1. I wasn't being dismissive, I was trying to find out what you had in mind when you indicated that we should commercialize the ISS. I consider efforts to commercialize ISS as very positive. 2. I meant that if you have more than one provider, you have the building blocks for a market. It is possible for a market to have only one customer. ULA's fixed costs get paid by the DOD ($1.3B per year apparently) not by NASA. But I agree that ideally ULA shouldn't receive any subsidies. I imagine that this was done in order for ULA and its shareholders to be able to recuperate some of their large original investments. The COTS/CCDev model is better in that sense since it is not a permanent subsidy. 3. Gerst said that they intend to spend on commercial crew operations, essentially the same amount that they pay the Russians ($450 million per year). 4. I agree that the requirements should be kept to a minimum. But I think that the commercial crew office has already made some efforts to do just that. The requirements could have been a lot worse. I hope NASA opts for the optional milestones and the lite certification phases as this should also reduce costs. The decision to stick to SAAs was a good one. 5. NASA picks a few winners but there will still be competition for the non-NASA market among the winning providers. This is similar to the sub-orbital market, you need more than one company competing in my opinion. 6. As I said in the point number 1, I wasn't being cynical, I was simply trying to understand what you meant by efforts to commercialize ISS. I like the idea in principle. I just wanted you to expand on it.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/24/2012 02:42 pmWhat do you have in mind? Using ISS to develop vaccines, etc? That's already being done (although maybe not to the extent that it should). I hope that NASA will allow space tourists to the ISS for a fee. But it's not clear if NASA intends to that. I'm sorry, but this just stood out at me and I had to react.1. This is a RESEARCH FACILITY. (and observing NASA's position on the matter should make that clear, despite the actions of the Russians).2. To say that reasearch on vaccines 'has been done' is to say the same for here on Earth. It never stops, because viruses are living organisms and constantly change, as does our technology in understanding and fighting them.Despite the fact that congress (and NASA, along with partner nations) has dropped the ball on full planning and utilization of this station should not be a way to discredit it's role and function.They are working on the problems at hand, and 'hopefully' they can move forward and make the best of it now. Extension to at least 2020 was step #2 (finishing it was step #1).(sorry again for stepping in)
What do you have in mind? Using ISS to develop vaccines, etc? That's already being done (although maybe not to the extent that it should). I hope that NASA will allow space tourists to the ISS for a fee. But it's not clear if NASA intends to that.
Over the last 3 decades, the companies with the ability to develop new crew launch service have failed to do so. Presumably because they didn't see a sufficient return on investment. Even when Bigelow offered a $50m bonus, no-one was seriously interested.
4. I guess you do not know what "certification" really means, in this context. While NASA or the FAA may endorse the certification, it is the provider that must prove that the vehicle meets requirements/intent and can show that rationale.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/25/2012 10:41 pm4. I guess you do not know what "certification" really means, in this context. While NASA or the FAA may endorse the certification, it is the provider that must prove that the vehicle meets requirements/intent and can show that rationale. I know what certification phase means. Brent Jett and Ed Mango explained at the CCiCap meeting that they were hesitating between 2 options in 2014: one is to go with the optional SAA milestones and a lite certification phase (which would overlap each other); the other option is to have a FAR DTEC certification phase with test flights. I prefer the first option as it would continue SAAs as long as possible. See slide 7:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27540.msg859264#msg859264
Could NASA use a severely cut CCDev budget to fund human-rating the Delta IV Heavy to guarantee Orion a reasonable liift to the ISS and fulfill its required backup role as ISS crew taxi?
The Senate is doing the same, nice summary: http://newstrendnow.blogspot.com/2012/03/back-to-drawing-board-for-nasa.htmlSeems like the Back To SAAs strategy has failed.. that's what happens when you ignore the demands of Congress.
A frustrating reality is apparent... Congress, specifically the house of Representatives (or more specifically, Rep. Wolf), seem to have that "itch" and desire to have the NASA CCDev budget request cut in order to fund planetary science above the requested amount.http://www.spacenews.com/policy/120322-wolf-eyes-commercial-budget.htmlThis is just the latest in a series of vocalizations by Congressional members of a desire to reprogram funds requested for CCDev to other areas within NASA. Let's not forget that last year, Congress did succeed in cutting CCDev almost by half the requested amount!
This battle seems to be fueled by a misconception that the commercial efforts are redundant to and divert funds from NASA's Orion and SLS program developments. Unfortunately, there is no way around the illogic of these lawmaker's thought process's. If the CCDev budget is halved again this year, the CCDev program will be as good as cancelled.
Listen to the webcast carefully. The battle lines are shaping up all over again and what is saddest about this is that EVERYBODY loses.
I was struck by Senator Hutchinson's discussion with the Administrator - she chose her words carefully but seemed to imply she does not trust him or the Administration. The Administrator stated that the reduction in funds for Orion (in particular) but also SLS was based on "progress" and "technology gains" that were not anticipated when Congress and NASA came to an agreement about funding levels. She told him that, OK, he says this this year, but if Congress goes along he'll come back next year and say well, we didn't make the progress we thought we would and with the cuts from last year, now we can't do SLS and Orion - because that's how you've (aka the Administration) has been playing this game (my paraphrase).
OV: Can you provide some link to a discussion or an explanation about the certification process? My knowledge here is basically that the process exists, but not really anything more than that.
Listen to the webcast carefully. The battle lines are shaping up all over again and what is saddest about this is that EVERYBODY loses. We have got to find a way to go forward together and this certainly isn't it.