out the previous analysis.

Slide 13
"Notional Human Rating (HR) Approaches"

Seems designed to mislead. It seems to show that STS has "full compliance with NASA HR specification", that that commercial systems cannot have "full compliance with NASA HR specification" and that commercial determine reliability based purely on flight testing with minimal qual testing.

This seems to set up a false dichotomy between NASA oversight and qualification testing that is carried through into the rest of the slides.

Slide 15
A very naive analysis of "Demonstrated Reliability of Existing Mature Launch Vehicles".

A slightly less naive analysis would ignore the first 5 flights and only count flights in the last 20 years. A deeper analysis would need to look at changes and upgrades to the vehicles and near misses / flight anomalies.

[edited to include comments on more slides]
« Last Edit: 04/07/2011 12:55 pm by MikeAtkinson »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692

"SENSITIVE INFORMATION / APPROVED FOR RELEASE TO US GOV'T ONLY", implies this contains real data, not "We modeled a scenario utilizing data from as long as 10 months ago".


It's more like "If you release this, it will make us look bad in the public's eye". No kidding.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Quote from: OV-106
CSF claims the market is "well established".  What does that mean exactly?

Seems to me like the market for commercial comm sats is, well, "well established".  Tourism?  It's undeniably some kind of market for some kind of tourists, but I'd say that the space tourism market wouldn't be considered a "well established" one.  So I wasn't all that sure what point you were trying to make about only and specifically the CSF claim to a "well established" market; I didn't have a problem with them claiming that.

As to your comment: "I simply do not buy that every company gave CSF their proprietary data and their business plans on how to try to close the business case to CSF and "promise" that it will be kept secret."   I pretty much agree.  No question that CSF is blowing a certain amount of hot air on that particular, specific claim.  But it sure looks like Aerospace hasn't done the best analysis either.

Well, that doesn't stack up with the presentation slides. ...

Good analysis, particularly slide 4: GIGO.  It's the "pre-decisional" garbage which continues to infest all these reports, where, left hidden and unchallenged, it concludes things like: "cost per seat for the government increasing as the number of commercial passengers increases".

Next, they'll be saying things like, "Mars is actually quite easy, especially under the unconstrained budget scenario..."
« Last Edit: 04/07/2011 12:39 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Chris Bergin

New presser from CSF on this.

CSF Welcomes Aerospace Corporation's Clarification on Commercial Crew White Paper

April 7, 2010, http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/?p=1489

The Commercial Spaceflight Federation welcomes the Aerospace Corporation of El Segundo, California for its decision to release a clarification document yesterday regarding its white paper on the business case for NASA's Commercial Crew program.  The clarification document, titled "Aerospace Commercial Crew Modeling Tool Update," is available on the Aerospace Corporation homepage at www.aero.org.

The document states, "The intent of this report was not to pass judgement on the economic feasibility of a commercial crew transportation provider, but rather to illustrate the ability of the tool to conduct parametric sensitivity studies."  The document continues, "The results shown to NASA and Congress recently were not intended to represent any specific real world scenario. We modeled a scenario utilizing data from as long as 10 months ago in order to demonstrate the tool's viability, not the viability of any specific commercial crew transportation system."

The document also confirmed that "Aerospace did not survey NASA or industry for input data. ... The results were not intended to reflect what the commercial community has been developing," and that "Aerospace can model many other possible cases and assumption sets to produce significantly different results."
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
New presser from CSF on this.

CSF Welcomes Aerospace Corporation's Clarification on Commercial Crew White Paper

April 7, 2010, http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/?p=1489

The Commercial Spaceflight Federation welcomes the Aerospace Corporation of El Segundo, California for its decision to release a clarification document yesterday regarding its white paper on the business case for NASA's Commercial Crew program.  The clarification document, titled "Aerospace Commercial Crew Modeling Tool Update," is available on the Aerospace Corporation homepage at www.aero.org.

The document states, "The intent of this report was not to pass judgement on the economic feasibility of a commercial crew transportation provider, but rather to illustrate the ability of the tool to conduct parametric sensitivity studies."  The document continues, "The results shown to NASA and Congress recently were not intended to represent any specific real world scenario. We modeled a scenario utilizing data from as long as 10 months ago in order to demonstrate the tool's viability, not the viability of any specific commercial crew transportation system."

The document also confirmed that "Aerospace did not survey NASA or industry for input data. ... The results were not intended to reflect what the commercial community has been developing," and that "Aerospace can model many other possible cases and assumption sets to produce significantly different results."

So basically, they caved.

The last paragraph of this post below is exactly what I was talking about and they are calling the parametric sensitivity studies:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24684.msg718325#msg718325

Personally, I think there is still a significant danger out there if such a study can be done showing how sensitive the business case is, and as we rush into this eyes widely closed, and then political interests seemingly force a retraction.

Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
I agree Magoo, the house of cards of the FY2011 scandal is falling down around Obama's knees.

What scandal?  The only scandal, if there is one, was Bush ending the shuttle before a replacement for servicing the ISS was ready.

There is nothing remotely close to a scandal in the FY2011 budget proposal

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I agree Magoo, the house of cards of the FY2011 scandal is falling down around Obama's knees.

What scandal?  The only scandal, if there is one, was Bush ending the shuttle before a replacement for servicing the ISS was ready.

There is nothing remotely close to a scandal in the FY2011 budget proposal

Let's be fair, this isn't a scandal.  It's also not Bush's fault.  Obama had two years plus to do something about it.  Instead he made it worse by compounding a poorly thought and seemingly secretive policy of his own with the bad policy of the previous administration/congress . 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline northanger

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 727
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Offline Chris Bergin

So basically, they caved.

Certainly a big time retraction, in public.

I wish the ASAP had done likewise over Shuttle safety, as opposed to privately melting away their opposition to an extension, once it was pretty much too late.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ssp-fight-back-asap-augustine-claim-risk/
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
If we complain hard enough, would they re-do the Augustine reports?  ;)  :)

I guess it is true: the queaky wheel gets the grease.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
So it turns out that the first CSF observation that Neil mentioned in his very handily written summary:

The white paper authors did not consult with industry in the course of their work, resulting in significant inaccuracies in the model inputs and assumptions.

...is the salient premise that if a model is constructed inaccurately, and fed incomplete information, then the results of that model will have "significant inaccuracies". 

The idea presented above, questioning "Why would these companies share their proprietary data with Aerospace for this study?" seems to have confused proprietary data with a general survey of "NASA or industry for input data".  Not all data is proprietary. 

I would think, of the several companies involved in developing commercial spaceflight, all of them would have been happy to cosult with Aerospace on properly developing the basic parametrics for what could have been a very useful model.  Hopefully, Aerospace will take this opportunity to correct their model.

Kudos to CSF, I'd say.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Parametric models are great! I've made fortunes with them. But you have to keep them close to trenches. In fact, you sometimes have to make the inputs in a language that the industry understands and usually handle. Then you do reality check.
But we've been able to duplicate, or triplicate the value of a project just by finding the great deals of the investment. And we also could design projects that minimize the losses in case of failure or economic crisis.
I do think a nice, flexible model would be very useful. But only on the right hands, you need someone knowledgeable in broad fields, with very good intentions but still detached and with a huge technical understanding. If not, is worse than GIGO, since the issue of having a "model" gives it a sensation of "the truth" to a non expert.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
So it turns out that the first CSF observation that Neil mentioned in his very handily written summary:

The white paper authors did not consult with industry in the course of their work, resulting in significant inaccuracies in the model inputs and assumptions.

...is the salient premise that if a model is constructed inaccurately, and fed incomplete information, then the results of that model will have "significant inaccuracies". 

The idea presented above, questioning "Why would these companies share their proprietary data with Aerospace for this study?" seems to have confused proprietary data with a general survey of "NASA or industry for input data".  Not all data is proprietary. 

I would think, of the several companies involved in developing commercial spaceflight, all of them would have been happy to cosult with Aerospace on properly developing the basic parametrics for what could have been a very useful model.  Hopefully, Aerospace will take this opportunity to correct their model.

Kudos to CSF, I'd say.

Well the CSF used the word proprietary in their white paper in the paragraph discussing that topic, so I did as well.

While true that all data is not proprietary, it can be sensitive.  Presuming that all these companies in some way or another are going to be competing with one another, I believe there will be a natural relectunance to open the books to all for a study to validate a model with the pre-determined conclusion some would like to have. 

Balduski is quite correct that a model can be sold as truth.  It is also easy to rely too much on a model, or at times, to be able to bias it with what you want it to say.  However, like in this case, when "models" are all one has at the moment, that is where sensitivity/parametric analysis is important. 

While I agree the limits/inputs to said model need to be accurate and realistic to the highest degree possible, many times those are based on assumptions.  Those assumptions help define the parametrics.  The take I got from the CSF letter was it was very quickly released, also with it's own assumptions and angles on things, to force a result that was more favorable to their interests.

Clearly if there is an issue, it needs to be addressed but, to me anyway, this came off as political-bullying.  Things are not as great in the commercial-development world as some would like to paint.  There is trepidation about capital investment.  There is concern about the business case and the short and longer-term profitibility, etc. 

I obviously want a commercial spaceflight industry.  However, if it truly going to succeed and actually continue to increase and develop so that we really can open up a new segment of the economy, produce jobs, foster competition, etc it has to be done right and it has to be done smartly.  If we don't do any of that we are going to end up with a government-funded, "commercial-in-name-only" operation. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Well, good answer there, OV.

Just a few observations, most importantly this: A survey of the industry, or a consultation with industry, by no means, in my reading, is some veiled requirement to "open the books to all". If the surveyors and the surveyed are operating in all honesty, without the penchant for "political bullying", which I realize is a very big "if", there should be a way for the various surveyed companies to participate in the shaping of the parametric model, without any need to reveal their proprietary secrets.

Of course, that's easy for me to say, and much more difficult to develop the actual modeling parameters.  There's no question that the capital markets are more likely to invest in almost anything other than HSF, given the well known history of the accomplishments in HSF so far, and the doubt surrounding most of the hyped possibilities for profit in that arena.

There's no question that the possible new space based economy needs to be developed correctly.  I don't see the utility of this model with such erroneous, incomplete inputs.  I wonder if the internal algorithms of the model are as erroneous.

My take on this Aerospace paper was, why bother publishing something with such a poorly justified basis?  I flat out don't get it.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
My take on this Aerospace paper was, why bother publishing something with such a poorly justified basis?  I flat out don't get it.

Everything I can see is it was not that "poorly justifed".  What some of the data was 10 months old?  Has anything really changed that much?  If it did change that much in that amount of time, that's good, but couldn't it get "worse" again just as quickly?  For example, what happens when ISS deteriorates after shuttle?

It seems to me some just didn't like how "sensitive" it was and will quickly and swiftly attack anything, and lobby to make it irrelevant, anything that does not show the story that they want to have presented. 

After all, that is really the point of the CSF (they don't make anything, they don't fly anything, they don't objectively analyze anything, etc), to control and present an image, regardless of how accurate it is. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Quote
Quote

    * The white paper authors did not consult with industry in the course of their work, resulting in significant inaccuracies in the model inputs and assumptions.
    * The white paper primarily focuses on hypothetical spacecraft that are unlike those actually being developed.
    * The white paper assumes that commercial providers would sell seats to space tourists at a loss, but gives no explanation as to why a commercial business would sell its products or services at a loss.
    * The white paper ignores cases where sales of seats to other customers would actually decrease the per-seat cost to NASA.
    * The white paper assumes a large fixed cost of $400 million per year per company, but gives no basis for this number.
    * The large assumed fixed cost appears to include significant double counting. Launch vehicle fixed costs are distributed between all launch vehicle customers, including: DoD and intelligence community national security missions, NASA science missions, commercial satellite missions, NASA technology demo missions, and unmanned cargo missions.
    * The white paper ignores the possibility of reductions in cost due to reusability.
    * The white paper ignores the “sovereign client” market entirely.
    * The white paper likely underestimates the demand for orbital space tourism to a significant degree.
    * The white paper assumes a NASA demand of only 8 seats per year, which may significantly underestimate NASA’s demand over the long term.
    * The white paper ignores the potential for multiple winners to significantly keep development and operations costs low.
    * The white paper underestimates the rate of price increases by the Soyuz
    * The white paper refers to the EELV’s as “government developed systems”, yet these systems were in fact commercially developed under a program structured almost identically to COTS and Commercial Crew.

At always with a study like this you have to check who requested it and why.

I'd suggest that a cost model built round a 4 seat vehicle when AFAIK the *only* such was OSC's powerpoint for a lifting body on their Taurus 2 vehicle and the real ones are 7 seat *guarantees* costs per seat 50-75% higher than reality (depending if the "pilot" stays with the system or is one of the "payload")

Now while it's possible one of their ground rules was "Don't talk to the companies directly" but *not* using publicly available information (and possibly material released to NASA concerning the vehicles being developed under CCDev) seems insane.

Likewise sticking fixed cost figures in *without* derivation suggests either a *very* blinkered view of operations or someone using a cost model with a serious "bloat" factor, like the one that "predicted" Spacex's bill for developing F1/F9 and 6 launches would be $1.4-4.0Bn

I'd never attribute to a conspiracy what simple laziness and incompetence can achieve just as well. Then again if the implied brief was "Demonstrate how expensive commercial spaceflight could be (giving some completely inaccurate baselines)" it has met its brief perfectly.

I've usually trusted TAC since their statistical analysis of the likely hood of Shuttle failures. Too bad I'm going to have to be a lot more careful in future.

BTW CSF missed the fact that the spreadsheet assumes the system is developed over 5 years with $140m input from the private company and $1.4Bn from NASA (which is odd as the slide calls it 90% NASA, 10% developer, so either that's nearer $155k for the developer or $1.26Bn for NASA) and an internal rate of return of 25%.
That gives a price per seat (14 NASA seats on 2 flights a year for 10yrs) of $49m//seat.

And that's the "Aggressive" low cost result,

AFAIK *none* of the scenarios shown to NASA earlier this year matches the real world.

Having now read the whole presentation it's becoming a bit clearer.
Let's see. They've "proved" that the seat price of the "Commercial" option won't be that low and it's not likely to be all that reliable (IE CCDev can't cut it) but *perhaps* there's hope yet.


Check page 16.

"Multiple LV's have demonstrated reliability that *could* meet a *slightly* lower Crew Safety requirement *if* used with an HR3/HR4 Crew Module with LAS"

Whatever could they mean by such an elliptic remark?

Perhaps IDK if NASA were to put a MPCV on an EELV?

It's a crazy idea but it just might work.



« Last Edit: 08/16/2011 05:43 pm by john smith 19 »
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Sounds like another case of "Figures don't lie, but liars figure" to me... :) 

More seriously, another "study with a cherry picked conclusion"... REALLY??  How surprising...

Personally I really question the DEPTH of the "commercial spaceflight" pool-- you can't base a space program or an entire industry on flying billionaires on junkets to orbit-- that may be a POCKET of demand but certainly not a POOL... and in the oil and gas industry, a gas pocket may nearly blow out a well, but in six months to a year it's tapped out and no longer viable to economically produce.  A POOL, a FORMATION, on the other hand, can produce economically for YEARS, even decades...

SO, IMHO commercial is going to have to be more than just "space tourism" and other such "fluff" items... Industrialization?? Perhaps... but then again, we've heard that refrain before-- "build it and they will come" was the mantra for research on shuttle, for a space station, for man-tended automated orbital platforms for production of alloys and pharmaceuticals, and now for ISS... and the demand has never materialized... what makes this time different?? 

Let's just say I'll believe it when I see it... 

Later!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
SO, IMHO commercial is going to have to be more than just "space tourism" and other such "fluff" items... Industrialization?? Perhaps... but then again, we've heard that refrain before-- "build it and they will come" was the mantra for research on shuttle, for a space station, for man-tended automated orbital platforms for production of alloys and pharmaceuticals, and now for ISS... and the demand has never materialized... what makes this time different?? 

I'm fairly certain ULA and SpaceX have other customers for commercial rocket launches besides "space tourism."
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Tags:
 

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