I believe yg1968 is correct:Quote from: yg1968 on 03/29/2011 02:59 pmHaving only one provider would defeat the purpose of commercial crew. If commercial cargo can support 2 providers with about $500-$800 million of total COTS funding, I don't see why commercial crew could not have at least 2 providers for $500-$850 milion of CCDev funding per year.I agree with this: "Having only one provider would defeat the purpose of commercial crew."However, I believe Ben the Space Brit also is correct:Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/29/2011 02:53 pm FWIW, I suspect that the ISS program won't support multiple crew taxi providers. There just isn't enough potential work. Whilst NASA may fund a host of options, only one with get the contract.IMHO both of you are correct.The underlying problem is that ISS offers insufficient demand for launch services. And therefore as long as ISS remains the sole source of demand, commercial crew initiative will likely fail (edited to add the following) and by "fail" I mean fail to achieve the vision of stimulating multiple providers of low cost launch services.
Having only one provider would defeat the purpose of commercial crew. If commercial cargo can support 2 providers with about $500-$800 million of total COTS funding, I don't see why commercial crew could not have at least 2 providers for $500-$850 milion of CCDev funding per year.
FWIW, I suspect that the ISS program won't support multiple crew taxi providers. There just isn't enough potential work. Whilst NASA may fund a host of options, only one with get the contract.
Officials said if the company gets enough customers to lease all or some of the modules, it could mean 25 launches a year from Cape Canaveral, ferrying cargo and crew.
If commercial cargo can support 2 providers with about $500-$800 million of total COTS funding, I don't see why commercial crew could not have at least 2 providers for $500-$850 milion of CCDev funding per year.
I believe yg1968 is correct:Quote from: yg1968 on 03/29/2011 02:59 pmHaving only one provider would defeat the purpose of commercial crew. If commercial cargo can support 2 providers with about $500-$800 million of total COTS funding, I don't see why commercial crew could not have at least 2 providers for $500-$850 milion of CCDev funding per year.I agree with this: "Having only one provider would defeat the purpose of commercial crew."However, I believe Ben the Space Brit also is correct:Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/29/2011 02:53 pm FWIW, I suspect that the ISS program won't support multiple crew taxi providers. There just isn't enough potential work. Whilst NASA may fund a host of options, only one with get the contract.IMHO both of you are correct.The underlying problem is that ISS offers insufficient demand for launch services. And therefore as long as ISS remains the sole source of demand, commercial crew initiative will likely fail (edited to add the following) and by "fail" I mean fail to achieve the vision of stimulating multiple providers of low cost launch services. To re-state, I assert ISS cannot - by itself - support multiple low cost US providers of launch services. To achieve that vision humanity will need many destinations in LEO, or an EML Gateway supporting robust beyond LEO exploration.
...An in-depth study was commissioned by NASA by a private corporation (ProOrbis) to evaluate the potential level of non-traditional and non-exploration interests for utilization of the ISS National Laboratory. The result was a stunning discovery of a far wider range of interested entities than had previously been contemplated. The realization and accommodation of that degree of interest promises a far greater and broader-based "utilization community" for ISS and, subsequently, a very different set of assumptions on which to estimate future demand for ISS research capability. ...
@ 51D MascotYour comments are very interesting, indeed. Here is a nasaspaceflight comment apparently on the ProOrbis study:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=77223e69477c9b2f45d21f34b5e36964&topic=23236.0And yet, do you believe the primary purpose of ISS is to: (a) help facilitate the development of multiple providers of low cost launch services; or(b) accomplish useful and/or meaningful science?To what extent are these goals compatible or in conflict? In the event of conflict which deserves priority?
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 03/30/2011 01:25 am...An in-depth study was commissioned by NASA by a private corporation (ProOrbis) to evaluate the potential level of non-traditional and non-exploration interests for utilization of the ISS National Laboratory. The result was a stunning discovery of a far wider range of interested entities than had previously been contemplated. The realization and accommodation of that degree of interest promises a far greater and broader-based "utilization community" for ISS and, subsequently, a very different set of assumptions on which to estimate future demand for ISS research capability. ...Very interesting, 51D Mascot. What is the study's name, by the way? Do you have a link? (If not, I can use the google.)
HSS&T Set To Discuss NASA's Exploration Program Next WeekQuoteThe House Science, Space and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics has announced that a hearing on NASA's exploration program will be held next week."A Review of NASA's Exploration Program In Transition: Issues for Congress and Industry" will hear testimony from Doug Cooke, NASA's Associate Administrator for Exploration, who has announced plans to retire; Scott Pace, Director of George Washington University's Space Policy Institute and NASA Associate Administrator for Program Analysis and Evaluation during the George W. Bush Administration while Mike Griffin headed the agency; and James Maser, head of the Corporate Membership Committee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and President of Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, which builds the J-2X engine that was to be used with the Ares-1 launch vehicle. Ares-1 is part of the Constellation program, which is being terminated.The hearing is scheduled for March 30, 2011 at 10:00 in 2318 Rayburn House Office Building. Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) is the new chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee. He represents the 4th district of Mississippi that includes NASA's Stennis Space Center where rocket engines are tested. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) is the ranking member of the subcommittee, but Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL) is serving as acting ranking member while Rep. Giffords continues her recovery from being shot in the head during an assassination attempt on January 8.http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-space-and-aeronautics-hearing-human-space-exploration
The House Science, Space and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics has announced that a hearing on NASA's exploration program will be held next week."A Review of NASA's Exploration Program In Transition: Issues for Congress and Industry" will hear testimony from Doug Cooke, NASA's Associate Administrator for Exploration, who has announced plans to retire; Scott Pace, Director of George Washington University's Space Policy Institute and NASA Associate Administrator for Program Analysis and Evaluation during the George W. Bush Administration while Mike Griffin headed the agency; and James Maser, head of the Corporate Membership Committee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and President of Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, which builds the J-2X engine that was to be used with the Ares-1 launch vehicle. Ares-1 is part of the Constellation program, which is being terminated.The hearing is scheduled for March 30, 2011 at 10:00 in 2318 Rayburn House Office Building. Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) is the new chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee. He represents the 4th district of Mississippi that includes NASA's Stennis Space Center where rocket engines are tested. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) is the ranking member of the subcommittee, but Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL) is serving as acting ranking member while Rep. Giffords continues her recovery from being shot in the head during an assassination attempt on January 8.