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

[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?"