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

[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.