One key difference though is that most private companies face a basic fact: if they become too sclerotic, they die. This does not prevent the accretion of organizational sclerosis, but it means there’s a flushing mechanism:
If the ISS or a follow on LEO station is to be extended to 2030 or so, who possibly would be the option besides SpaceX and Starliner?Starliner is slow and very delayed. Hypothetically if Boeing just gave up and NASA wanted another company besides just SpaceX, what vehicles are available?There’s Sierra Nevada and Dream Chaser. Actually, Lockheed Martin could technically bid like an Orion Lite. And Blue Origin might want to eventually do an orbital crew vehicle as well.Who else in the US? RocketLab has hinted they’re open to crewed vehicles, but I assumed that was just as a launch provider. Maybe Relativity with their Starship Mini-Me, Terran-R?Anyone else?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 05/04/2022 07:23 pmIf the ISS or a follow on LEO station is to be extended to 2030 or so, who possibly would be the option besides SpaceX and Starliner?Starliner is slow and very delayed. Hypothetically if Boeing just gave up and NASA wanted another company besides just SpaceX, what vehicles are available?There’s Sierra Nevada and Dream Chaser. Actually, Lockheed Martin could technically bid like an Orion Lite. And Blue Origin might want to eventually do an orbital crew vehicle as well.Who else in the US? RocketLab has hinted they’re open to crewed vehicles, but I assumed that was just as a launch provider. Maybe Relativity with their Starship Mini-Me, Terran-R?Anyone else?There isn't enough time. The ISS support missions will be done by 2028 or 2029. There isn't enough time to both build and, just as importantly, have NASA certify these other vehicles for crewed flight. Unless maybe that is it is in the last year or two of the ISS.Actually that is how NASA might do this for Dream Chaser. If the Cargo Dream Chaser is successful, then NASA may award development money for a crewed Dream Chaser with the goal that two or so of the missions would go to the ISS, and then an additional four missions would be paid for by NASA to go to commercial space stations.
If Boeing had never competed for the commercial crew program, the program likely would never have existed.
"I was very happy when the traditional, big aerospace company Boeing bid. Because I think that was a tough call. And I think if they look back on it, they wouldn't do it again."
Former NASA leaders praise Boeing’s willingness to risk commercial crew"I think if they look back on it, they wouldn't do it again."by Eric Berger - May 16, 2022 3:40pm GMT
The problem with this fantasy is that it still does not free SpaceX of the distraction of CCP. They really do need to crew-certify the EDL-capable version of Starship for their own purposes, but the extra hassle certifying for ISS docking, or alternately providing a little taxi craft for the last kilometer, may not be worth it.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 05/16/2022 08:51 pmThe problem with this fantasy is that it still does not free SpaceX of the distraction of CCP. They really do need to crew-certify the EDL-capable version of Starship for their own purposes, but the extra hassle certifying for ISS docking, or alternately providing a little taxi craft for the last kilometer, may not be worth it.'Crew certifying' only applies for NASA astronauts. The only NASA use of Starship is currently HLS (no crew on board during launch or landing). Dragon 2 will service the ISS until ISS retirement. For non-NASA use (e.g. to commercial stations, for free-flyer missions, etc) there is no 'crew certification'.
The question is whether or not SpaceX would be interested in using Starship for CCP.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 05/17/2022 01:27 pmThe question is whether or not SpaceX would be interested in using Starship for CCP. It's not just ISS. NASA will require NASA certification for carrying NASA astronauts to the CLDs.
The commercial space initiative had begun under Mike Griffin in 2005, and by the end of that decade, there was a begrudging acceptance within NASA and the broader space community that private companies should be tasked with taking cargo to the International Space Station. Garver's fight involved extending that initiative to include crew flights, and there was greater resistance to that idea. The astronaut office was largely opposed, as was a majority of the established, traditional space industry."Dan Goldin, who was the head of NASA in the '90s, called it the giant self-licking ice cream cone," Garver said. "Why would someone want to get off that sugar high if they can keep lapping it up? So it was not popular. I was not popular. And members of Congress with the jobs in their districts from the traditional contractors fought the change and never really funded it fully and really tried to cancel it."
*snip*Steve Stitch kinda hinted that CCP will end with the retirement of the ISS and that NASA will simply rent services directly with SpaceX and Boeing. He did not specifiy which branch would validate spacecraft hardware etc. (after CCP) for NASA astronauts flights to commercial LEO destinations. Any idea under which (if any?) branch would that responsability fall onto?I don't have a link to the conference (yet).
