LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards and Decision Discussion - April 18

[yg1968]

Mark Sirangelo did very well in this briefing. He scored points by emphasizing the fact that the Dream Chaser is a natural successor to the Shuttle given its similarities and that they are currently hiring some Shuttlle workers.

John Elbow also did well and emphasized the fact that Boeing has experience with Shuttle and ISS and that Boeing is already transitioning some of its Shuttle employees to CCDev-2 work.

One of the interesting points that Ed Mango mentionned is that they intend to continue competition as long as possible. That's good news for Sierrra Nevada and Blue Origin.

I am not convinced that there will be any down selection for CCDev-3 anymore. I suspect that Blue Origin will either be dropped or more likely it will continue being funded at a reduced level.  Blue Origin seems to be a junior partner in CCDev.

[John44]

Commercial Crew Development Briefing
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6642

[ugordan]

Thanks, John, I missed the beginning and the Q&A section.

[savuporo]

Good summary writeup on hobbyspace as usual. CSF twitter gives a good summary too.

[Cherokee43v6]

Mark Sirangelo – program manager, Sierra Nevada Corporation

Powerpoint corrupted so only have the picture

Power corrupts, powerpoint corrupts absolutely.

LOL!

I think this guy is my new 'new space' hero!  Well spoken, can do attitude and he handles problems with a nice, self-deprecating grace.

[yg1968]

Latching on to the massive popularity of STS-134 a bit, aren't they? Don't blame them, but I hope they all respect Shuttle and their legacy at these events.

Mango was deputy manager of OPO just not long ago.  I highly doubt he would say anything derogatory. 

The rest of the CSF nonsense is getting extreme.  If anyone else said this about anything, would they be viewed as credible?  It sounds like a amazing people talk honestly.  Does they point to any tangible piece of data or evidence that we are on this "brink"?  No. 

I mean, for goodness sake, who doesn't want commercial to succeed but at the same time all the cheerleading without EVER talking about many of the real pitfalls will seemingly strain their credibility.  For example, where are all those jobs they predicted would be created and mentioned here again?  Knowing the actual employment of several and the planned employment of several it would seem that the slope to creating them is much more shallow than initially claimed.

I wonder what else may be too good to be true.....

How dare an advocacy group actually advocate things...

In any event, it seems to me that they are trying to get the message across that the successor to the Shuttle is commercial crew and not the SLS/MPCV. I don't think that they are trying to be disrespectful towards the Shuttle. I am much more worried about commercial crew getting its funding reduced than the SLS/MPCV. So getting the message across is important.

Hey yg, so a snarky comment is the best you can do with my post.  That said, I will attempt to respond on a higher level. 

Note I never said an "advocacy group" shouldn't "advocate".  However, shouldn't it be *based* on something concrete and tangible so that your "advocacy" carries that much more weight and credibility?  If I ran around just saying "Mars is the ultimate goal", "we need to go there" and I am an "advocacy group" attempting to "advocate" isn't it my duty to give supporting data in order to sway and maintain opinion?  That is and was clearly my point.  Do you disagree?

Did I say absolutely anything anywhere about them being "disrespectful" to shuttle?  Understand you worrying about "commercial" having it's nearly all government-funded development reduced but isn't a "message" supposed to be something that has credibility that people can universally rally around?  I don't see that here, again, it is fluff that is seemingly based on nothing.  Or do you disagree, and if so, please point me to tangible evidence that the things said in this press release are happening and/or are imminent. 

OK, maybe my comment was a little snarky. Sorry, I couldn't help it. But more seriously, because the CSF is an advocacy group, I wouldn't expect the CSF to give the pros and cons of commercial crew.

But the CCDev-2 press conference of today may have answered some of your questions or concerns about commercial crew.

Elbon from Boeing said that any commercial crew business that they get from Bigelow is considered to be a bonus. This potential business is not factored into their business plan given how difficult it is to quantify.  He also added that providing cheaper LEO services to NASA is their main objective and that cheaper access for ISS would mean more money for NASA for BEO exploration.

On the issue of the workforce, all four commercial crew companies said that they intended to hire Shuttle workers. In the case of Boeing, some of their existing Shuttle workers are being transferred to CCDev-2 work. Blue Origin says that they have posted job openings on their website. Sierangelo of SNC says that they are currently hiring Shuttle workers but he added that although they will be hiring Shuttle workers, the workforce for commercial crew will not be at the same level that Shuttle was. 

On Chris' concerns that the companies would be disrepectful towards the Shuttle, it seems that the opposite actually occured during the press briefing. I especially liked what Sirangelo said on this subject. He didn't think Shuttle retirement was an end but the continuation of a process that started in the past and that will continue in the future.  He says that he will sometimes go to the Smithsonian for inspiration and that watching all the United States history in space exploration and aviation makes him realize that there is continuity in all of this. Commercial crew is essentially a continuation of the work done on Apollo and on the Shuttle which kept the United States at the forefront of space exploration. 

[A_M_Swallow]

Good briefing, thanks to all. Blue Origin is a little like Area 51...

 

I assume that Rocket Science wrote that Blue Origin was like Area 51 before their CCDev2 video disappeared.

[yg1968]

Good briefing, thanks to all. Blue Origin is a little like Area 51...

Yes and I wouldn't invite myself on their premises if you value your own safety

[Cog_in_the_machine]

Good briefing, thanks to all. Blue Origin is a little like Area 51...

Yes and I wouldn't invite myself on their premises if you value your own safety

Speaking from personal experience?

[WulfTheSaxon]

Good briefing, thanks to all. Blue Origin is a little like Area 51...

 

I assume that Rocket Science wrote that Blue Origin was like Area 51 before their CCDev2 video disappeared.

Looks like that video was removed by Ronsmytheiii, actually (probably because the audio was missing).

[simonbp]

Commercial crew is essentially a continuation of the work done on Apollo and on the Shuttle which kept the United States at the forefront of space exploration. 

Indeed. With Boeing's NAA inheritance, they could almost have gotten away with calling it Apollo II. As it is, CST-100 is as similar to Apollo as a Soyuz TMA-M is to Soyuz 1. And DreamChaser obviously has real heritage in not just Shuttle and HL-42, but in all the various lifting body projects right back to the late 1950s.

US Spaceflight is continuing. We're just doing it in a more American (capitalist) way...

[Downix]

Commercial crew is essentially a continuation of the work done on Apollo and on the Shuttle which kept the United States at the forefront of space exploration. 

Indeed. With Boeing's NAA inheritance, they could almost have gotten away with calling it Apollo II. As it is, CST-100 is as similar to Apollo as a Soyuz TMA-M is to Soyuz 1. And DreamChaser obviously has real heritage in not just Shuttle and HL-42, but in all the various lifting body projects right back to the late 1950s.

US Spaceflight is continuing. We're just doing it in a more American (capitalist) way...

Heh, call it Artemis, Apollo's sister.

[Namechange User]

But the CCDev-2 press conference of today may have answered some of your questions or concerns about commercial crew.

No.  Nothing in there was "new information".  My previous posts had nothing to do with the CCDev companies, etc. 

Clearly I have done a poor job on discussing the issues and concerns leading to what obviously is a misconception of my intent. 

[Cherokee43v6]

  For example, where are all those jobs they predicted would be created and mentioned here again?  Knowing the actual employment of several and the planned employment of several it would seem that the slope to creating them is much more shallow than initially claimed.

As regards jobs.

The project justifies its workforce.  Therefore, in business, the workforce will never be larger than what is required to accomplish the job.  You increase the workforce through increased need (ie more sales).

A project is never justified on the grounds of the workforce.  If the project is not sufficient to support the people you have, you either find more projects and move people or you lay people off.

It is the law of supply and demand.

Currently there is a glut of available aerospace workers and a very small demand.  That will remain true until the private market launchers prove themselves and establish the valid business model.  In the early years, this means that pickings will be very lean, but if Bigelow is successful in his plans to establish more space stations, thus resulting in more destinations, then over time, the total employment of the private aerospace sector will greatly exceed the maximums of the government controlled operations.

The problem is that this whole thing should have been done years ago, so that this transition wasn't so painful for those working in the government sector.

[Namechange User]

  For example, where are all those jobs they predicted would be created and mentioned here again?  Knowing the actual employment of several and the planned employment of several it would seem that the slope to creating them is much more shallow than initially claimed.

As regards jobs.

The project justifies its workforce.  Therefore, in business, the workforce will never be larger than what is required to accomplish the job.  You increase the workforce through increased need (ie more sales).

A project is never justified on the grounds of the workforce.  If the project is not sufficient to support the people you have, you either find more projects and move people or you lay people off.

It is the law of supply and demand.

Currently there is a glut of available aerospace workers and a very small demand.  That will remain true until the private market launchers prove themselves and establish the valid business model.  In the early years, this means that pickings will be very lean, but if Bigelow is successful in his plans to establish more space stations, thus resulting in more destinations, then over time, the total employment of the private aerospace sector will greatly exceed the maximums of the government controlled operations.

The problem is that this whole thing should have been done years ago, so that this transition wasn't so painful for those working in the government sector.

I believe most understand the basic economics, certainly I do.  However, the post of mine you quote I believe ignores the context I made it in.  The likely loss of a lot of skill and experience from the industry as a whole is an entirely different topic discussed at length elsewhere.

[Robotbeat]

In an infinite market where skills are interchangeable, yeah jobs don't matter. But Mike has a point that destruction of the workforce in a strategic area important to national security like aerospace needs special consideration. It needs to be addressed, in my opinion.

[Cherokee43v6]

In an infinite market where skills are interchangeable, yeah jobs don't matter. But Mike has a point that destruction of the workforce in a strategic area important to national security like aerospace needs special consideration. It needs to be addressed, in my opinion.

Everyone talks like the ending of the Shuttle workforce is the death of the aerospace industry.

After the silliness of consolidations through the 70's and 80's the sector is growing again.  There are now more companies doing legitimate, space targeted, human spaceflight programs than at any time since Apollo.  Did not over 20 companies submitted legitimate proposals to CCDev2.  These companies are using a mix of historical and new methods utilizing the 50+ years of hard-earned knowledge that our tax dollars have paid for.

What specialized skills from shuttle are not duplicated in other human and non-human programs?  Are these skills critical to some future endeavor?

I have a hard time equating the shuttle's ceramic tile TPS system to the Cobol programming language.  Somehow I don't see us dragging a bunch of those folks out of retirement in 20 years to solve a y2k crisis.

As I indicated above.  COTS should have been run in the 1990's so as it came online with the station.  Shuttle would then have been solely used to haul up the major pieces, meaning that fewer expensive shuttle flights for resupply would have enabled the launch of the hab and centrifuge modules.  Perhaps even the OSP lifeboat.  Then, when this inevitable day came and the shuttle was retired, there would already be a robust and proven private sector to help absorb those employees as their flight rates were increased. 

Instead the resupply and commercial crew options remain unproven.  We stand at the precipice of a canyon taking a blind leap, knowing that we've got a long climb ahead of us once we survive the drop.

[Robotbeat]

I agree that COTS/CRS/CCDev/(whatever the crewed version of CRS is called) will help transition the workforce. What is needed is to transition them to working on payloads, not yet another study of yet another NASA launch vehicle (by the time the studies are completed, the operations people will have long moved on). I just said it needed to be addressed, not that it has to be addressed through the status quo.

[pathfinder_01]

Everyone talks like the ending of the Shuttle workforce is the death of the aerospace industry.

After the silliness of consolidations through the 70's and 80's the sector is growing again.  There are now more companies doing legitimate, space targeted, human spaceflight programs than at any time since Apollo.  Did not over 20 companies submitted legitimate proposals to CCDev2.  These companies are using a mix of historical and new methods utilizing the 50+ years of hard-earned knowledge that our tax dollars have paid for.

What specialized skills from shuttle are not duplicated in other human and non-human programs?  Are these skills critical to some future endeavor?

I have a hard time equating the shuttle's ceramic tile TPS system to the Cobol programming language.  Somehow I don't see us dragging a bunch of those folks out of retirement in 20 years to solve a y2k crisis.

As I indicated above.  COTS should have been run in the 1990's so as it came online with the station.  Shuttle would then have been solely used to haul up the major pieces, meaning that fewer expensive shuttle flights for resupply would have enabled the launch of the hab and centrifuge modules.  Perhaps even the OSP lifeboat.  Then, when this inevitable day came and the shuttle was retired, there would already be a robust and proven private sector to help absorb those employees as their flight rates were increased. 

Instead the resupply and commercial crew options remain unproven.  We stand at the precipice of a canyon taking a blind leap, knowing that we've got a long climb ahead of us once we survive the drop.

I agree. If NASA had done it that way the ISS would have been completed sooner, the Columbia accident might not have caused the station to be forced to reduce crew to 2 and it would have been a lot less painful to the workforce(there could be somewhere else to go).  There were 10 flights of the shuttle that carried the MPLM, imagine if those ten flights were freed how much faster the station would have gone up. It would have probably been done like 2 years ago at the latest.

CRS and COTS are the best short term transition. SLS will take a while to kick in(if it ever does). With some luck a new aerospace industry may grow.

[Ronsmytheiii]

As I indicated above.  COTS should have been run in the 1990's so as it came online with the station.  Shuttle would then have been solely used to haul up the major pieces, meaning that fewer expensive shuttle flights for resupply would have enabled the launch of the hab and centrifuge modules.  Perhaps even the OSP lifeboat.  Then, when this inevitable day came and the shuttle was retired, there would already be a robust and proven private sector to help absorb those employees as their flight rates were increased.

OSP was designed to lower the flight rate when station was operational and shuttle would have done cargo flights. COTS was only started to replace the shuttle cargo lifting for an operational station, so would not have made sense in the 90's. Also, OSP would have used EELV's, not in the shuttle's cargo bay.

COTS vehicles  could not have lifted station modules, nor are they intended to.