Author Topic: NASA’s Commercial Crew Catch 22 as another $424m heads to Russia  (Read 78754 times)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7935
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1350
  • Likes Given: 8993
Going on what Boeing and Lockheed have done in the past compared to SpaceX. Dream Chaser would still use Atlas V however I have less confidence in that mini shuttle than the capsules ( still would like to see it in service too ).
It's a conservative choice and allows SNC to focus on their core tasks by using an LV whose specs are already known. Wheather or not it could be "re-hosted" onto F9 (or F9H?) for lower costs is a different question. But you have to factor in they only have have 1/2 their requested budget to work with.
Quote
Not attaching SLS or Orion. Not trying to take funds away from them to another program. Was just saying what I believe we need more since the shuttle was called for retirement, that being cargo and crew transport to LEO.
I fully agree with you but the funding law and the history is against you. The Legislature has repeatedly appropriated substantially less than either the President or NASA have requested

The problem is that none of the commercial crew and cargo concepts (except ATK Liberty) had any role for a large segmented SRB in Utah which is what really matters to some parts of the Legislature.

Some voters might ask how long should US taxpayers keep funding a facility based on a decision made in the early 1970s for a system retired several years ago.

The answer is of course until members of the Legislature decide to let it close.  :(

First, VSE was in fact announced as the follow-on program for the Space Shuttle. Shuttle was to be canceled as soon as ISS was complete, due to unsolveable safety problems. So you're saying that they shouldn't have announced the replacement for Shuttle until they had a replacement for Shuttle. It would be more logical to say that we shouldn't have canceled Shuttle until a replacement capability was in place.
This raises the question of what is being replaced?

CxP replaces a programme employing a large number of NASA and contractor staff with another programme employing said staff.

The Shuttles capability can be met by a mixture of Commercial Crew and Cargo, EELV for large items and the ISS itself (why have a Shuttle that can act as a "mini space station" now that you have a real space station in orbit?)

Quote
Third, the Obama Administration delayed any possible replacement for Shuttle by at least two years, maybe more. They knew even before Inauguration Day 2009 that a Shuttle replacement was a high priority.
Again what is being replaced? NASA's has made repeated attempts over at least the last 20 years to replace Shuttle with other FAR25 Cost Plus programmes. All have failed.
Quote
Instead of acting quickly, they dragged things out by every possible means. And they're still dragging their feet, and trying (every single year) to re-prioritize Commercial over SLS/MPCV in the budgeting process.
Well CCC has an actual mission that it would accomplish, improve the US HSF skills base and reduce the outflow of US taxpayer funds to Russia.

But who cares about such trifles?
Quote
We would be much further along if Obama had acted decisively in 2009 to get NASA quickly back on track with a restructured CxP program, instead of canceling it outright. Thank goodness for the Senate and PL.111-267, which mandated a balanced dual-track approach with SLS/MPCV and Commercial, or we'd still be twiddling our thumbs.
What exactly is "balanced" about this? NASA has a legal obligation to build SLS and may end up throwing CCC, Orion and the SM under the bus to do so.

Quote
So the "gap", which had been predicted to be 2-3 years in 2008, has now grown to at least ten years (first manned SLS flight no earlier than 2021).
Or to put it another way a whole decade more guaranteed employment for the casting shop in Utah.

Or 2015 if Spacex get their way.
Quote
We're paying Russia to do NASA's job because the Administration doesn't want NASA doing its own job.
That depends on how you define "Their own job."
I think most people think of NASA as an "exploration" agency, not a transport agency and transport (to LEO) no longer needs a vehicle designed, owned and operated soley by and for NASA.

BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structure booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Tags: