Going through the latest CCP forum presentation, the notional schedule (see below) appeared to be different than previous iterations, so I went through the archives to check. While that schedule is still notional there's an obvious pattern...Projected start of commercial crew service, source and publication date (newest to oldest; all dates calendar years:2017 Q1 -- NASA CCP presentation, Sep 2011 (see below)2016 Q4 -- NASA CCP presentation, Jul 20112016 Q41 -- NASA IG report, Jun 20112015 Q42 -- NASA FY2012 Summary Budget Breifing, Feb 20112015 Q3 -- OMB report, May 20101 States "late 2016"; notes Soyuz seats purchased through end of 2015 (final Soyuz crew return planned June 2016).2 Shows two commercial crew flights/yr starting in FY2016 = CY2015 Q4 earliest.
it will come down to funding. Several companies say they can make 2015. Could be optimism or spin but likely earlier than 2017. ISS is working to have the docking hardware in place before they are ready. But based heavily on funding. Also depends on whether you want to throw all your little bit o money at one company or keep several around for a while. NASA is trying to keep multiple as long as practical.
Quote from: erioladastra on 09/18/2011 09:40 pmit will come down to funding. Several companies say they can make 2015. Could be optimism or spin but likely earlier than 2017. ISS is working to have the docking hardware in place before they are ready. But based heavily on funding. Also depends on whether you want to throw all your little bit o money at one company or keep several around for a while. NASA is trying to keep multiple as long as practical. Agree funding is likely to have a significant impact on availability, and it is desireable to maintain a competitive environment for as long as possible.*For the record, based on CCDev-2 SAA's:SNC -- No date (redacted)Boeing -- Early 2015 for "first crew test flight"; no date shown for ISS crew flights.SpaceX -- Early 2014 "crew demo flight"; late 2014 "ISS crew flight"* Among other things, maintaining multiple providers and adequate price competition eliminates the need to meet the FAR cost accounting standards (CAS) and certified cost/price reporting requirements.
I wonder about the funding profile needed by Boeing and spacex to reach their IOC. I also what the funding profile would be for a slip for 1 year...
“I can tell you that if that number holds for the next year [House $312M funding], it’s going to be very challenging for us to maintain multiple partners, to maintain the type of progress we’ve made, and meet a goal to fly folks in the mid part of the decade,” Jett said. “At some point we’re going to have to spend more than a couple hundred million dollars a year.”
Regarding CCDev funding, Elbon expressed concerned about potential FY2012 budget cuts. What’s in the president’s budget request—$850 million a year from 2012 through 2016—is “in the neighborhood of what it would take to make this program successful,” he said, “so I would hope Congress would consider funding the program at or near those levels.” However, the House is proposing only $312 million for CCDev in 2012 in its appropriation bill awaiting consider by the full House. Funding has already had an effect on Boeing’s plans: Elbon noted that their initial test flight plans “was based on a different level of CCDev-2 funding that we received,” causing the company to push back its test schedule slightly. “There’s been about a quarter’s worth of impact due to the funding that came out of CCDev-2 as we went forward.”
QuoteRegarding CCDev funding, Elbon expressed concerned about potential FY2012 budget cuts. What’s in the president’s budget request—$850 million a year from 2012 through 2016—is “in the neighborhood of what it would take to make this program successful,” he said, “so I would hope Congress would consider funding the program at or near those levels.” However, the House is proposing only $312 million for CCDev in 2012 in its appropriation bill awaiting consider by the full House. Funding has already had an effect on Boeing’s plans: Elbon noted that their initial test flight plans “was based on a different level of CCDev-2 funding that we received,” causing the company to push back its test schedule slightly. “There’s been about a quarter’s worth of impact due to the funding that came out of CCDev-2 as we went forward.”Boeing on test pilots, FAR-vs-SAA, and more, New Space Journal, August 2011
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk today applauded a Senate committee's approval of $500 million in NASA funding next year to help develop commercial crew taxis for trips to the International Space Station.
Commercial Crew. — The Committee has provided $500,000,000 for commercial crew activities, the same as the authorized level. This funding shall be available to continue and competitively expand the number of participants and the activities of the Commercial Crew Development [CCDEV] program in order to reduce risk, develop technologies and lead to other advancements that will help determine most effective and efficient means of advancing the development of commercial crew services.Of the amount included for commercial crew development activities, $307,400,000 shall be available on October 1, 2011. This amount is equal to the fiscal year 2011 level for commercial crew development. An additional $192,600,000 of commercial crew funding will become available after the NASA Administrator has certified, in writing, that NASA has: (1) published the notifications to implement acquisition strategy for the heavy lift launch vehicle system, also known as the space launch system [SLS], authorized in section 302 of Public Law 111–267 and (2) begun to execute relevant contract actions in support of development of SLS. This certification may not be delegated and will assure the Committee that NASA is committed to all elements of the balanced human spaceflight program authorized in Public Law 111–267. The Committee understands that NASA will be providing more information on the acquisition strategy for SLS in the coming weeks.
Commercial crew. — For commercial crew development activities, the Committee recommends $312,000,000, which is the same as fiscal year 2011. The Committee preserved funds for this activity to reduce the risk of relying solely on Russia for ISS access and to address the need for the United States to establish a domestic means of access to low Earth orbit. The sizable increase proposed in the budget request, however, was premature given the still-undefined acquisition strategy for the Commercial Crew Development Round 3 (CCDev 3) awards and the uncertainty behind assumptions about pricing, schedule, market demand, flight opportunities and other economic factors that are essentially unknowable at this time.Given the likely decrease in the number of CCDev 3 awards that will be made at this funding level relative to the request, NASA is encouraged to make use of unfunded Space Act Agreements to maximize the number of commercial partners who stay engaged with the program and remain in contention for an eventual service contract. For any acquisition strategy developed for CCDev3, NASA is encouraged to consider the potential contributions of women-, minority- and veteran-owned firms.
Well a lower budget will mean a few things:1. Less providers: probably deselect to two. Personally dont see it as a loss, as there really is not a flight rate for ISS to support more (ie two crew flights a year)2. Sticking with lowest cost option for infrastructure. Unless funds are switched to LC-39 modernization will probably mean sticking with LC-40/1 for crew launch.3. Liberty gets the axe. No development funds for new LV's, minimal for existing LV modifications (ie probably not Delta IV)4. Schedule slipsSo its not the greatest outcome, but it could be worse.
At what point do we pay more for Soyuz seats than we would have otherwise paid to just pay for and complete the CCDev program?
The market for human transportation will be modest at first. NASA will set requirements for eight crew rotations per year on four flights.
The original version of the recommendation was entitled: Spaceflight Participant Policy for ISS. The original version of the recommendation itself was: NASA should establish a policy for spaceflight participants to fly to ISS on U.S. commercial vehicles. The first draft of the Major Reasons for the Recommendation read: This policy will incentivize CCDev participants to invest in the development of commercial transportation to LEO, expecting additional return on their investment by flying tourists to the ISS. The Draft Consequences of No Action was: Absent such a policy, all spaceflight participant activity will be to the Russian side of the ISS, hence depriving U.S. commercial companies of ISS spaceflight participant revenue and decreasing commercial investment in the development of the transportation to ISS for NASA crews.Because commercial cargo is already going to ISS, that part was to be deleted. It was also agreed that the word “tourists” should be changed to “space flight participants” throughout, in which case the consequence of no action would be the missed opportunity for revenue and commercial work. With Committee members in agreement about the general concept, this recommendation was to be developed more fully outside of the meeting.
Lots of interesting information about commercial crew in the minutes to the August 2-3 2011 Joint Meeting of the NAC Space Operations and Exploration Committees.On page 11:QuoteThe market for human transportation will be modest at first. NASA will set requirements for eight crew rotations per year on four flights.http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/582570main_NACEXP-SpaceopsminutesAugust2-32011_508.pdf
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/26/2011 01:19 amLots of interesting information about commercial crew in the minutes to the August 2-3 2011 Joint Meeting of the NAC Space Operations and Exploration Committees.On page 11:QuoteThe market for human transportation will be modest at first. NASA will set requirements for eight crew rotations per year on four flights.http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/582570main_NACEXP-SpaceopsminutesAugust2-32011_508.pdfWell, so much for the microgravity environment for ISS. With two soyuz, four commercial, ATV, HTV, Progress, and CRS flights the station is not going to be a very stable microgravity platform.
On page 11:QuoteThe market for human transportation will be modest at first. NASA will set requirements for eight crew rotations per year on four flights.http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/582570main_NACEXP-SpaceopsminutesAugust2-32011_508.pdf
Also only two slots for USOS crew? Really? even with four USOS and one for a commercial pilot still leaves three slots for "spaceflight participants." At two expedition members and one pilot, each flight could accommodate four space flight participants, or 16 a year.
[rant]So we have now gone from no space tourists on USOS to shove as many as we can on a flight and have a token few professionals. AT this rate, who will need Bigelow stations [/rant]
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 09/26/2011 04:47 amAlso only two slots for USOS crew? Really? even with four USOS and one for a commercial pilot still leaves two slots for "spaceflight participants." At two expedition members and one pilot, each flight could accommodate four space flight participants, or 16 a year.The USOS will be going to 3 crewmembers once commercial crew comes online. If one International Partner astronaut is included, that makes 4 USOS crewmembers, plus a pilot, on one flight.
Also only two slots for USOS crew? Really? even with four USOS and one for a commercial pilot still leaves two slots for "spaceflight participants." At two expedition members and one pilot, each flight could accommodate four space flight participants, or 16 a year.
Pete, look at the flight rate though and number of crew. There are 8 crew rotations per year divided by four flights is two per flight. OF course, for a six month expedition the efficient model would be four crew per flight, however that would only fill two flights which NASA apparently wants to artificially inflate.
That doesn't include international partners' astronauts. I consider it almost certain that JAXA and ESA astronauts will take at least one seat per flight.
Quote from: peter-b on 09/26/2011 01:13 pmThat doesn't include international partners' astronauts. I consider it almost certain that JAXA and ESA astronauts will take at least one seat per flight.I think they are included, IIRC NASA is obliged to provide transportation for IP. ESA/JAXA don't pay for their Soyuz seats NASA does (correct me if I'm wrong).
I've heard (unofficially) that the six month stay of ISS crewmembers may be reduced once commercial crew comes online. Also, don't forget that NASA is responsible for the transport of International Partner astronauts to and from the ISS, and so they will have to be factored into the equation.Also, does the "eight crew rotations per year" mean eight crewmembers, or eight sets of crewmembers?If we're talking about sets, then if four USOS crewmembers are rotated every three months, that makes four commercial flights a year, and eight crew rotations per year (four sets of USOS crews going up, and four sets of USOS crews going down).
In that case, then there goes Mars expedition equivalents. Again, sacrificing quality ISS research to artificially increase flight rate.
Quote from: arkaska on 09/26/2011 01:15 pmQuote from: peter-b on 09/26/2011 01:13 pmThat doesn't include international partners' astronauts. I consider it almost certain that JAXA and ESA astronauts will take at least one seat per flight.I think they are included, IIRC NASA is obliged to provide transportation for IP. ESA/JAXA don't pay for their Soyuz seats NASA does (correct me if I'm wrong).That's true -- I was assuming that some of the excess seats might be utilised by IP in addition to the NASA obligation.Another consideration to bear in mind is that excess crewmembers will likely be replaced by cargo mass rather than sold for space tourism purposes.
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/26/2011 01:19 amLots of interesting information about commercial crew in the minutes to the August 2-3 2011 Joint Meeting of the NAC Space Operations and Exploration Committees.On page 11:QuoteThe market for human transportation will be modest at first. NASA will set requirements for eight crew rotations per year on four flights.http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/582570main_NACEXP-SpaceopsminutesAugust2-32011_508.pdfWell, so much for the microgravity environment for ISS. With two soyuz, four commercial, ATV, HTV, Progress, and CRS flights the station is not going to be a very stable microgravity platform.Edit: Also only two slots for USOS crew? Really? even with four USOS and one for a commercial pilot still leaves two slots for "spaceflight participants." At two expedition members and one pilot, each flight could accommodate four space flight participants, or 16 a year.[rant]So we have now gone from no space tourists on USOS to shove as many as we can on a flight and have a token few professionals. AT this rate, who will need Bigelow stations [/rant]
There would be 4 launches according to the document that I linked above.
Just for clarity -- the NASA/ISS plan is for USOS occupied by 4 crew members, and ROS occupied by 3? This would be a crew of 7, with "surge" to 10 when two Soyuz are docked and surge to 9 (or more) when a CCP vehicle is docked?
Quote from: sdsds on 09/26/2011 08:20 pmJust for clarity -- the NASA/ISS plan is for USOS occupied by 4 crew members, and ROS occupied by 3? This would be a crew of 7, with "surge" to 10 when two Soyuz are docked and surge to 9 (or more) when a CCP vehicle is docked?That was always the plan. The limiter has always been Soyuz can only hold three. Now if there is always a "surge" or one crew comes home first and the next launches is just dependent on the final concept of operations decided.
How would the CEV work in this arrangement? Because, if the vehicles have 210 days of working life certification, if you used just two launches, you'd have to have a very tight hand over period, with a totally new USOS crew each with just a week to familiarize with the ISS.The current system exchanges half the ISS crew per time (alternating two and once since USOS is 3 crew for now). If they go to four crew, then it would mean they will exchange just two permanent crews per time.
Quote from: baldusi on 09/26/2011 04:45 pmHow would the CEV work in this arrangement? Because, if the vehicles have 210 days of working life certification, if you used just two launches, you'd have to have a very tight hand over period, with a totally new USOS crew each with just a week to familiarize with the ISS.The current system exchanges half the ISS crew per time (alternating two and once since USOS is 3 crew for now). If they go to four crew, then it would mean they will exchange just two permanent crews per time.For years when we just had 3 crew that is how it worked. The Soyuz docked. there was handover for about 8-9 days and then undocking. Yeah, it is tight and very busy. Not ideal but what we are dealing with.
Quote from: OV-106 on 09/26/2011 08:28 pmQuote from: sdsds on 09/26/2011 08:20 pmJust for clarity -- the NASA/ISS plan is for USOS occupied by 4 crew members, and ROS occupied by 3? This would be a crew of 7, with "surge" to 10 when two Soyuz are docked and surge to 9 (or more) when a CCP vehicle is docked?That was always the plan. The limiter has always been Soyuz can only hold three. Now if there is always a "surge" or one crew comes home first and the next launches is just dependent on the final concept of operations decided.Correct - direct versus indirect is still being worked.
It might be worth adding that in the beginning (pre-STS-107) crew rotations was done entirely with Shuttle with Soyuz as an emergency return vehicle.
Quote from: arkaska on 09/30/2011 11:37 amIt might be worth adding that in the beginning (pre-STS-107) crew rotations was done entirely with Shuttle with Soyuz as an emergency return vehicle. Except Expedition 1 (went up on Soyuz )However there were Soyuz taxi flights, which was the beginning of space tourism. Basically a crew would fly up with a new soyuz, and after a short stay would return with the old one. Soyuz was still required for crew stays, not really sure why expedition crews had to go up on shuttle besides good old nationalism.
The life support can not handle more then 7 people so the Russians will stick to 3 crew-members.
Quote from: arkaska on 10/04/2011 07:44 pmThe life support can not handle more then 7 people so the Russians will stick to 3 crew-members. ISS has handled up to 13 people at a time for short duration, a week handover should not be that big of a deal:However, would not expect this to occur during a USOS crew handover, however doubtful that would happen with issues of crew support for docking operations.
Will two Soyuz, when the time comes, bring up three cosmonauts each for six month stays, for about four flights a year?
Third CCDev update from NASA:http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/598229main_CCPCCDev2_Public_20111017_508.pdf
Quote from: BrightLight on 10/23/2011 09:02 pmThird CCDev update from NASA:http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/598229main_CCPCCDev2_Public_20111017_508.pdfSo, SpaceX are expected to have LAS hardware by start of Q2-2012, just 6 months after LAS preliminary design review? Am I reading this right?
Quote from: BrightLight on 10/23/2011 09:02 pmThird CCDev update from NASA:http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/598229main_CCPCCDev2_Public_20111017_508.pdfThanks for the update! Looks like everyone has tracked well to original milestone dates so far. Altho Boeing's are redacted in the original SAA, based on the amendment appear to be projected to still be on track.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 10/04/2011 08:06 pmQuote from: arkaska on 10/04/2011 07:44 pmThe life support can not handle more then 7 people so the Russians will stick to 3 crew-members. ISS has handled up to 13 people at a time for short duration, a week handover should not be that big of a deal:However, would not expect this to occur during a USOS crew handover, however doubtful that would happen with issues of crew support for docking operations.But since there's intended to be two docking ports for Commercial Crew than why would this problem exist?
CCP requirements will be controlled by NASA at a higher level than traditional programs- Lower level requirements controlled by the commercial partner, with NASA having insight- Allows the commercial partner to accelerate decision-making and control costsLevel 1 - Agency requirements (provide transportation for ISS)Level 2 - Program requirements (integrated system performance requirements and interfaces)Prior to initiating the acquisition of integrated design contract(s), all CCP Level 1 and 2 requirements will be defined.- CCP will have zero missing or incomplete requirements, i.e., no “TBDs”CCP has significantly reduced NASA-controlled requirements needing full verification- CCP has approximately 5% of the number of Shuttle requirements - Commercial Crew requirements deal with safety of all mission phases, whereas Commercial Cargo (COTS) deals only with ISS interfaces[shuttle 10,000-12,000; Commercial Cargo ~250; Commercial Crew ~650]
- CCP will have zero missing or incomplete requirements, i.e., no “TBDs”...CCP has significantly reduced NASA-controlled requirements needing full verification...[shuttle 10,000-12,000; Commercial Cargo ~250; Commercial Crew ~650]
One other interesting difference between the milestones shown for August and October is that Oct includes all the optional milestones in the SAA amendments for SNC and Boeing announced in Sep (same announcement as the draft RFP). However, approval for some of those was pending funding (provisionally expected by end Oct). This may indicate those have now been approved/funded (?).
Quote from: joek on 10/25/2011 09:02 pmOne other interesting difference between the milestones shown for August and October is that Oct includes all the optional milestones in the SAA amendments for SNC and Boeing announced in Sep (same announcement as the draft RFP). However, approval for some of those was pending funding (provisionally expected by end Oct). This may indicate those have now been approved/funded (?).Yes, see this thread:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26839.0
Availability of Funds:Funds are not presently available for Milesones X, Y an Z of this agreement. Obligations of the Government and XXX under this Agreement are contingent on the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for Agreement purposes can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise until fuinds are made available to the Agreement Office for this Agreement until the Partner receives notices of such availability, to be confirmed in writing by the Agreement Officer. Completion dates listed in this agreement for Milestones X, Y and Z are valid onliy if XXX is notified in writing by October 30, 2011 that appropriated funds payable for Agreement purposes are available. Any delay in notification beyond October 30, 2011 will result in comparable delays in completion of Milestones X, Y and Z to be calculated and applied to milestones as follows. ...
Bolden also announced Monday at a speech to the Air Force Association's 2011 Air and Space Conference that NASA will fund optional milestones pre-negotiated as part of some of the original CCDev2 Space Act Agreements (SAA) to help accelerate development.NASA amended Sierra Nevada Corp.'s SAA to include four optional milestones for a total of $25.6 million, bringing the potential value of Sierra Nevada's SAA to $105.6 million, if all milestones are completed successfully.NASA also amended Boeing's SAA to include three optional milestones for a total of $20.6 million, bringing the potential value of Boeing's SAA to $112.9 million, if all milestones are reached.
I imagine that the language you quoted above is the result of the uncertainty with the passage of the CR (which occured after the September 19 2011 announcement by Bolden). Just to clarify, the optional milestones were already in the original SAAs. NASA decided to pick-up some (but not all) of these optional milestones (on the condition that a FY2012 CR bill was passed, it would seem). Here is what the September 19 2011 announcement said:
Quote from: yg1968 on 10/26/2011 01:27 amI imagine that the language you quoted above is the result of the uncertainty with the passage of the CR (which occured after the September 19 2011 announcement by Bolden). Just to clarify, the optional milestones were already in the original SAAs. NASA decided to pick-up some (but not all) of these optional milestones (on the condition that a FY2012 CR bill was passed, it would seem). Here is what the September 19 2011 announcement said:That's also how I interpreted the language... NASA wanted to set the groundwork for moving forward on optional milestones as early as possible, but funding was still TBD. Understood the optional milestones are in the original SAA's (all are more-or-less the same, specifically, Appendix 2(b) CCDev2 Optional Performance Milestones and Success Criteria). Of note, Boeng's, SNC's and Blue Origin's (but not SpaceX's) original SAA's included optional milestones; NASA chose to exercise some (but not all) of Boeing's and SNC's, but none of Blue Origin's.
Apparently, an unfounded SSA has been signed with the US subsidiary of Excalibur Almaz.http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/10/26/excalibur-almaz-signs-unfunded-saa-with-nasa-on-ccdev/
What the (#%&*(? Do they really expect to get *anything* useful out of them? They just collect old Soviet hardware and don't do much with it. And aren't they UK based?Or do they just sign unfunded SSA's left and right? (would explain ATK and Excalibur Almaz)
{snip}Or do they just sign unfunded SSA's left and right? (would explain ATK and Excalibur Almaz)
Quote from: Lars_J on 10/26/2011 03:36 pm{snip}Or do they just sign unfunded SSA's left and right? (would explain ATK and Excalibur Almaz)Since NASA does not pay the firm any money unfunded SSA's are very cheap. If only 1 in 100 comes in the other 99 in 100 can simply be ignored.
It might also preclude law suits about bias etc.
Current CCDEV-2 Milestone Schedules for all commercial partners (shows milestones, completion or expected completion dates & milestone funding) - updated December 9, 2011.http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/610830main_CCDev2_Public_20111209_508.pdf
Is round 3 going to use SAA's afterall?
ASAP says commercial crew is underfunded. See pages 6 and 7 of the document (pages 13 and 14 of the PDF):http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2011_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf
Quote from: yg1968 on 01/31/2012 12:20 amASAP says commercial crew is underfunded. See pages 6 and 7 of the document (pages 13 and 14 of the PDF):http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2011_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdfYes and I believe they also say something about the use of SAA that results in an increase in risk. This has not been demonstrated. In fact, so far the only SAA where this could apply is COTS and this has been significant in that the milestones actually reduce the level of financial risk that NASA is exposed to. Wrt other forms of risk, i.e. human or cargo, this also has not been demonstrated nor has the case even been argued.
Found this article this morning. Didn't know there was that much funding available and also glad to see that they are actually going to stick with SAAs.http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120207-bids-due-march-commercial-crew.html
Quote from: beancounter on 02/07/2012 11:59 pmFound this article this morning. Didn't know there was that much funding available and also glad to see that they are actually going to stick with SAAs.http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120207-bids-due-march-commercial-crew.htmlThere is an active discussion on this latest solicitation round in the NASA Plans for Commercial Crew Development - Dec. 15, 2011 (starting at the linked post) if you want to see what NSF members made of it http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27540.msg858988#msg858988
Compared to the schedule published on 16th August 2011Sierra Nevada are running about 4 weeks lateBoeing are about on time (perhaps a week ahead of schedule)SpaceX are about on time (perhaps 1-2 weeks late)Blue Origin are about 3 months behind schedule.ULA are about on time (perhaps a week ahead of schedule).
Which launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use?
Quote from: oiorionsbelt on 02/20/2012 12:26 amWhich launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use?Also are they planning to use the NDS or a Russian docking port?
New Promo video:http://go.nasa.gov/AxyX5W
Quote from: oiorionsbelt on 02/20/2012 12:26 amWhich launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use? I guess they do have to baseline something, so its probably a Falcon.
Quote from: Danderman on 03/01/2012 09:14 pmQuote from: oiorionsbelt on 02/20/2012 12:26 amWhich launch vehicle is Excalibur Almaz planing to use? I guess they do have to baseline something, so its probably a Falcon.I'd lean toward expecting them to baseline Atlas V, actually.
Why would they choose a US Launch vehicle, ?
Because they are vying for a CCP contract. That is the topic of this thread, for which there would be no discussion of Excalibur Almaz if they were not using a US launch vehicle.
[Question] 36. To what extent will NASA enable the emergence/sustenance of a commercial market by allowing non-NASA (i.e. private citizen) visitation to the ISS-US element? (e.g. emulate the Russian’s position with commercial flyers aboard Soyuz taxi flights?Answer: The current NASA crew transportation plans do not allow for commercial spaceflight participants to visit the International Space Station. NASA is focused on working with its international partners to support the Expedition crews on orbit and to maximize the science and research activities aboard the Station. Even though NASA’s current plans do not allow for commercial spaceflight participant transportation to the International Space Station, NASA is investigating the regulations and requirements that would apply if commercial spaceflight participants were to visit the International Space Station.
[Question] 37. In the budget brief yesterday, the NASA administration stated that the next phase would be a full and open competition (in approximately 21 months). Is this consistent with your plans for the option period and transition in to the services period?Answer: The certification phase, anticipated to begin in 21 months is a notional contractual activity independent from the CCiCap SAA. NASA anticipates this certification activity to be a full and open competition. NASA is aware that this certification activity may overlap with the CCiCap option period.
Here is the Feb. 14th 2012 CCiCap presentation to industry converted to PDF:
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/04/2012 11:18 pmHere is the Feb. 14th 2012 CCiCap presentation to industry converted to PDF:page 9: Base Period: To be accomplished prior to May 31, 2014 withfunding ranging from $300M-$500M per award, with multipleawardspage 12: CCiCap awards anticipate funding in FY13 and FY14In other words, this whole thing falls apart without the $800M in FY13 AND FY14.So, proposals due this month, expected award in late summer this year.Election year politics and history tells us a CR is very likely for FY13. Which means they can def plan on having less than their request. And when you tack on the perceived low likelihood of getting the requested $800M anyway, you're basically telling us this plan is bogus. Got it. Message received loud and clear.
If 2 providers are selected at a total of $500M each spread over two years means that FY2013 and FY2014 must have CCP funded at $500M+ per year. But even if it has a funding of $400M each year it can still proceed with 2 providers. At $850M each year (2013 & 2014), 3 to 4 providers are possible for this phase.So funding at $400M per year is still not the end of the world just an early down select to 2 providers.
Quote from: BeanEstimator on 03/05/2012 04:36 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 03/04/2012 11:18 pmHere is the Feb. 14th 2012 CCiCap presentation to industry converted to PDF:page 9: Base Period: To be accomplished prior to May 31, 2014 withfunding ranging from $300M-$500M per award, with multipleawardspage 12: CCiCap awards anticipate funding in FY13 and FY14In other words, this whole thing falls apart without the $800M in FY13 AND FY14.So, proposals due this month, expected award in late summer this year.Election year politics and history tells us a CR is very likely for FY13. Which means they can def plan on having less than their request. And when you tack on the perceived low likelihood of getting the requested $800M anyway, you're basically telling us this plan is bogus. Got it. Message received loud and clear.If 2 providers are selected at a total of $500M each spread over two years means that FY2013 and FY2014 must have CCP funded at $500M+ per year. But even if it has a funding of $400M each year it can still proceed with 2 providers. At $850M each year (2013 & 2014), 3 to 4 providers are possible for this phase.So funding at $400M per year is still not the end of the world just an early down select to 2 providers.Edit:typo
- counting the money that goes to the bureaucrats to run the program (because for some reason they need millions of dollars per year to do oversight).
{snip}So, proposals due this month, expected award in late summer this year.Election year politics and history tells us a CR is very likely for FY13. Which means they can def plan on having less than their request.
Quote from: BeanEstimator on 03/05/2012 04:36 pm{snip}So, proposals due this month, expected award in late summer this year.Election year politics and history tells us a CR is very likely for FY13. Which means they can def plan on having less than their request. That NASA is going to be living on CRs this year I believe. However CRs may not be the only source of money.The combination of high levels of unemployment and a presidential election may result in the US Government deciding that a stimulus package is needed. The previous one gave CCDev $50 million. CCiCap has several 'shovel ready' spacecraft development projects. Plenty of new high tech jobs in towns all over the USA. Even the possibility of exports.
Quote from: QuantumG on 03/05/2012 08:44 pm - counting the money that goes to the bureaucrats to run the program (because for some reason they need millions of dollars per year to do oversight).And how much is that, since you seem to know?Also, do you know how the program is setup and how many "bureaucrats' are in it, if any?
Quote from: Jim on 03/05/2012 08:47 pmAnd how much is that, since you seem to know?Also, do you know how the program is setup and how many "bureaucrats' are in it, if any?According to Phil McAlister's comments at the 2011 International Symposium for Personal and Commercial Spaceflight - the commercial crew office has grown to 250 people.And from the CCP Forum in Feb:QuoteIt's important to understand that in iCap and this year, FY12, 75% of the funds from our budget for CCP this year are being used to support iCap. I think there were some misquotes earlier. I want to make sure that's clear - 75% of the funds from this fiscal year are being used to support iCap.So yeah, some extra funding there.
And how much is that, since you seem to know?Also, do you know how the program is setup and how many "bureaucrats' are in it, if any?
It's important to understand that in iCap and this year, FY12, 75% of the funds from our budget for CCP this year are being used to support iCap. I think there were some misquotes earlier. I want to make sure that's clear - 75% of the funds from this fiscal year are being used to support iCap.
There is ZERO chance of another round of stimulus spending. We are trying to reduce the deficit, remember ?
They're saying $300-$400M per award over two years. So $150-$200M/yr per award. Clearly they only need ~$500M/yr for two providers - counting the money that goes to the bureaucrats to run the program (because for some reason they need millions of dollars per year to do oversight).
I am also usually anti-bureaucracy but I am not convinced that the commercial crew program office is bloated. Ed Mango partly explained what they do. It seems like that they do a lot. For example, they provide services through unfunded SAA (e.g. with ULA). They worked on establishing commercial crew safety requirements. They also work with commercial companies through MOUs, etc. Most commercial crew companies have praised the work that they have done.
No, you are reading it incorrectly. They are targeting 300-500M per partner per year. Some estimates show about $1.2B to get a vehicle flying. Could maybe be scraping the low end of that in 2015 depending on funding.
Ed Mango: And it's also good to note on that page - I forgot exactly what page that was - but there are some apples and oranges here. The first period is three to five hundred million over those 21 months. So, that includes multiple fiscal years. The second profile also includes multiple fiscal years. However, it's a different set of parameters during that time. So, you've got to look at three to five hundred is for that total amount. That's not per year in the base period. The base period is three to five hundred for those 21 months. That is not three to five hundred in FY12, FY13, FY14 or anything like that. It's - they will be awarded three to five hundred for that 21-month period and then we'll manage how we get those funds over that period of time. Does that answer part of your question?
“If we only get 300 to 400 (million dollars) a year, I would say it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to do this program,” McAlister said. “If we felt like that’s all we could get, we would definitely re-evaluate the program.”Phil is Ed's boss.
Quote from: BeanEstimator on 03/07/2012 03:38 pm“If we only get 300 to 400 (million dollars) a year, I would say it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to do this program,” McAlister said. “If we felt like that’s all we could get, we would definitely re-evaluate the program.”Phil is Ed's boss.Yikes. Wait until he notices it's 21 months instead of 12...
Totally ignoring the FY12 money that is going to CCiCap, $300/21*12 = $171M/yr and $500/21*12 = $286M/yr.. so the program needs $342M to $572M per year for 2 participants or $513M to $858M per year for 3 participants.
Only while undergoing development. The trick is going to be to get divorced from NASA after becoming operational and picking up commercial ridership. For that we need more destinations in earth and cis-lunar space.If they can do that then they won't need NASA's money with all those expensive strings attached.Every one of those commercial carriers could operate successfully for much less overhead without all of NASA's peculiar requirements.
That's the most exciting thing about CCiCap, I think. The end result is providers who can fly (or have flown!) a non-NASA astronaut to LEO.
Quote from: QuantumG on 03/08/2012 03:29 amThat's the most exciting thing about CCiCap, I think. The end result is providers who can fly (or have flown!) a non-NASA astronaut to LEO. Note that yesterday Hucthinson grilled Bolden on why more than 1. Clearly they don't liek the idea.
Quote from: go4mars on 03/07/2012 03:58 pmQuote from: BeanEstimator on 03/07/2012 03:38 pm“If we only get 300 to 400 (million dollars) a year, I would say it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to do this program,” McAlister said. “If we felt like that’s all we could get, we would definitely re-evaluate the program.”Phil is Ed's boss.Yikes. Wait until he notices it's 21 months instead of 12... That was a different context. McAlister meant that if they only get $300 to $400 million a year for commercial crew from Congress, the program cannot work. Ed Mango was saying that each company that wins under CCiCap will get $300-$500 million for 21 months for CCiCap.
Quote from: QuantumG on 03/08/2012 03:13 amTotally ignoring the FY12 money that is going to CCiCap, $300/21*12 = $171M/yr and $500/21*12 = $286M/yr.. so the program needs $342M to $572M per year for 2 participants or $513M to $858M per year for 3 participants. Only while undergoing development. The trick is going to be to get divorced from NASA after becoming operational and picking up commercial ridership. For that we need more destinations in earth and cis-lunar space.If they can do that then they won't need NASA's money with all those expensive strings attached.Every one of those commercial carriers could operate successfully for much less overhead without all of NASA's peculiar requirements.
All of the new vehicles have 6 or 7 seats, right ? One or two extra flights with 5 paying passengers @ $50 mil per passenger should easily cover development costs for a year, assuming you can get certified to carry passengers. As long as the vehicle has windows to look out into space, you don't even need to visit a space station. Just make it more than a glorified Disney ride.
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 03/08/2012 04:55 pmAll of the new vehicles have 6 or 7 seats, right ? One or two extra flights with 5 paying passengers @ $50 mil per passenger should easily cover development costs for a year, assuming you can get certified to carry passengers. As long as the vehicle has windows to look out into space, you don't even need to visit a space station. Just make it more than a glorified Disney ride. The issue is the market isn't there
Quote from: Jim on 03/08/2012 05:14 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 03/08/2012 04:55 pmAll of the new vehicles have 6 or 7 seats, right ? One or two extra flights with 5 paying passengers @ $50 mil per passenger should easily cover development costs for a year, assuming you can get certified to carry passengers. As long as the vehicle has windows to look out into space, you don't even need to visit a space station. Just make it more than a glorified Disney ride. The issue is the market isn't thereJim is correct that at $50M there is no market. The highest price a space tourist has paid to date has been $35M and that was 3 years ago. At $20M-$35M (SpaceX Crew Dragon prices) the market is ~ 0.6 to 0.75 tourists per year based on history. To fill a single flight with six tourist passengers would mean at best only one flight every 8 years.
Now, $5M/seat, that's totally doable.
Yeah, I'd agree you could find customers for $5 million non-ISS flights. VG is charging $200,000 ($0.2 million) for 5-minute suborbital flights and already has deposits for around 430 seats. It's reasonable to expect some fraction of those 430 to pay 25 times more for a several-day orbital flight.Question is, can any of the CCDEV companies actually pull off $5 million per seat?