Although it might be hoped that the present political situation might loosen the purse strings a tad and fully fund at least two programs, I have to wonder how much it would help schedule wise at this stage. Particularly with a company that does pretty much everything in house, having more money available might not make things happens that much sooner once the program is settled into the schedule. I'd really hate to see the Russians and other ISS partners part ways badly at this point. Soyuz and it's builders have kept the Station going for a while now and deserve all the credit for saving our bacon while we farted around, trying to figure out what to do next. People caught up in unrelated problems or petty issues can lose sight of what a fantastic partnership this has been.
This is probably NASA's most important development program, so why Congress is starving this and instead throwing money at the Russians is a mystery to me.
Well according to NASA, the cuts to commercial crew delayed the program by 2 years. So I believe it is correct to assume that more money would accelerate things (or at least prevent further slips).
Although it might be hoped that the present political situation might loosen the purse strings a tad and fully fund at least two programs, I have to wonder how much it would help schedule wise at this stage. Particularly with a company that does pretty much everything in house, having more money available might not make things happens that much sooner once the program is settled into the schedule.
I'd really hate to see the Russians and other ISS partners part ways badly at this point. Soyuz and it's builders have kept the Station going for a while now and deserve all the credit for saving our bacon while we farted around, trying to figure out what to do next. People caught up in unrelated problems or petty issues can lose sight of what a fantastic partnership this has been.
Edit:Were are these providers commercial customers?
Nice article, thanks Chris. I still don't know which of these aspiring crew launch providers I'd be most happy to see win the contract - it all looks good.I seem to remember there was some talk of increasing (redirecting?) funding to the SLS (or maybe Orion?) to an accelerated scheduled "just in case" there was no commercial provider ready. This seems like the least efficient use of government funds towards stated objectives. There appears to be no doubt that adding funding for the commercial developments would be the most effective way of securing early crew launching capability - or, on the converse, that directing funding away from these projects will delay them.
Very good overview Chris, good job of summarizing the situation.In view of what's going on internationally right now, this program is very important to NASA.
Quote from: Bubbinski on 03/04/2014 07:52 pmVery good overview Chris, good job of summarizing the situation.In view of what's going on internationally right now, this program is very important to NASA.Thanks! And yes, I'd say it's priority number one for NASA.
Quote from: Danderman on 03/04/2014 12:27 amThis is probably NASA's most important development program, so why Congress is starving this and instead throwing money at the Russians is a mystery to me.Why? Simple. For politician, it is better to spend 1$ in his district and 9$ to Russia than 10$ going to different district in same country.
Unless spending the money produces a scandal that will hurt the politician.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 03/04/2014 09:57 pmUnless spending the money produces a scandal that will hurt the politician.Hasn't so far, so why do you think it would?
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 03/04/2014 04:16 amEdit:Were are these providers commercial customers?It's OT here but they won't appear before Commercial Crew launches.
CNN article "Here's why the Ukraine crisis won't affect Russia, U.S. space collaboration."http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/tech/russia-us-space-program-ukraine/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Plans are in the works for private U.S. companies to begin shipping cargo to the station
I looked at the NASA budget for the FY 2015 thru FY 2019.There is a total of over 3.4 Billion dollars budgeted for commercial crew. I assume this means no one at NASA ever plans on doing a down-select or asking any of the vendors to provide some percentage of matching funding for the rest of the development.This is very unlike COTS where the vendors were required to provide a greater percentage of the development funding.So what happens when we have 3 completed vehicles and only 2 flights to the ISS per year ? How is that cost-effective ?
3 vehicles in the end is probably overkill, two most likely as well. I suspect best we can hope for sustainably, would be one crew provider with a cargo provider capable of moving quickly into the role if necessary for redundancy. It would be great to have four manned spaceship designs flying in the next few years but it is not going to happen.
Competition means there are winners and losers. In NASA's version of competition, everyone but the taxpayer is a winner.Except when there is no money for missions.Then what happens
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 03/05/2014 03:22 pmCompetition means there are winners and losers. In NASA's version of competition, everyone but the taxpayer is a winner.Except when there is no money for missions.Then what happens If you only have one winner, you no longer have competition, you have a monopoly. Ideally, you maintain competition as long as possible. I am hoping that NASA will select 3 cargo providers for CRS2 in order to ensure that 2 out of 3 cargo suppliers can also provide crewed services when needed.
With 3 winners, you have a Triopoly. Same as a monopoly, but only more expensive.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/05/2014 06:19 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 03/05/2014 03:22 pmCompetition means there are winners and losers. In NASA's version of competition, everyone but the taxpayer is a winner.Except when there is no money for missions.Then what happens If you only have one winner, you no longer have competition, you have a monopoly. Ideally, you maintain competition as long as possible. I am hoping that NASA will select 3 cargo providers for CRS2 in order to ensure that 2 out of 3 cargo suppliers can also provide crewed services when needed.With 3 winners, you have a Triopoly. Same as a monopoly, but only more expensive.
Quote from: RonM on 03/05/2014 11:37 amCNN article "Here's why the Ukraine crisis won't affect Russia, U.S. space collaboration."http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/tech/russia-us-space-program-ukraine/index.html?hpt=hp_t1Quoting from the article:QuotePlans are in the works for private U.S. companies to begin shipping cargo to the stationHello? What are Cygnus and Dragon? Chopped liver? That reporter's not too bright... or lazy... or sloppy. Whichever...
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 03/05/2014 08:41 pmWith 3 winners, you have a Triopoly. Same as a monopoly, but only more expensive.Sorry, but that is silly. The fact that there are other competitors available makes sure that they wont simply raise prices without NASA being able to do anything about it. SpaceX thinks they can raise prices, their flights go to ULA and the CST 100. It is that easy. With a single provider, you obviously cant do that (which is why it is then called a monopoly). Also as we have seen in history, whenever an accident happens with one transport system, it is followed by months of investigations. Having a diverse set of crew transport providers makes sure that American astronauts are not grounded (or stuck at the ISS) for months in that case.Also want to add that if you are oh so concerned about wasteful government spending, there are much more wasteful hate targets that commercial crew. This is as cheap as manned spaceflight gets.
Some people look at the world through rose colored glasses, others just want to project their misery.
Competition is good for NASA. Having two human rated launch vehicles and 3 very different spacecraft provides redundancy, so US astronauts are not grounded in case something goes wrong. Also, look at how much ULA launches cost the DOD to see what a monopoly does to prices (up 60% now). If a provider acts up, NASA can threaten to switch.Also want to point out that NASA is opening cargo for the ISS extension timeframe up to competition again. A crew capable vehicle will most likely also be able to provide ISS cargo transport. That way one of the 3 competitors can go for the less prestigious but equally valuable resupply contract and we are down to two crew providers. What NASA did with commercial crew is fantastic, because it (for the first time) provided NASA with a pool of such options. The commercial crew providers also have the option to use their spacecraft and launchers for commercial business (e.g. Bigelow stations, Dragon Lab, etc), which is another way to make money from their development effort.I think the outcome is really great and I see this as a very positive development, especially for the little money it cost NASA (especially compared to past efforts that resulted in nothing).
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 03/05/2014 02:13 pmI looked at the NASA budget for the FY 2015 thru FY 2019.There is a total of over 3.4 Billion dollars budgeted for commercial crew. I assume this means no one at NASA ever plans on doing a down-select or asking any of the vendors to provide some percentage of matching funding for the rest of the development.This is very unlike COTS where the vendors were required to provide a greater percentage of the development funding.So what happens when we have 3 completed vehicles and only 2 flights to the ISS per year ? How is that cost-effective ?Interesting how you conclude that from the WH budget. The vendors will, and are, providing significant skin in the game in the next phases.
2) Funding level increased because of the crises. A) NASA picks 2 providers[...]My prediction is that congress huffs and puffs and mainly pushes NASA to make 2B work.
Quote from: erioladastra on 03/07/2014 02:44 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 03/05/2014 02:13 pmI looked at the NASA budget for the FY 2015 thru FY 2019.There is a total of over 3.4 Billion dollars budgeted for commercial crew. I assume this means no one at NASA ever plans on doing a down-select or asking any of the vendors to provide some percentage of matching funding for the rest of the development.This is very unlike COTS where the vendors were required to provide a greater percentage of the development funding.So what happens when we have 3 completed vehicles and only 2 flights to the ISS per year ? How is that cost-effective ?Interesting how you conclude that from the WH budget. The vendors will, and are, providing significant skin in the game in the next phases.How does that add up ?It's already been stated that the vendors have provided around 10 percent of the total development cost. That's petty cash compared to the percentages in COTS, and other earlier NASA programs. Now, after 2 of the vendors will be at the CDR level and another not far behind, NASA is budgeting more than 1.1 Billion per vendor in the next phase, and that is still separate from the CCT production contract. How much more than 1 Billion each do the vendors need post-CDR to get certified ??Wanna bet this same conversation happens in a congressional hearing later this year ??
How does that add up ?It's already been stated that the vendors have provided around 10 percent of the total development cost. That's petty cash compared to the percentages in COTS, and other earlier NASA programs. Now, after 2 of the vendors will be at the CDR level and another not far behind, NASA is budgeting more than 1.1 Billion per vendor in the next phase, and that is still separate from the CCT production contract. How much more than 1 Billion each do the vendors need post-CDR to get certified ??Wanna bet this same conversation happens in a congressional hearing later this year ??
Redudnancy is good, but by the end if CCiCAP, NASA will have gotten about as much as they can hope to gain from competition. Costs and vehicle will be pretty much locked in at that point. In my personal opinion I think there are two possible paths:1) The funding level is not affected by the crises and stays the same: A) NASA picks more than one provider, which thereby underfunds them stretching out first crewed flight to 2018+ B) NASA picks one provider. Might make 2017. Have no redudancy but crew flying sooner.2) Funding level increased because of the crises. A) NASA picks 2 providersKnowing how congress works I would be stunned if the funding in 2A would really trully fund 2 providers at the full level to meet 2017 and doubt it would be more than that to come in earlier (and not sure the companies could do so unless funding increased significantly, NOW).My prediction is that congress huffs and puffs and mainly pushes NASA to make 2B work.
That budget includes a number of ISS missions (including post-certification missions).
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/07/2014 03:35 pmThat budget includes a number of ISS missions (including post-certification missions).Add it up. 3.4 Billion is just the budgeted amounts for FY 2015, 2016, 2017, and a very small amount of 2018.Are those post-certification missions happening in FY 2016 and 2017 ??
Quote from: erioladastra on 03/07/2014 02:56 pmRedudnancy is good, but by the end if CCiCAP, NASA will have gotten about as much as they can hope to gain from competition. Costs and vehicle will be pretty much locked in at that point. In my personal opinion I think there are two possible paths:1) The funding level is not affected by the crises and stays the same: A) NASA picks more than one provider, which thereby underfunds them stretching out first crewed flight to 2018+ B) NASA picks one provider. Might make 2017. Have no redudancy but crew flying sooner.2) Funding level increased because of the crises. A) NASA picks 2 providersKnowing how congress works I would be stunned if the funding in 2A would really trully fund 2 providers at the full level to meet 2017 and doubt it would be more than that to come in earlier (and not sure the companies could do so unless funding increased significantly, NOW).My prediction is that congress huffs and puffs and mainly pushes NASA to make 2B work.I think that you mean 1B, you don't have a 2B option. Robinson said on Tuesday that $848M is enough to maintain competition through the next phase. The way that CCtCap is set up, it seems to be made for having two providers. Bolden made the point on Tuesday that he does not expect the FY 2015 Appropriation bill to have an impact on how many providers NASA selects because he doesn't think that the bill will be passed prior to the end of August when CCtCap is awarded.
Quote from: erioladastra on 03/07/2014 02:56 pm2) Funding level increased because of the crises. A) NASA picks 2 providers[...]My prediction is that congress huffs and puffs and mainly pushes NASA to make 2B work.2B, or not 2B?
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/07/2014 03:44 pmI think that you mean 1B, you don't have a 2B option. Robinson said on Tuesday that $848M is enough to maintain competition through the next phase. The way that CCtCap is set up, it seems to be made for having two providers. Bolden made the point on Tuesday that he does not expect the FY 2015 Appropriation bill to have an impact on how many providers NASA selects because he doesn't think that the bill will be passed prior to the end of August when CCtCap is awarded. It may be enough to maintain competition, but ti won't be enough to get you flying in 2017. The math don't add up. Period.
I think that you mean 1B, you don't have a 2B option. Robinson said on Tuesday that $848M is enough to maintain competition through the next phase. The way that CCtCap is set up, it seems to be made for having two providers. Bolden made the point on Tuesday that he does not expect the FY 2015 Appropriation bill to have an impact on how many providers NASA selects because he doesn't think that the bill will be passed prior to the end of August when CCtCap is awarded.