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

[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.