CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[sdsds]

The wording is pretty clear: NASA will not pay out under SAAs for milestones that involve flying any people, NASA astronauts or otherwise. If it had been meant to apply only to flying NASA personnel  the statement read by Dyer would have used the term "astronaut."

[yg1968]

Why does the press act like the ASAP has any influence over the NASA administration or in any way represents them?

NASA regularly ignores ASAP and their "recommendations".

The statement is from NASA not from ASAP. But Gertst already said at the House hearing last year that NASA intended to exercise (at most only) a few of the optional milestones.

[QuantumG]

The statement is from NASA not from ASAP.

Now you're conflating NASA with the NASA administration.

[Comga]

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/02/space_launch_system_orion_woul.html

"NASA has decided to spare its Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule from any direct consequences of budget sequestration this year, according to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden Jr. Taking the cuts instead in the "exploration" part of NASA's budget would be commercial space companies trying to build spaceships to get American astronauts to the International Space Station. The Space Launch System (SLS) is NASA's name for a new booster being developed at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville for deep space missions and the Orion capsule that will ride on top of it."

and from "Aerospace Defense 02/14/13"

NASA’s topline budget for FY13 will be reduced by $726.7 million compared to its budget request if sequestration takes effect. Commercial Space Flight would be reduced by $441.6 million below the FY13 request. NASA would not be able to make Q4 milestone payments to the industry teams working on the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) including SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada.

That's $442M out of $1,112M or 40% (Boeing with $460m, SpaceX: $440M, SNC: $212.5M.

So much for Bolden being a supporter of commercial crew...

[docmordrid]

Make no mistake about it - SLS/Orion got spared because they have political support in Congress and as they say, excrement rolls down Capitol Hill.

[Robotbeat]

Except that sort of number is needed. It is like saying, oh it isn't fair this new $5 million program (some clearly needed analysis or hardware which actually needs that amount to be effective) was started last year. The year before it was only $1 million, how dare it get a 400% increase while my $2 billion program stays put!

[Patchouli]

Make no mistake about it - SLS/Orion got spared because they have political support in Congress and as they say, excrement rolls down Capitol Hill.

It is pretty brainless of congress to be under funding commercial crew.
 CCDev is probably one of the most important programs NASA has had in the past ten years.

I think it's ridiculous that commercial crew has to compete with exploration since having the first operational will free up money for the latter.

[spectre9]

Charlie has learnt his lesson it seems.

This will mean Commercial Crew is less likely to get cut.

Strange I know but the more he goes after SLS/Orion the more backlash against Commercial Crew.

I would like to see manned Dragon cancelled.

Keep 1.5 providers.

Atlas V > Falcon 9 v1.1

Just too much launcher risk for my liking. This is only my armchair rocket scientist opinion though, it could be the most reliable launcher ever.

What I do know is that Atlas V does work and it works well today.

[joek]

I would like to see manned Dragon cancelled.
Keep 1.5 providers.

1.5 providers is a very optimistic, and very unlikely, outcome; at best we're likely to get 1.0.  If you're arguing to cancel manned Dragon, you may as well simply admit that there will be 1.0 providers.  Or are you suggesting that the 0.5 is suppose to be filled by SNC?

[Patchouli]

If I had to choose I'd keep both Dragon and DreamChaser as these two would be the most versatile combination of vehicles.
Two separate systems using completely different LVs and recovery methods.

If one needs to be grounded the other can still fly.

The two vehicles also have complementary capabilities.

But I would not down select to less then two CCDev providers as doing so would defeat much of the purpose of CCDev.

[manboy]

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/02/space_launch_system_orion_woul.html

"NASA has decided to spare its Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule from any direct consequences of budget sequestration this year, according to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden Jr. Taking the cuts instead in the "exploration" part of NASA's budget would be commercial space companies trying to build spaceships to get American astronauts to the International Space Station. The Space Launch System (SLS) is NASA's name for a new booster being developed at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville for deep space missions and the Orion capsule that will ride on top of it."

and from "Aerospace Defense 02/14/13"

NASA’s topline budget for FY13 will be reduced by $726.7 million compared to its budget request if sequestration takes effect. Commercial Space Flight would be reduced by $441.6 million below the FY13 request. NASA would not be able to make Q4 milestone payments to the industry teams working on the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) including SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada.

So once gain CCP gets half the requested amount. It's very frustrating to see small programs that have a relatively high probability of success get cut when larger programs with abysmal futures (one flight every two years, no concrete destinations or objectives) are spared.

What I do know is that Atlas V does work and it works well today.

But with a much heftier price tag.

Make no mistake about it - SLS/Orion got spared because they have political support in Congress and as they say, excrement rolls down Capitol Hill.

It is pretty brainless of congress to be under funding commercial crew.
 CCDev is probably one of the most important programs NASA has had in the past ten years.

I think it's ridiculous that commercial crew has to compete with exploration since having the first operational will free up money for the latter.

"Brainless" is pretty good way to describe Congress.

[QuantumG]

The last I heard, some aides in the House had added up the number of flights left until ISS end of life, divided the amount of money being spent on commercial crew by that count and gotten a number much bigger than the price per seat of just continuing to fly on Soyuz. The House asked someone about it - probably Bill Gerstenmaier, I forget - and got the response that commercial crew is more about seeding a new industry than it is about not being dependent on the Russians, or saving money. This resulted in the blowup with Rep Wolf and the letter to Bolden. His response was the 2.5 competitors compromise and the assurance that NASA's only interest in commercial crew is for servicing ISS.

As such, "much of the purpose of CCDev" was defeated months ago.

[Patchouli]

"Brainless" is pretty good way to describe Congress.

This congress as they seems to be incapable of getting anything done and instead fight like a bunch of five year olds.

The last I heard, some aides in the House had added up the number of flights left until ISS end of life, divided the amount of money being spent on commercial crew by that count and gotten a number much bigger than the price per seat of just continuing to fly on Soyuz. The House asked someone about it - probably Bill Gerstenmaier, I forget - and got the response that commercial crew is more about seeding a new industry than it is about not being dependent on the Russians, or saving money. This resulted in the blowup with Rep Wolf and the letter to Bolden. His response was the 2.5 competitors compromise and the assurance that NASA's only interest in commercial crew is for servicing ISS.

As such, "much of the purpose of CCDev" was defeated months ago.

All I can say that is the most broken logic I've ever seen.

Personally I'd rather see money be spent on a domestic solution then be spent on buying seats on Soyuz.

Yes commercial crew is not just about rides to ISS it's about developing a new industry and the tools for future exploration.

I describe the present congress's take on space and science and general as penny wise and dollar dumb.

They make decisions that may save a few cents in the short term but end up costing us dearly in the long term.

A bunch of trained apes could make wiser financial decisions then the present congress.

[manboy]

The last I heard, some aides in the House had added up the number of flights left until ISS end of life, divided the amount of money being spent on commercial crew by that count and gotten a number much bigger than the price per seat of just continuing to fly on Soyuz. The House asked someone about it - probably Bill Gerstenmaier, I forget - and got the response that commercial crew is more about seeding a new industry than it is about not being dependent on the Russians, or saving money. This resulted in the blowup with Rep Wolf and the letter to Bolden. His response was the 2.5 competitors compromise and the assurance that NASA's only interest in commercial crew is for servicing ISS.

As such, "much of the purpose of CCDev" was defeated months ago.

Doesn't Wolf keep on insisting that the ISS program will end in 2020?

[Patchouli]

Doesn't Wolf keep on insisting that the ISS program will end in 2020?

Wolf comes off as kinda crazy to me and not the good kind.

[Robotbeat]

Dumb da dumb dumb.

For the federal govt, it makes far more sense to use a domestic solution since a large portion of the money stays in the country and is recovered via taxes. Plus, even the IMF acknowledges that during a recession like this, there is a multiplier greater than one. And that is money that won't have to be used for unemPloyment, food stamps, or Extra prison for the greater domestic unemployed. The cost differential has to be enormous for the Russian solution to be rationally attractive.

And that is ignoring the fact that the chances for ISS to be abandoned in ISS are vanishingly small. And the fact that subsidizing the aerospace/military sector of a geopolitical rival is counter-productive. And the fact that NASA could get a lot of use out of commercial crew (and cargo) for exploration missions. And even the possibility that encouraging the orbital tourism market will help the US in the future. Etc, etc, etc.

[Patchouli]

Dumb da dumb dumb.

For the federal govt, it makes far more sense to use a domestic solution since a large portion of the money stays in the country and is recovered via taxes. Plus, even the IMF acknowledges that during a recession like this, there is a multiplier greater than one. And that is money that won't have to be used for unemPloyment, food stamps, or Extra prison for the greater domestic unemployed. The cost differential has to be enormous for the Russian solution to be rationally attractive.

And that is ignoring the fact that the chances for ISS to be abandoned in ISS are vanishingly small. And the fact that subsidizing the aerospace/military sector of a geopolitical rival is counter-productive. And the fact that NASA could get a lot of use out of commercial crew (and cargo) for exploration missions. And even the possibility that encouraging the orbital tourism market will help the US in the future. Etc, etc, etc.

True money spent domestically is money that will earn more taxes and by providing jobs and the fact it reduces welfare and crime makes the payoff even larger.

Though in this case it'll prevent some young engineers from becoming more OWS protesters and IT experts from becoming black hat hackers.

CCDev probably in the end probably directly gives twice maybe even three x the value paying the Russians for a ride does and I'm not even counting the creation of a new industry.
The return on that could be truly massive.

I think said aids don't have any clue what they are talking about and need to just shut up.
Really the names of people like that who make big financial decisions should be made public as their decisions do effect the public.

[joek]

The last I heard, some aides in the House had added up the number of flights left until ISS end of life, divided the amount of money being spent on commercial crew by that count and gotten a number much bigger than the price per seat of just continuing to fly on Soyuz. The House asked someone about it - probably Bill Gerstenmaier, I forget - and got the response that commercial crew is more about seeding a new industry than it is about not being dependent on the Russians, or saving money. This resulted in the blowup with Rep Wolf and the letter to Bolden. His response was the 2.5 competitors compromise and the assurance that NASA's only interest in commercial crew is for servicing ISS.

As such, "much of the purpose of CCDev" was defeated months ago.

I find it somewhat incredulous that they figured it that only relatively recently.  Commercial crew can not, and never has been able to, compete with Soyuz on a per-seat cost basis (at least for up to 6 seats/yr).

Assuming a CCP operating or per-seat cost of $0, the current CCP break-even vs. Soyuz  is around 2025.  Using the original CCP funding profile and schedule with flights starting in 2015 changes that to around 2022.  Add a few hundred $M/yr for CCP seats, and break-even is well beyond 2028.

If those aides (or whoever) took this long to come to that realization, they should be fired for incompetence.  But before that, see how they answer when asked about the value of increased ISS utilization and 8 seats/yr and what the per-seat price looks like.  I'd bet those two extra seats/yr on Soyuz would carry a very high premium--if they can be had at all.

[Robotbeat]

Of course, every year that the full needed amount of funding for commercial crew is delayed, the worse this looks. It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[strangequark]

Though in this case it'll prevent some young engineers from becoming more OWS protesters and IT experts from becoming black hat hackers.

...most of those weren't engineering majors.