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

[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).