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.

[manboy]

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)

Isn't the $800 million/yr for the development costs and not the amount it would take to run the program?

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?

Commercial in name? They're planned to be commercially owned and operated vehicles, that could provide similar if not not the same services to 3rd party individuals. I would still consider it to be "commercial" even if the gov provides the majority of the development costs.

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? 

Because 500 million is not enough to allow more then one competitor in the later stages of Commercial Crew development.

[Robotbeat]

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.

Wouldn't work because NASA would never use it... Congress wouldn't let them use it. Also, you over-estimate the willingness of companies to invest huge sums of money for something that if they are the lucky one (out of three or more players), they'll barely get a return on investment.


There have been those that suggest that commercial crew would be just fine with half the funding they need. Just fine in that it would fail and a return to using NASA rockets to launch astronauts would occur (but this time with the ability to point to the failure of commercial crew as an excuse not to really change anything), which is exactly their desired outcome. Yup, NASA rocket men really are the smartest people in the room, see? Sorry if this is a little too cynical; I hope it is inaccurate.

But NASA's use of commercial crew wouldn't need to end with ISS. Such a capability (which is relatively cheap to sustain since it's not using a specialized launch vehicle) would be quite beneficial to any future space stations or exploration architectures if it is successful. Smaller capsules may be even more desirable than Orion for Earth reentry after returning from Mars because of their significantly lower mass... I do support Orion, but I do not deny that the other spacecraft may be quite useful... Also, many of the proposed architectures for the next step call for an outpost (or a Mars Transit Vehicle exploration stack) at a Lagrange point, and that could also be serviced via upgraded commercial crew vehicles, freeing NASA from that part (even if it makes more sense to use Orion for Mars return, the Mars DRM I saw said that it would not be the one which launched with the crew). The usefulness of commercial crew for NASA would not end with ISS.

[QuantumG]

Wouldn't work because NASA would never use it... Congress wouldn't let them use it.

They're using Soyuz right now. It's going to be pretty hard to justify continuing that if there's a US provider banging on the door.

[manboy]

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!").

Not to get too off topic but this reminds me of the old joke, What do you call two rooms full of idiots?

The House and the Senate.

But I am starting to get the impression that certain members of Congress are trying to starve the program, especially after reading Kay Bailey Hutchison's press release.

[Namechange User]

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?

Commercial in name? They're planned to be commercially owned and operated vehicles, that could provide similar if not not the same services to 3rd party individuals. I would still consider it to be "commercial" even if the gov provides the majority of the development costs.

"planned, "could provide".....

Nothing, especially money, is free.  Government money comes with conditions.  In this case those conditions are in the form of requirements and other NASA dictated solutions. 

NASA, given they are providing so much of the money, are perfectly within their rights to levey requirements and inputs to design solutions.  The thing is, with even more money from NASA, the bigger and bigger stick they have over "commercial".

What happens if and when these requirements and other things drive up the cost so much that no other "3rd party" can or wants to afford it?  NASA does not have to consider that, their requirements are being satisfied for the price they are paying. If their requirements, etc only allow one vehicle for the money available, that's the way the it is. 

It still astounds me that so many on here complain about NASA and/or branches of the government yet somehow expect that the government is the best chance alone with their money to creat a supposed commercial industry.

Again, I have no problem with government investment.  I think it is necessary to get beyond the "chicken and egg" scenario.  I do strongly believe there is more, that provides better value than money alone, the government can do help create the value proposition that industry is looking for. 

What you quoted from me above is still a central question that nobody has really addressed in solid and definitive terms.  You have a NASA manager suggesting his possible entire budget would only buy two test flights.  That presumes NASA itself is believing they will fund all of it.  So, that does make it "commercial-in-name-only" and really no different than anything before it.  Otherwise all of STS development and ops should be classified as commercial as well as everything before it. 

And, if you think that "others" will just pop up and these companies will be able to sell services, remember that was hoped for with Shuttle too, and one of the main reasons USA was created.  NASA didn't let go. 

[manboy]

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... 

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.

The term pork is usually used to describe a politically decision that appears mostly illogical except for the benefits it provides to their constituents. Expand on why you feel the Commercial Crew program qualifies as pork?

[rcoppola]

I just can't believe we are arguing over 500Million. Are you freaking kidding me. We add 132Billion to the national debt every MONTH.

How many people are aware that this interconnected world wide web of chaos we are on everyday was brought into being by the untold millions of dollars the US defense dept. used to create its' predecessor. My god, who would have thought it would develop into what it is, what it will be become.

Everyone is so in the weeds on this. Step back. Who cares if we spend a few billion doing it. Who knows where it could take us or what it will evolve into. I am so fed up with this penny ante crap.

But yes, let's spend millions telling parents what freaking foods they can put in their kids lunch boxes. Sorry, but if I yell about this at the dinner table tonight, the family will kick me out.

[QuantumG]

I just can't believe we are arguing over 500Million. Are you freaking kidding me. We add 132Billion to the national debt every MONTH.

And people would vote against you if you suggested cancelling any large portion of that (which is just a travesty in and of itself). The same cannot be said of commercial crew.

How many people are aware that this interconnected world wide web of chaos we are on everyday was brought into being by the untold millions of dollars the US defense dept. used to create its' predecessor. My god, who would have thought it would develop into what it is, what it will be become.

This was discussed in another thread. People have this absurdly rosy view of the history of ARPANet. The facts don't align with the myth.

[deltaV]

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

Presumably either keep using Soyuz or use Orion on Delta IV Heavy, Atlas V Heavy, Falcon Heavy, or SLS. (Might Atlas V with 5 solids be enough?  Atlas 551 can't lift Orion to LEO with a BEO service module, but it may be able to lift Orion with a smaller ISS-sized service module. Is man-rating the solids to NASA standards a problem? Although this Atlas 551 question is a bit off topic.)

[deltaV]

Would it help reduce costs enough to close the budget if NASA were to eliminate all man-rating requirements beyond those that cargo vehicles visiting the ISS have, impose a large fine for loss of crew events, and leave it to contractors and their insurance companies to figure out what man-rating techniques are actually cost effective?

[93143]

There have been those that suggest that commercial crew would be just fine with half the funding they need. Just fine in that it would fail and a return to using NASA rockets to launch astronauts would occur (but this time with the ability to point to the failure of commercial crew as an excuse not to really change anything), which is exactly their desired outcome. Yup, NASA rocket men really are the smartest people in the room, see? Sorry if this is a little too cynical; I hope it is inaccurate.

I don't recall seeing anyone suggest that (though I don't read the whole forum thoroughly).  I do, however, recall stating a couple of facts to you, whereupon you put words in my mouth and proceeded to beat the #### out of a straw man.  Unfortunately the thread in question has been deleted or moved to L2 or something, and I can't find it any more...

It was here, I think:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28051

The couple of facts were:

1) I seem to recall someone important saying that the Commercial Crew request of $850M last year turned out to be high, and that they could have done about as much with $700M.

2) The term "compromise" in this context usually refers to the $500M in the Authorization Act, not the $406M actually appropriated.

I also pointed out that since the companies are supposed to be providing funds of their own, a certain percentage cut to NASA's portion should not map 1:1 to a cut in total development funding.  This was meant to modify, not contradict, your statement that a large cut to CC might be expected to slow things down more than a small cut to SLS.

This is not meant to imply that the program could operate optimally at $406M or even $500M.  It is certainly not meant to imply that it would be good if it failed.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
What you quoted from me above is still a central question that nobody has really addressed in solid and definitive terms.  You have a NASA manager suggesting his possible entire budget would only buy two test flights.  That presumes NASA itself is believing they will fund all of it.  So, that does make it "commercial-in-name-only" and really no different than anything before it.  Otherwise all of STS development and ops should be classified as commercial as well as everything before it. 

Lets be honest the only organisation that will be paying for CCP flights to the ISS is NASA.  Other countries sending astronauts will barter with NASA.  Being an only customer NASA will end up paying for at least part of those test flights.

Now Bigelow has infinitely delayed his spacestations the only other way to test docking is to dock with a second spacecraft.  DreamChaser docking to CST-100 with both spacecraft launched on man-rated Atlas V will be an interesting mission to watch.

[A_M_Swallow]

Would it help reduce costs enough to close the budget if NASA were to eliminate all man-rating requirements beyond those that cargo vehicles visiting the ISS have, impose a large fine for loss of crew events, and leave it to contractors and their insurance companies to figure out what man-rating techniques are actually cost effective?

That will get rid of silly rules (if any), however the spacecraft and spacestation need to contain the same atmosphere at the same pressure - otherwise the astronauts could get the bends.

[rcoppola]

I just can't believe we are arguing over 500Million. Are you freaking kidding me. We add 132Billion to the national debt every MONTH.

And people would vote against you if you suggested cancelling any large portion of that (which is just a travesty in and of itself). The same cannot be said of commercial crew.

How many people are aware that this interconnected world wide web of chaos we are on everyday was brought into being by the untold millions of dollars the US defense dept. used to create its' predecessor. My god, who would have thought it would develop into what it is, what it will be become.

This was discussed in another thread. People have this absurdly rosy view of the history of ARPANet. The facts don't align with the myth.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Rosy view of ARPAnet?...who cares. What does that have anything to do about anything. Use whatever example you want where government provided a financial catalyst that wound up creating untold commercial ventures resulting in altering the very nature of our economy and culture.

As for the debt, I was simply saying with 132B a month, what the heck is another few billion. And besides, as we crawl out of the weeds of Congress, NASA, CCDev etc..last time I looked, we don't have a way to get into LEO. That is inexcusable...

The budget is a farce. The Senate hasn't past one in 3 years. What are they going to do with the couple billion they take from NASA? Plow it into another Solyndra?  How's that working for us?

[QuantumG]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Rosy view of ARPAnet?...who cares. What does that have anything to do about anything. Use whatever example you want where government provided a financial catalyst that wound up creating untold commercial ventures resulting in altering the very nature of our economy and culture.

Find one for us and I will. Every example people tend to give is horribly ignorant of actual history. Counterexamples, like Langley's Aerodrome, tend to be more historically accurate because they are the evidence of history.

[manboy]

{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.

Bigelow doesn't yet know what kind of docking mechanisms he's going to use (or at least he didn't back in September).

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.

If you cut all development funding than the business case may no longer be strong enough.

If I remember correctly Soyuz was never really certified, it was given a waiver because of its extensive flight history.

The Soyuz price per seat will be hard to beat if NASA/Commercial providers do not use all seven seats to launch crew.

You need to have at least some regulation, especially since they'll be carrying NASA and international astronauts and because they'll be traveling to a very expensive space station.

Wouldn't work because NASA would never use it... Congress wouldn't let them use it.

They're using Soyuz right now. It's going to be pretty hard to justify continuing that if there's a US provider banging on the door.

If there's no funding than there may not be one.

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?

Commercial in name? They're planned to be commercially owned and operated vehicles, that could provide similar if not not the same services to 3rd party individuals. I would still consider it to be "commercial" even if the gov provides the majority of the development costs.

NASA, given they are providing so much of the money, are perfectly within their rights to levey requirements and inputs to design solutions.  The thing is, with even more money from NASA, the bigger and bigger stick they have over "commercial".

What happens if and when these requirements and other things drive up the cost so much that no other "3rd party" can or wants to afford it?  NASA does not have to consider that, their requirements are being satisfied for the price they are paying. If their requirements, etc only allow one vehicle for the money available, that's the way the it is.

NASA does have to consider that and from watching the CCDev forums, it looks like they are, if the Commercial Crew provider goes under than they loose their method of transportation.

It still astounds me that so many on here complain about NASA and/or branches of the government yet somehow expect that the government is the best chance alone with their money to creat a supposed commercial industry.

Who else has the capital to do it?

Again, I have no problem with government investment.  I think it is necessary to get beyond the "chicken and egg" scenario.  I do strongly believe there is more, that provides better value than money alone, the government can do help create the value proposition that industry is looking for.

What you quoted from me above is still a central question that nobody has really addressed in solid and definitive terms.  You have a NASA manager suggesting his possible entire budget would only buy two test flights.  That presumes NASA itself is believing they will fund all of it.  So, that does make it "commercial-in-name-only" and really no different than anything before it.  Otherwise all of STS development and ops should be classified as commercial as well as everything before it.

United Space Alliance didn't own the Space Shuttles and did not have the ability to sell flights to 3rd parties.

And, if you think that "others" will just pop up and these companies will be able to sell services, remember that was hoped for with Shuttle too, and one of the main reasons USA was created.  NASA didn't let go. 

Expand on this.

[manboy]

{snip}
What you quoted from me above is still a central question that nobody has really addressed in solid and definitive terms.  You have a NASA manager suggesting his possible entire budget would only buy two test flights.  That presumes NASA itself is believing they will fund all of it.  So, that does make it "commercial-in-name-only" and really no different than anything before it.  Otherwise all of STS development and ops should be classified as commercial as well as everything before it. 

Lets be honest the only organisation that will be paying for CCP flights to the ISS is NASA.  Other countries sending astronauts will barter with NASA.

I think last year during one of the many Senate hearings I heard Bolden mention the possibility of tourists traveling on American launched vehicles to the ISS.

[libs0n]

I also pointed out that since the companies are supposed to be providing funds of their own, a certain percentage cut to NASA's portion should not map 1:1 to a cut in total development funding.  This was meant to modify, not contradict, your statement that a large cut to CC might be expected to slow things down more than a small cut to SLS.

Numbers, company contributions add to the top line of both scenarios, full budget and chopped budget.  There is no basis for saying that companies will or can contribute more than they intend to in the event of chopped budget.

[Andy USA]

This needs to stay on the thread title, because it's moving into something very political and will be moved to Space Policy if that continues.

[deltaV]

This needs to stay on the thread title, because it's moving into something very political and will be moved to Space Policy if that continues.

Whether or not commercial crew "makes sense" is fundamentally a policy question. Perhaps the thread title should be changed to something like  "Commercial Crew - what's possible with limited funding?"

[93143]

I also pointed out that since the companies are supposed to be providing funds of their own, a certain percentage cut to NASA's portion should not map 1:1 to a cut in total development funding.  This was meant to modify, not contradict, your statement that a large cut to CC might be expected to slow things down more than a small cut to SLS.

Numbers, company contributions add to the top line of both scenarios, full budget and chopped budget.  There is no basis for saying that companies will or can contribute more than they intend to in the event of chopped budget.

Boeing certainly can, for one.  Not saying they will.  It's theoretically possible BUT...

...what I said is true regardless.  Take the completely hypothetical case of a 50:50 split (since I have no idea what it actually is in each individual case).  A 50% cut in government spending would mean a 25% cut in program budget, assuming company investment stayed constant.

[deltaV]

Take the completely hypothetical case of a 50:50 split (since I have no idea what it actually is in each individual case).  A 50% cut in government spending would mean a 25% cut in program budget, assuming company investment stayed constant.

Why do you think the company investment would stay constant? Another reasonable hypothesis would be that the companies would reduce their contributions to maintain a 50:50 split.

[rcoppola]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Rosy view of ARPAnet?...who cares. What does that have anything to do about anything. Use whatever example you want where government provided a financial catalyst that wound up creating untold commercial ventures resulting in altering the very nature of our economy and culture.

Find one for us and I will. Every example people tend to give is horribly ignorant of actual history. Counterexamples, like Langley's Aerodrome, tend to be more historically accurate because they are the evidence of history.

The Interstate Highway System, The Manhattan Project

[QuantumG]

The Interstate Highway System, The Manhattan Project

The socialization of the cost of car ownership, the horrendous stagnation of the nuclear power industry.

[93143]

Take the completely hypothetical case of a 50:50 split (since I have no idea what it actually is in each individual case).  A 50% cut in government spending would mean a 25% cut in program budget, assuming company investment stayed constant.

Why do you think the company investment would stay constant? Another reasonable hypothesis would be that the companies would reduce their contributions to maintain a 50:50 split.

My point is that no one is forcing them to do that.  A percentage cut in government funding does not automatically equal the same percentage cut in funding.

Besides, if this program is as close to the maintenance floor as people are saying, that would probably be a dumb move.  It would end up costing them more money in the long run.  Just because Congress doesn't seem to understand this doesn't mean nobody else does.

Another option, in the face of dubious government commitment, would be to bail completely...  but we already know Blue Origin, at least, won't do that, and I can't see SpaceX giving up on the project either...

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
What you quoted from me above is still a central question that nobody has really addressed in solid and definitive terms.  You have a NASA manager suggesting his possible entire budget would only buy two test flights.  That presumes NASA itself is believing they will fund all of it.  So, that does make it "commercial-in-name-only" and really no different than anything before it.  Otherwise all of STS development and ops should be classified as commercial as well as everything before it. 

Lets be honest the only organisation that will be paying for CCP flights to the ISS is NASA.  Other countries sending astronauts will barter with NASA.

I think last year during one of the many Senate hearings I heard Bolden mention the possibility of tourists traveling on American launched vehicles to the ISS.

The ISS is not set up to take 6 tourists simultaneously.  A single tourist would go up on a NASA flight.  IMHO Tourists will be sent to a hotel or caravan in space.

[OpsAnalyst]

There have been those that suggest that commercial crew would be just fine with half the funding they need. Just fine in that it would fail and a return to using NASA rockets to launch astronauts would occur (but this time with the ability to point to the failure of commercial crew as an excuse not to really change anything), which is exactly their desired outcome. Yup, NASA rocket men really are the smartest people in the room, see? Sorry if this is a little too cynical; I hope it is inaccurate.

I don't recall seeing anyone suggest that (though I don't read the whole forum thoroughly).  I do, however, recall stating a couple of facts to you, whereupon you put words in my mouth and proceeded to beat the #### out of a straw man.  Unfortunately the thread in question has been deleted or moved to L2 or something, and I can't find it any more...

It was here, I think:  http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28051

The couple of facts were:

1) I seem to recall someone important saying that the Commercial Crew request of $850M last year turned out to be high, and that they could have done about as much with $700M.

2) The term "compromise" in this context usually refers to the $500M in the Authorization Act, not the $406M actually appropriated.

I also pointed out that since the companies are supposed to be providing funds of their own, a certain percentage cut to NASA's portion should not map 1:1 to a cut in total development funding.  This was meant to modify, not contradict, your statement that a large cut to CC might be expected to slow things down more than a small cut to SLS.

This is not meant to imply that the program could operate optimally at $406M or even $500M.  It is certainly not meant to imply that it would be good if it failed.

The elephant in the room that Mr. McAlister ignores is private investment.  Musk is talking an IPO for SpaceX, and without compromising any discussions let's just say it's not rocket science that the "CCDEV" community as a whole is very interested in supplementing NASA funding and their own contributions with "third party input".  So the question is, what packages can be put together to attract investment that leverages the money already put in by the government and the LEO systems developers?

I don't hear McAlister talking about that; what I hear is spin, and the fact that he may also be correct doesn't make it any less spin.  The game is to pressure Congress by playing the "dependency on Russia" card into ponying up for the President's budget.  On the Hill, this will not work because it is seen as disingenuous, rightly or wrongly.  The political reality demands the entire discussion be reframed.  What is needed is a coherent story that makes it clear that both not-owned-by-the-government-LEO-systems and BEO Systems are needed and that the development of these can be synergistic, coupled with a budget put together that identifies and leverages offsets between the two and incentivizes third party investment - and then Congress needs to start thinking about what kind of a future it wants.  But if that story doesn't emerge, the struggle is going to continue, and we are all the losers.

[QuantumG]

Just because Congress doesn't seem to understand this doesn't mean nobody else does.

+1. If the commitment is not there for the program there won't be bidders. Whether that support is in terms of spending to reach never achieved requirements, or in the acknowledgement that those requirements have a cost which the Congress isn't willing to pay is irrelevant if both are absent.

[manboy]

{snip}
What you quoted from me above is still a central question that nobody has really addressed in solid and definitive terms.  You have a NASA manager suggesting his possible entire budget would only buy two test flights.  That presumes NASA itself is believing they will fund all of it.  So, that does make it "commercial-in-name-only" and really no different than anything before it.  Otherwise all of STS development and ops should be classified as commercial as well as everything before it. 

Lets be honest the only organisation that will be paying for CCP flights to the ISS is NASA.  Other countries sending astronauts will barter with NASA.

I think last year during one of the many Senate hearings I heard Bolden mention the possibility of tourists traveling on American launched vehicles to the ISS.

The ISS is not set up to take 6 tourists simultaneously.  A single tourist would go up on a NASA flight.  IMHO Tourists will be sent to a hotel or caravan in space.

I was thinking more like three (NASA requires only four, all CCDev2 competitors are building seven person crafts). The ISS can support at least 13 people for a short duration.

Although NASA may want to just use the extra seats for down mass.

[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... 

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.

The term pork is usually used to describe a politically decision that appears mostly illogical except for the benefits it provides to their constituents. Expand on why you feel the Commercial Crew program qualifies as pork?

I did not call it pork.  Perhaps instead of cutting out half my post and replying to what you think I said you should go back and read the entire post, understand the context and gain understanding. 

[manboy]

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... 

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.

The term pork is usually used to describe a politically decision that appears mostly illogical except for the benefits it provides to their constituents. Expand on why you feel the Commercial Crew program qualifies as pork?

I did not call it pork.  Perhaps instead of cutting out half my post and replying to what you think I said you should go back and read the entire post, understand the context and gain understanding. 

Then why mention pork?

[Namechange User]

It still astounds me that so many on here complain about NASA and/or branches of the government yet somehow expect that the government is the best chance alone with their money to creat a supposed commercial industry.

1.  Who else has the capital to do it?

Again, I have no problem with government investment.  I think it is necessary to get beyond the "chicken and egg" scenario.  I do strongly believe there is more, that provides better value than money alone, the government can do help create the value proposition that industry is looking for.

What you quoted from me above is still a central question that nobody has really addressed in solid and definitive terms.  You have a NASA manager suggesting his possible entire budget would only buy two test flights.  That presumes NASA itself is believing they will fund all of it.  So, that does make it "commercial-in-name-only" and really no different than anything before it.  Otherwise all of STS development and ops should be classified as commercial as well as everything before it.

2.  United Space Alliance didn't own the Space Shuttles and did not have the ability to sell flights to 3rd parties.

And, if you think that "others" will just pop up and these companies will be able to sell services, remember that was hoped for with Shuttle too, and one of the main reasons USA was created.  NASA didn't let go. 

3.  Expand on this.

1.  Instead of going off half-cocked, maybe again you should go back and read exactly what I have been saying on this thread and what OpsAnalyst also said.

The capital comes from the company itself or other private investment.  This is what "commercial" is in reality.  A company sees a business opportunity, closes the business case based on the value proposition and, if the risk is considered acceptable, invests the money with the expectation of getting a return on that investment once it moves into the operational phase.

As I said repeatedly now, I have no problem with some government investment and truly wish we had the resources to give more.  However, given this is commercial, I also expect the potential providers to also place significant investment in the development.  And I believe NASA could do more with ISS (reference the first two or three posts of mine in this thread) that offer just as much value as government cash.

2.  I never said USA did own the shuttles.  However, if you look at the rationale for Shuttle in the early program (reference the famous astronaut photo with the "For Sale" sign) customers beyond NASA was exactly the intention.  The initial premise behind USA was to also potentially allow this to not only reduce the cost by the consolidation into a single contract (and hence the creation of USA) but to also do other things to reduce the total cost to NASA via other customers.

3.  I just did and history speaks for itself. 

[erioladastra]

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. 

OV-106 - it is great to have your insight but it would be helpful if you could be less crumudgeonly and a little mroe constructive.  Here you are both insulting and not adding anything to the discussion.  Make a point or move on.

[manboy]

It still astounds me that so many on here complain about NASA and/or branches of the government yet somehow expect that the government is the best chance alone with their money to creat a supposed commercial industry.

1.  Who else has the capital to do it?

Again, I have no problem with government investment.  I think it is necessary to get beyond the "chicken and egg" scenario.  I do strongly believe there is more, that provides better value than money alone, the government can do help create the value proposition that industry is looking for.

What you quoted from me above is still a central question that nobody has really addressed in solid and definitive terms.  You have a NASA manager suggesting his possible entire budget would only buy two test flights.  That presumes NASA itself is believing they will fund all of it.  So, that does make it "commercial-in-name-only" and really no different than anything before it.  Otherwise all of STS development and ops should be classified as commercial as well as everything before it.

2.  United Space Alliance didn't own the Space Shuttles and did not have the ability to sell flights to 3rd parties.

And, if you think that "others" will just pop up and these companies will be able to sell services, remember that was hoped for with Shuttle too, and one of the main reasons USA was created.  NASA didn't let go. 

3.  Expand on this.

1.  Instead of going off half-cocked, maybe again you should go back and read exactly what I have been saying on this thread and what OpsAnalyst also said.

The capital comes from the company itself or other private investment.  This is what "commercial" is in reality.  A company sees a business opportunity, closes the business case based on the value proposition and, if the risk is considered acceptable, invests the money with the expectation of getting a return on that investment once it moves into the operational phase.

As I said repeatedly now, I have no problem with some government investment and truly wish we had the resources to give more.  However, given this is commercial, I also expect the potential providers to also place significant investment in the development.  And I believe NASA could do more with ISS (reference the first two or three posts of mine in this thread) that offer just as much value as government cash.

It seems like you have a very strict definition of what commercial is and the problem you have with CCDev is the percentage of private investment (which hasn't be made public). I agree with you that there can be more done with the ISS.

2.  I never said USA did own the shuttles.  However, if you look at the rationale for Shuttle in the early program (reference the famous astronaut photo with the "For Sale" sign) customers beyond NASA was exactly the intention.  The initial premise behind USA was to also potentially allow this to not only reduce the cost by the consolidation into a single contract (and hence the creation of USA) but to also do other things to reduce the total cost to NASA via other customers.

I never said you did, it was in response to "So, that does make it "commercial-in-name-only" and really no different than anything before it.  Otherwise all of STS development and ops should be classified as commercial as well as everything before it". The CCP program isn't an apples to apples comparison to the Shuttle program.

3.  I just did and history speaks for itself. 

[A_M_Swallow]

The elephant in the room that Mr. McAlister ignores is private investment.  Musk is talking an IPO for SpaceX, and without compromising any discussions let's just say it's not rocket science that the "CCDEV" community as a whole is very interested in supplementing NASA funding and their own contributions with "third party input".  So the question is, what packages can be put together to attract investment that leverages the money already put in by the government and the LEO systems developers?

I don't hear McAlister talking about that; what I hear is spin, and the fact that he may also be correct doesn't make it any less spin.  The game is to pressure Congress by playing the "dependency on Russia" card into ponying up for the President's budget.  On the Hill, this will not work because it is seen as disingenuous, rightly or wrongly.  The political reality demands the entire discussion be reframed.  What is needed is a coherent story that makes it clear that both not-owned-by-the-government-LEO-systems and BEO Systems are needed and that the development of these can be synergistic, coupled with a budget put together that identifies and leverages offsets between the two and incentivizes third party investment - and then Congress needs to start thinking about what kind of a future it wants.  But if that story doesn't emerge, the struggle is going to continue, and we are all the losers.

Start by doing a comparison between the CCDev vehicles and SLS+Orion.

The Space Launch System (SLS) will be the biggest launch vehicle in the world, able to lift 120 tonnes to low Earth orbit (LEO).  That is the same weight as 12 Type C school buses.  As an example a medium sized spacestation could be lifted in a single launch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_bus

These gigantic payloads are both the SLS greatest strength and causes its weakness.  It will be the most expensive rocket in the world.  Consequently people suspect that Congress will tightly control the number NASA can launch.

The Orion capsule can take 4 people with consumables for 28 days.  It is suitable for long distance trips to e.g. Lagrange Points and docking with the proposed Mars Transfer Vehicle.  The SLS is one of the few rockets able to lift it.

The CCDev spacecraft are the Dragon, DreamChaser, CST-100 and the Blue Origin.  They are designed to take 7 people, including the pilot, on trips to LEO lasting up to 3 days.  Although they can be docked to the International Space Station (ISS) for many months.

The Falcon 9 and the Atlas V launch vehicles are being up graded to carry people (man-rated).  Being smaller than the SLS they are a lot cheaper.  For instance SpaceX advertise the Falcon 9 as being able to lift 10.45 tonne to LEO for $59.5 Million.  10 tonne is the weight of a single bus or the Dragon.

[Lars_J]

Responding to the original thread starter question...

Yes, at some point obviously the funds for commercial crew will be to little to be worth it. (i.e. the trickle of funds will be lost in the middle hands, and the schedule pushed out so far as to never make any real progress)

But what is the alternative? Don't kid yourself into thinking that NASA doing it in-house is going to be any cheaper. (or even close)

There seems to be four realistic paths to take with regards to commercial crew: (from most expensive to cheapest)
1. Do it all in-house - basically accelerate Orion and use it for ISS rotations ($$$)
2. Maintain a decent amount of funding with multiple providers making progress, with eventual down-selects ($$)
3. Do an immediate down-select to one provider ($)
4. Abandon domestic HSF aspirations for the foreseeable future) (free!)

(I'm clearly in favor of #2)

[Namechange User]

1.  Instead of going off half-cocked, maybe again you should go back and read exactly what I have been saying on this thread and what OpsAnalyst also said.

The capital comes from the company itself or other private investment.  This is what "commercial" is in reality.  A company sees a business opportunity, closes the business case based on the value proposition and, if the risk is considered acceptable, invests the money with the expectation of getting a return on that investment once it moves into the operational phase.

As I said repeatedly now, I have no problem with some government investment and truly wish we had the resources to give more.  However, given this is commercial, I also expect the potential providers to also place significant investment in the development.  And I believe NASA could do more with ISS (reference the first two or three posts of mine in this thread) that offer just as much value as government cash.

It seems like you have a very strict definition of what commercial is and the problem you have with CCDev is the percentage of private investment (which hasn't be made public). I agree with you that there can be more done with the ISS.

LOL, no I do not, that is just the definition.  I also have zero problem with CCDev or the Commercial Crew Program in general.  I have said several times now that I think some government investment is required to "jump start" some things or to move us past the "chicken and egg" scenario.  But I also live in reality and don't cheerlead for anyone and tend to call it like I see it. 

My beef is that the goal posts have moved with extremist commercial space advocates. 

Are you or anyone really prepared to try to argue that people here and special interest groups were not jumping all over the place saying the "market" is there now and there were all kinds of customers at the ready?  That Shuttle just had to "get out of the way"? 

That Shuttle was not "commercial" and the program and its people were called some pretty inaccurate things but now advocates are ironically arguing for the exact same relationship where it is "ok" for government to pay for development and operations in exchange for services?

Now it seems just strange to me those special interest groups are essentially silent in this regard, but also calling for more government funding, because, in this case, it suits their interests.  I do not know how many times it must be said, or how I can try to be anymore clear, more government funding alone will not get anyone what they believe they want with "commercial".  A value proposition must be established to induce the maximum capital and/or private investment and minimize government investment (and hence "oversight", which can lead to requirements creep and a system that is more costly than perhaps it needs to be and therefore does not attract other customers). 

Government has a role in that, that thus far to me has seemingly been ingored, and substituted it with "settling" for commercial to be a twice a year run to ISS only.

I say these things precisely because I do care and I want the most "commercial" opportunity that can exist in the here and now.   

 

[deltaV]

I created a thread for "commercial crew policy discussion"

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28083.0

that may be a good home for many of the off-topic posts in this thread.