Quote from: mr. mark on 04/07/2013 04:18 amThere will be hearings on this to be sure. Elon Musk will say we're launching in 2015 with or without NASA. Then the pressure will be on NASA to take SpaceX as the sole provider because they are the only company capable of crossing the finish line with the least amount of expenditure. The decision has already been made. This is all a show at this point. .... assuming that SpaceX really can pull this one out in 2015. What's the plan for self-funded test flights for Boeing's CST-100? IIRC it's one flight in 2016?
There will be hearings on this to be sure. Elon Musk will say we're launching in 2015 with or without NASA. Then the pressure will be on NASA to take SpaceX as the sole provider because they are the only company capable of crossing the finish line with the least amount of expenditure. The decision has already been made. This is all a show at this point.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/07/2013 02:09 amOriginally the plan was to, you know, actually fund Commercial Crew at the level it needs.What is this "plan" of which you speak? I saw no "plan", and my seat was probably rather closer to the playing field than yours.There was never a "plan". There was a "proposal", followed by a "compromise", followed by repeated "challenges" to the compromise.The "proposal" was the FY11 PBR. It called for the Commercial Crew Program (CCP) to be funded at $5.8B over 5 years: $0.5B in FY11, $1.4B in FY12 and 13, $1.3B in FY14, and $1.2B in FY15. There was no "science" behind these numbers; NASA HQ developed the budget request with no input from the field centers. The PBR was rolled out on Monday February 1, 2010, and I can tell you that both JSC Director Coats and KSC Director Cabana said that they had heard absolutely nothing of this proposal prior to the Friday before, when they were informed that the administration was going to propose cancelling CxP. Likewise, none of the relevant committee chairmen in Congress had gotten any advance notice or any chance for buy-in. It was a surprise attack by the administration, unprecedented in the history of NASA since 1961.The "compromise" was the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. It authorized funding for CCP at $0.312B for FY11, and $0.5B for FY12 and 13. There was little "science" behind these numbers, either: Congress wanted to limit the funding for CCP because whatever trust had existed between the branches of government had been broken by the way the administration chose to roll out the budget request. Both Bolden and Garver have admitted this was a grievous mistake. The bill was passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, so it remains the Law of the Land through the end of FY13.The subsequent PBRs for FY12 and 13 have repeatedly proposed increasing CCP funding to $0.85B. As far as Congress is concerned, this is a direct challenge to the compromise so painstakingly worked out in the 2010 Authorization Act. The CRs and appropriations bills have adhered to the Act.FY14 is the first year not covered under the Act, so there is some room to increase CCP funding. But the Administration must make the case and convince Congress.It is a $#!+ poor salesman who blames the customer for failing to buy the product after the sales pitch. If the product is good, it is more likely the salesman who is to blame.
Originally the plan was to, you know, actually fund Commercial Crew at the level it needs.
I'm sick and tired, of the use of the term sequestration as a cover for everything going wrong.
I believe this is what Congress wanted. They will now be able state that the Commercial Crew program experienced "long delays" despite the fact that they funded the program at half the requested amount for years.
...We have a fraudulent leadership in DC, and this is just another example of it. This kind of obscene treatment by the Obama Administration on Commercial Crew shows where the real problem lies in NASA today.
IMO, there is zero chance Nasa will be allowed to buy seats on Soyuz if a domestic provider is ready in 2015. The political fallout of NOT using a domestic provider if one is ready, especially if our anemic job growth continues, would be profound.Nobody will want to be part of a split screen where the left side shows the Soyuz blasting off with a single American Astronaut on board, while the right side of the screen show's a perfectly capable domestic Dragon, sitting idle on a factory floor. That kind of PR is toxic and not going to be allowed to happen. And I think Elon knows this. In fact I suspect, Elon and Bolden has either had or will have this type of "Off-The-Record" conversation.
This kind of obscene treatment by the Obama Administration on Commercial Crew shows where the real problem lies in NASA today.
The end game is expansion of entitlement programs for unskilled workers, who far outnumber skilled workers. By purchasing the votes of the large number of people who are willingly dependent on these programs, the current government intends to maintain its control over the halls of power.
Quote from: rcoppola on 04/07/2013 04:46 pmIMO, there is zero chance Nasa will be allowed to buy seats on Soyuz if a domestic provider is ready in 2015. The political fallout of NOT using a domestic provider if one is ready, especially if our anemic job growth continues, would be profound.Nobody will want to be part of a split screen where the left side shows the Soyuz blasting off with a single American Astronaut on board, while the right side of the screen show's a perfectly capable domestic Dragon, sitting idle on a factory floor. That kind of PR is toxic and not going to be allowed to happen. And I think Elon knows this. In fact I suspect, Elon and Bolden has either had or will have this type of "Off-The-Record" conversation.It would make absolutely zero sense to refuse Musk to fly manned in 2015 if he's perfectly ready just because "NASA won't be ready until 2017." That means extending, on purpose, the US manned spaceflight gap to look good to the public. Have the first test flight in 2015, delay the second test flight to mid-2016, and have the first USCV-1 flight in 2017 with SpaceX.
If SpaceX, regardless of sequestration etc, is deemed on track to be ready to go by 2015, you'll see some congressional budgetary shifting of funds to ensure NASA can purchase said flights. I can't say with regards to Boeing or SNC, but that's how I see it going down. To the victor go the spoils.
I'm not sure I understand your response with regards to extending, on purpose, the US manned spaceflight gap to look good?I am not suggesting that SpaceX will not be allowed an internal crewed launch in 2015 if they are ready. But what the hell good does that do if we have nobody to pay for a ride and nowhere to send it? Will Bigelow be ready by 2015? Doubtful.I'm simply stating if SpaceX brings Crewed Dragon online in 2015 and for whatever reason, NASA is not "Ready" to purchase a domestic capability while still paying for Soyuz flights for another 2-3 years after...well, that will be exceptionally embarrassing...And will not be allowed to happen. If SpaceX, regardless of sequestration etc, is deemed on track to be ready to go by 2015, you'll see some congressional budgetary shifting of funds to ensure NASA can purchase said flights. I can't say with regards to Boeing or SNC, but that's how I see it going down. To the victor go the spoils.
It's extremely unlikely that SpaceX will be ready to go with a crewed flight in 2015, IMO. Not with their proven track record of delays.Maybe first crewed flight late 2016, in which case the first commercial ISS mission in late 2017 would make sense (execpt that I don't believe in this date either).
Quote from: aquanaut99 on 04/07/2013 08:21 pmIt's extremely unlikely that SpaceX will be ready to go with a crewed flight in 2015, IMO. Not with their proven track record of delays.Maybe first crewed flight late 2016, in which case the first commercial ISS mission in late 2017 would make sense (execpt that I don't believe in this date either).They are faster than the competition though and they are improving.
I am not suggesting that SpaceX will not be allowed an internal crewed launch in 2015 if they are ready. But what the hell good does that do if we have nobody to pay for a ride and nowhere to send it? Will Bigelow be ready by 2015? Doubtful.I'm simply stating if SpaceX brings Crewed Dragon online in 2015 and for whatever reason, NASA is not "Ready" to purchase a domestic capability while still paying for Soyuz flights for another 2-3 years after...well, that will be exceptionally embarrassing...And will not be allowed to happen. If SpaceX, regardless of sequestration etc, is deemed on track to be ready to go by 2015, you'll see some congressional budgetary shifting of funds to ensure NASA can purchase said flights. I can't say with regards to Boeing or SNC, but that's how I see it going down. To the victor go the spoils.
I want to thank you for that joek. I fully appreciate yours and others incredible grasp of the acronym soup that is NASA. I mean that, so don't be offended by what I am about to say. OT, so delete at will.What the hell happened to us? The bureaucracy is mind numbing. Can't do this under that contract but you can do that under this contract as long as....WTF? Too many layers, too many complications, too many bureaucrats, too many rules written by too many lawyers.It's a wonder anything gets done in any reasonable amount of time and budget.