Commercial Crew - Does it still make sense given the 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.