CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[rpapo]

Mostly rumors.

Yes, the government is actually keeping a pretty tight lid on it.  Those who know the facts aren't talking.

[erioladastra]

Jeff Greason is in favour or maintaining competition for the commercial crew program. I completely agree with him:

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/08/expert-on-nasas-commercial-crew-program-so-far-an-unqualified-success/

https://twitter.com/chronsciguy/status/502518413278068736

Competition would be ideal.  However, I don't think it will reduce costs for as much money you will be paying the second company in the long run.  So you are mainly doing it for jobs or to create multiple providers.  Which is a great goal but congress has rejected that and the money has not (and I don't believe will be) there more multiple.

Worse yet, I do not believe the ISS program has the ability to work with multiple partners at the pace that the partners would like.  The companies - all 3 - are race horses champing at the bit and ISS is a 500 pound weight tied to their necks.  If multiple partners al kinds of firewalls have to be maintained.  All this is good but if your goal is to get at least one company there fast, you won't do it this way.  If your goal is to get one company there and maybe a second one there or close behind, than this will work.  But then you are looking at 2018 at least.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Competition would be ideal.  However, I don't think it will reduce costs for as much money you will be paying the second company in the long run.  So you are mainly doing it for jobs or to create multiple providers. 

Not just that, you also reduce the chance that your astronauts would be grounded in case of a failure and a long subsequent investigation.

[Coastal Ron]

Competition would be ideal.  However, I don't think it will reduce costs for as much money you will be paying the second company in the long run.

Competition can keep costs down, but for NASA more than one provider provides redundancy, and that is the more important factor for them (i.e. constant access).

Which is a great goal but congress has rejected that and the money has not (and I don't believe will be) there more multiple.

Congress has not rejected Commercial Crew, just not funded it the way NASA wanted.  However Congress has been increasing funding in recent years.

Worse yet, I do not believe the ISS program has the ability to work with multiple partners at the pace that the partners would like.

What they would like is immaterial - they know what the potential flight rate would be for one or more providers, and they knew that before they submitted bids.

The companies - all 3 - are race horses champing at the bit and ISS is a 500 pound weight tied to their necks.

None of the companies would have got this far, this fast, without the ISS demand, so I'm not sure what you mean.

If multiple partners al kinds of firewalls have to be maintained.

The U.S. Government uses multiple service providers all the time, and NASA currently has two for cargo.  This is not anything unusual, and it would be hard to see how two service providers would ever need to interact - they won't be flying at the same time, that's for sure.

All this is good but if your goal is to get at least one company there fast, you won't do it this way.  If your goal is to get one company there and maybe a second one there or close behind, than this will work.

NASA's goal has been to have more than one provider, not to get one provider going as quick as possible.

But then you are looking at 2018 at least.

We'll know better when the CCtCap awards are made, as they should also be releasing their schedules for when they (the winner or winners) plan to be operational.  However SpaceX thinks they should be able to make the 2017 date.

[erioladastra]

Competition can keep costs down, but for NASA more than one provider provides redundancy, and that is the more important factor for them (i.e. constant access).

>>> Long term it likely won't save money because you will put $X million on another partner that liekly won't be recouped.  But my point about redundnancy was below.

Congress has not rejected Commercial Crew, just not funded it the way NASA wanted.  However Congress has been increasing funding in recent years.

>>> Congress has made it VERY clear to NASA that fostering multiple companies, a new space, is not their priority. 



What they would like is immaterial - they know what the potential flight rate would be for one or more providers, and they knew that before they submitted bids.

>>> No it is not immaterial.  The schedule the providers have proposed, which is optimisitc for all 3, is heavily depend on ISS resources.    If the ISS program can't keep up that pace, it will only add delay to the schedule.


None of the companies would have got this far, this fast, without the ISS demand, so I'm not sure what you mean.

>>> Demand is there, support to integrate is what is needed.  You need ISS people and testing and planning...  Plus the ISS is changing requirements as we speak and will continue to make changes and require flexibility.  Which will impact schedules.


The U.S. Government uses multiple service providers all the time, and NASA currently has two for cargo.  This is not anything unusual, and it would be hard to see how two service providers would ever need to interact - they won't be flying at the same time, that's for sure.

>>> You miss the point.  Yes, multiples CAN work just fine.  We say with the cargo that it was a challenge.  If your goal is to have multiple, then great.  If your goal is to get there fast, than multiple partners will slow you down. 


NASA's goal has been to have more than one provider, not to get one provider going as quick as possible.

>>> At the start of Commercial crew the goal was multiple.  Now with changes, fast is more important.  Buying Russian seats is not cost effective or politcally palitable at this stage.

We'll know better when the CCtCap awards are made, as they should also be releasing their schedules for when they (the winner or winners) plan to be operational.  However SpaceX thinks they should be able to make the 2017 date.

>>> Yep, at least Boeing and SpaceX claim that, can't recall SNC.  But history and due to factors outside of their hands, I am confident those are optimistic.

Note, that I am not advocating against multiple partners but folks need to be aware of what they are getting with that path.  I would love to have multiple crew providers, but my personal requirement is to get americans back to the ISS by 2017.

[JasonAW3]

It appears that things are gettingto the point, economically, where what Congress WANTS and what NASA can actually provide in a timely fashion, no longer cooincides.

     NASA is now being forced into a position where dependance on Commercial Cargo and Manned spsceflights are not only going to be a reality, but for NASA, it will be a necessity.

     While the SLS has a huge potentile for launching cargos into space, the current budget structure prevents it's use beyond one launch for every few years, as NASA's budget simply can't afford to build more than one at a time.  This is, again, one of the pitfalls of expendable launch systems.  Werner VonBraun realised this prior to even the establishment of NASA.  Unfortunately, the only way to get to the moon before the Russians did it, it was thought, would be to use expendible rockets on an undeamt of scale.

     For what it's worth, it worked.  But one has to wonder, if the Saturn V stack COULD have been converted to a reusable system, say around Apollo 14 or so, lowering the launch costs per flight, would we have continued on from there?  With such a system, in theory, NASA could have afforded to have both the Space Shuttle and a proven HLV that could have built a full blown Space Station at least a generation earlier than we did.

     But such a system likely would not, even with NASA at the helm, be sustainable without commercial corporations taking over different portions of their operations, streamlining and improving the capibilities of the system, much the same as what they do with commercial aircraft. 

[Coastal Ron]

Long term it likely won't save money because you will put $X million on another partner that liekly won't be recouped.  But my point about redundnancy was below.

NASA isn't concerned about "cost savings", they are concerned about uninterrupted access to the ISS.

Congress has made it VERY clear to NASA that fostering multiple companies, a new space, is not their priority. 

You are falling into the trap of listening to what Congress says, instead of seeing what they actually do.  We're talking about politicians here remember.  And Congress has been increasing the budget Commercial Crew, not decreasing it.

No it is not immaterial.  The schedule the providers have proposed, which is optimisitc for all 3, is heavily depend on ISS resources.    If the ISS program can't keep up that pace, it will only add delay to the schedule.

The service providers don't provide schedules - NASA does.  NASA is the customer, and the service providers have to meet their needs.  And everyone knows what the needs are, since NASA has been proposing increasing the ISS crew from 6 to 7, and that there may be some extended-stay crew rotations.  Everyone knows this, and all the potential service providers are signing up to support whatever NASA needs.

But if you've been listening, the service providers have also been talking with potential non-NASA customers, and Boeing and SpaceX already have signed agreements with Bigelow.  Sierra Nevada is also working with ISS partners, and that may end up being a source of potential business in the future too.  But for now that's about it until the marketing departments in the winning companies stir up additional demand.  And again, everyone knows that.

Demand is there, support to integrate is what is needed.  You need ISS people and testing and planning...  Plus the ISS is changing requirements as we speak and will continue to make changes and require flexibility.  Which will impact schedules.

I see a lot of hand waving, but I'm not seeing any facts that support what you are saying.  NASA has a pretty smooth relationship with both Orbital Sciences and SpaceX for cargo, and I see no reason why there shouldn't be one with multiple crew service providers.  Especially since they never fly at the same time.

At the start of Commercial crew the goal was multiple.  Now with changes, fast is more important.

That's not what NASA has been saying.  Some members of Congress have been advocating for down-selecting to one provider for years, and NASA has resisted that.

Note, that I am not advocating against multiple partners but folks need to be aware of what they are getting with that path.  I would love to have multiple crew providers, but my personal requirement is to get americans back to the ISS by 2017.

For myself, I feel SpaceX is a low risk to make the 2017 date, which means having a second provider come online after that is OK.  Time will tell...

[MP99]

Long term it likely won't save money because you will put $X million on another partner that liekly won't be recouped.  But my point about redundnancy was below.

NASA isn't concerned about "cost savings", they are concerned about uninterrupted access to the ISS.

Congress has made it VERY clear to NASA that fostering multiple companies, a new space, is not their priority. 

You are falling into the trap of listening to what Congress says, instead of seeing what they actually do.  We're talking about politicians here remember.  And Congress has been increasing the budget Commercial Crew, not decreasing it.

Af one point in the budget process, Congress were talking about requiring NASA to demonstrate that CC would recoup it's investment over the lifetime of ISS (IE officially only guaranteed to 2020).

ISTR they tied some funding to that, which I thought this was an attempt by Congress to make it harder for NASA to push through multiple providers.

Did anything come of that (or was it overtaken by CRs)?

Cheers, Martin

[yg1968]

The legislation never passed. By the time the legislation is passed, NASA will already have awarded CCtCap. So I expect that it will be dropped in the final version of the bill. 

Speaking of the CR, the House won't vote on it until Wednesday (at the earliest).

[tobi453]

There is a COMSTAC meeting on wednesday including a commercial crew update by Lueders. I think we will get some news there.

See agenda here:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/final_comstac_agenda.pdf

Webcast:
http://faa.capitolconnection.org/

[yg1968]

There is a COMSTAC meeting on wednesday including a commercial crew update by Lueders. I think we will get some news there.

See agenda here:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/final_comstac_agenda.pdf

Webcast:
http://faa.capitolconnection.org/

I doubt it. NASA is likely to have a separate press conference for the CCtCap award.  But thanks for the link!

[MP99]

The legislation never passed. By the time the legislation is passed, NASA will already have awarded CCtCap. So I expect that it will be dropped in the final version of the bill. 

Speaking of the CR, the House won't vote on it until Wednesday (at the earliest).

Many thanks for the clarification on the status of that. Much appreciated.

cheers, Martin

[tobi453]

I doubt it. NASA is likely to have a separate press conference for the CCtCap award.  But thanks for the link!

Yes, but we will hopefully get some news about the reason for the delay and an estimate for the date of the announcement.

[clongton]

It appears that things are getting to the point, economically, where what Congress WANTS and what NASA can actually provide in a timely fashion, no longer coincides.

What Congress wants and what NASA can actually provide have not "coincided" since Apollo 17.

[erioladastra]

NASA isn't concerned about "cost savings", they are concerned about uninterrupted access to the ISS.

>>> No, folks at HQ really believe there is cost savings to be had with multiple partners but I concur with your statement.

You are falling into the trap of listening to what Congress says, instead of seeing what they actually do.  We're talking about politicians here remember.  And Congress has been increasing the budget Commercial Crew, not decreasing it.

>>> Increasing is not the same as endorsing things like "supporting an emerging industry".  if you look at the early CCP press conferences and releases that was a stated goal.  You will now note that you don't really see that because NAS was boxed in the ears for it.  I stand by what I said.


The service providers don't provide schedules - NASA does.  NASA is the customer, and the service providers have to meet their needs.  And everyone knows what the needs are, since NASA has been proposing increasing the ISS crew from 6 to 7, and that there may be some extended-stay crew rotations.  Everyone knows this, and all the potential service providers are signing up to support whatever NASA needs.

>>> Not correct.  NASA determines when they want the capability.  The providers then buld a schedule that will meet that.  Among other things that means a testing schedule that includes interface tests with ISS assets.  If the ISSP than comes back and says "we can't make that date", well there you go in slipping.  That is not the same as NASA dictating the schedule.  But I don't think I am getting your point.  Yes, NASA has said capability by 2017.  The companies are working to that.  Doesn't guarantee they will actually make it!  I think you are falling into the trap in beleiving schedules.

But if you've been listening, the service providers have also been talking with potential non-NASA customers, and Boeing and SpaceX already have signed agreements with Bigelow.  Sierra Nevada is also working with ISS partners, and that may end up being a source of potential business in the future too.  But for now that's about it until the marketing departments in the winning companies stir up additional demand.  And again, everyone knows that.

>>> Yes, very true.  And a good sign.  But totally irrevelant to the topic of multiple awards assuring readiness in 2017.


I see a lot of hand waving, but I'm not seeing any facts that support what you are saying.  NASA has a pretty smooth relationship with both Orbital Sciences and SpaceX for cargo, and I see no reason why there shouldn't be one with multiple crew service providers.  Especially since they never fly at the same time.

>>> I am basing this on the pile ups and resource issues I saw with CRS that folks may not have always seens due to other issues and in CCiCAP with the partners.  I know first hand that there will resource issues.  It is not a matter of flying at the same time - it is having access within ISS.


That's not what NASA has been saying.  Some members of Congress have been advocating for down-selecting to one provider for years, and NASA has resisted that.

>>> Yes, my point exactly.


For myself, I feel SpaceX is a low risk to make the 2017 date, which means having a second provider come online after that is OK.  Time will tell...

>>> They may well be low risk, my point is that I will bet money that if if they could make 2017, if more than one is selected, they won't make 2017.

[bilbo]

Go not to NASA for counsel, for they will say both no and yes

[Coastal Ron]

The service providers don't provide schedules - NASA does.  NASA is the customer, and the service providers have to meet their needs...

Not correct.  NASA determines when they want the capability.  The providers then buld a schedule that will meet that.

Sounds like we are saying the same thing.

I see a lot of hand waving, but I'm not seeing any facts that support what you are saying.  NASA has a pretty smooth relationship with both Orbital Sciences and SpaceX for cargo, and I see no reason why there shouldn't be one with multiple crew service providers.  Especially since they never fly at the same time.

I am basing this on the pile ups and resource issues I saw with CRS that folks may not have always seens due to other issues and in CCiCAP with the partners.  I know first hand that there will resource issues.  It is not a matter of flying at the same time - it is having access within ISS.

Two little birds told me you have first hand ISS program knowledge, which is nice to know.  So you are saying that it's not a Commercial Crew provider issue, but an ISS scheduling issue that is outside of the control of the transportation providers?

They may well be low risk, my point is that I will bet money that if if they could make 2017, if more than one is selected, they won't make 2017.

I'm not sure why it would matter to SpaceX if there is a second winner, unless you're assuming a split in the money will affect the schedule.  Could happen.  We'll know better once the award(s) are made and the schedules unveiled.

[Tovmasyanara]

Rumors: Award between 10-11am EDT.

[guckyfan]

Rumors: Award between 10-11am EDT.

Wouldn't we expect a press conference called by now, if they make the announcement at that time?

[space_dreamer]

http://www.cnet.com/news/boeing-said-to-win-nasa-space-taxi-contract/

I hope this isn't true! Boeing's CST-100 would be my third choice.