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

[Cherokee43v6]

My original comment was based in the idea that government would have no incentive to purchase a commercial ride so long as it has its own vehicle available.  Why spend money to take a cab when you own your own car? 

I don't know how much it would cost SLS/MPCV per trip, but suspect that on the basis of cargo/dollar or people/dollar, that commercial will end up being cheaper. 

I use a pick-up truck only infrequently.  When I need one, I rent one.  Overall, it saves me a lot of money (depreciation, maintenance, storage, etc.).  I know some people who only rent cars once in a while (It's very convenient and economical to do this in San Francisco apparently). 
If it came down to designing and building my own car vs. renting one that works, or hiring a taxi that works, and my track-record for building cars demonstrates that I spend a lot more than my neighbour Joe (who owns a small taxi company that is almost ready to begin economical service) I would not be likely to design and build my own car.  Especially if I had lots of other stuff to do (like build telescopes and planetary missions).  Until Joe's ready, I'll just keep paying through the nose for Vladimir's taxi service since it's the only option right now.   

I agree with your logic... let me throw a different scenario at you...

You own a full-size pickup truck that gets 11 mpg and can carry a ton of cargo.  You need to go to the next city to pick up a bulky, but light object.  Some quick research will show that it would be cheaper to rent a modern pickup with much better gas mileage to make the trip.

Do you go to the trouble of renting the pickup... or do you just hop in your old beater and go?  Do you even bother to do the research since you own a pickup already?

Most people will go with what they have...  If NASA had a live replacement for the shuttle now, you can bet that Congress would be asking them why they were 'wasting taxpayer dollars' on CCDev to fill the same role as the existing capability.

[clongton]

My original comment was based in the idea that government would have no incentive to purchase a commercial ride so long as it has its own vehicle available. 

You must remember that NASA doesn't really care about costs, so if a commercial provider is cheaper than the NASA owned system, NASA will always choose its own system. The only solution is for NASA not to own transportation systems to orbit.

That's like asking the Air Force to not own its own transport planes or the Navy to not own its own transport ships.

When I was in the USAF (many years ago) I flew everywhere on MATS (Military Air Transport System). But the USAF (along with the rest of the US military) is now mandated (I was surprised to learn) to use civilian aircraft to transport USAF personnel whenever practical so that now when personnel are transferred from one duty station to another they travel by commercial carriers, even though the USAF continues to own, and use where appropriate, its own military air transport capability. The cost of the ticket to the serviceman is picked up by the military. MATS is alive and well and is appropriately used in accordance with the law.

There is now a law which puts the same restriction on NASA. The agency is required by law to use commercial transport whenever practical (once it becomes available). That doesn't mean that NASA should not own, and operate, its own transportation system to orbit. It means that NASA's system will be used when transportation to LEO is required but the commercial providers are not able to accommodate the need for any number of reasons such as no LV available for the date/time slot, orbital destination is outside the reach of the commercial system, commercial system cannot accommodate the payload for security or safety reasons, or any number of other perfectly valid reasons.

Contrary to your shortsighted statement, the solution is the law requiring NASA to use commercial transport whenever practical, in *exactly* the same way as the US Military is required by a similar law to use civilian transport whenever practical. Once commercial transport is proven and available, NASA will comply with the law the same way that the Military complies with the same law. All *normal* transport to LEO will be provided by commercial carriers and NASA will pay for the ticket. NASA will transport the remainder of its needs to LEO via its own transport system, in the same way that the military operates.

[Jim]

9 years in the USAF and never flew on a military plane.  Went TDY maybe 40 times.

[clongton]

9 years in the USAF and never flew on a military plane.  Went TDY maybe 40 times.

Served in Vietnam. Discharged from active duty in 1968.
Went TDY 12 times in addition to 3 full tours; Stateside, Vietnam and England. Back then everybody flew MATS if they could. Commercial was the exception. The opposite of today.

[manboy]

Hopefully a lesson well learned after the shuttle incidents.  Personally, I'd prefer seeing 3 - two capsules for most payloads and DC for delicate experiment return and medical or emergency evac.

Can DreamChaser stay docked to the station for six months?

[Garrett]

....
There is now a law which puts the same restriction on NASA. The agency is required by law to use commercial transport whenever practical (once it becomes available). That doesn't mean that NASA should not own, and operate, its own transportation system to orbit. It means that NASA's system will be used when transportation to LEO is required but the commercial providers are not able to accommodate the need for any number of reasons such as no LV available for the date/time slot, orbital destination is outside the reach of the commercial system, commercial system cannot accommodate the payload for security or safety reasons, or any number of other perfectly valid reasons.
...

Thanks for that clear description. I wasn't fully aware of such a law (I was vaguely aware of something along those lines).
I like having more concrete facts, so I did a web search and found the law in question:
Public Law 105–303: http://landsat.usgs.gov/documents/PL105-303.pdf
The part to read is Title II, section 201 : "Requirement to procure commercial space transportation services."

@Danderman: Maybe you need to retract your previous assertions?

[clongton]

....
There is now a law which puts the same restriction on NASA. The agency is required by law to use commercial transport whenever practical (once it becomes available). That doesn't mean that NASA should not own, and operate, its own transportation system to orbit. It means that NASA's system will be used when transportation to LEO is required but the commercial providers are not able to accommodate the need for any number of reasons such as no LV available for the date/time slot, orbital destination is outside the reach of the commercial system, commercial system cannot accommodate the payload for security or safety reasons, or any number of other perfectly valid reasons.
...

Thanks for that clear description. I wasn't fully aware of such a law (I was vaguely aware of something along those lines).
I like having more concrete facts, so I did a web search and found the law in question:
Public Law 105–303: http://landsat.usgs.gov/documents/PL105-303.pdf
The part to read is Title II, section 201 : "Requirement to procure commercial space transportation services."

@Danderman: Maybe you need to retract your previous assertions?

From paragraph (a) of that statute subsection:

… the Federal Government shall acquire space transportation services
from United States commercial providers whenever such services
are required in the course of its activities. To the maximum extent
practicable, the Federal Government shall …

Emphasis mine. There's that word "practicable" again. It does not mean the same thing as "practical", which implies the ability to freely choose from among options. THIS word means essentially "if there is any way possible that this can be done, then this is what *will* be done, without regard to other available options".

So to emphasize the point, the law is the incentive and what requires commercial to be used in lieu of government transportation. Yes, there are exceptions and caveats, but essentially, NASA is constrained by law to defer to the commercial providers whenever possible.


Thanks Garrett for digging out the statute for us.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

....
There is now a law which puts the same restriction on NASA. The agency is required by law to use commercial transport whenever practical (once it becomes available). That doesn't mean that NASA should not own, and operate, its own transportation system to orbit. It means that NASA's system will be used when transportation to LEO is required but the commercial providers are not able to accommodate the need for any number of reasons such as no LV available for the date/time slot, orbital destination is outside the reach of the commercial system, commercial system cannot accommodate the payload for security or safety reasons, or any number of other perfectly valid reasons.
...

Thanks for that clear description. I wasn't fully aware of such a law (I was vaguely aware of something along those lines).
I like having more concrete facts, so I did a web search and found the law in question:
Public Law 105–303: http://landsat.usgs.gov/documents/PL105-303.pdf
The part to read is Title II, section 201 : "Requirement to procure commercial space transportation services."

@Danderman: Maybe you need to retract your previous assertions?

There is some interesting wording in the exceptions portion (Section II  sec  201 (b) and (c))in that as long as the Shuttle was flying it would be used first because federally owned LV’s pre-dating 1998 would be grandfathered in as an exception to the law. This law was engineered for the support of the EELV program, which was “commercial LV’s” by the definition the AF used.

This law is also why NASA was forced to support the commercial cargo to ISS, because they had to plan to use commercial because the Shuttle would no longer be flying, which has the same effect for the planning to use commercial for transportation of personnel to ISS. Since no federally owned vehicle has this capability or will have it in the same time frame as the capability being possibly available commercially.

Here is also where the exceptions come in. NASA and the AF don’t have to use commercial if it doesn’t meet risk and security requirements. So use of commercial is not assured because of the law if commercial doesn’t meet the requirements. The requirements don’t even have to be ones that exist right now, they could be new ones tailored for the “mission”.

There were 7 exception 2 of which were only usable for Shuttle.  Another 2 are if commercial isn’t the most cost effective, something we know that is highly unlikely to occur. 1 deals with safety and mission risk where commercial doesn’t meet requirements. And the remaining 3 are national security, national and international political goals and treaties incompatibility.

Another interesting caveat is that NASA could still use the Russians if commercial doesn’t meet cost, safety or capability needs of NASA. Meaning commercial HSF has to beat the Russian per seat price, be safer, and be more capable.

[Rocket Science]

Let’s say commercial on line in 5 years. That means after 2016, ISS will have only 4 more years of operation. Unless the station is extended to 2025-2030, is the investment worth the mission left? I’m just looking at the big picture here for commercial.
Regards
Robert

[aquanaut99]

Let’s say commercial on line in 5 years. That means after 2016, ISS will have only 4 more years of operation. Unless the station is extended to 2025-2030, is the investment worth the mission left? I’m just looking at the big picture here for commercial.
Regards
Robert

No, it's not worth it.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Let’s say commercial on line in 5 years. That means after 2016, ISS will have only 4 more years of operation. Unless the station is extended to 2025-2030, is the investment worth the mission left? I’m just looking at the big picture here for commercial.
Regards
Robert

No, it's not worth it.

The big picture is that if you have experience in HSF then you are at the top of the list when NASA considers you for a big HSF contract. Why do you think Boeing is pursuing this. LM is doing Orion/MPCV which means that if Boeing wants to compeat for these big money HSF contracts they have to be flying a HSF vehicle. With Shuttle no longer flying there is a small window where anyone can get into the HSF game to be NASA's perferrred HSF contractor.

[simonbp]

Let’s say commercial on line in 5 years. That means after 2016, ISS will have only 4 more years of operation. Unless the station is extended to 2025-2030, is the investment worth the mission left? I’m just looking at the big picture here for commercial.
Regards
Robert

Yes, because it's pretty unlikely that ISS will be last space station (in fact, certain given that TienGong-1 is shortly to launch).

Once operational, the US commercial companies that have survived will be the cheapest seats to space in world. Thus, any governments that want to access space will either have to buy seats from them, or buy the vehicles outright (which I could imagine Japan or India doing). Either way, the seed money from CCDEV gives these companies a leg up on the post-ISS human launch market.

[Namechange User]

Yes, because it's pretty unlikely that ISS will be last space station (in fact, certain given that TienGong-1 is shortly to launch).

Once operational, the US commercial companies that have survived will be the cheapest seats to space in world. Thus, any governments that want to access space will either have to buy seats from them, or buy the vehicles outright (which I could imagine Japan or India doing). Either way, the seed money from CCDEV gives these companies a leg up on the post-ISS human launch market.

I hope these threads are preserved for a long time.  It's statements like this, making promises and predictions in all their glory, about how great things are going to be, when, right here and now, we are already starting to signs of the goal posts being moved from the original intent as to what commercial investment was to be and not giving it the best chance of success to become what it was hoped to be.

I like seeing this kind of thing because certain posters also carry on about how shuttle was a failure, never lived up to its promises, etc yet I'm not sure if certain posters realize they are doing the exact same thing today. 

It's ironic that hindsight gives people the all-mighty, holier-than-thou perspective to say why something is a failure or that something will be a failure when about the same level of detail is currently known. 

[yg1968]

Simonbp didn't say anything about Shuttle, you are the one that added that. In any event, given the costs involved, you could argue that the Shuttle is being terminated to pay for SLS/Orion. It certainly isn't to pay for commercial crew which is being funded at a maximum of $500M per year.

Provided that it's affordable, the idea of NASA continuing some LEO exploration past 2020 (for example, NASA could rent a Bigelow station) seems like a good idea to me. 

[pathfinder_01]

Hopefully a lesson well learned after the shuttle incidents.  Personally, I'd prefer seeing 3 - two capsules for most payloads and DC for delicate experiment return and medical or emergency evac.

Can DreamChaser stay docked to the station for six months?

Yes all ccdev craft must be able to do so.

[Rocket Science]

Hopefully a lesson well learned after the shuttle incidents.  Personally, I'd prefer seeing 3 - two capsules for most payloads and DC for delicate experiment return and medical or emergency evac.

Can DreamChaser stay docked to the station for six months?

Yes all ccdev craft must be able to do so.

I would have a little concern about having DC TPS exposed to space for that long without some form of inspection.
Regards
Robert

[douglas100]

I would have a little concern about having DC TPS exposed to space for that long without some form of inspection.
Regards
Robert

[/quote]

I thought the Dream Chaser was designed for only short stays at the Station and would be used for crew rotation and return of experiments.

If I'm wrong and it is to be kept on orbit for months, then inspection would be prudent. The X 37 might be useful in assessing how great the debris impact risk might be over that period.

[A_M_Swallow]

I would have a little concern about having DC TPS exposed to space for that long without some form of inspection.
Regards
Robert

The Dream Chaser would be docked to a spacestation.  Would a camera attached to a robotic arm be able to perform the inspection?

Alternatives include:
 a camera with an RCS that can fly around the spacecraft,
 or making the Dream Chaser perform a back flip before authorising re-entry.

[Rocket Science]

I would have a little concern about having DC TPS exposed to space for that long without some form of inspection.
Regards
Robert

The Dream Chaser would be docked to a spacestation.  Would a camera attached to a robotic arm be able to perform the inspection?

Alternatives include:
 a camera with an RCS that can fly around the spacecraft,
 or making the Dream Chaser perform a back flip before authorising re-entry.

We should really be having this discussion on the Dream Caser Q and A thread.  They could use all and any procedures from Shuttle including the RPM or the OBSS.  It would be of little use during an emergency abandoning of the station. Something like the CST-100 with a protected heatshield make more sense as a CRV, get in power up and deorbit.
Regards
Robert

[balan h20]

The inspection of DC at the ISS  with a RCS and a camera is a case I was wondering about, with the hundreds of UAV's in the world today of every size and shape where is the equivalent for the ISS.

Surely sombody could have put something together for them so they would not have to put that ald shuttle through so many Ester Williams Sync Swimming lessons for pictures every time it visited.

Where is the little EVEY doing the Ginger Rodgers with WALLE's Fred Estaire.

Is there a effort to make a simple inspection remote or is that to simple and someone is making a shuttle type all in one type remote that also does the windows and tightens loose screws and paints the siding.

Just wondering.