Quote from: OV-106 on 03/08/2011 09:43 pmIt 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.
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".
{snip}NASA should be counting on other customers ultimately because jump starting an "entirely new segment of the economy" is exactly one of the main thrusts of this endeavor. If there is no other customer, NASA pays for all of it and all the fixed costs, etc required to keep a particular project viable will be reflected in the price per seat or however they choose to purchase it. It may be fixed cost, but rest assured the company will not be losing any money. In addition, given the nature of this purchasing arrangement, it will be difficult for NASA to determine exactly what overhead, etc they are paying for in those fixed costs. Finally, the term "competition" has been thrown around much as well as the phrase "driving down costs".
yg,I think most folks at this point should know that industry in general has the technical expertise to build spacecraft and launch vehicles. Looking like one is trying to hard to "respond" to some unspecifed group of people with, in my opinion, a poorly written op-ed like this can do more damage and is dangerous. I think we are more or less on the same page and can leave it at that. As for the rest, It seems like there may be some misconception on your part. CCDev is seed money. It is analagous to COTS. CRS is the follow-on to COTS for actual cargo delivery services and there is nothing yet like CRS for commercial crew.
NASA may jump-start the commercial crew industry however it won't remain the only customer, well not if Bigelow's plans pan out.He's already got a contractual arrangement with Boeing and he's stated that he needs 2 crew transport providers. He's got MoU's with 7 countries and is human-loop testing his Sundancer module.If NASA doesn't get a wriggle on and determine reasonable human-rating requirements as part of the CCDev process or at least alongside it, then it may be that commercial ends up using FAA licencing and bypasses NASA and the ISS entirely, go straight to Bigelow Space Station via FAA; do not stop at NASA, etc, etc.
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/09/2011 01:07 amyg,I think most folks at this point should know that industry in general has the technical expertise to build spacecraft and launch vehicles. Looking like one is trying to hard to "respond" to some unspecifed group of people with, in my opinion, a poorly written op-ed like this can do more damage and is dangerous. I think we are more or less on the same page and can leave it at that. As for the rest, It seems like there may be some misconception on your part. CCDev is seed money. It is analagous to COTS. CRS is the follow-on to COTS for actual cargo delivery services and there is nothing yet like CRS for commercial crew. I understand the difference between COTS and CRS and between CCDev and the commercial crew procurement contract. But I am not convinced that there is any requirement that suppliers of commercial crew find non-NASA customers for their spacecraft. It would be a good thing if they did as it would drive their cost down and make them more competitive but if they don't, it simply makes their price to NASA higher. In the case of Boeing, they intend to try Ito sell their extra seats to the ISS to space tourists through Space Adventures. I am guessing that Dreamchaser and Orbital intend to do the same with Virgin Galactic. In the case of SpaceX, I am not sure if they have any such plans. If they have such plans, they have yet to make them public. As far as Bigelow is concerned, I am not sure that any company is taking for granted that he will be a client of theirs at this point.
Sure, if ISS falls out of the sky, there will be a problem for commercial providers. But under what scenario will that happen?
When Shuttle stops going up there, it's not going to cause ISS to suddenly crash into the ocean.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/09/2011 03:32 amSure, if ISS falls out of the sky, there will be a problem for commercial providers. But under what scenario will that happen? Actually, while we all hope it doesn't happen (knock on wood), the probability of catastrophic MMOD damage is higher than I would have guessed (though I forget the number). And there are numerous scenarios that could see ISS abandoned, with the probability rising as the complex ages. Besides, when we're looking at several years of development just to get these new commercial vehicles flying, how much useful life will ISS have remaining once they're operational, even if we don't lose the complex prematurely?QuoteWhen Shuttle stops going up there, it's not going to cause ISS to suddenly crash into the ocean.Probably not, but I do think we could run into serious problems once we lose the shuttle's unique and unparalleled capabilities.
Yeah, there are logistical problems without the Shuttle (and the transition was handled poorly), but not ones that generally lead to the abandonment of the station. During the stand-down between Columbia and Return to Flight, there were real issues with logistics, but a lot of those issues have since been dealt with (there will be a total of 4 more unmanned logistics vehicles than there during the Shuttle stand down), and NASA has had a while to prepare for the retirement of Shuttle. (And remember, Shuttle doesn't provide lifeboat capability, either...)If Congress/Admin/NASA drags out real funding and approval for commercial crew, then yes, there will be problems. Self-fulfilling prophecy...Don't get me wrong, I like Shuttle and will miss our three ladies.
How does it make logical sense to place ISS in jeopardy at this point
Quote from: OV-106 on 03/08/2011 08:04 pmHow does it make logical sense to place ISS in jeopardy at this point ISS will not be in "jeopardy" even if commercial fails completely. In the past, ISS has survived based on Soyuz and Progress, and now there is ATV and HTV. ISS might have to operate in a reduced manner, but would still survive.
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.
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.
Quote from: beancounter on 03/09/2011 02:49 amNASA may jump-start the commercial crew industry however it won't remain the only customer, well not if Bigelow's plans pan out.He's already got a contractual arrangement with Boeing and he's stated that he needs 2 crew transport providers. He's got MoU's with 7 countries and is human-loop testing his Sundancer module.If NASA doesn't get a wriggle on and determine reasonable human-rating requirements as part of the CCDev process or at least alongside it, then it may be that commercial ends up using FAA licencing and bypasses NASA and the ISS entirely, go straight to Bigelow Space Station via FAA; do not stop at NASA, etc, etc. While true NASA requirements will govern NASA missions and FAA requirements will govern everything else, I doubt there will be different "blocks", different designs, system level certs, etc unless the NASA requirements are so outrageous that it becomes unmanageable. That is why it is imperative to know this so that cost, schedule, etc can be more accurately assessed. It is also likely because of this that commercial transport to ISS is likely in Bigelow's critical path and that they will go to ISS before Bigelow really commences operations. Of course if ISS falters, has an impact on commercial investment, etc this damages Bigelow's business case as well.
Probably not, but I do think we could run into serious problems once we lose the shuttle's unique and unparalleled capabilities.
Quote from: vt_hokie on 03/09/2011 03:40 amProbably not, but I do think we could run into serious problems once we lose the shuttle's unique and unparalleled capabilities. What unique abilities?
Quote from: Joris on 03/09/2011 07:49 amQuote from: vt_hokie on 03/09/2011 03:40 amProbably not, but I do think we could run into serious problems once we lose the shuttle's unique and unparalleled capabilities. What unique abilities? It can dock to or, in some circumstances, capture prepared or unprepared satellites with inclinations up to about 57 degrees and altitudes of a several hundreds of miles, carry 7+ crew, function for about 14 days on-orbit (~30 would have been possible), and provide a working bay environment for EVAs to such satellites. Generally, it can function as a temporary mini-spacestation with considerable intrinsic logistical support to custom payloads of fairly large mass and volume, combined with a modest degree of orbital manouverability. It is also the United State's second-heaviest lifter (probably third now) to low inclinations and very low altitudes. -Alex
Can't see the ISS faltering haven't any impact on Bigelow's plans. He isn't relying on the ISS or NASA to make his business case. He's tying up potential clients around the world with MoU's - seven at last count - for research, potential manufacturing etc. The critical path element for Bigelow has always been and still is crew transport.
