Senator Nelson has always been pro-commercial crew. However, Edwards (D) and Johnson (D) in the House are still opponents.
If this were just a matter of lobbying power we would have no chance. -source
So, basically, you agree with me. This NASA administration isn't interested in making whatever changes are necessary to placate Congress. I don't agree with you that downselecting to Boeing is what's required, but you obviously do, if Bolden fails again to get full funding for commercial crew. So when will you admit that this administration is more interesting in sticking it to Congress than they are in making the program work?
As I said, I don't agree with woods170 that downselecting to Boeing is what is needed to make this program work... I also don't think whining about the budget in the media and thumbing your nose at Congress is either.
And you are wrong Woods... Boeing absolutely should not be selected as the sole source for commercial crew. Boeing is the #1 recipient for corporate welfare in America.
I know he is trying to kill the sacred cow but QuantumG is being a realist. The Commercial Crew program has to live in its environment. As Congress sees it a single provider could fulfill the domestic ISS access requirement for billions less. The argument has not been made particularly well as to why another provider is worth the added cost and risk to NASA’s other budget priorities. Congress been funding the program more than needed for a single provider so there may be an argument Congress would buy. However the current one Bolden is using hasn’t worked. Saying it louder is not likely to get any better of a result. Though a few more missions were added to the Shuttle manifest Congress was okay with doing away with access to LEO, paying the Russians, and the loss of billions in associated pork. How is a congress that was okay with ending the Shuttle program going to be motivated by the same arguments now which should have preserved the Shuttle program then?
You are skewing my words, again I might add.
My opionion is that this program can be succesfull, preferably with redundant providers. I'm also convinced the program can be succesfull when downselected to just one provider. I'm even convinced that it can be succesfull when downselected to SpaceX. However, I'm afraid US Congress sees things slightly different.
The picture I painted about downselecting to Boeing is my impression of what likely will happen once a downs-select becomes inevitable. It is not what I think should happen.
Your assumption that, with the current under-funding situation AND sticking with two providers, will ultimately fail the CCP program is exactly that: an assumption. And your assumption is also not currently supported by facts.
Stretching a program in time to make up for funding shortfalls is a practice well applied in the aeronautics industry.
Reductions from the FY 2016 request for Commercial Crew proposed in the House and Senate FY 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bills would result in NASA’s inability to fund several planned CCtCap milestones in FY 2016 and would likely result in funds running out for both contractors during the spring/summer of FY 2016. If this occurs, the existing fixed-price CCtCap contracts may need to be renegotiated, likely resulting in further schedule slippage and increased cost. -source
Quote from: woods170My opionion is that this program can be succesfull, preferably with redundant providers. I'm also convinced the program can be succesfull when downselected to just one provider. I'm even convinced that it can be succesfull when downselected to SpaceX. However, I'm afraid US Congress sees things slightly different.Yes, exactly. A lot of things could be if reality was different, but it isn't.
Quote from: woods170The picture I painted about downselecting to Boeing is my impression of what likely will happen once a downs-select becomes inevitable. It is not what I think should happen.Why did you think I said anything about what should happen?
Quote from: woods170Your assumption that, with the current under-funding situation AND sticking with two providers, will ultimately fail the CCP program is exactly that: an assumption. And your assumption is also not currently supported by facts.How do you figure?
Quote from: woods170Stretching a program in time to make up for funding shortfalls is a practice well applied in the aeronautics industry.So now you disagree with Bolden too?
Quote from: Charlie BoldenReductions from the FY 2016 request for Commercial Crew proposed in the House and Senate FY 2016 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bills would result in NASA’s inability to fund several planned CCtCap milestones in FY 2016 and would likely result in funds running out for both contractors during the spring/summer of FY 2016. If this occurs, the existing fixed-price CCtCap contracts may need to be renegotiated, likely resulting in further schedule slippage and increased cost. -sourceThat's why we're here talking about this.
One thing that NASA and Bolden are guilty of is to select the most expensive commercial crew provider under CCtCap. They could have maintained competition for CCtCap under a lower budget by selecting SNC instead of Boeing. There has been other mistakes, for example, NASA should have required skin in the game for each round. They should have stuck to SAAs for CCtCap. The commercial crew program is a lot more expensive than it should have been. If commercial crew was really commercial, SpaceX and Blue Origin would have been the two providers.
Quote from: yg1968 on 08/12/2015 07:26 pmOne thing that NASA and Bolden are guilty of is to select the most expensive commercial crew provider under CCtCap. They could have maintained competition for CCtCap under a lower budget by selecting SNC instead of Boeing. There has been other mistakes, for example, NASA should have required skin in the game for each round. They should have stuck to SAAs for CCtCap. The commercial crew program is a lot more expensive than it should have been. If commercial crew was really commercial, SpaceX and Blue Origin would have been the two providers.If you read the actual Source Selection statement for CCtCap you will see why Boeing was picked and not SNC. It isn't some type of grand conspiracy as people make it out to be. Deviations from the selection criteria (to deliberately pick on provider or another) would have resulted in lawsuits.
Emphasis mine.How many times do I have to repeat this? NASA was forced out of SAA for CCtCAP by US Congress. Legislation was introduced that forced NASA to switch to FAR for CCtCAP.If it had been up to NASA, they would have stuck with FAR. US Congress did not allow that.
Quote from: woods170 on 08/12/2015 09:51 pmEmphasis mine.How many times do I have to repeat this? NASA was forced out of SAA for CCtCAP by US Congress. Legislation was introduced that forced NASA to switch to FAR for CCtCAP.If it had been up to NASA, they would have stuck with FAR. US Congress did not allow that.What legislation are you talking about?
The kind US Congress has a habit of inserting into appropriations-language when they pull the purse strings.
Quote from: woods170 on 08/12/2015 09:58 pmThe kind US Congress has a habit of inserting into appropriations-language when they pull the purse strings.Or the kind you imagined... can you provide a source?
Quote from: brovane on 08/12/2015 07:44 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 08/12/2015 07:26 pmOne thing that NASA and Bolden are guilty of is to select the most expensive commercial crew provider under CCtCap. They could have maintained competition for CCtCap under a lower budget by selecting SNC instead of Boeing. There has been other mistakes, for example, NASA should have required skin in the game for each round. They should have stuck to SAAs for CCtCap. The commercial crew program is a lot more expensive than it should have been. If commercial crew was really commercial, SpaceX and Blue Origin would have been the two providers.If you read the actual Source Selection statement for CCtCap you will see why Boeing was picked and not SNC. It isn't some type of grand conspiracy as people make it out to be. Deviations from the selection criteria (to deliberately pick on provider or another) would have resulted in lawsuits.I didn't say that it was a conspiracy and I have read the selection statement. But I do think that NASA splurged by choosing the most expensive option.
That’s why Boeing, which was the most expensive option by far, actually costing more than the other two combined, in my opinion, was selected as a winner with Dream Chaser losing out.