Commercial Crew - Does it still make sense given the funding?

[BeanEstimator]

So I haven't seen this on here, but thought I would throw this out there...apologies if wrong forum/location (mods punt as needed or retitle, I suck at titles).

Quite a few of us (myself included) have been looking steadily at commercial crew and it's requested funding vs appropriated budget. 

To keep things simple, last year the president and agency requested ~$800M.  We were appropriated about ~$400M.  In response, the agency changed acquisition strategy (from hybrid FAR for this stage back to funded SAA), and slipped readiness date (now NET 2017).

We are faced with possibility that we will go thru this again this year.  The request has been made, again ~$800M.

Recently, Phil McAlister (whom may of you know either in work or by name) was quoted as saying the following:

“If we only get 300 to 400 (million dollars) a year, I would say it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to do this program,” McAlister said. “If we felt like that’s all we could get, we would definitely re-evaluate the program.”

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20120215/NEWS02/302150011/NASA-targets-830M-annually-reach-local-astronaut-launch-by-2017

So I'll throw two statements/questions/points out there:

1 - if it really takes $800m/yr to run this commercial crew program correctly, why not just do it entirely in house considering the price point (there is an argument that you could have had ares 1, for example with that money)

2 - if the track record continues, and half funding is appropriated, do you think the commercial crew program will continue, or will it find eol prematurely? (i.e. do you agree with Phil)


edit to add:  focus on question #2.  question #1 was not why i started this thread (told you i suck at titles and such)

also, this is now making the rounds:

http://spacenews.com/policy/120215-nasa-commercial-cut-kill-program.html

“Just one test fight is going to be a couple of hundred million dollars, probably. So that’s your whole year’s funding, right? So it doesn’t really make sense at that kind of funding level. If we felt like that’s all we could get, we would definitely re-evaluate the program,” he said.

[Namechange User]

Do we assume that this funding was unknown to all?  Afterall, the Authorization Act signed into law only authorized 500 million per year.

So with respect to your second point, why were these questions/concerns not asked or raised then, or were they?, and do we further assume that when the Act was in Draft that it was done in a vacuum and without any consultation to either industry or NASA?

Now I have no problem with additional money if it can be given.  It would obviously be beneficial in many ways.  I just wonder if there is more politics going on with these type statements from program leaders. 

I still believe it also goes back to the central question of what "commercial" is really supposed to be.  Is it a government-funded program and commercial-in-name-only, and if so, are we willing to short change future benefits and capabilities to get it sooner and likely then just one OR are we saying this is a government-industry partnership where government will invest but so should industry and therefore shoulder more financial responsibility even if it takes a little longer and may pay off more in the end?

[Namechange User]

In addition there is this:

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2012/02/iss-users-wante.html

I think the obvious answer to NASA should be a complete review of requirements and regulations to get something to fly on ISS.

If ISS truly opens for business, then just a paper review would seem to go a long way to killing two birds with one stone, so to speak. 

[BeanEstimator]

Do we assume that this funding was unknown to all?  Afterall, the Authorization Act signed into law only authorized 500 million per year.

So with respect to your second point, why were these questions/concerns not asked or raised then, or were they?, and do we further assume that when the Act was in Draft that it was done in a vacuum and without any consultation to either industry or NASA?

this, to me at least, is the meat of the entire question.  auth act said $500, we turned around and requested $800, we received $400.  now, facing a repeat, one of the nasa leaders in charge of cc says, "well, at 300 or 400 it doesn't make sense"

my first thought is "where was this kind of talk 12-24 months ago".  why did we set up a program that "needed" 800 to run correctly, when the original act was only 500.  and, why are we looking to repeat? 

as an aside, i offered my point #1...if we are correct in saying "the agency says" it takes 800 to run this program per year, what are you actually saving?  and why not just continue status-quo or keep in house? i believe this is somewhat in line with your point of, "what do mean when we say 'commercial'"

don't get me wrong, i'm not a hater by any stretch of the imagination...but my sentiment is very similar to yours (and im not saying you're a hater either...just qualifying here)...we say 300-400 doesn't make sense, but the original going in was only 500?  so that was completely undoable?  we knowingly setup a program this way?? where were the conversations on that point about a year or two ago...

[Namechange User]

I think we are on the same page, more or less.

I still also firmly believe that if ISS was really opened up, like NASA claims it wants, government-funding for commercial would be less of a concern because, instead, you are creating a market and a value-proposition for other services to utilize the station, and a need to get there. 

[Jim]

1 - if it really takes $800m/yr to run this commercial crew program correctly, why not just do it entirely in house considering the price point (there is an argument that you could have had ares 1, for example with that money)

No.
a.  it wouldn't be cheaper or even doable for that price
b.  Ares I was only a booster with nothing to launch on it

[peter-b]

this, to me at least, is the meat of the entire question.  auth act said $500, we turned around and requested $800, we received $400.  now, facing a repeat, one of the nasa leaders in charge of cc says, "well, at 300 or 400 it doesn't make sense"

my first thought is "where was this kind of talk 12-24 months ago".  why did we set up a program that "needed" 800 to run correctly, when the original act was only 500.  and, why are we looking to repeat? 

Hang on, this doesn't match up with my recollection.  CCDev was approved and up and running a couple of years ago now (didn't Griffin effectively start it going way back when?), and was already funding initial pieces of work; the intention was always to scale the funding up towards a final downselect to 2-3 providers.

The problem was, when NASA got to the point of doing the paperwork for that stage -- with CCDev-1 completed and CCDev-2 already under way -- the Congressional committee turned around and said, "$800m/year for two US manned orbital spacecraft? Nope! Only $500m/year allowed!"

This, of course, has left NASA with a yet another program that's about a third completed, and suddenly starved of the funds needed to actually finish it off. As has been frequently explained in the past, spacecraft development projects can't just be stretched on lower funds, because of the high infrastructure maintenance costs and the need to keep development teams going.  Furthermore, CCDev has a deadline due to the ISS, and not getting enough funding to get at least one spacecraft flying in time would be a total program failure. And as a final problem, one of CCDev's goals was to try and break the "single provider" situation that US HSF has historically been in. Failing to get at least two spacecraft flying would be a partial program failure.

So, I agree that CCDev needs to be reevaluated. But to assert that the  Authorization Act is where this all starts seems highly misleading to me -- it was much more a case of the Auth. Act riding roughshod over carefully-laid plans prepared well in advance.

1 - if it really takes $800m/yr to run this commercial crew program correctly, why not just do it entirely in house considering the price point (there is an argument that you could have had ares 1, for example with that money)

No.
a.  it wouldn't be cheaper or even doable for that price
b.  Ares I was only a booster with nothing to launch on it

I agree with Jim. 

[Namechange User]

So, I agree that CCDev needs to be reevaluated. But to assert that the  Authorization Act is where this all starts seems highly misleading to me -- it was much more a case of the Auth. Act riding roughshod over carefully-laid plans prepared well in advance.

Thanks for the input.  However, you are wrong. 

[BeanEstimator]

1 - if it really takes $800m/yr to run this commercial crew program correctly, why not just do it entirely in house considering the price point (there is an argument that you could have had ares 1, for example with that money)

No.
a.  it wouldn't be cheaper or even doable for that price
b.  Ares I was only a booster with nothing to launch on it

agree it would not be cheaper or doable to "do what we are doing with commercial crew"

i'm not saying ares 1 >  commercial crew, far from it.  nor am i saying that's where i would put the money.

the question i'm asking is, "if it costs $800m/yr to run ccdev correctly, what are you actually saving over the status quo/in-house/some other option?"

not proposing a re-prioritization of where money goes.  simply calling attention to the amount of money we say we need to run correctly, and asking, since that sum is "large", what are you actually saving.

perhaps this is not correct, and so feel free to correct me, but let's say, hypothetically we ran ccdev at $800m for 4 years during dev.  not unreasonable considering the runout in pres budget last year and this year.  that's $3.2B spent in dev to get another leo system for crew.  that's before i start paying for services to actually run missions.  understanding that this may sound foolish, but can someone help me understand how this is supposed to be "cheaper" at those kinds of costs?

note:  lest i/we get sidetracked...my original point for this thread is not really my question #1 (with this large sum, what are  you saving), to which jim responded...it is actually question #2...agree/disagree with phil, and how does this make you feel about commercial crew in general given the funding.

[Jason1701]

I still believe it also goes back to the central question of what "commercial" is really supposed to be.  Is it a government-funded program and commercial-in-name-only, and if so, are we willing to short change future benefits and capabilities to get it sooner and likely then just one OR are we saying this is a government-industry partnership where government will invest but so should industry and therefore shoulder more financial responsibility even if it takes a little longer and may pay off more in the end?

How about "who cares what it's called, but government should pay what it takes because this method will be better and cheaper than the alternatives."

BeanEstimator: $3.2B to get multiple vehicles developed is an incredible bargain compared to anything else we see.

[BeanEstimator]

I still believe it also goes back to the central question of what "commercial" is really supposed to be.  Is it a government-funded program and commercial-in-name-only, and if so, are we willing to short change future benefits and capabilities to get it sooner and likely then just one OR are we saying this is a government-industry partnership where government will invest but so should industry and therefore shoulder more financial responsibility even if it takes a little longer and may pay off more in the end?

BeanEstimator: $3.2B to get multiple vehicles developed is an incredible bargain compared to anything else we see.

fair, and understandable response.

now, to try and return track (i should have left the "is this cheaper question" alone)

at 300-400m/yr, would you continue?  or do you yield and say, as phil seems to be saying, "this doesn't make that much sense anymore, time to re-evaluate"

or do you chalk this up to a stupid game of political chicken...(as some of my coworkers do)

[Namechange User]

at 300-400m/yr, would you continue?  or do you yield and say, as phil seems to be saying, "this doesn't make that much sense anymore, time to re-evaluate"

or do you chalk this up to a stupid game of political chicken...(as some of my coworkers do)

Again, I think people, including inside NASA, don't always see the big picture.

What if NASA said they were going to do a total review of requirements and regulations to fly something on ISS?  What if they solicited inputs from academia, industry, etc in conjunction with the potential providers?  And what if they then actually did something to make ISS more business friendly?

Would they see an increase in interest?  Would utilization look more like a reality?  Would there be a need for more flights to ISS, some of them trully funded, at least in part, commercially?  Would these potential commercial providers see a better business case and then, maybe, the rationale for more internal and/or private funds to make it a reality?

These are the type of questions that should have been asked and answered by NASA some time ago.  Instead, it seems we are looking to create "commercial space" by standard government processes.

That seems silly. 

[BeanEstimator]

at 300-400m/yr, would you continue?  or do you yield and say, as phil seems to be saying, "this doesn't make that much sense anymore, time to re-evaluate"

or do you chalk this up to a stupid game of political chicken...(as some of my coworkers do)

Again, I think people, including inside NASA, don't always see the big picture.

What if NASA said they were going to do a total review of requirements and regulations to fly something on ISS?  What if they solicited inputs from academia, industry, etc in conjunction with the potential providers?  And what if they then actually did something to make ISS more business friendly?

Would they see an increase in interest?  Would utilization look more like a reality?  Would there be a need for more flights to ISS, some of them trully funded, at least in part, commercially?  Would these potential commercial providers see a better business case and then, maybe, the rationale for more internal and/or private funds to make it a reality?

These are the type of questions that should have been asked and answered by NASA some time ago.  Instead, it seems we are looking to create "commercial space" by standard government processes.

That seems silly. 

you need to stop trying to make this into a rational planning and decision making process. 

 

i'm just trying to figure out if people have heard what's being said wrt commercial crew and funding, and whether or not it has sunk in...lol.

but yes, imagine if we did even some of what you suggested, and essentially the gov had developed and was now offering, a lab in space for all commercial/gov/edu...with "low cost affordable" access via commercial providers who had invested their own money knowing that they can close a business case with both a service and a destination... 

[peter-b]

at 300-400m/yr, would you continue?  or do you yield and say, as phil seems to be saying, "this doesn't make that much sense anymore, time to re-evaluate"

or do you chalk this up to a stupid game of political chicken...(as some of my coworkers do)

Well, it is a stupid game of political chicken. The nature of CCDev removes the Congressional committee members' ability to finely direct where NASA funds get spent, so they are predisposed to minimize the amount of money that ends up there.  But they know that if CCDev gets cancelled, there would be no alternative to continuing to pay Russia for access to the ISS.  The obvious solution is to continue to keep funding at a low enough level that the program can't succeed within a reasonable timeframe, while still being high enough that they can blame NASA/the commercial providers for the failure ("We gave you money! Not our fault you can't finish the job!").

If I was the CCDev management team at NASA, I would change to a system whereby SAAs are used to subsidize self-contained commercial spacecraft development projects (such as development or testing of particular subsystems), in a competitive structure, on an ongoing basis and using the funds that Congress makes available.  This gives the commercial participants the option of "finishing up" using private investment, while leaving NASA the ability to switch back to the original plan if funds somehow become available.

I'm not sure what options NASA would have if a provider came to the Agency and presented a completed spacecraft that could carry crew and dock with the ISS, having R&D for using private investment, though.

[Namechange User]

you need to stop trying to make this into a rational planning and decision making process. 

 

i'm just trying to figure out if people have heard what's being said wrt commercial crew and funding, and whether or not it has sunk in...lol.

but yes, imagine if we did even some of what you suggested, and essentially the gov had developed and was now offering, a lab in space for all commercial/gov/edu...with "low cost affordable" access via commercial providers who had invested their own money knowing that they can close a business case with both a service and a destination... 

They've heard and will likely interpret this as another afront on supposedly "commercial space".  This is evidenced by responses on this thread already like, "government should pay whatever it takes" or the latest Authorization Act killed "carefully-laid plans prepared well in advance". 

No thought into "rationale planning and decision making process". 

In the meantime, look for "pork" comments on other threads about other programs, but ignoring words like "market" and "value proposition" with respect to something called commercial space and what can create it, sustain it and grow it.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}

i'm just trying to figure out if people have heard what's being said wrt commercial crew and funding, and whether or not it has sunk in...lol.

but yes, imagine if we did even some of what you suggested, and essentially the gov had developed and was now offering, a lab in space for all commercial/gov/edu...with "low cost affordable" access via commercial providers who had invested their own money knowing that they can close a business case with both a service and a destination... 

I suspect that some of the CCDev firms were designing spacecraft to go to the fleet of Bigelow spacestations.  The spacecraft can also go to the ISS and transfer vehicles providing NASA fits the same sort of docking port.

[sdsds]

It was a grand idea:  commercial entities vying for contracts to provide crew and cargo services to LEO.  But the role ISS plays in human spaceflight has changed since that gained acceptance.  During the CxP era, ISS was not perceived to be the singularly important flagship HSF activity which it has become.  NASA has all the eggs in that basket now, so to speak, and commercial provision of crew and cargo services is the only means offered of guarding the basket other than continued reliance on Soyuz.

McAlister and others who suggest it might not "make a whole lot of sense to do this program" need to give us some idea of what kind of program they think would make sense.

Is there an implicit suggestion by McAlister?  (The one that makes sense to me is crewed LEO Orion on Delta-IV Heavy....)

[BeanEstimator]

McAlister and others who suggest it might not "make a whole lot of sense to do this program" need to give us some idea of what kind of program they think would make sense.

Is there an implicit suggestion by McAlister?  (The one that makes sense to me is crewed LEO Orion on Delta-IV Heavy....)

excellent question.  what sort of struck me is that Phil is obviously a fan.  so have him say, "hey at this level, it's re-eval time"...i would think folks would take notice considering who is doing the talking.

as a dig, if we don't think this program makes sense at this level, where were the "ideas" of what program would make sense earlier...horse-barn, pot-kettle, hindsight-2020, etc. 

but no, i see no suggestion, implicit or explicit at this time.  to be frank, this is the first time i've seen anything come out of cc with this kind of "tone" to it. again a reason why i noticed, and am wondering what the followers here think and whether or not they've noticed as well.

[A_M_Swallow]

Is there an implicit suggestion by McAlister?  (The one that makes sense to me is crewed LEO Orion on Delta-IV Heavy....)

For BLEO you could also try Orion on Falcon Heavy where the ICPD is fuelled at the LEO depot.

[QuantumG]

Cut all the funding. Cut all the "human rating" requirements. Offer to certify any demonstrated system - to the level that the Soyuz was certified - and promise to buy seats on any vehicle that has a lower price/seat than the current price of seats on the Soyuz (is it $56M now?).

If you want providers to get to market faster you have to make it worth their while - not slow down the faster providers to match the speed of the slower providers. If you end up with excess capacity, what a nice problem that be to have.

Stop trying to control everything and just let go.