Author Topic: What if CCDev is zeroed out?  (Read 30763 times)

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« on: 03/29/2012 10:02 pm »
As both the House and the Senate seem poised to cut CCDev funding, perhaps it is time to consider the worst case scenario. What happens to each of the CCDev partners if all funding for the program is cut this year? Will CCiCap continue as unfunded SAAs? Perhaps a new reduced program with the partners taking a bigger share of the risk?

SpaceX has made it clear that they will continue without NASA funding if required.

Boeing has said similar things, but not as loudly.

Blue Origin didn't need NASA money in the first place.

Sierra Nevada seems to be completely dependent on CCDev funds and a cut now will probably put Dream Chaser back into hibernation.

Thoughts?

Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25242
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #1 on: 03/30/2012 12:39 am »
Answer: We'll be stuck paying the Russians for Soyuz for the foreseeable future. Maybe we'll get Orion on Delta IV Heavy by 2018, but it'll cost a lot more (both initial capability and per-flight), would need a very significant budget increase. If no budget increase, it'd take until 2021 at least, so something like $450 million per year until then would be exported to the Russian defense sector.

And we'd lose the ability to have a domestic backup in case of a launch problem. And if we went with SLS versus Delta IV Heavy, there'd be significantly more risk (SLS is new, Delta IV Heavy is proven).


The providers would probably be okay (other than SpaceDev), but it'd severely stunt the non-government human spaceflight market, even likely lead to Bigelow giving up entirely. Progress on the orbital front would be put back probably a decade for the likes of Boeing, etc.


And remember, Orion is now effectively disposable. That means a very expensive spacecraft is required new every mission. Just for LEO. And if SLS is chosen, that'd be another VERY expensive launch vehicle for every crew rotation. That would severely hurt the chances of doing beyond-LEO work while ISS is still in orbit, thus delaying beyond-LEO exploration by most of a decade as SLS/Orion is stuck in LEO servicing ISS instead of doing what they were made for (beyond-LEO exploration).
« Last Edit: 03/30/2012 12:42 am by Robotbeat »
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 Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7278
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #2 on: 03/30/2012 08:24 am »
And every crew rotation (if we can call it that, since Orion carries just four people against, e.g., Dragon's seven) would consume two years' worth of SLS production, tending to push BEO even further into the future.  SLS for back-up crew transport to ISS makes no sense at all.

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
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #3 on: 03/30/2012 02:34 pm »
To the OP:

Then we have more money for food stamps.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Diagoras

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 463
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #4 on: 03/30/2012 07:57 pm »
To the OP:

Then we have more money for food stamps.

Try social security/medicare/defense.
"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 Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #5 on: 03/30/2012 08:16 pm »
And every crew rotation (if we can call it that, since Orion carries just four people against, e.g., Dragon's seven)

Yes, we can call it that. NASA is not responsible for rotating the three Russian crew, only the 3-4 USOS crewmembers.
JRF

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #6 on: 03/30/2012 08:23 pm »
And every crew rotation (if we can call it that, since Orion carries just four people against, e.g., Dragon's seven)

Yes, we can call it that. NASA is not responsible for rotating the three Russian crew, only the 3-4 USOS crewmembers.

I think the more important point is that if SLS/Orion was used for station crew rotations, it would likely tie up any money for going BEO with SLS. But many of the congressional supporters of SLS/Orion make it seem (by their actions) as though they aren't actually supporting SLS/Orion for the BEO exploration as much as they are for paying off campaign contributors, and since you're less likely to have a fatal crew accident going to and from the station than going to deep space, having SLS/Orion tied up running ISS logistics may be a feature to them, and not a bug. But that's just my bitter cynicism about the whole situation coming out again. I'm resigned to the probability that in the end we'll most likely see both CCDev and SLS/Orion botched.

~Jon
« Last Edit: 03/30/2012 08:29 pm by jongoff »

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #7 on: 04/02/2012 05:47 pm »
As both the House and the Senate seem poised to cut CCDev funding, perhaps it is time to consider the worst case scenario. What happens to each of the CCDev partners if all funding for the program is cut this year? Will CCiCap continue as unfunded SAAs? Perhaps a new reduced program with the partners taking a bigger share of the risk?

SpaceX has made it clear that they will continue without NASA funding if required.

Boeing has said similar things, but not as loudly.

Blue Origin didn't need NASA money in the first place.

Sierra Nevada seems to be completely dependent on CCDev funds and a cut now will probably put Dream Chaser back into hibernation.

Thoughts?



I see somebody else is sniffing at what I'm smelling.

Between the dumba** comments from Phil a few weeks ago, and the perception amongst some in Congress that CC is "taking" from SLS/MPCV/Son of CxP, I'll bet a months pay that CC will NOT get the $850m they requested.  My gut says half again, about $400m.  And that's still peppered with optimism. 

If they zero it out, which, I'll be honest, even I don't think that will happen...but if it does...

Then we'll finally get to see how "commercial" commercial really is.  Maybe we'll even get to see some of these super hush-hush business plans in action (doubtful). 
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25242
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #8 on: 04/02/2012 06:20 pm »
...
Then we'll finally get to see how "commercial" commercial really is.  Maybe we'll even get to see some of these super hush-hush business plans in action (doubtful). 
That comment makes sense only if you completely deny that the government can play any role in stimulating a new industry by providing early demand.
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 MP99

Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #9 on: 04/02/2012 06:47 pm »
...
Then we'll finally get to see how "commercial" commercial really is.  Maybe we'll even get to see some of these super hush-hush business plans in action (doubtful). 

That comment makes sense only if you completely deny that the government can play any role in stimulating a new industry by providing early demand.

Isn't it the other way around?

Would any company bring a "truly commercial" crew system online if NASA abandoned ccdev, but commited to buy flights should they become available?

Cheers, Martin

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25242
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #10 on: 04/02/2012 06:53 pm »
...
Then we'll finally get to see how "commercial" commercial really is.  Maybe we'll even get to see some of these super hush-hush business plans in action (doubtful). 

That comment makes sense only if you completely deny that the government can play any role in stimulating a new industry by providing early demand.

Isn't it the other way around?

Would any company bring a "truly commercial" crew system online if NASA abandoned ccdev, but commited to buy flights should they become available?

Cheers, Martin
Not with NASA's very specific and expensive requirements. Far too much risk that NASA would pick someone else and all that work with meeting ISS's specific visiting vehicle requirements would be completely wasted. Requirements that cost money to hammer out. And NASA wants insight as well, a lot of that insight and oversight being paid for out of the commercial crew budget (not all of the money ends up as awards to the commercial crew contestants), and without money, there could be no insight or oversight.
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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25242
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #11 on: 04/02/2012 07:01 pm »
...
Then we'll finally get to see how "commercial" commercial really is.  Maybe we'll even get to see some of these super hush-hush business plans in action (doubtful). 

That comment makes sense only if you completely deny that the government can play any role in stimulating a new industry by providing early demand.

Isn't it the other way around?

Would any company bring a "truly commercial" crew system online if NASA abandoned ccdev, but commited to buy flights should they become available?

Cheers, Martin
Assuming all funding is cut, what the heck kind of company would want to pay the millions and millions of dollars to develop a capability that NASA and Congress seem pretty antagonistic about using? Cutting the funding to zero would send the message pretty strongly that NASA has no interest in buying commercial crew services. A company would have to be BRAIN DEAD to pursue that business.

And, of course, in that case, NASA would use the Russians or Orion, neither of which are good options. The Russians will probably end up costing just as much (helping a rival's defense sector undermining our national security while not helping the domestic economy) and Orion will cost more (it is expendable and heavier and uses a much more expensive launch vehicle). If Orion is used for ISS, that significantly decreases the amount of money for beyond-LEO exploration.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2012 07:10 pm by Robotbeat »
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 rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #12 on: 04/02/2012 07:33 pm »
If all funds got cut, I would think Space X would get capital investment funding and keep moving forward. The market is all about either filling a need or making one where there wasn't one before.

Currently in the human launch market, there is only one provider. (russia) There was a comment that any company proceeding forward without Gov't funds would be brain dead to pursue this. I say, they would be brain dead if they didn't.

If SpaceX, for instance, were to acquire private capital investments, they would be the ONLY private human launch provider in the Market. If they can keep their development costs to the point where they can offer human seating at or just below Russia's current costs, Congress would insist they were used. Frankly, even if they charged a few million more, it would be fine since they would be a domestic launch provider.

If NASA insisted on requirements that create an inflated price? Then they will have to pay for it. If they don't like it? They can reduce the requirements and save costs. Their choice.

I would also gather that other friendly countries would love to buy their services as well. It's theirs for the taking. Space X has a bundle of ex-NASA and industry experts advising them. Do they really even need NASA funds? Not really, no. If they are wiling to risk, which, I would say they have proven that they are already.

A market exists. Space X, even privately funded, can make back investments over time. And if they don't? Well that's part of the free-market as well, right? Capital is put at risk all the time. If funds are taken away? There is a very strong case for why they would and should continue developing commercial crew capabilities. Simply because, in very short order, they would own the market...
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25242
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #13 on: 04/02/2012 07:36 pm »
Yes, cutting commercial crew funding to zero would be gambling hugely with NASA's ability to man the ISS without using Russia. You'd be hoping/praying that the market would automagically spend hundreds of millions of dollars (the very minimum necessary to fulfill NASA's requirements) developing a capability that you have no guarantee of actually ever paying for.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2012 07:44 pm by Robotbeat »
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
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #14 on: 04/02/2012 07:51 pm »
If all funds got cut, I would think Space X would get capital investment funding and keep moving forward. The market is all about either filling a need or making one where there wasn't one before.

Currently in the human launch market, there is only one provider. (russia) There was a comment that any company proceeding forward without Gov't funds would be brain dead to pursue this. I say, they would be brain dead if they didn't.

If SpaceX, for instance, were to acquire private capital investments, they would be the ONLY private human launch provider in the Market. If they can keep their development costs to the point where they can offer human seating at or just below Russia's current costs, Congress would insist they were used. Frankly, even if they charged a few million more, it would be fine since they would be a domestic launch provider.

If NASA insisted on requirements that create an inflated price? Then they will have to pay for it. If they don't like it? They can reduce the requirements and save costs. Their choice.

I would also gather that other friendly countries would love to buy their services as well. It's theirs for the taking. Space X has a bundle of ex-NASA and industry experts advising them. Do they really even need NASA funds? Not really, no. If they are wiling to risk, which, I would say they have proven that they are already.

A market exists. Space X, even privately funded, can make back investments over time. And if they don't? Well that's part of the free-market as well, right? Capital is put at risk all the time. If funds are taken away? There is a very strong case for why they would and should continue developing commercial crew capabilities. Simply because, in very short order, they would own the market...

I'm going to make a couple of points because I think you are in the ballpark with some and others not so much. 

For example.  You state a market exists.  What is this market?  If the market is simply NASA, then typically NASA pays to bring said capability to existance and levies requirements it as the customer wants, as would be with any customer. 

However, this alone is not what we have told "commercial" was supposed to be.  We were told that NASA would just *another* customer.  So, again, the root of the question is who are the other customers.

It is indeed a very important question.  Because, again, with other customers, which translate to other investments, then one does not become so reliant on government funds *AND* consequently (and this is a very important point) the case is made and potential rationale presented that NASA-unique requirements are to burdensome and driving away other customers.  This provides the ammunition to go back to NASA and work with them, illustrating that some requirements may be driving the costs unnecissarily and NASA then has a choice.

Those choices are:

1.  Continue with the requirements as planned, and therefore potentially no other, or fewer, non-NASA customers driving up the yearly costs to NASA in order to support and keep viable these vehicles over however many years....OR

2.  Reduce the requirements to some mutually agreed to place where other customers are still interested due to price becoming more modest but where technical capabilities, system safety, etc are still maintained. 

Either way, I don't believe this is the sole domain of SpaceX and, in fact, is the very question all of commercial space faces.  It starts again with creating the value proposition and the need to get to space.  With where we are today, that could be ISS in a much more profound way than just answering NASA's need for chartered flights twice a year.   

From that, is where one sees investment and true market forces dictating evolution, innovation, etc. 
« Last Edit: 04/02/2012 07:53 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline BeanEstimator

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 357
  • Pray for Mojo
  • Taxation without Representation
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #15 on: 04/02/2012 08:31 pm »
...
Then we'll finally get to see how "commercial" commercial really is.  Maybe we'll even get to see some of these super hush-hush business plans in action (doubtful). 

That comment makes sense only if you completely deny that the government can play any role in stimulating a new industry by providing early demand.

Isn't it the other way around?

Would any company bring a "truly commercial" crew system online if NASA abandoned ccdev, but commited to buy flights should they become available?

Cheers, Martin

 ;D  ;D  ;D

I was fairly certain my comment would zing. 
Note:  My posts are meant to discuss matters of public concern.  Posts and opinions are entirely my own and do not represent NASA, the government, or anyone else.

"Balancing Act: Public Employees and Free Speech"
http://bit.ly/Nfy3ke

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25242
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #16 on: 04/02/2012 08:38 pm »
...
Then we'll finally get to see how "commercial" commercial really is.  Maybe we'll even get to see some of these super hush-hush business plans in action (doubtful). 

That comment makes sense only if you completely deny that the government can play any role in stimulating a new industry by providing early demand.

Isn't it the other way around?

Would any company bring a "truly commercial" crew system online if NASA abandoned ccdev, but commited to buy flights should they become available?

Cheers, Martin

 ;D  ;D  ;D

I was fairly certain my comment would zing. 
Hey, man, we can go there. But the consequences of pursuing an artificial "purity" in "commerciality" is relying on the Russians (exporting our wealth and hurting our national security interests at the same time) and/or using Orion (which would lower any chance for using it for beyond-LEO exploration, at great cost).

And missing the opportunity to encourage the development of a new market. (Of course, for purists, it is impossible for the government to ever successfully stimulate any kind of development like that.)

We are very close to the orbital testing phase of commercial crew. So close.
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
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #17 on: 04/02/2012 08:56 pm »
The reality is vehicles are somewhere between PDR and CDR, and closer to PDR than CDR. 

I really would like to see someone give *real* examples of non-NASA customers and give some discussion on the points I have tried to raise that would truly benefit commercial investment instead of trying to place a labels in order to distort.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17268
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #18 on: 04/02/2012 09:06 pm »
Imposing unattainable requirements is the best way to kill commercial crew from within. Mike Griffin made the same kind of arguments in order to protect Ares I. He said that commercial companies should fund their own development and NASA might use it down the road if it ever needs it. There is a very small non-NASA market and it is certainly not enough to have a business case. If NASA stops funding commercial crew, it would take twice the time to develop commercial crew and chances are, it would only be ready after the ISS is deorbited.
« Last Edit: 04/02/2012 09:16 pm by yg1968 »

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
Re: What if CCDev is zeroed out?
« Reply #19 on: 04/02/2012 09:09 pm »
Great summation OV-106. Very well put.

A few additional thoughts: Even if what you are providing is needed by one entity, it is still a market. Perhaps a small one and the risk of having only one customer should never be understated, but the market is there and can be made larger.

I think of the other countries that NASA once provided services to. In this model, understanding that seats on Shuttle were included in overall ISS partner agreements, SpaceX could provide direct services to Canada, France, UK, Japan etc..

Bigelow has agreements with Boeing yes, but what would happen if Crewed Dragon were ready and the only game in town for private crewed services? Would they say no?

I suppose I am very optimistic concerning future private launch services beyond just NASA's needs. And sometimes the adage, if you build it they will come, has merit. Risky yes, but not out of the realm of the possible.

I pray to Ares it happens, because frankly, what other options do we have?
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0