Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[Robotbeat]

Might as well say Shenzhou can provide dissimilar redundancy.

[Hadley Delta]

If I'm understanding Steve Stich's comments correctly, there will be another test flight before Starliner-1. We just don't know if it will be OFT-3 or CFT-2.

Dissimilar redundancy isn’t just a side effect. It’s the reason that two providers were picked. It’s worth a lot to NASA.

The irony of course is that the would-be redundant provider is being bailed out by the non-redundant one, so to speak.

[sdsds]

Might as well say Shenzhou can provide dissimilar redundancy.

It's more about reliance on systems that provide dissimilar redundancy. NASA never relied on Shenzhou. But you knew that.

[Robotbeat]

Might as well say Shenzhou can provide dissimilar redundancy.

It's more about reliance on systems that provide dissimilar redundancy. NASA never relied on Shenzhou. But you knew that.

The whole point is that I don't think our geopolitical situation wrt Russia is any better than it is with China. I took it as pretty obvious that we would not voluntarily pick Shenzhou even as a backup, and I think at this point, it wouldn't be wise to rely on Soyuz as a backup, either. Putin would use an emergency (where we have to use Soyuz) as a way to get concessions.

Shouldn't really need to say all this. It should be obvious to everyone that Soyuz just isn't a good option as a backup any more.

[DanClemmensen]

NASA has apparently agreed to "certify" Starliner without another flight and then pay for one uncrewed flight and (if all goes well) five actual crewed CCP flights. The uncrewed flight has negative operational value to NASA.  This arrangement in effect pays the price of six flights for the five operational flights: a 20% increase. It also leaves NASA short by one CCP flight. There appears to be an unstated assumption that NASA will buy an additional Crew Dragon flight.

NASA should instead terminate Starliner now and use the money to contract for six Crew Dragon flights at a firm fixed price. This would remove the uncertainties, enabling SpaceX to bid a lower price.

I can't say that I agree given how far along Starliner is. Having said that, I hope that NASA provides an opportunity to other vendors to provide an uncrewed/crew capable mission for the purpose of certifying new spacecrafts. Perhaps, this is where Isaacman can play a role. It has to be easier for a new commercial crew system to enter the program.

Starliner has been perceived to be "far along" since right before the OFT in December 2019. They were "far along" before OFT-2 attempt 1 in August 2021, before OFT-2 in May 2022, and before the CFT in June 2024. They are now so far along that there may not be enough flight opportunities before ISS deorbits.

With the possible exceptions of Dream Chaser and crewed Starship, I don't see anything new that can be operational before ISS deorbits.

I see no realistic way that Starliner will fly more than six more missions at most.

I do not see any real economic reason that SpaceX would want to provide any further Dragon missions after Crew-12 and CRS-Spx-35. Further missions will be high cost because the Falcon 9 infrastructure will no longer be supported by Starlink launches and commercial launches. NASA may need to induce SpaceX to bid on later missions by guaranteeing them six CCP and six(?) CRS. SpaceX may (or may not) have a moral obligation to bid, but I cannot see how this extends to bidding at a loss.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX is gonna fly Falcon for at least the next 10 years for government launches. In fact, they’re still making investments to increase flight cadence.

Anyway, there is one option that may be ready before ISS retires:
Gaganyaan, the Indian space capsule. They plan crew launch in 2026, and apparently even have a cargo flight planned to ISS (which I just now learned of while reading the Wikipedia page).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaganyaan

And unlike Soyuz, relying on Gaganyaan would be geopolitically helpful as it’s a costly signal (from the US to India) of the US and India having closer relations, having the US rely on India.

[Robotbeat]

Technically, Orion, too. Although in practical terms, eating up an Artemis flight just for ISS crew seems like such a bad trade off you’d be better off just abandoning ISS.

[pilottim]

If I'm understanding Steve Stich's comments correctly, there will be another test flight before Starliner-1. We just don't know if it will be OFT-3 or CFT-2.

No, there isn't. It will still be s-1, just won't be a crewed mission if this option is exercised. That has not been decided yet. Stich is burning political capital to create this off ramp for program stakeholders and the new admin as opposed to cancellation. Just because he said it as an option in a press conference doesn't mean it is being exercised, especially since this option has been "looking into" for months now. Personally I do not think Stich will be the person making the decision in the end.

[yg1968]

NASA has apparently agreed to "certify" Starliner without another flight and then pay for one uncrewed flight and (if all goes well) five actual crewed CCP flights. The uncrewed flight has negative operational value to NASA.  This arrangement in effect pays the price of six flights for the five operational flights: a 20% increase. It also leaves NASA short by one CCP flight. There appears to be an unstated assumption that NASA will buy an additional Crew Dragon flight.

NASA should instead terminate Starliner now and use the money to contract for six Crew Dragon flights at a firm fixed price. This would remove the uncertainties, enabling SpaceX to bid a lower price.

I can't say that I agree given how far along Starliner is. Having said that, I hope that NASA provides an opportunity to other vendors to provide an uncrewed/crew capable mission for the purpose of certifying new spacecrafts. Perhaps, this is where Isaacman can play a role. It has to be easier for a new commercial crew system to enter the program.

Starliner has been perceived to be "far along" since right before the OFT in December 2019. They were "far along" before OFT-2 attempt 1 in August 2021, before OFT-2 in May 2022, and before the CFT in June 2024. They are now so far along that there may not be enough flight opportunities before ISS deorbits.

With the possible exceptions of Dream Chaser and crewed Starship, I don't see anything new that can be operational before ISS deorbits.

I see no realistic way that Starliner will fly more than six more missions at most.

I do not see any real economic reason that SpaceX would want to provide any further Dragon missions after Crew-12 and CRS-Spx-35. Further missions will be high cost because the Falcon 9 infrastructure will no longer be supported by Starlink launches and commercial launches. NASA may need to induce SpaceX to bid on later missions by guaranteeing them six CCP and six(?) CRS. SpaceX may (or may not) have a moral obligation to bid, but I cannot see how this extends to bidding at a loss.

Commercial crew will continue for the Commercial LEO Destinations program (at least for the beginning of that program).

[DanClemmensen]

NASA has apparently agreed to "certify" Starliner without another flight and then pay for one uncrewed flight and (if all goes well) five actual crewed CCP flights. The uncrewed flight has negative operational value to NASA.  This arrangement in effect pays the price of six flights for the five operational flights: a 20% increase. It also leaves NASA short by one CCP flight. There appears to be an unstated assumption that NASA will buy an additional Crew Dragon flight.

NASA should instead terminate Starliner now and use the money to contract for six Crew Dragon flights at a firm fixed price. This would remove the uncertainties, enabling SpaceX to bid a lower price.

I can't say that I agree given how far along Starliner is. Having said that, I hope that NASA provides an opportunity to other vendors to provide an uncrewed/crew capable mission for the purpose of certifying new spacecrafts. Perhaps, this is where Isaacman can play a role. It has to be easier for a new commercial crew system to enter the program.

Starliner has been perceived to be "far along" since right before the OFT in December 2019. They were "far along" before OFT-2 attempt 1 in August 2021, before OFT-2 in May 2022, and before the CFT in June 2024. They are now so far along that there may not be enough flight opportunities before ISS deorbits.

With the possible exceptions of Dream Chaser and crewed Starship, I don't see anything new that can be operational before ISS deorbits.

I see no realistic way that Starliner will fly more than six more missions at most.

I do not see any real economic reason that SpaceX would want to provide any further Dragon missions after Crew-12 and CRS-Spx-35. Further missions will be high cost because the Falcon 9 infrastructure will no longer be supported by Starlink launches and commercial launches. NASA may need to induce SpaceX to bid on later missions by guaranteeing them six CCP and six(?) CRS. SpaceX may (or may not) have a moral obligation to bid, but I cannot see how this extends to bidding at a loss.

Commercial crew will continue for the Commercial LEO Destinations program (at least for the beginning of that program).

I'm not sure this makes sense, if "commercial crew" means four-person capsules and two six-month crew rotations a year. I think it's likely that SpaceX will have crewed Starship operational by 2030, allowing maybe 20 crew on a six-month mission in LEO, in turn allowing a different model for CLD operations.

[jarmumd]

NASA has apparently agreed to "certify" Starliner without another flight and then pay for one uncrewed flight and (if all goes well) five actual crewed CCP flights. The uncrewed flight has negative operational value to NASA.  This arrangement in effect pays the price of six flights for the five operational flights: a 20% increase. It also leaves NASA short by one CCP flight. There appears to be an unstated assumption that NASA will buy an additional Crew Dragon flight.

NASA should instead terminate Starliner now and use the money to contract for six Crew Dragon flights at a firm fixed price. This would remove the uncertainties, enabling SpaceX to bid a lower price.

I can't say that I agree given how far along Starliner is. Having said that, I hope that NASA provides an opportunity to other vendors to provide an uncrewed/crew capable mission for the purpose of certifying new spacecrafts. Perhaps, this is where Isaacman can play a role. It has to be easier for a new commercial crew system to enter the program.

Starliner has been perceived to be "far along" since right before the OFT in December 2019. They were "far along" before OFT-2 attempt 1 in August 2021, before OFT-2 in May 2022, and before the CFT in June 2024. They are now so far along that there may not be enough flight opportunities before ISS deorbits.

With the possible exceptions of Dream Chaser and crewed Starship, I don't see anything new that can be operational before ISS deorbits.

I see no realistic way that Starliner will fly more than six more missions at most.

I do not see any real economic reason that SpaceX would want to provide any further Dragon missions after Crew-12 and CRS-Spx-35. Further missions will be high cost because the Falcon 9 infrastructure will no longer be supported by Starlink launches and commercial launches. NASA may need to induce SpaceX to bid on later missions by guaranteeing them six CCP and six(?) CRS. SpaceX may (or may not) have a moral obligation to bid, but I cannot see how this extends to bidding at a loss.

Commercial crew will continue for the Commercial LEO Destinations program (at least for the beginning of that program).

I'm not sure this makes sense, if "commercial crew" means four-person capsules and two six-month crew rotations a year. I think it's likely that SpaceX will have crewed Starship operational by 2030, allowing maybe 20 crew on a six-month mission in LEO, in turn allowing a different model for CLD operations.

And that concept might be the lowest cost, but it may not be in the nations interest to foster a LEO commercial sector.  Starship as CLD essentially destroys the little business case that there is for CLD providers.  What I think will happen, is SpaceX focus on Mars, BO focus on Moon, leaving a sector for other smaller billionaires in LEO via NASA.

Heartbeats in space was critical to this (not just anytime access).  And splitting out crew transportation was critical to this.

[DanClemmensen]

Commercial crew will continue for the Commercial LEO Destinations program (at least for the beginning of that program).

I'm not sure this makes sense, if "commercial crew" means four-person capsules and two six-month crew rotations a year. I think it's likely that SpaceX will have crewed Starship operational by 2030, allowing maybe 20 crew on a six-month mission in LEO, in turn allowing a different model for CLD operations.

And that concept might be the lowest cost, but it may not be in the nations interest to foster a LEO commercial sector.  Starship as CLD essentially destroys the little business case that there is for CLD providers.  What I think will happen, is SpaceX focus on Mars, BO focus on Moon, leaving a sector for other smaller billionaires in LEO via NASA.

Heartbeats in space was critical to this (not just anytime access).  And splitting out crew transportation was critical to this.

The keyword here is "was". Commercial crew contracts were awarded in 2010. The result after 15 years is Crew Dragon. Commercial Crew succeeded.

A CLD infrastructure based on Starship does not preclude continuous occupancy. The obvious approach is to use one or more Starships to build a long-term CLD with more pressurized volume than ISS as a functional replacement for ISS and use Starship and other VV to perform the CCP and CRS functions, with crew living aboard the CLD.

A better approach may be to use the Starship CLD for multi-year experiments, but have the crews live aboard the visiting crewed Starships. Experiments that can be completed within six months can be done in the visiting Starship. This simplifies the logistics and maintenance. Crew from less-capable VVs can live in the crewed Starships, not in the CLD itself.

[jarmumd]

Commercial crew will continue for the Commercial LEO Destinations program (at least for the beginning of that program).

I'm not sure this makes sense, if "commercial crew" means four-person capsules and two six-month crew rotations a year. I think it's likely that SpaceX will have crewed Starship operational by 2030, allowing maybe 20 crew on a six-month mission in LEO, in turn allowing a different model for CLD operations.

And that concept might be the lowest cost, but it may not be in the nations interest to foster a LEO commercial sector.  Starship as CLD essentially destroys the little business case that there is for CLD providers.  What I think will happen, is SpaceX focus on Mars, BO focus on Moon, leaving a sector for other smaller billionaires in LEO via NASA.

Heartbeats in space was critical to this (not just anytime access).  And splitting out crew transportation was critical to this.

The keyword here is "was". Commercial crew contracts were awarded in 2010. The result after 15 years is Crew Dragon. Commercial Crew succeeded.

A CLD infrastructure based on Starship does not preclude continuous occupancy. The obvious approach is to use one or more Starships to build a long-term CLD with more pressurized volume than ISS as a functional replacement for ISS and use Starship and other VV to perform the CCP and CRS functions, with crew living aboard the CLD.

A better approach may be to use the Starship CLD for multi-year experiments, but have the crews live aboard the visiting crewed Starships. Experiments that can be completed within six months can be done in the visiting Starship. This simplifies the logistics and maintenance. Crew from less-capable VVs can live in the crewed Starships, not in the CLD itself.

So your takeaway from the idea of a robust space ecosystem is to award everything to SpaceX?

[DanClemmensen]

Commercial crew will continue for the Commercial LEO Destinations program (at least for the beginning of that program).

I'm not sure this makes sense, if "commercial crew" means four-person capsules and two six-month crew rotations a year. I think it's likely that SpaceX will have crewed Starship operational by 2030, allowing maybe 20 crew on a six-month mission in LEO, in turn allowing a different model for CLD operations.

And that concept might be the lowest cost, but it may not be in the nations interest to foster a LEO commercial sector.  Starship as CLD essentially destroys the little business case that there is for CLD providers.  What I think will happen, is SpaceX focus on Mars, BO focus on Moon, leaving a sector for other smaller billionaires in LEO via NASA.

Heartbeats in space was critical to this (not just anytime access).  And splitting out crew transportation was critical to this.

The keyword here is "was". Commercial crew contracts were awarded in 2010. The result after 15 years is Crew Dragon. Commercial Crew succeeded.

A CLD infrastructure based on Starship does not preclude continuous occupancy. The obvious approach is to use one or more Starships to build a long-term CLD with more pressurized volume than ISS as a functional replacement for ISS and use Starship and other VV to perform the CCP and CRS functions, with crew living aboard the CLD.

A better approach may be to use the Starship CLD for multi-year experiments, but have the crews live aboard the visiting crewed Starships. Experiments that can be completed within six months can be done in the visiting Starship. This simplifies the logistics and maintenance. Crew from less-capable VVs can live in the crewed Starships, not in the CLD itself.

So your takeaway from the idea of a robust space ecosystem is to award everything to SpaceX?

No, my takeaway is to not waste money on inferior alternatives.

I would be very happy for NASA to help pay for any alternative that is reasonably close in price/performance to a Starship CLD. I would even be OK with NASA contributions to development of one or two alternatives, to provide "dissimilar redundancy" in the development phase. I am not OK with NASA imposing 15-year-old CCP requirements that constrain potential solutions.

I would love to see SpaceX offer bare Starships and customization support services that would allow third parties to create custom Starships.

I would love to see another company develop a launch system that can put a large second stage into orbit to compete with Starship.

[jarmumd]

Commercial crew will continue for the Commercial LEO Destinations program (at least for the beginning of that program).

I'm not sure this makes sense, if "commercial crew" means four-person capsules and two six-month crew rotations a year. I think it's likely that SpaceX will have crewed Starship operational by 2030, allowing maybe 20 crew on a six-month mission in LEO, in turn allowing a different model for CLD operations.

And that concept might be the lowest cost, but it may not be in the nations interest to foster a LEO commercial sector.  Starship as CLD essentially destroys the little business case that there is for CLD providers.  What I think will happen, is SpaceX focus on Mars, BO focus on Moon, leaving a sector for other smaller billionaires in LEO via NASA.

Heartbeats in space was critical to this (not just anytime access).  And splitting out crew transportation was critical to this.

The keyword here is "was". Commercial crew contracts were awarded in 2010. The result after 15 years is Crew Dragon. Commercial Crew succeeded.

A CLD infrastructure based on Starship does not preclude continuous occupancy. The obvious approach is to use one or more Starships to build a long-term CLD with more pressurized volume than ISS as a functional replacement for ISS and use Starship and other VV to perform the CCP and CRS functions, with crew living aboard the CLD.

A better approach may be to use the Starship CLD for multi-year experiments, but have the crews live aboard the visiting crewed Starships. Experiments that can be completed within six months can be done in the visiting Starship. This simplifies the logistics and maintenance. Crew from less-capable VVs can live in the crewed Starships, not in the CLD itself.

So your takeaway from the idea of a robust space ecosystem is to award everything to SpaceX?

No, my takeaway is to not waste money on inferior alternatives.

I would be very happy for NASA to help pay for any alternative that is reasonably close in price/performance to a Starship CLD.

Okay, so no one, because the worlds richest men are routinely putting up half the cost.

I would even be OK with NASA contributions to development of one or two alternatives, to provide "dissimilar redundancy" in the development phase. I am not OK with NASA imposing 15-year-old CCP requirements that constrain potential solutions.

Major Commercial Crew work began ten years ago.  First launch was 5 years ago.  Ish.  But that system success is now too old?  You have to have something to build to.  Planning to dock with Dragon 2 vs Starship is completely different for CLD providers.  And again, constrain potential solutions specific to SpaceX.

I would love to see SpaceX offer bare Starships and customization support services that would allow third parties to create custom Starships.

I will bet money they have no interest in doing that.  And how is that so different from launching Starlab on Starship, other than the implication that custom starships would still be SpaceX.

I would love to see another company develop a launch system that can put a large second stage into orbit to compete with Starship.

The only other one close is BO, another one of the richest men in the world.

Everything regarding commercial ecosystem falls apart unless NASA steps in to put weight on the scales.  Without that weight, Elon and Jeff will always be able to underbid the competition with their own funds (see Dynetics HLS).

[envy887]

The only other one close is BO, another one of the richest men in the world.

Everything regarding commercial ecosystem falls apart unless NASA steps in to put weight on the scales.  Without that weight, Elon and Jeff will always be able to underbid the competition with their own funds (see Dynetics HLS).

The combined annual revenue of the parents of the companies working on the Dynetics bid (Leidos, Northrop, SNC) was over $40B. If they had been interested in investing $6+B of private money in the project (like SpaceX did/is doing), they wouldn't have had a problem getting the funding.

CCtCap and HLS aren't cases of more money vs. less money. They are cases of interest in investing & ability to execute vs. lack of interest of interest in investing & inability to execute.

[jarmumd]

The only other one close is BO, another one of the richest men in the world.

Everything regarding commercial ecosystem falls apart unless NASA steps in to put weight on the scales.  Without that weight, Elon and Jeff will always be able to underbid the competition with their own funds (see Dynetics HLS).

The combined annual revenue of the parents of the companies working on the Dynetics bid (Leidos, Northrop, SNC) was over $40B. If they had been interested in investing $6+B of private money in the project (like SpaceX did/is doing), they wouldn't have had a problem getting the funding.

CCtCap and HLS aren't cases of more money vs. less money. They are cases of interest in investing & ability to execute vs. lack of interest of interest in investing & inability to execute.

But wouldn't you agree that the risk posture for investing is dramatically different between billionaires and shareholders?  Just the billionaires being in the room might be enough to say not worth it on the margins we have to work on.

[AmuzedHexapod]

https://twitter.com/StephenClark1/status/1912964571574489241

Quote from former NASA flight director Paul Hill at today's Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel public meeting:

"We had an informative discussion with the Commercial Crew Program, the details of most of which are not publicly releasable."

Oh.