Author Topic: "Commercial Space in Jeopardy"  (Read 35272 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: "Commercial Space in Jeopardy"
« Reply #60 on: 07/16/2010 02:27 pm »
Returning to the named topic, it seems to me that funding at $1.6 billion over three years will be sufficient to remove commercial space from jeopardy even if commercial space advocates might desire more than that.

I was under the impression that the 1.6 represented the currently contracted CRS and COTS milestones, and left non/very little for new contracts to be awarded.  Basically meaning all possibility of Atlas/Boeing or manned Falcon 9 off the table.  Am I mistaken?  (Sorry a lot of new info today don't know where I am at right now :) )

Yes, you are mistaken. CRS is funded under the ISS heading. COTS cargo is ending, COTS cargo just needs a bit of additional funding for FY2011 to pay out remaining milestones to Orbital and SpaceX.

Yes, the $1.6B figure is for commercial crew for 3 years. But I think that it also includes the extra money for COTS for FY2011 (which was about $144 million in the July 13th bill). 
« Last Edit: 07/16/2010 02:27 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: "Commercial Space in Jeopardy"
« Reply #61 on: 07/16/2010 03:34 pm »
Returning to the named topic, it seems to me that funding at $1.6 billion over three years will be sufficient to remove commercial space from jeopardy even if commercial space advocates might desire more than that.

I was under the impression that the 1.6 represented the currently contracted CRS and COTS milestones, and left non/very little for new contracts to be awarded.  Basically meaning all possibility of Atlas/Boeing or manned Falcon 9 off the table.  Am I mistaken?  (Sorry a lot of new info today don't know where I am at right now :) )

Yes, you are mistaken. CRS is funded under the ISS heading. COTS cargo is ending, COTS cargo just needs a bit of additional funding for FY2011 to pay out remaining milestones to Orbital and SpaceX.

Yes, the $1.6B figure is for commercial crew for 3 years. But I think that it also includes the extra money for COTS for FY2011 (which was about $144 million in the July 13th bill). 

It's actually $1.3B over 3 years for commercial crew and $300M to keep cargo deliveries on track (probably more COTS funding) according to this article:

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100716/NEWS02/7160322/1086/Senators+realign+NASA+s+direction
« Last Edit: 07/19/2010 04:50 pm by yg1968 »

Offline simonth

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Commercial Space in Jeopardy"
« Reply #62 on: 07/16/2010 03:44 pm »
Returning to the named topic, it seems to me that funding at $1.6 billion over three years will be sufficient to remove commercial space from jeopardy even if commercial space advocates might desire more than that.

I was under the impression that the 1.6 represented the currently contracted CRS and COTS milestones, and left non/very little for new contracts to be awarded.  Basically meaning all possibility of Atlas/Boeing or manned Falcon 9 off the table.  Am I mistaken?  (Sorry a lot of new info today don't know where I am at right now :) )

Yes, you are mistaken. CRS is funded under the ISS heading. COTS cargo is ending, COTS cargo just needs a bit of additional funding for FY2011 to pay out remaining milestones to Orbital and SpaceX.

Yes, the $1.6B figure is for commercial crew for 3 years. But I think that it also includes the extra money for COTS for FY2011 (which was about $144 million in the July 13th bill). 

It's actually $1.3B over 3 years according to this article:

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100716/NEWS02/7160322/1086/Senators+realign+NASA+s+direction

In any event, CRS cost are not included, they are part of the ISS funding.

Basically, this new "commercial crew program" will likely be under the COTS/CCDev admin heading and stay there. Same program structure, same way of allocating the money, same way of dealing with companies and milestones.

1.3 billion is enough for 3 years for 2 solid COTS-D programs (for lack of a better term) in my view. Something of the sort of 500 billion for e.g. SpaceX and 700 billion for Boeing/Some Partner and 100 billion for additional outside development (e.g. safety or a wild card) etc.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: "Commercial Space in Jeopardy"
« Reply #63 on: 07/16/2010 03:54 pm »
The second round of CCDev would continue to be funded until it is ready in 2016. So you have to figure at least another $1.5B (probabably more) for FY 2014-2016 will be provided for commercial crew. 
« Last Edit: 07/16/2010 03:56 pm by yg1968 »

Offline telomerase99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Commercial Space in Jeopardy"
« Reply #64 on: 07/18/2010 07:11 am »
The money for commercial crew is gone for 2012. There is a clause saying that NONE can be spent in 2011 and we are talking about the 2011 budget.

How could everyone forget what happened with POR? Basically money gets siphoned off from everything else as management  rape the system and fail to get anything meaningful done, and demand more money so they can buy an extra gas guzzler, or a nice shiny gun, but I digress.

By the end of 2011 the Commercial crew money will be going for the new SDHL program which will now be costing about 24 billion total instead of the 11 billion they now project.

Its pretty pathetic that in order to bring forth a rocket to deliver man to space, the newly annointed SLS requires a head start time wise and 12 billion to 1.6 billion. I'm sure the operating costs will be staggering. Why not get commercial crew going now? Becuase if they did so they would look pretty foolish when commercial rockets are launching crews years before the NASA behemoth even lifts off the ground. I wont be surprised if in 2016 a huge rocket is launched with a dummy upper stage and a commission reports that the SLS will not be ready until 2035 at current funding levels. In the mean time all the money for technology and commercial growth will have gone "poof" once again!

Either that or Obama could refuse to sign this but it seems clear that that will not be happening.

When do we find out if any of the ammendments to preserve money for a diversified technology development portfolio and/or commercial crew are successful?

Or has that ship sailed?
« Last Edit: 07/19/2010 12:15 am by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline simonth

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 472
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Commercial Space in Jeopardy"
« Reply #65 on: 07/19/2010 07:07 am »
The money for commercial crew is gone for 2012. There is a clause saying that NONE can be spent in 2011 and we are talking about the 2011 budget.

I agree that this is one of the most puzzling provisions in the compromise bill. It's not just that the money for commercial crew in FY2011 is gone, NASA is mandated to not even think about entering into contracts with industry for commercial crew programs. How does that make any sense? Congress is MANDATING that the gap is widened. Makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why doesn't Congress say "NASA shall enter into a commercial crew contract as soon as possible"? That would make sense, the money could still only start flowing at the end of FY2011/start of FY2012.

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1049
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Commercial Space in Jeopardy"
« Reply #66 on: 07/19/2010 07:42 am »
The money for commercial crew is gone for 2012. There is a clause saying that NONE can be spent in 2011 and we are talking about the 2011 budget.

I agree that this is one of the most puzzling provisions in the compromise bill. It's not just that the money for commercial crew in FY2011 is gone, NASA is mandated to not even think about entering into contracts with industry for commercial crew programs. How does that make any sense? Congress is MANDATING that the gap is widened. Makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why doesn't Congress say "NASA shall enter into a commercial crew contract as soon as possible"? That would make sense, the money could still only start flowing at the end of FY2011/start of FY2012.

It makes perfect sense.

Understand that Congress doesn't care if anything actually flies into space. Congress doesn't care if US astronauts can reach the ISS or not. Congress doesn't really care if US astronauts have to hitch a ride on Soyuz (all the bluster and outrage about relying on the Russians is just for show).

All Congress really cares about is pork money going to contractors spread out across the country. Oh, and job preservation, because angry laid-off people might vote them out of office. Does Congress care if there is actually anything to show for the money they throw at NASA? Naah... They are used to throwing taxpayer money out of the window, so why would they care?

This bill is not a "step back from the abyss", as some claim. It is a giant leap into the abyss. If passed, this compromise bill may prove to be the death of both NASA AND commercial spaceflight.

« Last Edit: 07/19/2010 07:45 am by aquanaut99 »

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: "Commercial Space in Jeopardy"
« Reply #67 on: 07/19/2010 07:50 am »
Understand that Congress doesn't care if anything actually flies into space. Congress doesn't care if US astronauts can reach the ISS or not. Congress doesn't really care if US astronauts have to hitch a ride on Soyuz (all the bluster and outrage about relying on the Russians is just for show).

All Congress really cares about is pork money going to contractors spread out across the country. Oh, and job preservation, because angry laid-off people might vote them out of office. Does Congress care if there is actually anything to show for the money they throw at NASA? Naah... They are used to throwing taxpayer money out of the window, so why would they care?

Yep and yep. So very true. How else could one explain Congress mandating design elements of a HLV? They just care where it gets built/designed. Whether it flies or not is immaterial.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Re: "Commercial Space in Jeopardy"
« Reply #68 on: 07/19/2010 01:54 pm »
The money for commercial crew is gone for 2012. There is a clause saying that NONE can be spent in 2011 and we are talking about the 2011 budget.

I agree that this is one of the most puzzling provisions in the compromise bill. It's not just that the money for commercial crew in FY2011 is gone, NASA is mandated to not even think about entering into contracts with industry for commercial crew programs. How does that make any sense? Congress is MANDATING that the gap is widened. Makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why doesn't Congress say "NASA shall enter into a commercial crew contract as soon as possible"? That would make sense, the money could still only start flowing at the end of FY2011/start of FY2012.

That's not what the clause (i.e. Section 403) says. It says that NASA cannot enter into a commercial crew services contract (similar to the CRS). It doesn't prevent CCDev from being started in 2011. Section 402 actually says that NASA must continue CCDev in 2011.

From the July 13th Senate bill:
Quote
SEC. 402. COMMERCIAL CREW DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.
19 (a) CONTINUATION OF PROGRAM DURING FISCAL
20 YEAR 2011.—The Administrator shall continue, and may
21 expand the number of participants and the activities of,
22 the Commercial Crew Development (CCDEV) program in
23 fiscal year 2011, subject to the provisions of this title.
24 (b) CONTINUATION OF ACTIVITIES AND AGREE25
MENTS OF FISCAL YEAR 2010.—In carrying out sub-

1 section (a), the Administrator may continue or expand ac
2 tivities and agreements initiated in fiscal year 2010 that
3 reduce risk, develop technologies, and lead to other ad
4 vancements that will help determine most effective and ef
5 ficient means of advancing the development of commercial
6 crew services.

7 SEC. 403. REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO DEVELOPMENT
8 OF COMMERCIAL CREW TRANSPORTATION
9 CAPABILITIES AND SPACE SERVICES.
10 (a) PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS AND PROCURE
11 MENT AGREEMENTS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2011.—The
12 Administrator may not enter into any contract or procure
13 ment agreement with respect to follow-on commercial crew
14 services during fiscal year 2011.

See also this post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22296.msg619960#msg619960
« Last Edit: 07/19/2010 07:45 pm by yg1968 »

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: "Commercial Space in Jeopardy"
« Reply #69 on: 07/19/2010 02:56 pm »
It's likely you can thank 51D for that.  I've supported the DIRECT concept but Ross and Chuck, I can't support attempts to write it into the law.

If you indeed are the ones pushing for this you should reconsider.

Understand that Congress doesn't care if anything actually flies into space. Congress doesn't care if US astronauts can reach the ISS or not. Congress doesn't really care if US astronauts have to hitch a ride on Soyuz (all the bluster and outrage about relying on the Russians is just for show).

All Congress really cares about is pork money going to contractors spread out across the country. Oh, and job preservation, because angry laid-off people might vote them out of office. Does Congress care if there is actually anything to show for the money they throw at NASA? Naah... They are used to throwing taxpayer money out of the window, so why would they care?

Yep and yep. So very true. How else could one explain Congress mandating design elements of a HLV? They just care where it gets built/designed. Whether it flies or not is immaterial.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: "Commercial Space in Jeopardy"
« Reply #70 on: 07/19/2010 03:25 pm »
There's nothing this bill can do to kill commercial spaceflight unless it makes it basically illegal. The bill can help make NASA irrelevant, though.
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: "Commercial Space in Jeopardy"
« Reply #71 on: 07/19/2010 05:06 pm »
Understand that Congress doesn't care if anything actually flies into space. Congress doesn't care if US astronauts can reach the ISS or not. Congress doesn't really care if US astronauts have to hitch a ride on Soyuz (all the bluster and outrage about relying on the Russians is just for show).

All Congress really cares about is pork money going to contractors spread out across the country. Oh, and job preservation, because angry laid-off people might vote them out of office. Does Congress care if there is actually anything to show for the money they throw at NASA? Naah... They are used to throwing taxpayer money out of the window, so why would they care?

Yep and yep. So very true. How else could one explain Congress mandating design elements of a HLV? They just care where it gets built/designed. Whether it flies or not is immaterial.

It's likely you can thank 51D for that.  I've supported the DIRECT concept but Ross and Chuck, I can't support attempts to write it into the law.

If you indeed are the ones pushing for this you should reconsider.

I can't speak for Ross or Chuck, but this legislation hasn't implemented DIRECT.

DIRECT 3.0 has always stressed that LEO should be left to commercial, with the exception of any payloads beyond available launchers.

DIRECT 3.0 recommends a phase 1 launcher based around 4-seg SRB's & an ET-sized core. Absolutely bare-bones & minimum development cost - strongly in line with the recent JSC HLLV study. The bill may well result in continuation of the 5-seg development programme, and maybe even a stretched core to position for the "150mT" future payload.

DIRECT 3.0 recommends a phase 2 upper stage based around ULA's ACES (ie light, RL-10-based, and ideally benefitting / commonality with the EELV fleet). Again, as per the JSC HLLV study. The bill may well continue the J-2X programme, and I'd speculate we might end up with an AVUS-style upper stage.

DIRECT 3.0 recommends a phase 2 architecture which is designed to position for commercially-filled depots (phase 3). NASA may instead move towards an LOR architecture.

The DIRECT guys have also exhorted NASA to take this last chance to avoid screwing the budget and building the biggest, baddest launcher they can.



This bill could provide the basis for a DIRECT type programme, if NASA chooses to take the cheapest option at every turn instead of repeating the monster programmes epitomised by Ares-V. Maybe Gen Bolden can ensure this happens.

As others have said / implied, this bill gives NASA enough rope to hang themselves with if they choose. We'll see.

cheers, Martin

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: "Commercial Space in Jeopardy"
« Reply #72 on: 07/21/2010 12:56 am »
CRuSR kill was flagged up on NASAWatch too

Comments are largely completely clueless about the actual program in question, thinking its got mostly to do with suborbital science with people in space suits holding wires and test tubes.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: "Commercial Space in Jeopardy"
« Reply #73 on: 07/21/2010 12:58 am »
Guys:

Before you state that commercial is dead please check the NEW senate draft.

If the numbers are stuck to in that bill, while not ideal, it should provide more than enough money for spacex, ULA, and orbital to compete for crewed contracts, with at least TWO providers. Thats far from ideal but its better than nothing. Alot better.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline telomerase99

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 325
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Commercial Space in Jeopardy"
« Reply #74 on: 07/30/2010 04:04 am »
The only way we get that is if the house bill is defeated, now is the time to try to make our voices heard!

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34612

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1