Quote from: AncientU on 05/13/2018 11:57 pmNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationCivilian government space, not private space flight, nor the DoD,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/15/2018 02:00 amThe Obama Administration cancelled Constellation without Congress' prior approval. But it was difficult. In the end, only Ares I got cancelled and replaced with commercial crew. Seems to me it was the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that canceled Constellation. That Act passed the Senate on a voice vote and, unusually, the House adopted the Senate's bill.
The Obama Administration cancelled Constellation without Congress' prior approval. But it was difficult. In the end, only Ares I got cancelled and replaced with commercial crew.
The Altair Lander was defunded quite early on I hope that at least some of that work ends up being used in a future Lander.
Quote from: Proponent on 05/15/2018 08:01 amQuote from: yg1968 on 05/15/2018 02:00 amThe Obama Administration cancelled Constellation without Congress' prior approval. But it was difficult. In the end, only Ares I got cancelled and replaced with commercial crew. Seems to me it was the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 that canceled Constellation. That Act passed the Senate on a voice vote and, unusually, the House adopted the Senate's bill.That is correct. It wasn't the White House that cancelled CxP. The White House merely proposed it. But it was legislation from US Congress, more specifically the mentioned NASA Authorization Act of 2010, that terminated funding for CxP and was signed into law by the President.Why did this happen? Because US Congress would have looked incredibly bad had it willingly ignored the harsh conclusions from the Augustine Committee. So, US Congress killed CxP to save face.The gravy train however was fully resurrected less than two years later when two of the four major elements of CxP (Ares V and Orion) where brought back from the dead: SLS (Ares V in disguise) and MPCV (Orion in disguise).
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/15/2018 02:45 amRemember the arguments about why Commercial Cargo was really "commercial"? The definition that I use for "commercial" is that the capability can be used for non-government customers. And that would be the wrong definition. "Commercial" is where industry designs, builds and owns the instruments to provide a service to the US govt.
Remember the arguments about why Commercial Cargo was really "commercial"? The definition that I use for "commercial" is that the capability can be used for non-government customers.
Gerst used essentially the same definition of commercial as Jim did. It's a fee for a service such as CRS and commercial crew. NASA doesn't own the hardware, the commercial company does. The potential for non-NASA customers is a bonus.
Quote from: yg1968 on 05/15/2018 11:20 pmGerst used essentially the same definition of commercial as Jim did. It's a fee for a service such as CRS and commercial crew. NASA doesn't own the hardware, the commercial company does. The potential for non-NASA customers is a bonus.and before someone starts gerrymandering the definition here, ownership means control. If NASA could tell SpaceX that they can't upgrade the Falcon 9 and keep the CRS contract, we wouldn't be seeing the progress SpaceX has made today.
That is an insidious flavor of 'control' where the direction comes from the guys with money, but the financial responsibility (and risk) resides firmly with the 'commercial' entity. Great way to get roasted on a fixed price contract.
For Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew, the hope was that after NASA helped to create the cargo and crew transportation services, that non-NASA customers would eventually come forth to use the same services. Both SpaceX and Boeing have stated they made those assumptions, but from what we know no other customers have come forth.So for this "commercial" lunar effort that Bridenstine and others want, what has the commercial sector learned about the likelihood that what they build for NASA's lunar needs can become a profit center without NASA? I think they have learned that it's not likely to happen ...
I thoroughly enjoyed answering questions from @NASA employees during my first town hall. You can watch the full video at: youtu.be/YFqz7VBoZCE
New NASA Chief Bridenstine Says Humans Contribute to Climate Change 'in a Major Way'By Sarah Lewin, Space.com Associate Editor | May 19, 2018 07:24am ET
For instance, we all think "Commercial Cargo" is a good example of where NASA delineated a service need and then let the private sector determine how to satisfy it. But we also know that "Commercial Crew", even though the word "commercial" is in the title, that NASA has been much more hands-on with the designs of the crew vehicles. So even though NASA doesn't own the hardware, NASA was very involved in the design of the hardware.Let's also talk business models, since for me the ultimate goal is to expand humanity out into space, so it's important that we find business models that allow that for the non-government effort.For Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew, the hope was that after NASA helped to create the cargo and crew transportation services, that non-NASA customers would eventually come forth to use the same services. Both SpaceX and Boeing have stated they made those assumptions, but from what we know no other customers have come forth.So for this "commercial" lunar effort that Bridenstine and others want, what has the commercial sector learned about the likelihood that what they build for NASA's lunar needs can become a profit center without NASA? I think they have learned that it's not likely to happen, which means that the commercial sector is likely to treat any RFI's and RFQ's for LOP-G as strictly one-off efforts with no potential commercial business afterwards. In other words, unlike with Commercial Cargo & Crew, the private sector will be less likely to foot part of the bill for developing the lunar support services.I raise this issue because we know the Trump administration is very "budget-minded", and everyone seems to be pinning their hopes on the private sector to make LOP-G affordable. I would not assume that.Which is why I think that even though Bridenstine has high hopes, that they are not grounded in the realities he has been dealt.My $0.02
On the flip side, the same rhetoric we heard about the government being "one of many customers" for human space flight transportation is being used to tout "commercial" LEO habitats in lieu of a perfectly functional and capable ISS and even large commercial lunar landers....which, at least in the near term seems far fetched at best.
That is kinda like judging the cake 90 seconds after it was put into the oven and 30 minutes before scheduled removal. Then it needs to cool and then be frosted.There are no commercial destinations yet and won't be until commercial crew has actually flown. It hasn't flown yet.What DOES exist is NGOs and foreign governments that are interested in commercial crew transportation to commercial destinations - once such destinations are actually on orbit. But until commercial crew flies there is no business case for commercial destinations - only potential business cases.One cannot judge the viability of a developing market while the market is just beginning to develop. In fact the cake is not even in the oven yet. You obviously do not want to wait - but you're just going to have to.
Quote from: incoming on 05/22/2018 02:35 pmOn the flip side, the same rhetoric we heard about the government being "one of many customers" for human space flight transportation is being used to tout "commercial" LEO habitats in lieu of a perfectly functional and capable ISS and even large commercial lunar landers....which, at least in the near term seems far fetched at best.That is kinda like judging the cake 90 seconds after it was put into the oven and 30 minutes before scheduled removal. Then it needs to cool and then be frosted.There are no commercial destinations yet and won't be until commercial crew has actually flown. It hasn't flown yet.
What DOES exist is NGOs and foreign governments that are interested in commercial crew transportation to commercial destinations - once such destinations are actually on orbit.
But until commercial crew flies there is no business case for commercial destinations - only potential business cases.
One cannot judge the viability of a developing market while the market is just beginning to develop. In fact the cake is not even in the oven yet. You obviously do not want to wait - but you're just going to have to.
SpaceX has said that there is surprisingly strong demand for 'tourist' flights... but Chuck is correct that crew certification for NASA must be completed before any commercial business can be established. The end date for the certification is sliding to the right, so Dragon and CST-100 availability for other than NASA is completely unknown.
If there was a market for space tourists on Soyuz, you have to believe that a similar market exists for commercial crew. But right now, Boeing and SpaceX are rightly focused on meeting NASA's commercial crew needs first.