Claim: Commercial Crew is going to be a train-wreck in slow motion...

[Gregori]

I've a fear that despite all the optimism and amazing peoplem about commercial crew solving all the US problems in space, its wishful thinking and really going to be a repeat of the EELVs... ie. the commercial market fails to materialize and the government is left paying just to have the capability. 

Crews are rotated on the ISS roughly every six months. That means two commercial crew missions per year. This is far too low. There is no guarantee that there will be other customers whatsoever.

That low amount can barely support one provider never mind two or three! This will not result in a competitive market and will likely end up having one provider for the capability. This combination of few missions and few providers will make it very expensive per flight, possibly as high as shuttle. Commercial Cargo under COTS was not cheap, so I doubt human spaceflight is going to be significantly cheaper, esp since the vehicles are far more complex than the cargo ships like Dragon and Cygnus.

I hope this doesn't happen...

[Tony Ostinato]

go back and watch the ares-1 and falcon test flight videos side by side and tell me what other choice did we have?

i have no doubt ares-1 would have killed at least 1 crew due to its flawed design, a design so flawed even many within nasa wanted to bail on it.

even in the worst case scenario commercial is going to be safer and cheaper and more reliable than ares in its best case scenario.

i wish that werent true, i was a big fan of nasa but nothing government can function now with this polarization. its like trying to drive straight when one person is yelling RIGHT RIGHT and the other is yelling LEFT LEFT.

nasa needs someone like von braun whos a clear leader and visionary and those guys have gone to the private sector because theyre tired of the yelling.

i just wish people could figure out how to turn quantize off.

[Jason1701]

That low amount can barely support one provider never mind two or three! This will not result in a competitive market and will likely end up having one provider for the capability. This combination of few missions and few providers will make it very expensive per flight, possibly as high as shuttle. Commercial Cargo under COTS was not cheap, so I doubt human spaceflight is going to be significantly cheaper, esp since the vehicles are far more complex than the cargo ships like Dragon and Cygnus.

Extreme pessimism. NASA pays SpaceX $133M for each CRS flight, including a new Falcon 9 and new Dragon even if parts are available for reuse. The same basic system, modified for crew transportation, will cost far less than ten times that (which would put it on par with Shuttle). I've only used SpaceX for an example because their prices are the best known. If one crew provider experiences ballooning cost, NASA isn't stuck with them - they get dropped, and others get the business.

NASA could have more than two CC flights per year if they had some short surge missions as Soyuz used to.

Crew vehicles are not "far more complex" than cargo. They have certain additional systems is all, and require more testing.

Frankly, the business case for CC is for the companies to worry about, not NASA. Boeing and the others have surely done their business analyses well.

Edit: Wayne Hale said the same thing as the OP, but for a totally different reason.

[Namechange User]

Frankly, the business case for CC is for the companies to worry about, not NASA. Boeing and the others have surely done their business analyses well.

And this statement, right here in a nutshell, is the embodiment of what so many are missing. 

[Jason1701]

Frankly, the business case for CC is for the companies to worry about, not NASA. Boeing and the others have surely done their business analyses well.

And this statement, right here in a nutshell, is the embodiment of what so many are missing. 

I must be too new to the space community to understand what I'm missing. Please tell me.

[Jorge]

Frankly, the business case for CC is for the companies to worry about, not NASA. Boeing and the others have surely done their business analyses well.

And this statement, right here in a nutshell, is the embodiment of what so many are missing. 

I must be too new to the space community to understand what I'm missing. Please tell me.

Simple logic chain:

1) One of the primary purposes of CC is to assure US access to ISS.
2) In order for CC as a whole to succeed, at least one (preferably two) CC companies must succeed.
3) Companies with bad business plans generally do not succeed.
4) Therefore, the business plans of the CC companies is very much something that NASA must worry about.

[Gregori]

Extreme pessimism. NASA pays SpaceX $133M for each CRS flight, including a new Falcon 9 and new Dragon even if parts are available for reuse. The same basic system, modified for crew transportation, will cost far less than ten times that (which would put it on par with Shuttle). I've only used SpaceX for an example because their prices are the best known. If one crew provider experiences ballooning cost, NASA isn't stuck with them - they get dropped, and others get the business.

There may very will be only one provider and NASA will be stuck with them because it would be more expensive and disruptive to develop a totally new vehicle from another provider. Its not like other services were there is a real commercial market and switching providers is that simple. It could take 5 years to get a new vehicle on stream. NASA is not going to allow another 5 year gap, and would rather just pay the extra money.

Whoever wins these contracts will have such a huge advantage over their competitors that it will put those who are not chosen by NASA out of the human launch business pretty much for good.

NASA could have more than two CC flights per year if they had some short surge missions as Soyuz used to.

I really hope so but I am not counting on it. The currently planned vehicles are actually overly capable. With Soyuz, NASA will only need to rotate 3 crew members, not 7.

Crew vehicles are not "far more complex" than cargo. They have certain additional systems is all, and require more testing.

And the additional systems cost about a $1 Billion to make them suitable for crew. That's almost 3 times what it cost to develop Dragon, Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 all together, which should give a good idea of how complicated it is. A cargo flight crashing is not the end of the world, another rocket can be flown to meet the demand. People are not replaceable like cargo.

Frankly, the business case for CC is for the companies to worry about, not NASA. Boeing and the others have surely done their business analyses well.

NASA should be worried about it more than the companies. The companies are not going to lose from this situation. NASA is paying to develop the vehicles, and when there is no alternative, NASA will be locked into paying whatever these companies charge for the service.

[Namechange User]

Frankly, the business case for CC is for the companies to worry about, not NASA. Boeing and the others have surely done their business analyses well.

And this statement, right here in a nutshell, is the embodiment of what so many are missing. 

I must be too new to the space community to understand what I'm missing. Please tell me.

It's what I have been saying for so long in more posts than I can possibly count (you know what led you to accuse me of hoping commercial fails).

So NASA wants "commercial crew".  NASA wants redundant access.  But if NASA is the only customer, then these companies are not going to just lose money for the hell of it.  They are going to pass all their costs on to NASA plus a modest profit. 

If NASA requires or desires redundant access, and there is no other business base, then these minimum of two companies pass all their costs to NASA and there is no "competition" and there is no "incentive" because there is no market and they have a lock due to redundancy.  It is likely no one else will develop a vehicle to replace whoever is chosen because there is no market and hence no incentive for companies to invest the rather large sums required for development.  This utterly fails to be called "commercial" anything.  It becomes another government-funded project, pure and simple. 

If these companies fly only once a year (because there is no other business and the one other flight NASA requires goes to the other player) then costs will be quite high.  Maintaining product lines, sustaining engineering, certifications, etc. 

Now perhaps you begin to see why utilization of ISS is so important.  If utilization succeeds, then the National Lab section could draw more customers, driving more demand to use ISS.  More flights, allows competition, drives prices down allowing more business cases to close for applications beyond NASA.  Yet instead, we are standing down our capability with no operational cargo vehicle (and not really sure when that is going to happen) absolutely hurting the chance for utilization and hence the chance for commercial crew, and the current and future business case for them.

So accuse me if you want of rooting for commercail to fail but now, if you understand this, then perhaps you can see that everything I have said in the past is to give commercial the best chance at success. 

[Hodapp]

I disagree, private industry is always more efficient & cost-effective.  The gov't is good at starting new major technological hurdles, like the moon missions, & ISS, but once gov't has paved the way...then private industry is great at opening a once domain of the "few" to the near many!  So I'm positive about these initiatives, we will be the only country with several private man-rated orbital vehicles (Dragon & CST-100), plus MPCV (Orion) for deep space missions, then we have Bigelow with their inflatable habitats...great stuff going on!  Already we have a new spaceport in New Mexico with Virgin Galactic, who else is even close!  Everyone frets about Russia and China, but their not even close to the private initiatives going on.  The only negative to NASA's new initiative is not having an immediate replacement vehicle;  (No one remembers this but this is exactly what happened after apollo/skylab, we were 6 years before the shuttle flew - and its not as bad cause we still astronauts flying on soyuz now!) and Obama's stupid idea of nixing going back to the moon, and going first to an asteroid...please!!!!   
The moon is the objective!  We need to learn how to build spacecraft in space, as well as space stations around the moon, and moonbases.  We need to build an Earth/Moon transportation system, and use the moon resources.  Then we move forward to mars!  Private industry needs to develop space hotels, and make space accessible...when that happens the sky is the limit...because you now have the public and globe sold!

Oh well my two cents worth.
Go Atlantis...finish the shuttle era with grace & beauty!
Godspeed Atlantis & NASA & ESA & RSA & JAXA

[edkyle99]

go back and watch the ares-1 and falcon test flight videos side by side and tell me what other choice did we have?

i have no doubt ares-1 would have killed at least 1 crew due to its flawed design, a design so flawed even many within nasa wanted to bail on it.

Please tell me where I can watch this "Ares I" test flight video.  If it exists, please tell me which part of the film shows how astronauts would have been killed, or which part shows a "flawed" design.

 - Ed Kyle

[Gregori]

I disagree, private industry is always more efficient & cost-effective.  The gov't is good at starting new major technological hurdles, like the moon missions, & ISS, but once gov't has paved the way...then private industry is great at opening a once domain of the "few" to the near many!  So I'm positive about these initiatives, we will be the only country with several private man-rated orbital vehicles (Dragon & CST-100), plus MPCV (Orion) for deep space missions, then we have Bigelow with their inflatable habitats...great stuff going on!  Already we have a new spaceport in New Mexico with Virgin Galactic, who else is even close!  Everyone frets about Russia and China, but their not even close to the private initiatives going on.  The only negative to NASA's new initiative is not having an immediate replacement vehicle;  (No one remembers this but this is exactly what happened after apollo/skylab, we were 6 years before the shuttle flew - and its not as bad cause we still astronauts flying on soyuz now!) and Obama's stupid idea of nixing going back to the moon, and going first to an asteroid...please!!!!   
The moon is the objective!  We need to learn how to build spacecraft in space, as well as space stations around the moon, and moonbases.  We need to build an Earth/Moon transportation system, and use the moon resources.  Then we move forward to mars!  Private industry needs to develop space hotels, and make space accessible...when that happens the sky is the limit...because you now have the public and globe sold!

Oh well my two cents worth.
Go Atlantis...finish the shuttle era with grace & beauty!
Godspeed Atlantis & NASA & ESA & RSA & JAXA

Private industry is there to make a profit first and foremost. They're not on a moral crusade to be more efficient and cost effective unless it means more profit. They would really prefer a monopoly if they could get away with it. That's the point of competition.

Governments don't have to make a profit in spaceflight and civil servants can't really line their pockets with government money directly. They can possibly steer contracts towards companies that will later hire them after they retire, but that highlights some of the problems of the public-private mix.

Lacking both a commercial market larger than ISS and real competition, the incentive to be "cost effective" for the tax payer is going to take the back seat to what companies really care about : themselves!!!

I was SUPER optimistic up to a month ago about all this commercial crew until I actually stopped assuming the best outcome I wished for would happen and thought about it for a while and read some history. There are few outcomes to this that are actually far more likely than the best possible outcome. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

Even Robert Bigelow thinks ISS alone is not enough to sustain competitive commercial crew transport.

[Hodapp]

I understand...
Trying to be optimistic, in an all too pesimistic world! 

[Robert Thompson]

OV-106, I can follow your argument. I've been disappointed with the continued lack of impressive testing of human limits on the ISS. E.g., the plans for a centrifuge are on hold, but we are supposed to feel the inexorable momentum of progress now that they have a cupola.

So, while the ISS has a certain sunk cost baseline utility, what do you think of interactions between ISS on its present orbit and an equatorial LEO _Test_ depot? (A polar orbit LEO ULA depot might work if it kept its nose to the terminus - should be same thermal load as LEO equatorial north ecliptic).

I suppose that any launches now just point along the path of the ISS, rather than in the direction of earth's rotation, and perform rendezvous without this free assist. And there may be times when something does take full advantage of the launch assist and then executes a change of trajectory. Now I'm pretty sure the earth rotation launch assist is very small. Is it so small that a depot's assistance in this respect would be negligible?

Now for a more radical idea: The ISS's present orbit is a function of overflying every participant. If an LEO depot provided the necessary propellant, would there be any advantage to the ISS and its to putting the ISS into an equatorial orbit? Any advantage at all that is in favor or your above arguments?

Another question: Do you have a list of "Good science that really still ought to be done on the ISS?"

Just looking for Aragorn, not Denethor.

[go4mars]

Even Robert Bigelow thinks ISS alone is not enough to sustain competitive commercial crew transport.

Though Mr. Big has good reason to believe that ISS won't be alone in sustaining commercial crew transport.   

[Diagoras]

I've a fear that despite all the optimism and amazing peoplem about commercial crew solving all the US problems in space

Opening any argument with a fallacy is usually a bad sign. Unless you can point me to people who have claimed that commercial crew would solve "all the US problems in space" I'm going to take the rest of your post with a grain of salt.

Crews are rotated on the ISS roughly every six months. That means two commercial crew missions per year. This is far too low. There is no guarantee that there will be other customers whatsoever.

Robert Bigelow, Elon Musk, and others have sunk *quite* a bit of their own wealth assuming that there will in fact be a multitude of other customers, along with crew and cargo to ISS supporting their business case a good deal. You might want to check out the NASA study on markets for crew and cargo which deals with much of this.

Commercial Cargo under COTS was not cheap, so I doubt human spaceflight is going to be signifigantly cheaper, esp since the vehicles are far more complex than the cargo ships like Dragon and Cygnus.

I'd be quite interested in seeing the evidence for your claim that commercial cargo is "not cheap", as all the data I've seen has it providing upmass at prices far lower than almost any other competitor. If you're referring to a certain document issued during a Congressional hearing, jongoff posted a nice rebuttal of its numbers, which appear to be couched in fantasy more than anything else.

Anyway, anyone participating in this thread should certain read this report in order to understand what current market assessments indicate. Otherwise we're just working off supposition.

[Jim]

1.  That low amount can barely support one provider never mind two or three! This will not result in a competitive market and will likely end up having one provider for the capability.

2.   This combination of few missions and few providers will make it very expensive per flight, possibly as high as shuttle.

3.   Commercial Cargo under COTS was not cheap, so I doubt human spaceflight is going to be significantly cheaper, esp since the vehicles are far more complex than the cargo ships like Dragon and Cygnus.

1.  So what?

2.  No, it won't be "very" expensive or even close to the shuttle

3.  How is it "not cheap"?

[Jim]

NASA will be locked into paying whatever these companies charge for the service.

Again, so what?  It will be cheaper than a NASA managed system

[mmeijeri]

NASA is paying to develop the vehicles, and when there is no alternative, NASA will be locked into paying whatever these companies charge for the service.

Having multiple suppliers means there are alternatives. That's precisely why advocates of commercial crew want multiple competing suppliers. And if there is only one, how is that worse than what we have today? NASA paid for development of the Shuttle and now has a single supplier (the United Space Alliance) that operates it.

[Tony Ostinato]

many videos on youtube of course.

i can't be the first or the only to mention ares-1's design problems.....low frequency super intense oscillation etc.

[KelvinZero]

Im still hazy about the exact advantages of the commercial model. What seems the clearer advantage is just that we are talking about something small that also will be used for unmanned flights and that we are going to keep building. Large flight numbers, the ability to test upgrades on unmanned flights, and never ever again facing the current situation of having to start the safety record from scratch seem excellent features for manned flight.There will be fixed costs but we have to pay them anyway, eg for Delta and Atlas.

Im nervous about the number of providers, which is why I am nervous about the HLV. Each 130 ton HLV launch removes the market for about 5 cargoes using existing vehicles, surely. Even if they can't share the same missions, in the end they both have to come out of the same finite NASA budget and it isn't like we will run out of worthwhile things to do with 25-30 ton launches any time soon. Note however that if we do end up with only one monopoly provider it does not remove the advantages listed in the previous paragraph.

Where we simply have to lift something larger than this range, it seems best to do it on a vehicle that does not have to be man-rated, since it will never have a comparable flight-rate.

Im not sure that many small launches can be competitive with fewer, larger ones. However it seems both far more safe in a world of uncertain budgets, and also far more likely to encourage real paradigm changing breakthroughs such as fuel depots, reusable boosters, space tourism and so on.

[Nomadd]

 I wouldn't worry too much about the demand for manned spaceflight drying up. The real spur for the US in early days wasn't Von Braun or Webb or Kennedy. It was Gagarin.
 And now we have some new competition. A country of over a billion that's very interested in manned flight, space stations and establishing a real presence in all forms. A country with trillions in foreign reserves to spend.
 If there's one thing that will generate mandates and funding in the US, it's competition. It's not likely that one congressman in ten knows an LAS from a doughnut or can name a single component or experiment on the ISS. But they do understand looking bad.

[aquanaut99]

Commercial Crew is probably going to be a train-wreck for precisely the aforementioned reasons: Not enough demand to get competition working, very high initial investment required, first one to fly will have a huge advantage and a quasi-monopoly position with NASA as the sole customer who can't afford to switch because that will result in a large gap...

On the other hand, a NASA-operated crew delivery would suffer from the same problems, plus bureaucratic inefficiency and pork-barrel spending.

Which is worse?

Ah, one positive point to finish: Even if NASA finds itself at the hands of a SpaceX (or other provider) monopoly in the US, there still is at least one valid alternate provider: Russia. After all, NASA is by now used to sending astronauts up on Soyuz. SpaceX (and any other commercial provider) cannot charge very much more per seat than Russia, because otherwise we might as well stick with them...

The real test will come once ISS shuts down. If there is no credible mission or objective for US astronauts at that time, then, the Economist is right and the Space Age ends, at least for the USA:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25755.0

[DGH]

I see several flaws in this argument.

First:

1)   We have been launching 4 shuttles carrying 7 people a year.
2)   NASA has said they want 4 crew per mission not 7.

So this leads to 7 flights of 4 crew a year not 2 flights a year to replace the shuttle flights.
 

Second there are cargo missions as well.
All the crew vehicles can carry cargo as well as crew.
Several of which has interesting capabilities such as the Dragon trunk and the CST-100 ability to carry fuel. The total for both could reach 16-24 launches a year for full use by 2020.

Third we have a total of 5 crew and cargo vehicles in development not all these vehicles will succeed.

[yg1968]

I see several flaws in this argument.

First:

1)   We have been launching 4 shuttles carrying 7 people a year.
2)   NASA has said they want 4 crew per mission not 7.

So this leads to 7 flights of 4 crew a year not 2 flights a year to replace the shuttle flights.
 

Second there are cargo missions as well.
All the crew vehicles can carry cargo as well as crew.
Several of which has interesting capabilities such as the Dragon trunk and the CST-100 ability to carry fuel. The total for both could reach 16-24 launches a year for full use by 2020.

Third we have a total of 5 crew and cargo vehicles in development not all these vehicles will succeed.

Astronauts will only be sent to the ISS for 6 months stays. There will no longer be any need to send astronauts on short term flights to assemble the ISS. NASA anticipates buying 2 or 3 flights per year with 4 astronauts on each flight. 

[Patchouli]

How can a program that is providing three maybe four crew vehicles including one similar to the Shuttle all for a cost not much more then a single flagship space probe mission be a train wreck?

For the first time in history NASA will have redundant access to LEO that does not depend on a foreign country's vehicles.

If there is a problem with one of the vehicles take it off line and fix it.
With multiple vehicles they can ground a problematic vehicle even if the event that did not result in loss of crew such as it going into a ballistic reentry.

[pathfinder_01]

Astronauts will only be sent to the ISS for 6 months stays. There will no longer be any need to send astronauts on short term flights to assemble the ISS. NASA anticipates buying 2 or 3 flights per year with 4 astronauts on each flight. 

Yeap, that being said that leaves 3 seats per flight that can be sold and there could possibly be lifeboat duties for one craft(left unmanned for 6 months instead of rotated manned). There could also be short term flights by NASA, ESA, JAXA or other agency.

[SpacexULA]

IMHO Commercial Crew will not be a train wreck, because it's not an all or nothing system like the Shuttle.

The launchers that would be used for commercial crew, Atlas, Delta, Falcon, and possibly Taurus 2 all have plenty of payloads to not need a demand from NASA to maintain the assembly line.

On the capsules, Both CTS-100 and Dragon have the ablity to deliver cargo, and I have a feeling CTS-100 will get a cargo contract at some point in the future.  But as it stands NASA has way more demand for cargo than any provider can deliver.

On commercial crew Space Adventures has long said they have more demand for seats than Russia can provide, and are open to using the American Commercial crew capacities.  Space Adventures is a proven demand, let's not even talk about Bigelow.  If commercial crew becomes 2 people in a capsule surrounded by supplies I don't think anyone would complain.

So as it stands CTS-100, Cignus, and Dragon all have more demand than they could supply JUST in ISS, with zero expansion on the ISS part.  Atlas, Delta, and Falcon all could easily function without any demand for Commercial Crew, and Oribital, SpaceX, and ULA are not in need of commercial crew to make their business case.

There is a launcher out there, that requires government HSF payloads to justify it's existence, is completely dependent on the goodwill of Congress and the competency of NASA to ever get built, and no international interest in it's use.  I will give you a hint, it's not a ULA, SpaceX or Orbital product.

[vt_hokie]

IMHO Commercial Crew will not be a train wreck, because it's not an all or nothing system like the Shuttle.

The biggest risk I see is that commercial crew is dependent upon ISS to supply the initial demand, even as we put ISS at greater risk by retiring the shuttle.  Even under the best of circumstances, assuming that commercial crew doesn't suffer significant delays, the overlap between the first CCDEV flights and ISS retirement is only a few years.  That overlap could disappear quickly.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Remember that ISS crewing has never been about six crew every six months to date.  There have been mid-expedition crew swaps by shuttle or Soyuz as well as exteded utilisation periods with a shuttle supporting extra crew.  There is no reason why CC might not easily be as much as four launches/year (comparable to shuttle).

Whilst I agree that the government-only market is a bit shallow for two redundant providers, the question about how much a market exists for non-government crew launches is still pretty 'TBD', especially with prices still in flux.  I think that, whilst Grigori's OP is a pretty good summation of the worst-case scenario, it is a pretty statistically extreme outcome.  We should be able to speculate based on more data after Bigelow starts offering places on his first modules and we can see what level of uptake he has.

[SpacexULA]

The biggest risk I see is that commercial crew is dependent upon ISS to supply the initial demand, even as we put ISS at greater risk by retiring the shuttle.  Even under the best of circumstances, assuming that commercial crew doesn't suffer significant delays, the overlap between the first CCDEV flights and ISS retirement is only a few years.  That overlap could disappear quickly.

I don't think the demand for commercial crew ends with ISS.

Let's go back in time a bit.  What if the Apollo capsule had been sized to launch on Saturn 5, and the Airforce Atlas or Delta?

What if Boeing had owned the Apollo capsule, and NASA had signed a contract to pay for them to be in active reserve, how would life had been different for NASA?

We would not have lost Skylab, (Apollo would have just transitioned over to Atlas/Delta).  Instead of needing a Launch on demand Shuttle, we could have just had the ability to bump a payload on Atlas or Delta in the event of an emergency.  During the 2 shuttle shutdowns NASA could have been able to transition over to Atlas and Delta till Shuttle was back online.  Even right now, 40+ years later, we sure could use that capsule.

We made that very small mistake decades ago.  I hope NASA is smart enough not to do it again.  A launch on demand Ares 5 is not going to be an option if something happens when we go back to the moon.  But we might have the ability to turn to SpaceX, Orbital, or Boeing and ask who can have a capsule up to rescue our crew the quickest.

[mr. mark]

It really depends on what you mean by USA. If the USA is it's citizens and business is the extension of it's citizens then space travel will not end entirely even if NASA (Government) withdraws from directly launching astronauts which, I personally doubt will happen. NASA is much more than building rockets and spacecraft. There is a research and and operations angle which could continue to supply private providers. Spacex just recently purchased the use of the Delta 2 facility at the cape for additional space as an example. Personally,  I think we are starting on a new golden age in space exploration. I think people forget that in about 5 years there could start to be multiple commercial stations in space. It may be short sighted to just see the ISS as the only destination. Of course, I expect some will see the other side of the coin on this.

[Gregori]

1.  That low amount can barely support one provider never mind two or three! This will not result in a competitive market and will likely end up having one provider for the capability.

2.   This combination of few missions and few providers will make it very expensive per flight, possibly as high as shuttle.

3.   Commercial Cargo under COTS was not cheap, so I doubt human spaceflight is going to be significantly cheaper, esp since the vehicles are far more complex than the cargo ships like Dragon and Cygnus.

1.  So what?

2.  No, it won't be "very" expensive or even close to the shuttle

3.  How is it "not cheap"?

1) When there is a monopoly on crew transport, people will not be saying "so what" as the company involved jacks up the prices. The Russians are doing it, so there is no reason to believe a US company won't do the same.

The supposed selling point of commercial is that companies will compete with each other to lower the price of access to the government, and that their is redundancy, so if one is charging too much or is unreliable, its easy to switch providers.

2) That remains to be seen, since none of the vehicles have flown yet. EELV prices have done nothing but go up and crewed capsules are going to be more expensive than cargo containers. With a low flight rate and a possible monopoly, this will just make things worse. Mere faith that it won't end up being as expensive as Shuttle because its "commercial" is not a good thing to go by.


3) Well, the actual numbers. Between $1.6 and $1.9 Billion for the delivery of 20 tonnes of cargo to ISS. That's not a radical improvement. I've no reason to believe crew transport is going to be radically cheaper either.

[vt_hokie]

I think people forget that in about 5 years there could start to be multiple commercial stations in space.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I put pie in the sky visions of Bigelow tourist stations in the same category as flying cars and SSTO spaceplanes on the near-term likelihood scale.

[Gregori]

NASA will be locked into paying whatever these companies charge for the service.

Again, so what?  It will be cheaper than a NASA managed system

Again, this is just a childish "well its better than NASA..." argument to throw attention away from the problems of commercial. I haven't been talking about the merits of NASA or whether that's better. I am not actually that interested in taking sides on that and have not specifically mentioned anything about it. For what its worth, SLS and Orion are probably also going to be train-wrecks in slow motion.

Companies having a monopoly on a service were NASA can't easily change providers is obviously not a good idea and could end up being very costly for the tax payer. Its not a desirable situation by any measure.

[Gregori]

Robert Bigelow, Elon Musk, and others have sunk *quite* a bit of their own wealth assuming that there will in fact be a multitude of other customers, along with crew and cargo to ISS supporting their business case a good deal. You might want to check out the NASA study on markets for crew and cargo which deals with much of this.

Yes. This could be a terrible assumption. It won't be the first time millions was wasted on overly optimistic assumptions. Nobody seems to be questioning, what if this stuff doesn't pan out? What people desire to happen most is not actually the most likely outcome.

I'd be quite interested in seeing the evidence for your claim that commercial cargo is "not cheap", as all the data I've seen has it providing upmass at prices far lower than almost any other competitor. If you're referring to a certain document issued during a Congressional hearing, jongoff posted a nice rebuttal of its numbers, which appear to be couched in fantasy more than anything else.

Just look at the numbers. They're evidence enough. I am not referring to congressional reports.

[Diagoras]

I'll repeat this again, for emphasis: everyone on this thread needs to read the following PDF document. I know some of the regular posters already have, but it should help clear up many of the misconceptions present here.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/543572main_Section%20403(b)%20Commercial%20Market%20Assessment%20Report%20Final.pdf

[Diagoras]

Robert Bigelow, Elon Musk, and others have sunk *quite* a bit of their own wealth assuming that there will in fact be a multitude of other customers, along with crew and cargo to ISS supporting their business case a good deal. You might want to check out the NASA study on markets for crew and cargo which deals with much of this.

Yes. This could be a terrible assumption. It won't be the first time millions was wasted on overly optimistic assumptions. Nobody seems to be questioning, what if this stuff doesn't pan out? What people desire to happen most is not actually the most likely outcome.

Commercial crew will probably be downselected to two providers, who will also handle cargo services. Considering low-end projected demand is about 50 passengers to LEO and at least 7,500 lbs of cargo over a ten year period, this should be easy enough to sustain.

I'd be quite interested in seeing the evidence for your claim that commercial cargo is "not cheap", as all the data I've seen has it providing upmass at prices far lower than almost any other competitor. If you're referring to a certain document issued during a Congressional hearing, jongoff posted a nice rebuttal of its numbers, which appear to be couched in fantasy more than anything else.

Just look at the numbers. They're evidence enough. I am not referring to congressional reports.

I have been looking at the numbers, have you? See my previous post for the currently assessed numbers.

[Diagoras]

And apologies for the triple post, but Gregori claimed that Dragon/Falcon 9 would take a billion dollars to make it able to transport crew. As I recall, that is a misreported figure by a rather confused reporter, and the real number is more like a max of 350 million. Can anyone chime in with the confirmed cost of turning SpaceX into a crew provider?

[Garrett]

I think people forget that in about 5 years there could start to be multiple commercial stations in space.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I put pie in the sky visions of Bigelow tourist stations in the same category as flying cars and SSTO spaceplanes on the near-term likelihood scale.

Lurker here, but just thought I'd point out that that's a really bad comparison.
It's also a bit of a straw man argument, as Bigelow are not initially focusing on tourists, but rather on small nations who want better access to space.

[mr. mark]

Whether it's going to work or not US private space is the wave of the future at witnessed at the Orlando International Airport. I guess this is being posted all over the place.

[Blackjax]

I think people forget that in about 5 years there could start to be multiple commercial stations in space.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, I put pie in the sky visions of Bigelow tourist stations in the same category as flying cars and SSTO spaceplanes on the near-term likelihood scale.

Deriding them as 'tourist stations' is basically a strawman argument.  I posted here about the actual markets.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22125.msg758262#msg758262

I'll grant you that nobody can be sure the markets will develop but at the same time nobody can be sure they won't.  Anybody asserting surety either way and oversimplifying a complex situation probably isn't most reliable opinion to be listening to.

Test articles in orbit, a factory under construction, and possession of the funds to take things the rest of the way merits a little better assessment than 'pie-in-the-sky' IMHO.

[mmeijeri]

1) When there is a monopoly on crew transport, people will not be saying "so what" as the company involved jacks up the prices. The Russians are doing it, so there is no reason to believe a US company won't do the same.

Have you ever heard of the United Space Alliance? It's the monopoly that runs the Shuttle.

[Gregori]

1) When there is a monopoly on crew transport, people will not be saying "so what" as the company involved jacks up the prices. The Russians are doing it, so there is no reason to believe a US company won't do the same.

Have you ever heard of the United Space Alliance? It's the monopoly that runs the Shuttle.

I've heard of USA and I think its a very likely outcome for commercialcrew, with the only difference being NASA won't be designing the vehicle and a different company will be operating it. ULA is another example of this kind of pattern that I think this will fall into.

Believe it or not, I didn't start the thread to imply that what NASA has been doing over the past 30 years is inherently good or that SLS/Orion is going to be a successful alternative. I have doubts that program will even see first flight.

I've deep fears that both government and commercial programs are going to end in tears.

[docmordrid]

At the end of ST: Undiscovered Country there is a line; "People are afraid of change." I see a lot of the negativism over commercial in that light.  Like most government programs I've been involved in people inside, and the suppliers who depend on that programs largesse, have tunnel vision as regards the idea it could be done any other way - or by anyone else.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Commercial crew will probably be downselected to two providers, who will also handle cargo services. Considering low-end projected demand is about 50 passengers to LEO and at least 7,500 lbs of cargo over a ten year period, this should be easy enough to sustain.

The min value of 50 persons and 7,500 lbs of cargo is in addition to the NASA ISS crew swap of 80 persons and ISS cargo resupply of 264,000 lbs over 10 years. This means that in 2015/2016 the 2 - 7 person flights would carry at least 11 people plus a possible 2 pilots for a total of 13 of the 14 available seats. (1 pilot and 6 paying seats.) With the min usage growing to 3 – 7 person flights by 2020 or 18 passengers. If the max possible given in the report then there would be a total of 15 - 7 person crew flights a year by 2020.

[Diagoras]

Commercial crew will probably be downselected to two providers, who will also handle cargo services. Considering low-end projected demand is about 50 passengers to LEO and at least 7,500 lbs of cargo over a ten year period, this should be easy enough to sustain.

The min value of 50 persons and 7,500 lbs of cargo is in addition to the NASA ISS crew swap of 80 persons and ISS cargo resupply of 264,000 lbs over 10 years. This means that in 2015/2016 the 2 - 7 person flights would carry at least 11 people plus a possible 2 pilots for a total of 13 of the 14 available seats. (1 pilot and 6 paying seats.) With the min usage growing to 3 – 7 person flights by 2020 or 18 passengers. If the max possible given in the report then there would be a total of 15 - 7 person crew flights a year by 2020.

Ah, thank you. I forgot to clarify that that was for non-NASA markets.

[Tony Ostinato]

i don't remember the birth of the commercial airline industry, but i wonder if it wasn't a similar pattern.

i imagine someone thought people wouldn't want to fly that much. and others that government should run it entirely.

does the metaphor break down because space is such a bigger step than just flying around from city to city?

kinda depends on whether the human race is developing linearly or exponentially.

in the future people may want to fly to cities in orbit just to get away from the heat and the radiation and the bieber, sure you may think hes cute now but in 10 years...20 years...

[Ronsmytheiii]

I can foresee that multiple commercial crew providers will offer cheaper alternatives compared to shuttle (but then again anything designed forty years ago with such a large cargo upmass as well is not exactly a fair comparison per flight) However there is a huge possibility that a commercial alternative destination will not materialize, and the only destination will be ISS.  And as stated before, with only the need to transport four persons twice a year as the crew capacity is enlarged, still leaves about three seats empty or two if a commercial operator is included for a grand total of four empty seats a year.  at that flight rate an operator should only expect roughly a flight a year to ISS, and at this rate only a single vehicle is optimal from a logistics standpoint (Soyuz can still act as backup, why need two crew vehicles)

[pathfinder_01]

i don't remember the birth of the commercial airline industry, but i wonder if it wasn't a similar pattern.

i imagine someone thought people wouldn't want to fly that much. and others that government should run it entirely.

In some countries the government did run it(see British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways). The problem with the early airplane was capacity more than people to fly. You need to be able to carry atleat a dozen people for an airline to be purely commercial and profitable just carring people. In fact the first "commercial" flights in the US were paid for by a government(more a tourist thing).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benoist_XIV

does the metaphor break down because space is such a bigger step than just flying around from city to city?

Maybe maybe not.

[jimgagnon]

Frankly, the business case for CC is for the companies to worry about, not NASA. Boeing and the others have surely done their business analyses well.

And this statement, right here in a nutshell, is the embodiment of what so many are missing. 

I must be too new to the space community to understand what I'm missing. Please tell me.

Simple logic chain:

1) One of the primary purposes of CC is to assure US access to ISS.
2) In order for CC as a whole to succeed, at least one (preferably two) CC companies must succeed.
3) Companies with bad business plans generally do not succeed.
4) Therefore, the business plans of the CC companies is very much something that NASA must worry about.

There is a new tool in the Commercial belt that's not in Government's: bankruptcy and reorganization. Iridium is an excellent example of a space-based business case that could not work, the company entered Chapter 9, reorganized and recapitalized and is on an eleven year streak of steadily increasing profits -- so much so that they need to expand their satellite fleet using commercial launchers.

So, let's say a couple of the CC fail; as long as they are far enough down the road so that there's something of value to a potential suitor. Reorganize, recapitalize for pennies on the dollar, and be able to enter the market in competitive form.

That must be one factors NASA takes into consideration when monitoring CC.

[Diagoras]

I can foresee that multiple commercial crew providers will offer cheaper alternatives compared to shuttle (but then again anything designed forty years ago with such a large cargo upmass as well is not exactly a fair comparison per flight) However there is a huge possibility that a commercial alternative destination will not materialize, and the only destination will be ISS.  And as stated before, with only the need to transport four persons twice a year as the crew capacity is enlarged, still leaves about three seats empty or two if a commercial operator is included for a grand total of four empty seats a year.  at that flight rate an operator should only expect roughly a flight a year to ISS, and at this rate only a single vehicle is optimal from a logistics standpoint (Soyuz can still act as backup, why need two crew vehicles)

Considering that one of the multiple destinations is basically DragonLab or something like it, and another is non-NASA ISS customers, I wonder how those would not materialize?

Also, aren't many commercial crew customers meant to also haul cargo?

[hop]

i don't remember the birth of the commercial airline industry, but i wonder if it wasn't a similar pattern.

You don't need to remember it, the history is well documented. As far as I can tell, the answer is no.

i imagine someone thought people wouldn't want to fly that much. and others that government should run it entirely.

That's not how it happened. Government was certainly involved, but it was never the primary player like the first 50 years of spaceflight. Private individuals and industry were pursuing their own interests from Wrights onward (and before, right back to the Montgolfiers for that matter...)

The biggest government contributions were probably air mail and the technology and surplus output of two world wars. None of that appears applicable to the current situation in space travel.

does the metaphor break down because space is such a bigger step than just flying around from city to city?

That is one reason, IMO. Space travel is fundamentally harder. A couple of moderately successful bicycle builders created the first airplane using private funds, while putting a man in orbit required the substantial commitment of resources by the most powerful nations on the planet. If developing and flying the Wright flyer had required a national investment equivalent to Vostok, air travel would have followed a different path.

That's not the only reason it fails though. Another is that they are just different activities: Flying from city to city is a logical extension of traveling by train, boat, horse etc. The practicality may have been in question, but the value of getting people or stuff from A to B quickly was not. This is not true of putting people into LEO or beyond.

[vt_hokie]

Many people call shuttle a failure because it failed to meet initial flight rate and cost promises.  If commercial crew similarly fails to meet optimistic projections, will it also be called a failure?

The good news is that SpaceX and Sierra Nevada are currently promising unprecedented development rates that have humans flying on their spacecraft by 2014.  So, we'll know in a couple of years whether they have any chance of living up to their promises.

My money is on a bare bones crew transport system emerging years behind schedule, significantly over budget, and with a low flight rate that makes spaceflight less routine than it was during the shuttle era, rather than more routine. 

[Ronsmytheiii]

Considering that one of the multiple destinations is basically DragonLab or something like it, and another is non-NASA ISS customers, I wonder how those would not materialize?

Pretty easy, Dragonlab and Bigelow both operate as services for customers willing to purchase services at a certain price.  If neither one can attract enough customers to do so, they will not bother to invest in a capital intensive endeavor.  It is kind of like the current development situation, interests rates may be low and capital abundant to develop, but a building will not be built if there are not enough people who have put money down for space.  Same for both Bigelow and Dragonlab, ( the former even more so since that is the bread and butter.

Look at the current world mood of governmental austerity measures, what nation would want to expand its space program to lease space on an American Module that is not already invested in the ISS? Yes there are a few, but the question is have they formed a critical mass, and at this point it would be easy to say no.

As well, after NASA switches to ordering Commercial crew flights what is to stop Korolyev from offering to sell the now slack capacity of a well proven and much cheaper Soyuz as a competitor?

Also, aren't many commercial crew customers meant to also haul cargo?

Yes, but that is a government service. And the cost of launching a spacecraft on an EELV is not really worth the small profit a company would receive for a single CRS flight (why Falcon/Taurus II were developed) really is only used to defray Commercial crew costs with the excess capacity.

What to take away:  A commercial crew market outside of NASA would be nice, but I would not bet any real money on it. Just look at how the market crashed on EELV, one should hope for the best but plan for the worst, and for commercial crew this is especially so.

[DDG40]

Many people call shuttle a failure because it failed to meet initial flight rate and cost promises.  If commercial crew similarly fails to meet optimistic projections, will it also be called a failure?

The good news is that SpaceX and Sierra Nevada are currently promising unprecedented development rates that have humans flying on their spacecraft by 2014.  So, we'll know in a couple of years whether they have any chance of living up to their promises.

My money is on a bare bones crew transport system emerging years behind schedule, significantly over budget, and with a low flight rate that makes spaceflight less routine than it was during the shuttle era, rather than more routine. 

I think Dreamchaser is going to be the one to win over the public when it's all over.

[HIP2BSQRE]

Many people call shuttle a failure because it failed to meet initial flight rate and cost promises.  If commercial crew similarly fails to meet optimistic projections, will it also be called a failure?

The good news is that SpaceX and Sierra Nevada are currently promising unprecedented development rates that have humans flying on their spacecraft by 2014.  So, we'll know in a couple of years whether they have any chance of living up to their promises.

My money is on a bare bones crew transport system emerging years behind schedule, significantly over budget, and with a low flight rate that makes spaceflight less routine than it was during the shuttle era, rather than more routine. 

I have the following questions:

What is the proposed schedule so how will we know when they are over schedule?  Was not the shuttle a "little" behind schedule for when it was meant to fly?

You are complaining about a low flight rate?  What is the flight rate they are meant to fly at--I may be wrong but NASA is only asking for 2 flights a year---so you do not think commerical can handle this in 2016/2017?   I think commerical will handle more than proposed current flight rate.  I hope NASA requirements is for more flights not less.  There then would be more opportunties for a company to fly.

You are complaining about a bare bones systwm--but the requirement is to fly to the ISS??? No?  Why if I am a business make the requirements harder--it does not make sense and then you are complaining about it.  It it like you are complaining about a car that gets you to work and back and you are complaining about that it is bare bones.  Yes--it is barebones in that it may not the latest thing and cannot take your desk home--but guess what???  The requirement is to take 3 people to work and back.

[edkyle99]

many videos on youtube of course.

i can't be the first or the only to mention ares-1's design problems.....low frequency super intense oscillation etc.

There are no videos on YouTube, or anywhere else for that matter, of an Ares I launch.  There was an Ares I-X suborbital test flight with only a live first stage.  That stage was not an Ares I first stage.  At any rate the test was successful, so I fail to see how it could illustrate any flaws in the Ares I design (beyond the fact that it cost a lot of money).

Ares I had a potential thrust oscillation issue that could conceivably crop up during the last few seconds of first stage flight under certain conditions, but this issue was resolved during development. 

Any new rocket will have development challenges.  Ares I was no different.  It was cancelled not because it wouldn't have worked, but because it cost too much.

 - Ed Kyle

[pathfinder_01]

Many people call shuttle a failure because it failed to meet initial flight rate and cost promises.  If commercial crew similarly fails to meet optimistic projections, will it also be called a failure?

For commerical crew it is if they can get a non NASA passenger. Sadly they are cheaper than Orion as it stands so it is a win for NASA.

The good news is that SpaceX and Sierra Nevada are currently promising unprecedented development rates that have humans flying on their spacecraft by 2014.  So, we'll know in a couple of years whether they have any chance of living up to their promises.

I might have my questions about Sierra Nevada, but not Space X. As it stands now Space X has a capsule that has made a near perfect test flight. Paragon has a lifesupport system available. Falcon 9 has made 2 launches but if you don't turst them you could go with Atlas. The only thing they are missing are controls for the crew, seats, and an escape system.

My money is on a bare bones crew transport system emerging years behind schedule, significantly over budget, and with a low flight rate that makes spaceflight less routine than it was during the shuttle era, rather than more routine. 

The shuttle's complexity was it's sore point. I would bet that an Atlas or even a Falcon 9 has a better chance of either launching the first time or launching without months long delays. Orion wasn't going to launch any more than the commercail crew craft(in fact cxp had palnned two lunar rmissions a year!)

[vt_hokie]

You are complaining about a bare bones systwm--but the requirement is to fly to the ISS??? No?  Why if I am a business make the requirements harder--it does not make sense and then you are complaining about it.  It it like you are complaining about a car that gets you to work and back and you are complaining about that it is bare bones.  Yes--it is barebones in that it may not the latest thing and cannot take your desk home--but guess what???  The requirement is to take 3 people to work and back.

Well, fwiw, here's my bet: no DreamChaser or any lifting body reusable spaceplane, as SpaceX will beat them with the cheaper, simpler Dragon.  If there is to be a second commercial crew vehicle, it will be another capsule.  In this age of austerity, the cheapest, simplest option will win.  I also predict there will be no land touchdown version of Dragon, at least within the next decade, but only the water splashdown (likely expendable) version.  And I will also bet that there will be no commercial stations in orbit and no demand beyond ISS for another decade.  Am I overly pessimistic?  Who knows.  I will say that I have seen optimistic, often naive predictions fail to come true time and time again in my life. 

I certainly believe in living by the words "hope for the best, prepare for the worst."  So, I think our policymakers are absolutely nuts to bet on a best-case scenario rather than consider historical precedent and manage the transition a little better, allowing for expected problems and delays.

[hop]

As well, after NASA switches to ordering Commercial crew flights what is to stop Korolyev from offering to sell the now slack capacity of a well proven and much cheaper Soyuz as a competitor?

Not certain it will be "much cheaper" per seat. SpaceX claim the opposite. I doubt they will pull that off, but they could be close enough that it isn't a major issue.

There are other significant reasons a customer might prefer one of the US commercial vehicles. Comfort, language, not spending several months in less-than-luxurious conditions in Russia, or simply not fitting in Soyuz.

What to take away:  A commercial crew market outside of NASA would be nice, but I would not bet any real money on it.

I generally agree, the potential for a significant non-NASA market is speculative at best.

OTOH, if only one of the commercial providers survives, and ends up being effectively a NASA vehicle, it's not really clear that's gong to be worse than post-shuttle vehicle built by NASA from the start. There is at least the potential to kick start something that makes a real difference down the road.

[pathfinder_01]

You are complaining about a bare bones systwm--but the requirement is to fly to the ISS??? No?  Why if I am a business make the requirements harder--it does not make sense and then you are complaining about it.  It it like you are complaining about a car that gets you to work and back and you are complaining about that it is bare bones.  Yes--it is barebones in that it may not the latest thing and cannot take your desk home--but guess what???  The requirement is to take 3 people to work and back.

Well, fwiw, here's my bet: no DreamChaser or any lifting body reusable spaceplane, as SpaceX will beat them with the cheaper, simpler Dragon.  If there is to be a second commercial crew vehicle, it will be another capsule.  In this age of austerity, the cheapest, simplest option will win.

Maybe Maybe not. Dreamchaser is better at transporting certian experiments, injured crew ect. Don't count them out yet.

I also predict there will be no land touchdown version of Dragon, at least within the next decade, but only the water splashdown (likely expendable) version. 

Space X inspected the capsule and found that they could have reused that one after that flight. Land landing is cheaper than landing at sea so there is an inceintive to go for land landings.

I certainly believe in living by the words "hope for the best, prepare for the worst."  So, I think our policymakers are absolutely nuts to bet on a best-case scenario rather than consider historical precedent and manage the transition a little better, allowing for expected problems and delays.

The transition became bocthed the minute CXP ran late. CXP was expecting to use the shuttle's money to speed it up(and make 2017). If you had extened the shuttle you would also need to raise the  budget or delay CXP further.

[mikegi]

That's not the only reason it fails though. Another is that they are just different activities: Flying from city to city is a logical extension of traveling by train, boat, horse etc. The practicality may have been in question, but the value of getting people or stuff from A to B quickly was not. This is not true of putting people into LEO or beyond.

Great post. It hits just about every point, especially the last one. Today, there is no value in putting people in space. Back in the Apollo days, national prestige and competition with the USSR in manned flight was valuable. That's gone (which is a very good thing, BTW).

The only way I can see commercial HSF becoming comparable to the early days of airliners is if they could get the price down below, say, $500K for a trip to LEO. There's still no actual value in me going into space ... other than it being the ultimate thrill ride/vacation.

[Diagoras]

That's not the only reason it fails though. Another is that they are just different activities: Flying from city to city is a logical extension of traveling by train, boat, horse etc. The practicality may have been in question, but the value of getting people or stuff from A to B quickly was not. This is not true of putting people into LEO or beyond.

Great post. It hits just about every point, especially the last one. Today, there is no value in putting people in space. Back in the Apollo days, national prestige and competition with the USSR in manned flight was valuable. That's gone (which is a very good thing, BTW).

The only way I can see commercial HSF becoming comparable to the early days of airliners is if they could get the price down below, say, $500K for a trip to LEO. There's still no actual value in me going into space ... other than it being the ultimate thrill ride/vacation.

Tourism? Research? National prestige for sovereign clients?

[Jorge]

As well, after NASA switches to ordering Commercial crew flights what is to stop Korolyev from offering to sell the now slack capacity of a well proven and much cheaper Soyuz as a competitor?

There is nothing to stop them from *offering* it. The law stops NASA from *accepting* it once *any* "US commercial provider" (as defined in the law) is available, regardless of which is cheaper.

[Jorge]

You are complaining about a low flight rate?  What is the flight rate they are meant to fly at--I may be wrong but NASA is only asking for 2 flights a year---so you do not think commerical can handle this in 2016/2017?   I think commerical will handle more than proposed current flight rate.

It is not a matter of whether they can handle *more* than that rate, from a technical point of view. It is a matter of whether they can handle being *at* that rate, from a business point of view, especially if 1) that flight rate winds up being shared among multiple providers, and 2) no non-NASA customers show up and NASA winds up being the sole customer.

  I hope NASA requirements is for more flights not less.  There then would be more opportunties for a company to fly.

Your hope is irrelevant. If Congress only funds NASA to buy the flights they *need*, then that is all they will *buy* - and the commercial providers had better be prepared to cope with that.

[yg1968]

As well, after NASA switches to ordering Commercial crew flights what is to stop Korolyev from offering to sell the now slack capacity of a well proven and much cheaper Soyuz as a competitor?

There is nothing to stop them from *offering* it. The law stops NASA from *accepting* it once *any* "US commercial provider" (as defined in the law) is available, regardless of which is cheaper.

Just to add to what you are saying, for CCDev-2, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies were allowed to make a bid but they were some very strict conditions that applied:

4.2   Eligible Participants

The following entities may submit proposals under this Announcement: an entity organized under the laws of the United States or of a State, which is:

A.   More than 50 percent owned by United States nationals; or

B.   A subsidiary of a foreign company and the Secretary of Transportation finds that –

(i) Such subsidiary has in the past evidenced a substantial commitment to the United States market through –

a.   Investments in the United States in long-term research, development, and manufacturing (including the manufacture of major components and subassemblies); and

b.   Significant contributions to employment in the United States; and

(ii) The country or countries in which such foreign company is incorporated or organized, and, if appropriate, in which it principally conducts its business, affords reciprocal treatment to companies described in subparagraph A comparable to that afforded to such foreign company's subsidiary in the United States, as evidenced by –

a.   Providing comparable opportunities for companies described in subparagraph A. to participate in Government sponsored research and development similar to that authorized under Title 42 U.S.C. Chapter 141 (Commercial Space Opportunities and Transportation Services).

b.   Providing no barriers, to companies described in subparagraph A. with respect to local investment opportunities, that are not provided to foreign companies in the United States; and

c.   Providing adequate and effective protection for the intellectual property rights of companies described in subparagraph A.

[yg1968]

As well, after NASA switches to ordering Commercial crew flights what is to stop Korolyev from offering to sell the now slack capacity of a well proven and much cheaper Soyuz as a competitor?

There is nothing to stop them from *offering* it. The law stops NASA from *accepting* it once *any* "US commercial provider" (as defined in the law) is available, regardless of which is cheaper.

For ease of reference, here is what the 2010 NASA Authorization bill says on the subject:

18 SEC. 201. UNITED STATES HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT POLICY.
19 (a) USE OF NON-UNITED STATES HUMAN SPACE
20 FLIGHT TRANSPORTATION CAPABILITIES.—It is the pol
21 icy of the United States that reliance upon and use of non-
22 United States human space flight capabilities shall be un
23 dertaken only as a contingency in circumstances where no
24 United States-owned and operated human space flight ca-
1 pability is available, operational, and certified for flight
2 by appropriate Federal agencies.

[A_M_Swallow]

Great post. It hits just about every point, especially the last one. Today, there is no value in putting people in space. Back in the Apollo days, national prestige and competition with the USSR in manned flight was valuable. That's gone (which is a very good thing, BTW).

The only way I can see commercial HSF becoming comparable to the early days of airliners is if they could get the price down below, say, $500K for a trip to LEO. There's still no actual value in me going into space ... other than it being the ultimate thrill ride/vacation.

For a research trip the cost of the trip will have to be less than the guestimated value of the research.

For a manned trip the cost of sending the person will have to be less than the estimated cost of using a fully automated system.  Partial automation and remote control effect the financial cross over point.

[Danderman]

I've a fear that despite all the optimism and amazing peoplem about commercial crew solving all the US problems in space, its wishful thinking and really going to be a repeat of the EELVs... ie. the commercial market fails to materialize and the government is left paying just to have the capability. 

Crews are rotated on the ISS roughly every six months. That means two commercial crew missions per year. This is far too low. There is no guarantee that there will be other customers whatsoever.

That low amount can barely support one provider never mind two or three! This will not result in a competitive market and will likely end up having one provider for the capability. This combination of few missions and few providers will make it very expensive per flight, possibly as high as shuttle. Commercial Cargo under COTS was not cheap, so I doubt human spaceflight is going to be significantly cheaper, esp since the vehicles are far more complex than the cargo ships like Dragon and Cygnus.

I hope this doesn't happen...

The current method is for NASA and the taxpayers to pay several billion dollars per year to transport crew and cargo on the Shuttle. Are you suggesting that Commercial Crew will cost more than Shuttle?

[yg1968]

You are complaining about a low flight rate?  What is the flight rate they are meant to fly at--I may be wrong but NASA is only asking for 2 flights a year---so you do not think commerical can handle this in 2016/2017?   I think commerical will handle more than proposed current flight rate.

It is not a matter of whether they can handle *more* than that rate, from a technical point of view. It is a matter of whether they can handle being *at* that rate, from a business point of view, especially if 1) that flight rate winds up being shared among multiple providers, and 2) no non-NASA customers show up and NASA winds up being the sole customer.

  I hope NASA requirements is for more flights not less.  There then would be more opportunties for a company to fly.

Your hope is irrelevant. If Congress only funds NASA to buy the flights they *need*, then that is all they will *buy* - and the commercial providers had better be prepared to cope with that.

I don't think that a decision has been made on how many flights will be needed at this point. It seems to me that any commercial crew provider should not expect more than 1 or 2 flights at the ISS per year. This is likely to somewhat increase the price of commercial crew.  I would also expect that any company providing commercial crew will want to also provide commercial cargo in order to have a business case. 

As far crew rescue capability, wouldn't you just leave the new spacecraft that docked at the ISS for a period of 6 months and return with the older spacecraft (i.e. leave with the spacecraft that has already been at the ISS for 6 months).   

[beb]

many videos on youtube of course.
[snip]

All Ed was asking for was one little link, is that so hard? One ting 've learned about NASAspaceflight is that you can't get away with bluster here.

[beb]

i don't remember the birth of the commercial airline industry, but i wonder if it wasn't a similar pattern.

You don't need to remember it, the history is well documented. As far as I can tell, the answer is no.

i imagine someone thought people wouldn't want to fly that much. and others that government should run it entirely.

That's not how it happened. Government was certainly involved, but it was never the primary player like the first 50 years of spaceflight. Private individuals and industry were pursuing their own interests from Wrights onward (and before, right back to the Montgolfiers for that matter...)

The biggest government contributions were probably air mail and the technology and surplus output of two world wars. None of that appears applicable to the current situation in space travel.

does the metaphor break down because space is such a bigger step than just flying around from city to city?

That is one reason, IMO. Space travel is fundamentally harder. A couple of moderately successful bicycle builders created the first airplane using private funds, while putting a man in orbit required the substantial commitment of resources by the most powerful nations on the planet. If developing and flying the Wright flyer had required a national investment equivalent to Vostok, air travel would have followed a different path.

That's not the only reason it fails though. Another is that they are just different activities: Flying from city to city is a logical extension of traveling by train, boat, horse etc. The practicality may have been in question, but the value of getting people or stuff from A to B quickly was not. This is not true of putting people into LEO or beyond.

If there were a "+1" button for this post, I'd click it.

[billh]

As well, after NASA switches to ordering Commercial crew flights what is to stop Korolyev from offering to sell the now slack capacity of a well proven and much cheaper Soyuz as a competitor?

I think it's a pretty safe bet that when NASA starts using commercial crew services the Russians are going to go back to letting Space Adventures sell their excess seats to tourists.

[vt_hokie]

To me, the gap and associated uncertainty surrounding this transition signals that the administration doesn't really care about human spaceflight.  On issues that it does care about, I would suggest that the Obama administration would never allow such uncertainty, risk, and chaos. 

On how many other important programs do we trash an existing capability before a replacement is proven and ready to go?  Strong leadership provides strong morale and confidence in the future through a major transition such as this one.  Weak morale, pessimism, and uncertainty are a direct reflection of poor leadership, imo. 

[Gregori]

That's not a unique feature of the Obama Administration. Human Spaceflight has been pretty low on the list of priorities of most administrations and congress is even worse, historically.

If John F Kennedy were alive today and the president, human spaceflight wouldn't be that much different from what is now. This is just a political reality people have to get used to and work within the limits of.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Some back of the envelope calculations:
SNC Dreamchaser and SpaceX Dragon per seat prices:
Assumptions:
1) 30% profit margin.
2) Use of F9 or Atlas V
3) 1 pilot with 6 paying passengers.
Use of Atlas V for Dreamchaser best per seat price of $50M, because of the price of the Atlas V ~$200+M and the processing and cost of the reusable Dreamchaser ~$80M processing costs plus the amortization charge for the crew vehicle. Using an Atlas V as the LV SNC would be hard pressed to get the per seat price under $50M. Use of an F9 the price drops to $28M to $43M depending on the price of the SpaceX crewed price LV support and the F9 itself of about $65M to $156M. SpaceX per seat price for crewed Dragon ranges from $21M to $37M. The major reason between the best SNC price and the SpaceX price is the fact that SpaceX charges SNC the F9 cost plus profit whereas SpaceX uses the internal F9 cost only.

I can’t see Atlas V being anything but the backup use vehicle for which a ready vehicle is kept in storage so that in case of problems with the primary F9 vehicle it could fly in 6 months. This would also require at least 1 integration test flight be done with Atlas V so that all that would be needed is to put it on the pad and go. This would mean a slight per flight charge to maintain this vehicle in storage and to pay for it and the extra integration. All of this would primarily be an option for SNC and Boeing making their business model more robust but more expensive on a per flight basis as well.

Use of existing LV’s means that even 1 flight per year can still create a profit without being greater than $60M per seat price, more likely a $40+M per seat price. This is less than the latest Soyuz price of $65M per seat for 2015+ timeframe.

[grr]

As well, after NASA switches to ordering Commercial crew flights what is to stop Korolyev from offering to sell the now slack capacity of a well proven and much cheaper Soyuz as a competitor?

I think it's a pretty safe bet that when NASA starts using commercial crew services the Russians are going to go back to letting Space Adventures sell their excess seats to tourists.

I think that it is a safer bet that SpaceX will be doing the same, but 10's of millions LESS per seat.
In addition, one might even make a SWAG that Bigelow will be allowed to attach a sundancer, or something similar to ISS by 2014, and that would then be used for commercial space. But that is a PURE SWAG.
But that later is a nice way to get private space stations going.

[Mackilroy]

Look at the current world mood of governmental austerity measures, what nation would want to expand its space program to lease space on an American Module that is not already invested in the ISS? Yes there are a few, but the question is have they formed a critical mass, and at this point it would be easy to say no.

The ISS is currently used by a conglomeration of fifteen countries - Bigelow has seven signed up (and the European effort is eleven countries working together - so you could almost say five separate groups working together on the ISS). Sounds pretty good to me.

[dks13827]

 go back and watch the ares-1 and falcon test flight videos side by side and tell me what other choice did we have?

i have no doubt ares-1 would have killed at least 1 crew due to its flawed design, a design so flawed even many within nasa wanted to bail on it.
[/quote]
Please tell me where I can watch this "Ares I" test flight video.  If it exists, please tell me which part of the film shows how astronauts would have been killed, or which part shows a "flawed" design.

 - Ed Kyle
[/quote]
Right on Ed !!!   thank you.
( people just yak and yak with no basis in fact.  )

[yg1968]

As well, after NASA switches to ordering Commercial crew flights what is to stop Korolyev from offering to sell the now slack capacity of a well proven and much cheaper Soyuz as a competitor?

I think it's a pretty safe bet that when NASA starts using commercial crew services the Russians are going to go back to letting Space Adventures sell their excess seats to tourists.

I think that it is a safer bet that SpaceX will be doing the same, but 10's of millions LESS per seat.
In addition, one might even make a SWAG that Bigelow will be allowed to attach a sundancer, or something similar to ISS by 2014, and that would then be used for commercial space. But that is a PURE SWAG.
But that later is a nice way to get private space stations going.

Although I like the idea of allowing space tourists on commercial crew flights, NASA has given no indication that it intends to allow space tourists on the U.S. parts of the ISS. In fact, in the draft certification requirements for commercial crew, they have actually asked commercial crew providers to ensure that these extra seats could be replaced with cargo. Furthermore, if NASA were to purchase a Bigelow module for the ISS, it would be for astronauts (not for tourists).

[Jim]

NASA will be locked into paying whatever these companies charge for the service.

Again, so what?  It will be cheaper than a NASA managed system

Again, this is just a childish "well its better than NASA..." argument to throw attention away from the problems of commercial. I haven't been talking about the merits of NASA or whether that's better. I am not actually that interested in taking sides on that and have not specifically mentioned anything about it. For what its worth, SLS and Orion are probably also going to be train-wrecks in slow motion.

Companies having a monopoly on a service were NASA can't easily change providers is obviously not a good idea and could end up being very costly for the tax payer. Its not a desirable situation by any measure.

Wrong.

There is proof that commercial is better than NASA.  See all the launch services providers.

SLS and Orion are guaranteed to be train-wrecks in slow motion.
Commercial Crew is not.

Monopoly is not a bad thing and it has always been that way for space launch.  There was only one provider for each of the payload classes:  OSC for Pegasus, MCD for Delta II, GD for Atlas and Martin for Titan.   and consolidation in the aerospace industry didn't change this.

[Jim]

its wishful thinking and really going to be a repeat of the EELVs.

That isn't necessarily a bad thing.  It is still better than a gov't managed system

[Jim]

The supposed selling point of commercial is that companies will compete with each

No, it is not.  You don't get it.  See one of the members tag line. The selling point is commercial practices are cheaper than gov't for the same task. 

[Jim]

ULA is another example of this kind of pattern that I think this will fall into.

And what is bad about it?

[Namechange User]

The supposed selling point of commercial is that companies will compete with each

No, it is not.  You don't get it.  See one of the members tag line. The selling point is commercial practices are cheaper than gov't for the same task. 

And that is a vast over-simplification.  So NASA is supposed to pay for development, etc and maybe even be the only customer.  In your interpretation, that's ok, because "commercial" is cheaper than "government".

In a purely academic argument, that would be correct but this is also not reality of the situation.  NASA has no transition, no real future work and, as you very well know, government employees don't go anywhere.  So they will have to do something.  Perhaps they could "help out" with commercial.  Do you honestly think that they are going to go home one day, wake up the next with a new "paradigm" that they don't really need to know that much, etc and just shovel the money?

After all, the government is paying large sums of money toward the development, which allows a certain size stick.  Do not underestimate that.  Before you know it, this question leads to that question, that test leads to that test......and guess what. 

The only way around that is to show that there are more customers, at least ones with very strong interests, to keep that "stick" as short as possible so that the amount of times it can be used over one's head is minimized.  To summarize it, it very much is about customers beyond NASA.

[yg1968]

And that is a vast over-simplification.  So NASA is supposed to pay for development, etc and maybe even be the only customer.  In your interpretation, that's ok, because "commercial" is cheaper than "government".

In a purely academic argument, that would be correct but this is also not reality of the situation.  NASA has no transition, no real future work and, as you very well know, government employees don't go anywhere.  So they will have to do something.  Perhaps they could "help out" with commercial.  Do you honestly think that they are going to go home one day, wake up the next with a new "paradigm" that they don't really need to know that much, etc and just shovel the money?

After all, the government is paying large sums of money toward the development, which allows a certain size stick.  Do not underestimate that.  Before you know it, this question leads to that question, that test leads to that test......and guess what. 

The only way around that is to show that there are more customers, at least ones with very strong interests, to keep that "stick" as short as possible so that the amount of times it can be used over one's head is minimized.  To summarize it, it very much is about customers beyond NASA.

I don't recall any commercial crew providers making any kind of claims in respect of the non-governmental market. In fact, Boeing went as far as saying that they would consider such a market as gravy but it is not factored into their business case. As far as NASA employees, I imagine that some of them will go to the SLS/MPCV but the staff for commercial crew is supposed to be lean.

[Jim]

And that is a vast over-simplification.  So NASA is supposed to pay for development, etc and maybe even be the only customer.  In your interpretation, that's ok, because "commercial" is cheaper than "government".

It worked with one Delta II supplier and one Atlas supplier. Same goes for payload processing facilities on the east coast and many other services through out NASA.

[Namechange User]

And that is a vast over-simplification.  So NASA is supposed to pay for development, etc and maybe even be the only customer.  In your interpretation, that's ok, because "commercial" is cheaper than "government".

It worked with one Delta II supplier and one Atlas supplier. Same goes for payload processing facilities on the east coast and many other services through out NASA.

And this is not "one Delta II supplier and one Atlas supplier" so my hypothesis stands.  In other words, we get right back to everything being integrated and inter-related. 

NASA needs commercial.  Commercial needs NASA.  However, NASA has the absolute power to destroy commercial by making it so expensive that nobody else can afford it and it becomes just another government-funded project, with a name disguised to call it what it is not. 

[Blackjax]

As well, after NASA switches to ordering Commercial crew flights what is to stop Korolyev from offering to sell the now slack capacity of a well proven and much cheaper Soyuz as a competitor?

I think it's a pretty safe bet that when NASA starts using commercial crew services the Russians are going to go back to letting Space Adventures sell their excess seats to tourists.

Yeah but why buy from them?  US crew services to a Bigelow station will likely be cheaper, more available, and much more user friendly from a training standpoint.  I doubt any of the commercial providers will make their passengers learn Russian or put their lives on hold as long as the Russians do.

[Gregori]

ULA is another example of this kind of pattern that I think this will fall into.

And what is bad about it?

$$$

[Namechange User]

I don't recall any commercial crew providers making any kind of claims in respect of the non-governmental market. In fact, Boeing went as far as saying that they would consider such a market as gravy but it is not factored into their business case. As far as NASA employees, I imagine that some of them will go to the SLS/MPCV but the staff for commercial crew is supposed to be lean.

It's "gravy" because no business is in business to lose money.  They will just pass all their costs along to NASA in whatever method is appropriate per the contract plus a modest profit if there are no other customers.

As for NASA employees, there is no mission for SLS/MPCV or anything else for the "new technology development".  How long will that and can that last in this environment.  Given government employees are near constant, and they see the writing on the wall too, you have created an environment where each employee needs to be on the look-out for themselves, to make "their star shine brighter than everyone else" and to make sure they are "noticed" in order to secure their own personal future.  How do you think the best way to go about that is?

[Gregori]

The supposed selling point of commercial is that companies will compete with each

No, it is not.  You don't get it.  See one of the members tag line. The selling point is commercial practices are cheaper than gov't for the same task. 

I think I get quite fine. With no competition, commercial practices don't translate into cheaper costs for government, it just means a bigger profit margin to be pocketed for the company that has monopoly position.

[Diagoras]

The supposed selling point of commercial is that companies will compete with each

No, it is not.  You don't get it.  See one of the members tag line. The selling point is commercial practices are cheaper than gov't for the same task. 

I think I get quite fine. With no competition, commercial practices don't translate into cheaper costs for government, it just means a bigger profit margin to be pocketed for the company that has monopoly position.

You should probably review the difference between what's known as a cost-plus contract and a fixed cost contract. That is one of the operating differences between commercial and government NASA operations, the other being who owns the product. AFAIK.

[hop]

To me, the gap and associated uncertainty surrounding this transition signals that the administration doesn't really care about human spaceflight.  On issues that it does care about, I would suggest that the Obama administration would never allow such uncertainty, risk, and chaos. 

The previous administrations plan would have also had a large gap and significant uncertainty. So it's not unique to this administration.

You are correct that any US administration would go to much greater lengths to avoid similar gap in GPS, weather observation, reconnaissance capabilities etc.  Why ? Because those are critical national assets, whose absence would have a concrete, immediate impact. The simple fact is that by any practical measures, HSF capability is far less important than any one of those. Outside of the people who's livelihoods are directly tied to the program, the absence of HSF has very little impact. Even if HSF turns out to be important in the long term, a gap of a few years is insignificant in concrete terms.

None of the space faring nations treat HSF as a critical strategic asset. That idea hasn't had traction outside of the space geek circles since Apollo.

[Namechange User]

The supposed selling point of commercial is that companies will compete with each

No, it is not.  You don't get it.  See one of the members tag line. The selling point is commercial practices are cheaper than gov't for the same task. 

I think I get quite fine. With no competition, commercial practices don't translate into cheaper costs for government, it just means a bigger profit margin to be pocketed for the company that has monopoly position.

You should probably review the difference between what's known as a cost-plus contract and a fixed cost contract. That is one of the operating differences between commercial and government NASA operations, the other being who owns the product. AFAIK.

Not at all.  Those are contract mechanisms only.  They are employed by both the government and private industry.  Just because something is an FFP contract does not mean it is not government funded. 

In this particular case, commercial will "own" said spacecraft, even though the government will fund a large part of it or all of it (again, keep in mind the stick) in the event that other customers materialize.

If they do not (NASA is the only customer or by far the majority customer) they still will likely be FFP service contracts (to buy services from the company that they just paid to develop and build the vehicle) in which the providers costs are wrapped up and passed on to NASA plus a modest profit.  It will not matter if these are milestone payments, "price per seat", price per kilogram or however it is structured because all the money (and profit or the vast majority of it) still comes from the government. 

[NotGncDude]

To me, the gap and associated uncertainty surrounding this transition signals that the administration doesn't really care about human spaceflight.  On issues that it does care about, I would suggest that the Obama administration would never allow such uncertainty, risk, and chaos. 

The previous administrations plan would have also had a large gap and significant uncertainty. So it's not unique to this administration.

You are correct that any US administration would go to much greater lengths to avoid similar gap in GPS, weather observation, reconnaissance capabilities etc.  Why ? Because those are critical national assets, whose absence would have a concrete, immediate impact. The simple fact is that by any practical measures, HSF capability is far less important than any one of those. Outside of the people who's livelihoods are directly tied to the program, the absence of HSF has very little impact. Even if HSF turns out to be important in the long term, a gap of a few years is insignificant in concrete terms.

None of the space faring nations treat HSF as a critical strategic asset. That idea hasn't had traction outside of the space geek circles since Apollo.

The Truth

[Danderman]

 

In this particular case, commercial will "own" said spacecraft, even though the government will fund a large part of it or all of it (again, keep in mind the stick) in the event that other customers materialize.

Kind of like the airlines owning their jets, even though the passengers fund the jets.

[Namechange User]

 

In this particular case, commercial will "own" said spacecraft, even though the government will fund a large part of it or all of it (again, keep in mind the stick) in the event that other customers materialize.

Kind of like the airlines owning their jets, even though the passengers fund the jets.

No, not at all.  Look, I'm just speaking the truth.  None of these facts are in question.  I'm not sure why you and others like you try to make it like you are confronting "me" just because it is what it is and it is inconvienent to the dogma that some try to propogate for whatever purpose they must have. 

[neilh]

 

In this particular case, commercial will "own" said spacecraft, even though the government will fund a large part of it or all of it (again, keep in mind the stick) in the event that other customers materialize.

Kind of like the airlines owning their jets, even though the passengers fund the jets.

No, not at all.  Look, I'm just speaking the truth.  None of these facts are in question.  I'm not sure why you and others like you try to make it like you are confronting "me" just because it is what it is and it is inconvienent to the dogma that some try to propogate for whatever purpose they must have. 

Which dogma?

[pathfinder_01]

And what is bad about it?

$$$

The EELV are not as cheap as hoped, but they are still cheaper than what they replaced(Titian IV). A Titian IV launch cost about the same as a shuttle one.  Progress was made.

[grr]

As well, after NASA switches to ordering Commercial crew flights what is to stop Korolyev from offering to sell the now slack capacity of a well proven and much cheaper Soyuz as a competitor?

I think it's a pretty safe bet that when NASA starts using commercial crew services the Russians are going to go back to letting Space Adventures sell their excess seats to tourists.

I think that it is a safer bet that SpaceX will be doing the same, but 10's of millions LESS per seat.
In addition, one might even make a SWAG that Bigelow will be allowed to attach a sundancer, or something similar to ISS by 2014, and that would then be used for commercial space. But that is a PURE SWAG.
But that later is a nice way to get private space stations going.

Although I like the idea of allowing space tourists on commercial crew flights, NASA has given no indication that it intends to allow space tourists on the U.S. parts of the ISS. In fact, in the draft certification requirements for commercial crew, they have actually asked commercial crew providers to ensure that these extra seats could be replaced with cargo. Furthermore, if NASA was to purchase a Bigelow module for the ISS, it would be for astronauts (not for tourists).

That is why I said a SWAG on the bigelow part and not a bet.

 It will require a change in how CONgress and NASA perceives things. And interestingly, NASA IS changing.  The problem is politicians. But, if Boeing is allowed to take commercial crew up there (not just tourists, but other govs such as UK), then I suspect that SpaceX and Boeing will push hard to be there. ANd will L-Mart fight it? Nope. ATK or any other space company? Nope. They will all want this expansion.

[Jim]

The supposed selling point of commercial is that companies will compete with each

No, it is not.  You don't get it.  See one of the members tag line. The selling point is commercial practices are cheaper than gov't for the same task. 

I think I get quite fine. With no competition, commercial practices don't translate into cheaper costs for government, it just means a bigger profit margin to be pocketed for the company that has monopoly position.

Wrong, it does and it is proven

[Jim]

And what is bad about it?

$$$

The EELV are not as cheap as hoped, but they are still cheaper than what they replaced(Titian IV). A Titian IV launch cost about the same as a shuttle one.  Progress was made.

Bingo, and those increases were not due to lack of competition.

[Downix]

And what is bad about it?

$$$

The EELV are not as cheap as hoped, but they are still cheaper than what they replaced(Titian IV). A Titian IV launch cost about the same as a shuttle one.  Progress was made.

More than a Shuttle, actually.  Adjusting for inflation, to run the Titan program, with two launches per year, would cost a bit over $7 billion/year in todays dollars, compare that to the $5.2 billion for the Shuttle with 5 launches.

[neilh]

Btw, could we change the thread title to something a little less inflammatory?

[Jim]

And what is bad about it?

$$$

The EELV are not as cheap as hoped, but they are still cheaper than what they replaced(Titian IV). A Titian IV launch cost about the same as a shuttle one.  Progress was made.

More than a Shuttle, actually.  Adjusting for inflation, to run the Titan program, with two launches per year, would cost a bit over $7 billion/year in todays dollars, compare that to the $5.2 billion for the Shuttle with 5 launches.

Huh?

[pathfinder_01]

Huh?

I think he means for Titan IV, that was the only ELV that cost anywhere near the shuttle. Titan III and the rest were cheaper. Not to mention Titan IV could lift more and probably was more likely to launch on time than the Shuttle(barring weather).

[docmordrid]

And what would F9 w/Merlin 1D and Falcon Heavy at anywhere near its quoted cost and decent flight rates do to the EELV market?

[Oberon_Command]

Huh?

I think he means for Titan IV, that was the only ELV that cost anywhere near the shuttle. Titan III and the rest were cheaper. Not to mention Titan IV could lift more and probably was more likely to launch on time than the Shuttle(barring weather).

Talking of Titan III, how would that rocket compare to current EELVs and shuttle cost-wise? Would it have been cheap enough to be worth using as a commercial crew launcher?

[Downix]

Huh?

I think he means for Titan IV, that was the only ELV that cost anywhere near the shuttle. Titan III and the rest were cheaper. Not to mention Titan IV could lift more and probably was more likely to launch on time than the Shuttle(barring weather).

Right, was referencing the Titan IV.  I did a cost-analysis for it a bit back, and was surprised to find out that to operate it per year was higher than the Shuttle in the mid-90's.

[Downix]

Huh?

I think he means for Titan IV, that was the only ELV that cost anywhere near the shuttle. Titan III and the rest were cheaper. Not to mention Titan IV could lift more and probably was more likely to launch on time than the Shuttle(barring weather).

Talking of Titan III, how would that rocket compare to current EELVs and shuttle cost-wise? Would it have been cheap enough to be worth using as a commercial crew launcher?

At a flight rate of 5 per year, the Titan III would run around $228.5 million per flight, lofting it's payload of 14 metric tons.

You have to realize, the Titan's economic model works on high-overhead paired with high flight rate.  The actual per-launch cost of both Titans is remarkably low, the Titan IV's unit cost puts the Falcon to shame.  The thing is, to hit that low per-unit cost, they have high overhead.  Keep the flight rates up, this is great.  Flight rates drop, it becomes unaffordable.

If you used the same Titan III at the SpaceX anticipated flight rate of 24/year, it's cost plummets to $74.4 million.  Then again, if you flew the Titan IV at that rate, it's cost would similarly plummet, same with the EELV's. 

The issue remains, it is not the lack of launchers, it is too many launchers are preventing enough critical volume to get the flight rate up. 

[Jim]

And what would F9 w/Merlin 1D and Falcon Heavy at anywhere near its quoted cost and decent flight rates do to the EELV market?

Those are not givens.  SPacex is finding that costs are going up despite the printed spin.  Their burn rate is high and getting higher.

[Robotbeat]

And what would F9 w/Merlin 1D and Falcon Heavy at anywhere near its quoted cost and decent flight rates do to the EELV market?

Those are not givens.  SPacex is finding that costs are going up despite the printed spin.  Their burn rate is high and getting higher.

And if they are wildly (or even mildly) successful and end up getting DoD launches (with the requisite integration capabilities), then it might lead to eventually removing one of the EELVs for the sake of cost reduction. This is an advantage with the commercial approach...

[edkyle99]

Huh?

I think he means for Titan IV, that was the only ELV that cost anywhere near the shuttle. Titan III and the rest were cheaper. Not to mention Titan IV could lift more and probably was more likely to launch on time than the Shuttle(barring weather).

Right, was referencing the Titan IV.  I did a cost-analysis for it a bit back, and was surprised to find out that to operate it per year was higher than the Shuttle in the mid-90's.

No way did Titan IV cost more than Shuttle.  The only fair comparison is on a total program cost basis, not by cherry-picking a budget from a particular year.

 - Ed Kyle

[Danderman]

No way did Titan IV cost more than Shuttle.  The only fair comparison is on a total program cost basis, not by cherry-picking a budget from a particular year.

It is not particularly useful to argue one way or another whether Titan IV was more expensive than Shuttle, since the budgets for both are so arcane. However, I think everyone can agree that Titan IV was really, really expensive; more so than EELV.

The Lockheed guys I knew would use the term "Titanize" to denote the process by which an inherently cheap system becomes an expensive system.

[Downix]

Huh?

I think he means for Titan IV, that was the only ELV that cost anywhere near the shuttle. Titan III and the rest were cheaper. Not to mention Titan IV could lift more and probably was more likely to launch on time than the Shuttle(barring weather).

Right, was referencing the Titan IV.  I did a cost-analysis for it a bit back, and was surprised to find out that to operate it per year was higher than the Shuttle in the mid-90's.

No way did Titan IV cost more than Shuttle.  The only fair comparison is on a total program cost basis, not by cherry-picking a budget from a particular year.

 - Ed Kyle

No fair jumping back several posts of an argument to try and make a point either, this was discussed several posts later.  (and it was not a particular year, I actually was using the block from 1987-2002)

In 1990, for instance, the Titan IV program cost $587 million, of which only $11 million was incidentals for the launch vehicles themselves, the reaminder being overhead.  And that is with the overhead being shared with two other series as well, the Titan 34 and Titan III.  When those were retired, the Titan IV now had to share all of those costs by itself, which made it's per-year cost jump to $2,471 million in 1990 dollars.  That is roughly $4.7 billion in todays dollars.  it's incidentals remained only $11 million, for a total of 6 launches.  And none of these costs included the USAF portion of costs, which is still unknown (will be de-classified in 2018) but with estimates ranging from $2-4 billion in todays dollars, which I pegged dead-center at $3 billion, hence my above figure.  If we eliminate the USAF cost portion, as it is an unknown, we still have a program that is less than a half-billion in cost from the Shuttle's own $5 billion per year operational cost, which flies at similar rates.  However, the Titan gains far more from higher flight rates than the Shuttle, while it suffers more from lower flight rates.  The failure of the Titan 34 program to take off commercially is truly what doomed the Titan.

[bad_astra]

Titan IV had a higher flight rate?

[Downix]

Titan IV had a higher flight rate?

no, it had a matching flight rate, for one year.

[Cherokee43v6]

Gregori,

You appear to have a rather poor understanding of economics and the actual power of a monopoly company.  In fact, your understanding of modern business practices sounds very much like extremely bad fiction or the 'Montgomery Burns/Scrooge McDuck school of greed'.

If one were to assume a monopolistic commercial space launch situation, there is an upper limit on how much the launch provider would be able to charge.  That amount is in no way shape or form 'the maximum amount of blood the turnip will yield'.  Laws of supply and demand will stabilize a price that is acceptable to all parties, supplier and consumers.  If the supplier raises the price to high, the consumers will 'insist' on alternatives, thus creating competition. This is in fact the scenario in which we now find ourselves because Government does not have to obey the laws of supply and demand until the people's voice (Congress) cuts the purse strings.  Therefore the monopolist will only charge the maximum amount that still protects their monopoly status. 

If the monopolist proves successful in earning a profit then others will look closely at what they are doing and try to find a way to enter the market with improved processes or technologies that enable them to undercut the monopolist's pricing, thus creating competition.  The previously monopolist company must then respond by either reducing its own profits or improving its own processes to reduce costs so it can match the competitor.  SpaceX is a prime example of an alternative company creating new methodologies to create a product at a significantly reduced cost as compared to the traditional suppliers in the field.

The true concern here is not a monopoly... it is the fact that this is a 'monopsony' scenario.  In other words, we have multiple suppliers but currently only a single consumer for those services.  Luckily, there is also a company out there who is seeking to break this mold as well.  However, Bigelow Aerospace's business model is at the mercy of the successful development of Commercial Crew capability.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Thank you for your clear cut explanation of economics that quite a few here are not versed in. I have been doused in business economics by helping the spouse understand the higher level math portion of her MBA studies. I found I learned quite a bit about business economics and business financial management that I thought I knew but was completly wrong about. There are a lot of misconceptions out there about relationships between investment, spending (costsof  both capitol and overhead non-recurring and of direct recurring) and profit and how they are handled to determine profitability.

People look at SpaceX's spending and their revenue and can't understand how they can be profitable. Investment and capitol expenditures are not a straight-forward effect on the calculation of net-income. Capitol expenditures (equipment to manufacture a product, buildings, pad improvements and even most R&D) are amortized over multiple years as a charge against revenue in the calculation of net-income for a year. So for example SpacX has recieved $600M in investments which is cash that is placed in the bank and $700M in capitol expenditures, which are checks written against the cash in the bank, that is amortized over 5 years at a charge of only ~$140M a year. This is charged against revenue for which SpaceX has recieved >$250M in 2010. Direct costs for the two flights of ~$80M + the ~$140M amoritization charge + other costs ~$20M is the yearly expenditure subtracted from the revenue of $250M leaving a profit of ~$10M. This is an extremely simplified version but it shows how a company like spaceX calculates profit.

The thing to watch out for is the continuation of increasing capitol expenditures without an increase in revenues to cover the increase in amoritization charge against revenue. If capitol expenditures is managed correctly the year to year varriation in amoritization charges would have only small increases, remember that an expenditure that happened 5 years ago would be paid off and a new expenditure in the current year would take its place allowing for capitol expenditures to continue every year but only so far as it is managed correctly.

[john smith 19]

I've come late to this discussion but I have been following the behavior of Spacex and OSC.

Spacex. Stated they wanted to do a crew rated capsule from day 1 and designed crew rating in to the launcher also from day 1. Dragon had most of the facilities to support humans designed into it (including a heat shield ready for a trip to the Moon), with the result that upgrading it to carry crew is straight forward.

They are at a fairly early stage in a relationship with NASA.

OSC has a long term relationship with NASA and picked up the remaining funds when Rocketplane Kistler failed to raise their part of the COTS funding. Despite getting c$100m *less* than Spacex and with *no*  launch vehicle design experience in liquid fueled engines they propose a mixed liquid/solid design whose nearest counterpart seems to be the Indian GSLV, with a  capsule cobbled together from various sources which almost looks designed *not* to ever be capable of carrying crew.

They have now got NASA to pay for a "Risk reduction" flight as all this new hardware is untested (which they presumably knew when they bid for the money but do no seem to have taken account of) , which (hopefully) will not discover the sort of "Resonant burning" that Ares 1X found in its solid stage.

Spacex looks like a company with a plan. They act like they want ISS business but their product will be available to non NASA users before and after ISS work. They look like they have already shaken out the bugs through the 3 launch failures of Dragon1.

OSC look like an outfit that saw a bag of cash going spare, knocked up a proposal and now have to make it work. They have *never* flown a launcher with close to the layout of Taurus 2 and yet expect it to start deliveries sometime in 2012?

I get a sense of them making it up as they go along. CCDev was designed to *free* the US from dependence on major outside suppliers. OSC's use of foreign contractors presumably did not break the letter of the contract with NASA, but I think it breaks the spirit of the programme.

I hope they can deliver and make it fly.





 

[hop]

OSC look like an outfit that saw a bag of cash going spare, knocked up a proposal and now have to make it work. They have *never* flown a launcher with close to the layout of Taurus 2 and yet expect it to start deliveries sometime in 2012?

Your history is off, you should read the Q&A with Dr. Antonio Elias thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3911.0

In particular, Taurus 2 was under under consideration well before COTS, because Orbital needed an LV to fly their Delta II class payloads after Delta II goes away.

Regarding experience, your selective focus on liquid first stages appears misplaced.  Orbital does not have past experience in this area, but they have launched more rockets in a larger range of configurations than SpaceX have. They have also built a whole lot of successful spacecraft. One is orbiting Vesta right now...

SpaceX had zero spacecraft experience before Dragon. I don't see any reason to believe this is less significant than experience with liquid first stages.

CCDev was designed to *free* the US from dependence on major outside suppliers.

Citation ? Both Atlas and Delta rely on foreign suppliers...

[Danderman]

OSC look like an outfit that saw a bag of cash going spare, knocked up a proposal and now have to make it work.

I saw Taurus II as a finished design in 2005, so it had to have been in work long before COTS.

Please do not pollute this forum with unfounded assertions.

 

[NotGncDude]

OSC look like an outfit that saw a bag of cash going spare, knocked up a proposal and now have to make it work. They have *never* flown a launcher with close to the layout of Taurus 2 and yet expect it to start deliveries sometime in 2012?

Whoa, way to go w that comment.

[strangequark]

Mr. Smith:

I respectively suggest you go here and start at page 1.

...whose nearest counterpart seems to be the Indian GSLV...

The Taurus II resembles the GSLV as closely as I resemble Cee Lo Green. You will find my picture to your left.

[john smith 19]

I saw Taurus II as a finished design in 2005, so it had to have been in work long before COTS.

Please do not pollute this forum with unfounded assertions.

 

I will note Ed Kyles page on Taurus

http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/taurus2.html

Lists the original COTS award as February 19th 2008, but that versions of T2 dated from as far back as the early 90's.

Would you have a reference for this?

[Downix]

Mr. Smith:

I respectively suggest you go here and start at page 1.

...whose nearest counterpart seems to be the Indian GSLV...

The Taurus II resembles the GSLV as closely as I resemble Cee Lo Green. You will find my picture to your left.

But how is your rendition of "Crazy"?