CCDev-2 Finalists

[Namechange User]

The thing they ignore is that there is more to flying in space than just the launch. 

I guess they got that from Cx trumping Ares I safety as the Greatest Thing Ever and ignoring the overall lunar mission LOM probability.

And they were just as wrong as the authors of this op-ed. 

[Jim]

1.  The thing they ignore is that there is more to flying in space than just the launch.  The escape system (while great they will have it), side-mount comment, etc amounts to a PR-style comment and has little engineering analysis behind it. 

2.  They suggest it will be cheaper but they don't say how much.  They ignore the requirements that have to be met are still in question and therefore so is cost and schedule. 

3.  They ignore what happens if NASA has to fund this entire thing because no market materializes or capital investment is slow or non-existant due to a deteriorating ISS or other factors. 

4.  They ignore what the recurring costs NASA will have to pay, over X number of "commercial providers", if no market materializes and if this will add up to more than shuttle.

5.  They ignore that we will have much less capability and much less flexibility. 

1.  They were just focusing on the launch portion because that is where there more providers. 

2.  "We also think that commercial crew LEO transport has the potential (and, many believe, high probability) of providing crew transport at a far lower cost."

3.  Still would be cheaper.

4.  Still more flexibility and robustness.  Not dependent on one system for manned access.

5.  That is a given in all scenarios.    Name a proposed system that replaces all the capabilities of the shuttle.  Orion and Ares I didn't.

the shuttle program is ending, it is not part of the equation. 

[Jorge]

Opinion by Alan Stern and Owen Garriott:
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110307-commercial-human-spaceflight-safer.html

It reads like they are trying to convince themselves. 

They are seriously fooling themselves on LAS reliability. There is no realistic system that could achieve 0.99 reliability. 0.8-0.9 is far more realistic.

[vt_hokie]

Opinion by Alan Stern and Owen Garriott:
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110307-commercial-human-spaceflight-safer.html

It reads like they are trying to convince themselves. 

They are seriously fooling themselves on LAS reliability. There is no realistic system that could achieve 0.99 reliability. 0.8-0.9 is far more realistic.

If the new commercial vehicles achieve 133 flights with only 2 catastrophic failures, I will be amazed.

To me, though, the biggest disappointment with "Obamaspace" is that even if it does work as intended, it is strictly LEO.  It's well past time to start going beyond Low Earth Orbit again...

[Namechange User]

1.  The thing they ignore is that there is more to flying in space than just the launch.  The escape system (while great they will have it), side-mount comment, etc amounts to a PR-style comment and has little engineering analysis behind it. 

2.  They suggest it will be cheaper but they don't say how much.  They ignore the requirements that have to be met are still in question and therefore so is cost and schedule. 

3.  They ignore what happens if NASA has to fund this entire thing because no market materializes or capital investment is slow or non-existant due to a deteriorating ISS or other factors. 

4.  They ignore what the recurring costs NASA will have to pay, over X number of "commercial providers", if no market materializes and if this will add up to more than shuttle.

5.  They ignore that we will have much less capability and much less flexibility. 

1.  They were just focusing on the launch portion because that is where there more providers. 

2.  "We also think that commercial crew LEO transport has the potential (and, many believe, high probability) of providing crew transport at a far lower cost."

3.  Still would be cheaper.

4.  Still more flexibility and robustness.  Not dependent on one system for manned access.

5.  That is a given in all scenarios.    Name a proposed system that replaces all the capabilities of the shuttle.  Orion and Ares I didn't.

the shuttle program is ending, it is not part of the equation. 

Jim, your typical smuggness has little impact on me. 

1.  Do you know this for certain?  "Commercial crew" is not about just the launch vehicle.  In fact a launch vehicle by itself does nothing for anyone. 

2.  Exactly my point.  They speak in highly subjective terms. 

3.  Cheaper than what?  Is NASA forecasting this "contingency" in any kind of way?  How much should NASA budget for this scenario?  What does the money get removed from?  CCDev can totally fail on its premise and still be considered viable?

4.  Again, see number 3. 

5.  Here you argue the opposite than what you argued in number 4.  The rest is exactly my point.  We essentially just finished a station whose entire con-ops for operation centered around the shuttle.  We are taking shuttle out of the picture entirely, hoping and assuming that commercial providers who have not yet even been to ISS will be able to make it work.  At the same time we are saying the ISS is the "new Moon", "crown jewel of NASA", etc and marketing it as the primary and initial destination of commercial providers. 

How does it make logical sense to place ISS in jeopardy at this point by not even being sure if we will be able to utilize it in the baseline manner, let alone all the new concepts?  How does it make logical sense to right now pin that utilization of ISS on vehicles that will need capital/private investment for DDT&E, production and ops when that funding is going to be likely contingent on a fully functional and robust ISS to close the business case? 

The answer is it doesn't.  It's circular logic.  There is an answer though that still protects ISS, helps promote commercial by making sure that target destination is viable to fosture that capital/private funding and allows for those operations to commence as they come online. 

[Jim]

Mike,
start with this:
A.   The shuttle is going away.
B.  Provide support the ISS. 

I am not debating that is was wrong to discontinue the shuttle program without phasing in the "replacement".  I agree it was wrong.  I am taking that as a given and moving on to "B."

[Namechange User]

Mike,
start with this:
A.   The shuttle is going away.
B.  Provide support the ISS. 

I am not debating that is was wrong to discontinue the shuttle program without phasing in the "replacement".  I agree it was wrong.  I am taking that as a given and moving on to "B."

Jim,

Lets make "C." invent the warp drive.  Now tell me how we are going to do it.  That is the problem I have with B. 

[Gary NASA]

Opinion by Alan Stern and Owen Garriott:
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110307-commercial-human-spaceflight-safer.html

As a side-note, it looks like spacenews.com is launching a forum... Trying to replicate the success that Chris Bergin (& Co.) have seen here on NSF... And now back to your regularly scheduled CCDev-2 thread.

#

No, it's going to host blogs by selected applicatants, not a messageboard. Their lifeblood is op eds, so it's a way of getting more free content to then sell on.

Shame it's not a forum, as Chris could kick off some of the armwavers in this thread and then get the spacenews spammers on here to post links to this site.

[Jim]

Mike,
start with this:
A.   The shuttle is going away.
B.  Provide support the ISS. 

I am not debating that is was wrong to discontinue the shuttle program without phasing in the "replacement".  I agree it was wrong.  I am taking that as a given and moving on to "B."

Jim,

Lets make "C." invent the warp drive.  Now tell me how we are going to do it.  That is the problem I have with B. 

If "A" is a given, how do you propose to provide support to the ISS?

[Namechange User]

Mike,
start with this:
A.   The shuttle is going away.
B.  Provide support the ISS. 

I am not debating that is was wrong to discontinue the shuttle program without phasing in the "replacement".  I agree it was wrong.  I am taking that as a given and moving on to "B."

Jim,

Lets make "C." invent the warp drive.  Now tell me how we are going to do it.  That is the problem I have with B. 

If "A" is a given, how do you propose to provide support to the ISS?

I hope that "A" is not quite yet a given.  Although I do realize it is a very long shot and there are powerful factions that have a desire to make this go away at all costs and regardless of the potential circumstances. 

If however "A" is a given, I have said many, many times (and I believe the last few posts cover it pretty well too) that I fear for ISS and truly believe it's possible degradation will have a direct impact on CCDev and the future that some want to believe is a certainty.

[Joris]

Opinion by Alan Stern and Owen Garriott:
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110307-commercial-human-spaceflight-safer.html

It reads like they are trying to convince themselves. 

They are seriously fooling themselves on LAS reliability. There is no realistic system that could achieve 0.99 reliability. 0.8-0.9 is far more realistic.

If the new commercial vehicles achieve 133 flights with only 2 catastrophic failures, I will be amazed.

A rocket which explodes 1 in 40 times, and has a LAS with a probability of 0.9. It will be 6 times as safe for crew, even though the rocket itself is 1.5 times less reliable.

To me, though, the biggest disappointment with "Obamaspace" is that even if it does work as intended, it is strictly LEO.  It's well past time to start going beyond Low Earth Orbit again...

The idea behind Obamaspace, is that it enables NASA to actually spend money on going beyond LEO.

The alternative is to spend half the NASA budget on developing rockets, and not on going anywhere...

[yg1968]

I don't like how they are trying to imply that it will be safer and cheaper because its "commercial". I think that's kinda extremely disingenuous.

The solutions that "commercial" providers are designing are cheaper and safer because they're NOT the Shuttle!!!!! They have an escape system and are not side-mounted so that makes them a lot safer.

They only have to carry a small capsule into orbit and back....not an advanced 100 ton orbiter and 20 tones of payload....so they looker cheaper but its comparing apples to oranges.

Not being like the Shuttle really helps. Good engineering is good engineering no matter who creates it.

The thing they ignore is that there is more to flying in space than just the launch.  The escape system (while great they will have it), side-mount comment, etc amounts to a PR-style comment and has little engineering analysis behind it. 

They suggest it will be cheaper but they don't say how much.  They ignore the requirements that have to be met are still in question and therefore so is cost and schedule. 

They ignore what happens if NASA has to fund this entire thing because no market materializes or capital investment is slow or non-existant due to a deteriorating ISS or other factors. 

They ignore what the recurring costs NASA will have to pay, over X number of "commercial providers", if no market materializes and if this will add up to more than shuttle.

They ignore that we will have much less capability and much less flexibility. 

I support commercial and the money behind it.  I don't support the "fluff" that is this op-ed.  They basically say, "it's going to be great, trust us and give the people we want money". 

There are better ways to help assure commercial space gets the proper footing it will need but the-powers-that-be are simply wanting to stick their heads in the sand and say "don't ask the hard questions, I know it will be fine". 

I think that they are trying to answer the critics that say commercial crew is unsafe. As far as costs, the fact that SpaceX and Sierra Nevada are both asking for $1 billion or less in funding their comercial crew projects speaks volume on the costs involved when you compare it to what is being spent on Orion and the HLV.  Of course, you can argue that it's an apple and oranges comparaison as BEO is more expensive. But I think that the point of commercial crew is to have hardware that matches the mission and that is not overkill for the mission.

[mr. mark]

Bolden said, if it wasn't for the Challenger disaster, the shuttle should have been retired in the 1980's. If that's true then we have an indication that there will be no private shuttle flights. Could the ISS even be built by the end of the 1980's let alone the 90's? I don't see his logic. One thing is clear he sees the shuttle's role as ending.

[vt_hokie]

The idea behind Obamaspace, is that it enables NASA to actually spend money on going beyond LEO.

The problem is that by Obama's own admission (and recently confirmed by Bolden), under the current plan ISS will be the sole destination for US astronauts for at least the next decade.  That, to me, is unacceptable.  If the mid-2020's is the best we can do to resume real exploration, then that's simply not good enough. 

[yg1968]

Opinion by Alan Stern and Owen Garriott:
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110307-commercial-human-spaceflight-safer.html

It reads like they are trying to convince themselves. 

They are seriously fooling themselves on LAS reliability. There is no realistic system that could achieve 0.99 reliability. 0.8-0.9 is far more realistic.

I was kind of surprised by that too. I don't think NASA is asking for that high a ratio either.  I have usually seen 0.9 reliability for a LAS.
 

[Namechange User]

The idea behind Obamaspace, is that it enables NASA to actually spend money on going beyond LEO.

The alternative is to spend half the NASA budget on developing rockets, and not on going anywhere...

There's a bit of a discrepency here.  People claim that Bush cancelled Shuttle and Obama couldn't do anything about it. 

People claim Obama came in with all these fresh ideas, like above, for the purposes of going beyond LEO.  So lets review:

1.  2004:  Bush makes statement that Shuttle should be retired in 2010.  The reasons for it?  Financial.  He wanted to move the money to CxP but turns out that beyond bad requirements, etc neither his administration or Congress funded it accordingly to the promised levels contributing to the epic failure. 

2.  ~2005 C3PO is established.  Focused on cargo at first but always intended for crew.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/about/c3po_program_mandate.html

3.  ~2008 then Senator Obama says cancel CxP to give to education.  He later "clarifies" that he supports the moon by 2020 and one last shuttle flight. 

3.  2009 we had Augustine as directed by the Obama Administration.  Chaos ensues.

4.  Feb 2010.  Obama releases his budget without any real coordination with NASA Center Directors, etc or even Congress.  Ironically, he calls for ISS extension to 2020, mainly a symbolic gesture, but no real and concrete suggestion about how to support it even though STS production at that time was still essentially stable.  Chaos ensues with the cancellation of essentially everything.   

5.  April 2010.  President Obama briefly speeks at KSC on his way to eat dinner with Gloria in Miami and KSC provides a good destination to gas up Air Force 1.  The moon is labeled as "been there, done that".  He kicks the BEO can down the road for at least another 5 years beyond the "2020 moon target" and minimizes the destination at the same time.  He leaves after about two hours on the ground.

6.  ~Nov 2010.  President Obama signs the NASA Authorization Act into law but makes no real statement.  General Bolden is not even there and a picture or something like that gets released.

7.  Feb 2011.  FY2012 budget comes out that pays little reference to the law the president just signed.  Chaos further ensues. 

[Namechange User]

I don't like how they are trying to imply that it will be safer and cheaper because its "commercial". I think that's kinda extremely disingenuous.

The solutions that "commercial" providers are designing are cheaper and safer because they're NOT the Shuttle!!!!! They have an escape system and are not side-mounted so that makes them a lot safer.

They only have to carry a small capsule into orbit and back....not an advanced 100 ton orbiter and 20 tones of payload....so they looker cheaper but its comparing apples to oranges.

Not being like the Shuttle really helps. Good engineering is good engineering no matter who creates it.

The thing they ignore is that there is more to flying in space than just the launch.  The escape system (while great they will have it), side-mount comment, etc amounts to a PR-style comment and has little engineering analysis behind it. 

They suggest it will be cheaper but they don't say how much.  They ignore the requirements that have to be met are still in question and therefore so is cost and schedule. 

They ignore what happens if NASA has to fund this entire thing because no market materializes or capital investment is slow or non-existant due to a deteriorating ISS or other factors. 

They ignore what the recurring costs NASA will have to pay, over X number of "commercial providers", if no market materializes and if this will add up to more than shuttle.

They ignore that we will have much less capability and much less flexibility. 

I support commercial and the money behind it.  I don't support the "fluff" that is this op-ed.  They basically say, "it's going to be great, trust us and give the people we want money". 

There are better ways to help assure commercial space gets the proper footing it will need but the-powers-that-be are simply wanting to stick their heads in the sand and say "don't ask the hard questions, I know it will be fine". 

I think that they are trying to answer the critics that say commercial crew is unsafe. As far as costs, the fact that SpaceX and Sierra Nevada are both asking for $1 billion or less in funding their comercial crew projects speaks volume on the costs involved when you compare it to what is being spent on Orion and the HLV.  Of course, you can argue that it's an apple and oranges comparaison as BEO is more expensive. But I think that the point of commercial crew is to have hardware that matches the mission and that is not overkill for the mission.

It is unsafe.  Flying into space is "not safe".  Trying to oversell it as the "safest thing ever" when DDT&E is not even complete, and on a generic scale, can really back-fire. 

What they are "asking for" does not represent the total pie.  Which brings me directly back to how much are they willing to invest and for how long if there business case collapses.  So again, what happens in that case and for the questions I posed above?

Nobody knows.  NASA ignores it.  Hard-corp advocates gloss over it.  Without thinking about these possibilities and without a contingency plan you have yet another epic failure and a disasterous blow to the words "commercial space flight". 

[Gravity Ray]

Its obvious that human space flight is totally intertwined with politics. Therefore either the Republicans are correct or the Democrats are correct. Right? Wrong! Lets keep Bush and Obama out of this for just a minute.

People that make the shuttle to be the peak of human space flight are wrong. This project was designed by committee and doesn’t look anything like what it was supposed to be. Which was a cheap way to get a small number of people up and down our gravity well, but politics and jobs did get involved and the shuttle morphed into what it is today; Frankenstein.

Its much larger than it needs to be and side mounted, and so expensive that even as a human spaceflight enthusiast if my option is only the Space Shuttle I vote we cancel our human space flight program, disband NASA and lets move on. The shuttle is bad engineering, bad business and unsupportable in the long run.

So lets just say:

A.   The shuttle is going away.

So the question was asked, how do you provide support for the ISS? That’s a simple question really. Instead of cost + contracts that accomplish their primary task of sucking money out of NASA for private companies with very large salaries, why not just put out a request for a quote and let companies come up with their own way to accomplish the task. Its funny how we are way too socialist for every government program except the space program were you apparently can not be socialist enough.


There is only one hope for the future of human space flight, and it is NOT NASA. Its commercial space companies with set contracts. Deliver and get paid. (Period end of story)

Constellation proved to me that the usual suspects that suck money out of NASA (the so called contractors) that have built the Space Shuttle and were planning on building the Constellation program are nothing but money hungry, self interest happy, companies that don’t give a rats small behind about human space flight.

If at this point in our technological history, a private company cannot make a rocket to get us to LEO then its time to admit our civilization is not capable of being a space faring civilization. Lets do something smaller that is within our capability. Oh wait, we cant even build a good hospital for our returning veterans that is not over run with mold… Never mind.

[Namechange User]

Gravity Ray,

Goodness.  Not sure where to start. 

If human space flight is intertwined in politics, how do we leave out the president and congress? 

I don't recall anyone saying the shuttle is the "peak of human spaceflight".  If it is then we are in decline.  That said, there is no denying the capabilities and it is more than fair to question if this is strategically the smartest move with respect to retiring the fleet.  The rest of your statement on this subject is ridiculous arm-waving. 

Regarding ISS resupply, a contractual mechanism by itself gets you nothing.  Want to make it like COTS/CRS/CCDev to try to spur on a new industry?  Fine!  Great!  I don't think people have an issue with that.  However, where does the non-government money come from?  What happens if the business case collapses?  One is right back to the questions I posed.  Want to make it totally funded by the government but FFP?  Watch what happens with the bids, especially for development.  So, my point is that various contract methods work, and they will all likely be employed in the future.  The trick is knowing which one is appropriate for the situation, proper requirements definition, minimal requirements creep and good management with respect to cost and schedule. 

As for the cost plus rant, more arm-waving.  I have 14 years experience in ground ops, engineering, flight ops, and general management and touch virtually every aspect of the program relating to 7 subsystems on the vehicle.  I make much less than 6 figures and am considered "underpaid" for similar experience in private industry.  In fact, I was recently told I could expect to make nearly double what I do if I worked outside the aerospace industry.  It doesn't really bother me because this is my passion and I would gladly continue it given the chance. 

Finally I must take note that I am making logical sense in order to get this kind of response.  So, in summary, get a clue. 

[yg1968]

It is unsafe.  Flying into space is "not safe".  Trying to oversell it as the "safest thing ever" when DDT&E is not even complete, and on a generic scale, can really back-fire. 

What they are "asking for" does not represent the total pie.  Which brings me directly back to how much are they willing to invest and for how long if there business case collapses.  So again, what happens in that case and for the questions I posed above?

Nobody knows.  NASA ignores it.  Advocates gloss over it.  Without thinking about these possibilities and without a contingency plan you have yet another epic failure and a disasterous blow to the words "commercial space flight". 

I agree with your comment about space being unsafe. I meant that they are responding to people that say that commercial crew is less safe than a governmental option.

As far as the market other than NASA is concerned, I am not sure that NASA will be taking this into account when purchasing services. It might help your proposal if you find customers other than NASA but I don't think that NASA is necessarely counting on this to happen.

As far as their business case collapsing, I doubt that this will happen. But if it does, it would mean dropping one provider as NASA did with Kistler under COTS. To gard against this, I think that NASA should provide funding for at least 3 companies under CCDev-3. If one fails to reach its goals, you are still left with two providers. One option to ensure that CCDev doesn't fail is to fund it at the level that the President is suggesting.