Going through the latest CCP forum presentation, the notional schedule (see below) appeared to be different than previous iterations, so I went through the archives to check. While that schedule is still notional there's an obvious pattern...Projected start of commercial crew service, source and publication date (newest to oldest; all dates calendar years:2017 Q1 -- NASA CCP presentation, Sep 2011 (see below)2016 Q4 -- NASA CCP presentation, Jul 20112016 Q41 -- NASA IG report, Jun 20112015 Q42 -- NASA FY2012 Summary Budget Breifing, Feb 20112015 Q3 -- OMB report, May 20101 States "late 2016"; notes Soyuz seats purchased through end of 2015 (final Soyuz crew return planned June 2016).2 Shows two commercial crew flights/yr starting in FY2016 = CY2015 Q4 earliest.
it will come down to funding. Several companies say they can make 2015. Could be optimism or spin but likely earlier than 2017. ISS is working to have the docking hardware in place before they are ready. But based heavily on funding. Also depends on whether you want to throw all your little bit o money at one company or keep several around for a while. NASA is trying to keep multiple as long as practical.
Quote from: erioladastra on 09/18/2011 09:40 pmit will come down to funding. Several companies say they can make 2015. Could be optimism or spin but likely earlier than 2017. ISS is working to have the docking hardware in place before they are ready. But based heavily on funding. Also depends on whether you want to throw all your little bit o money at one company or keep several around for a while. NASA is trying to keep multiple as long as practical. Agree funding is likely to have a significant impact on availability, and it is desireable to maintain a competitive environment for as long as possible.*For the record, based on CCDev-2 SAA's:SNC -- No date (redacted)Boeing -- Early 2015 for "first crew test flight"; no date shown for ISS crew flights.SpaceX -- Early 2014 "crew demo flight"; late 2014 "ISS crew flight"* Among other things, maintaining multiple providers and adequate price competition eliminates the need to meet the FAR cost accounting standards (CAS) and certified cost/price reporting requirements.
I wonder about the funding profile needed by Boeing and spacex to reach their IOC. I also what the funding profile would be for a slip for 1 year...
“I can tell you that if that number holds for the next year [House $312M funding], it’s going to be very challenging for us to maintain multiple partners, to maintain the type of progress we’ve made, and meet a goal to fly folks in the mid part of the decade,” Jett said. “At some point we’re going to have to spend more than a couple hundred million dollars a year.”
Regarding CCDev funding, Elbon expressed concerned about potential FY2012 budget cuts. What’s in the president’s budget request—$850 million a year from 2012 through 2016—is “in the neighborhood of what it would take to make this program successful,” he said, “so I would hope Congress would consider funding the program at or near those levels.” However, the House is proposing only $312 million for CCDev in 2012 in its appropriation bill awaiting consider by the full House. Funding has already had an effect on Boeing’s plans: Elbon noted that their initial test flight plans “was based on a different level of CCDev-2 funding that we received,” causing the company to push back its test schedule slightly. “There’s been about a quarter’s worth of impact due to the funding that came out of CCDev-2 as we went forward.”
QuoteRegarding CCDev funding, Elbon expressed concerned about potential FY2012 budget cuts. What’s in the president’s budget request—$850 million a year from 2012 through 2016—is “in the neighborhood of what it would take to make this program successful,” he said, “so I would hope Congress would consider funding the program at or near those levels.” However, the House is proposing only $312 million for CCDev in 2012 in its appropriation bill awaiting consider by the full House. Funding has already had an effect on Boeing’s plans: Elbon noted that their initial test flight plans “was based on a different level of CCDev-2 funding that we received,” causing the company to push back its test schedule slightly. “There’s been about a quarter’s worth of impact due to the funding that came out of CCDev-2 as we went forward.”Boeing on test pilots, FAR-vs-SAA, and more, New Space Journal, August 2011
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk today applauded a Senate committee's approval of $500 million in NASA funding next year to help develop commercial crew taxis for trips to the International Space Station.
Commercial Crew. — The Committee has provided $500,000,000 for commercial crew activities, the same as the authorized level. This funding shall be available to continue and competitively expand the number of participants and the activities of the Commercial Crew Development [CCDEV] program in order to reduce risk, develop technologies and lead to other advancements that will help determine most effective and efficient means of advancing the development of commercial crew services.Of the amount included for commercial crew development activities, $307,400,000 shall be available on October 1, 2011. This amount is equal to the fiscal year 2011 level for commercial crew development. An additional $192,600,000 of commercial crew funding will become available after the NASA Administrator has certified, in writing, that NASA has: (1) published the notifications to implement acquisition strategy for the heavy lift launch vehicle system, also known as the space launch system [SLS], authorized in section 302 of Public Law 111–267 and (2) begun to execute relevant contract actions in support of development of SLS. This certification may not be delegated and will assure the Committee that NASA is committed to all elements of the balanced human spaceflight program authorized in Public Law 111–267. The Committee understands that NASA will be providing more information on the acquisition strategy for SLS in the coming weeks.
Commercial crew. — For commercial crew development activities, the Committee recommends $312,000,000, which is the same as fiscal year 2011. The Committee preserved funds for this activity to reduce the risk of relying solely on Russia for ISS access and to address the need for the United States to establish a domestic means of access to low Earth orbit. The sizable increase proposed in the budget request, however, was premature given the still-undefined acquisition strategy for the Commercial Crew Development Round 3 (CCDev 3) awards and the uncertainty behind assumptions about pricing, schedule, market demand, flight opportunities and other economic factors that are essentially unknowable at this time.Given the likely decrease in the number of CCDev 3 awards that will be made at this funding level relative to the request, NASA is encouraged to make use of unfunded Space Act Agreements to maximize the number of commercial partners who stay engaged with the program and remain in contention for an eventual service contract. For any acquisition strategy developed for CCDev3, NASA is encouraged to consider the potential contributions of women-, minority- and veteran-owned firms.
Well a lower budget will mean a few things:1. Less providers: probably deselect to two. Personally dont see it as a loss, as there really is not a flight rate for ISS to support more (ie two crew flights a year)2. Sticking with lowest cost option for infrastructure. Unless funds are switched to LC-39 modernization will probably mean sticking with LC-40/1 for crew launch.3. Liberty gets the axe. No development funds for new LV's, minimal for existing LV modifications (ie probably not Delta IV)4. Schedule slipsSo its not the greatest outcome, but it could be worse.
At what point do we pay more for Soyuz seats than we would have otherwise paid to just pay for and complete the CCDev program?
The market for human transportation will be modest at first. NASA will set requirements for eight crew rotations per year on four flights.
The original version of the recommendation was entitled: Spaceflight Participant Policy for ISS. The original version of the recommendation itself was: NASA should establish a policy for spaceflight participants to fly to ISS on U.S. commercial vehicles. The first draft of the Major Reasons for the Recommendation read: This policy will incentivize CCDev participants to invest in the development of commercial transportation to LEO, expecting additional return on their investment by flying tourists to the ISS. The Draft Consequences of No Action was: Absent such a policy, all spaceflight participant activity will be to the Russian side of the ISS, hence depriving U.S. commercial companies of ISS spaceflight participant revenue and decreasing commercial investment in the development of the transportation to ISS for NASA crews.Because commercial cargo is already going to ISS, that part was to be deleted. It was also agreed that the word “tourists” should be changed to “space flight participants” throughout, in which case the consequence of no action would be the missed opportunity for revenue and commercial work. With Committee members in agreement about the general concept, this recommendation was to be developed more fully outside of the meeting.
Lots of interesting information about commercial crew in the minutes to the August 2-3 2011 Joint Meeting of the NAC Space Operations and Exploration Committees.On page 11:QuoteThe market for human transportation will be modest at first. NASA will set requirements for eight crew rotations per year on four flights.http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/582570main_NACEXP-SpaceopsminutesAugust2-32011_508.pdf
