CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Robotbeat]

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.

Regardless, unemployment breeds unrest and vice. (and, of course, this applies to much more than just Commercial crew, so this is off-topic... but this isn't necessarily an issue if you already have better than full employment and a roaring economy... cutting spending is a very, very good idea then to keep the economy from over-heating... but Florida definitely doesn't have anywhere near this problem right now)

[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...

Already being discussed here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31117.0

The $442M number is exaggerated because it's compared to the FY13 PBR instead of the FY13 CR. The PBR requested $830M for commercial crew, the CR appropriated $406M, and the sequester would cut that to around $388M.

Also, you shouldn't be using the CCiCAP number as the basis because much of those milestones are FY14, not FY13.

So you are saying that CCiCap will suffer a proportional 4.4% reduction [ (406-388)/406 ], and NOT be used as a cash source to make SLS and Orion "whole"?

Given that at least one of the three particiapants is almost sure to miss 5% of the year's milestones, how likely is it that CCiCap will even spend this much?

(Much of the rest of the responses are headed OT.)

[Joffan]

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.

Brilliant, discard the option that has demonstrated safe return from orbit and focus on the others.

I really don't have a dog in this fight, so it's amazing to me that the obvious strong candidate gets so much negative comment.

As a proponent of high R&D spending, I would always prefer funding more R&D rather than less. Not every project is going to pay off, but you can be sure that none will if you don't fund them.

[joek]

The $442M number is exaggerated because it's compared to the FY13 PBR instead of the FY13 CR. The PBR requested $830M for commercial crew, the CR appropriated $406M, and the sequester would cut that to around $388M.

Also, you shouldn't be using the CCiCAP number as the basis because much of those milestones are FY14, not FY13.

So you are saying that CCiCap will suffer a proportional 4.4% reduction [ (406-388)/406 ], and NOT be used as a cash source to make SLS and Orion "whole"?

Given that at least one of the three particiapants is almost sure to miss 5% of the year's milestones, how likely is it that CCiCap will even spend this much?

Discounting CPC (~$30M), FY2013 appears to be a bit of a crunch year for CCiCap assuming milestone payments are constrained by the FY budget in which they occur, so an apparently small percentage haircut in FY2013 may have disproportionate effects? (see chart below)

[Comga]

(snip)
Odd. In response to a $17.9M budget cut, NASA is claiming that $80.2M worth of milestones will be delayed from 4Q13.

I have no conclusions to draw from that. Make of it what you will.
 

(Much of the rest of the responses are headed OT.)

I agree. I am self-reporting my reply after I post it; the mods can figure out what to do with it.

That was a tremendous response, and not at all off-topic, and I thank you for it.   The situation gets better, then worse.  CCiCap does take a proportional hit from sequester, ~4.4%, so it is not being raided for SLS and Orion.  However, NASA appears to be doing the usual, maximizing the pain by delaying $80M to cover a $18M shortfall. 

As I don't have your restraint, I will conclude that this is raw political maneuvering, a typical abdication of the responsibility to maximize benefit with limited funds in favor of trying to scare Congress into increasing the budget.  Good luck to NASA on that.

[joek]

How about I lay out for you the raw information I'm using, share my conclusions, and let you draw your own?

The following, as the lawyers would say, are "facts not in dispute" ...

Thank you!

[joek]

NASA would not be able to fund milestones planned to be allocated in the fourth quarter of FY 2013 for Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) such as the SpaceX Inflight Abort Test Review, the Boeing Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control Engine Development Test, and the Sierra Nevada Corporation Integrated System Safety Analysis Review #2.

The values of these milestones are listed in the respective Space Act Agreements between NASA and the three companies:

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=632
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=633
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=634

SpaceX Inflight Abort Test Review - $10M
Boeing Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control Engine Development Test - $50.2M
Sierra Nevada Corporation Integrated System Safety Analysis Review #2 - $20M

Odd. In response to a $17.9M budget cut, NASA is claiming that $80.2M worth of milestones will be delayed from 4Q13.

Thanks again for the food for thought.  Some fear mongering to be sure, but attempting to parse that, I beleive it might have been better phrased as "NASA would not be able to fund all milestones planned to be allocated in the fourth quarter of FY 2013 ...".  Given:
1. ~$17.9M cut off the top.
2. CPC ~$30M is non-negotiable?
3. CCiCap milestones must be paid in full on completion.
4. Then we are short $47.9M; and ...
NASA, not willing to play favorites among the CCiCap contenders and state whose milestones wouldn't get funded in public, punted and used ambiguous language?

Which appears to imply that one or more of the CCiCap contenders will not get all of their milestones funded in FY2013 under sequestration, and thus will likely be out of the running sooner rather than later?  (While some may consider that a threat, others in Congress may consider it a promise.)

So who of the CCiCap contenders is at greatest risk?  Seems Boeing might be... putting out a plan with a single $50.2M milestone in FY2013 seems rather crass and obtuse on Boeing's part?  Might they amend the SAA to split it into smaller parts?  OTOH, if anyone can swim with these sharks and ensure adequate CCiCap funding, it's probably Boeing.

[Lobo]

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.

You'd have to include the President in your finacial decisions point, as he's as dysfunctional with it all as anyone in Congress.  The lot of them are.

But yea, it's in our national interest to maintain our own access to space, even if it's a little cheaper to buy Soyuz.  But I have a hard time taking such rhetoric seriously.  I think there's too much political will on both sides to get our own access to space back rather than just buy Soyuz long term.
However, I will say this.  I'd be there are those in Congress (on both sides) and other Americans in general who don't or won't view a private company going to the ISS in quite the same way they will a "NASA" rocket and "NASA" spaceship going there.  There may be a feel of "SpaceX" or "Boeing" or "Sierra Nevada" havng access to space, but not quite "America" or "NASA" going to space...if that makes sense.

And so I wonder if some such misplaced perceptions are driving some opinions such as this?  From that view, whether it's Dragon or CST-100 or Soyuz going to the ISS, it's not NASA going there.  NASA's going somewhere BLEO at some time...maybe...  but Orion won't be going to the ISS....so NASA won't be going to the ISS.  So what does it matter which other provider is used?  Are they any different?  Big corporation or foreign government, is there much of a difference?  Let's go with the cheapest one.

I don't agree with that myself, just speculating.
I will say as cool as Commercial crew is, and I think it has some secondary benefits, I think in the grand scheme of things, it would have been better if NASA had made better decisions back after Columbia and during the ESAS study, and developed a LEO "Block 0" Orion and launched on an EELV.  They could have debated a heavy lift cargo launcher separately, but we should have had NASA flying their spaceship to the ISS, as a replacement spacecraft and launcher for the Shuttle by the time it was retired. 
Commercial crew is probably fiscally cheaper, but I think the optics of NASA going there with their own spaceship would have been better.
Yea, I know technically LM is building Orion, and an EELV wouldn't have been "NASA's" rocket, but I think you see where I'm coming from.  It's not quite the same as commercial crew which really looks more like a private company's spaceship that NASA is just buying rides on...not too unlike buying rides on a Soyuz.

CST-100 is based on Boeing's work on their Orion concept, so it should have been possible to have an LEO Orion design that could fly on a single stick EELV (Atlas-55x maybe) , but then serve as the platform for the full BLEO capable Orion to be fully developed once the Shuttle was retired and new ISS service was established.

But, that ship has sailed...we have what we have.  However I do think we should downselect to just one provider, whomever that might be, and proceed with just that with all due haste.

[Occupymars]

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?

It seems to me that the iss is now the number one enemy of Orion and sls. wolf and spaceporkers like him would love noting more than to kill the iss and divert its funds to the big boondoggle's also if you kill iss you kill COTS too. Two birds whit one stone.

[john smith 19]

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?

It seems to me that the iss is now the number one enemy of Orion and sls. wolf and spaceporkers like him would love noting more than to kill the iss and divert its funds to the big boondoggle's also if you kill iss you kill COTS too. Two birds whit one stone.

Possibly. It's hard to say. With no one actually named in the post apart from Bolden and Wolf and no mention if it was reported anywhere it could mean anything. 

[john smith 19]

Thanks again for the food for thought.  Some fear mongering to be sure, but attempting to parse that, I beleive it might have been better phrased as "NASA would not be able to fund all milestones planned to be allocated in the fourth quarter of FY 2013 ...".  Given:
1. ~$17.9M cut off the top.
2. CPC ~$30M is non-negotiable?
3. CCiCap milestones must be paid in full on completion.
4. Then we are short $47.9M; and ...
NASA, not willing to play favorites among the CCiCap contenders and state whose milestones wouldn't get funded in public, punted and used ambiguous language?

Which appears to imply that one or more of the CCiCap contenders will not get all of their milestones funded in FY2013 under sequestration, and thus will likely be out of the running sooner rather than later?  (While some may consider that a threat, others in Congress may consider it a promise.)

So who of the CCiCap contenders is at greatest risk?  Seems Boeing might be... putting out a plan with a single $50.2M milestone in FY2013 seems rather crass and obtuse on Boeing's part?  Might they amend the SAA to split it into smaller parts?  OTOH, if anyone can swim with these sharks and ensure adequate CCiCap funding, it's probably Boeing.

Hold it. "milestones planned to be allocated in the fourth quarter of FY 2013"
Would that not mean they will be funded in FY2014?
Realistically Boeing is the "safe pair of hands" candidate in the same way OSC is for cargo. NASA's sees the long successful launch track record of Atlas V and expects no trouble. How difficult can CTS-100 be, after all they are Boeing.

Dragon however has the annoying ability to have actually started delivering real stuff to the ISS. Given an awful lot of the flight systems Spacex will use on crewed Dragon are already racking up flight experience (and indeed NASA might even be OK with the re-using the same capsules) it would seem to be very perverse, given NASA's love of "pedigree" if it turned it's back on Spacex for the crew transfer side.

This leaves SNC. It's very NASA (or as some parts of NASA would see themselves). Bold, leading edge, creative (first composite hulled human rated lifting body design anywhere. How cool is that?). But risky.

While new is not necessarily better things change. I'd love SNC to be able to convince NASA (and the Legislature, who ultimately pay the bills) they are the better bet over Boeing and be the #2 provider (providing design as well as LV diversity) but my head says that won't happen.
<sigh>

[Lar]

But, that ship has sailed...we have what we have.  However I do think we should downselect to just one provider, whomever that might be, and proceed with just that with all due haste.

I was with you till that last para, could you elaborate on why you think we should downselect now? Personally I'd like to see two providers get business, just like with commercial cargo.

[Elmar Moelzer]

But, that ship has sailed...we have what we have.  However I do think we should downselect to just one provider, whomever that might be, and proceed with just that with all due haste.

I was with you till that last para, could you elaborate on why you think we should downselect now? Personally I'd like to see two providers get business, just like with commercial cargo.

I would keep more providers too with two systems that have as little in common as possible. That way astronauts wont be grounded again for months (or years) if something happens with one of the systems (which is not completely unlikely given that they are all new).
Plus competition will help keeping prices down. A single provider would be able to dictate. It would be better to kill the SLS and use the funds to extent ISS and accelerate commercial crew with 3 providers instead of two. Then do a follow up for a heavy lifter some time down the road, when commercial crew has "paid for itself".
Unfortunately that is impossible to get through politcially. Too many politicians with vested interests in the SLS.

[john smith 19]

It would be better to kill the SLS and use the funds to extent ISS and accelerate commercial crew with 3 providers instead of two. Then do a follow up for a heavy lifter some time down the road, when commercial crew has "paid for itself".
Unfortunately that is impossible to get through politcially. Too many politicians with vested interests in the SLS.

That's the problem. It's simply not an option. 

[Patchouli]

Hold it. "milestones planned to be allocated in the fourth quarter of FY 2013"
Would that not mean they will be funded in FY2014?
Realistically Boeing is the "safe pair of hands" candidate in the same way OSC is for cargo. NASA's sees the long successful launch track record of Atlas V and expects no trouble. How difficult can CTS-100 be, after all they are Boeing.

Dragon however has the annoying ability to have actually started delivering real stuff to the ISS. Given an awful lot of the flight systems Spacex will use on crewed Dragon are already racking up flight experience (and indeed NASA might even be OK with the re-using the same capsules) it would seem to be very perverse, given NASA's love of "pedigree" if it turned it's back on Spacex for the crew transfer side.

This leaves SNC. It's very NASA (or as some parts of NASA would see themselves). Bold, leading edge, creative (first composite hulled human rated lifting body design anywhere. How cool is that?). But risky.

While new is not necessarily better things change. I'd love SNC to be able to convince NASA (and the Legislature, who ultimately pay the bills) they are the better bet over Boeing and be the #2 provider (providing design as well as LV diversity) but my head says that won't happen.
<sigh>

I like SNCs design not only because it's daring and innovative but it's also the best vehicle for medical evacuation.

Most capsule designs land in the boonies or in the water.
This temporarily puts the stricken crew member in an even worse situation then they were in on ISS.
Dream Chaser lands on a runway where an ambulance can be already waiting.

[Robotbeat]

Hold it. "milestones planned to be allocated in the fourth quarter of FY 2013"
Would that not mean they will be funded in FY2014?
Realistically Boeing is the "safe pair of hands" candidate in the same way OSC is for cargo. NASA's sees the long successful launch track record of Atlas V and expects no trouble. How difficult can CTS-100 be, after all they are Boeing.

Dragon however has the annoying ability to have actually started delivering real stuff to the ISS. Given an awful lot of the flight systems Spacex will use on crewed Dragon are already racking up flight experience (and indeed NASA might even be OK with the re-using the same capsules) it would seem to be very perverse, given NASA's love of "pedigree" if it turned it's back on Spacex for the crew transfer side.

This leaves SNC. It's very NASA (or as some parts of NASA would see themselves). Bold, leading edge, creative (first composite hulled human rated lifting body design anywhere. How cool is that?). But risky.

While new is not necessarily better things change. I'd love SNC to be able to convince NASA (and the Legislature, who ultimately pay the bills) they are the better bet over Boeing and be the #2 provider (providing design as well as LV diversity) but my head says that won't happen.
<sigh>

I like SNCs design not only because it's daring and innovative but it's also the best vehiucle for medical evacuation.

Most capsule designs land in the boonies or in the water.
This temporarily puts the stricken crew member in much a worse situation then they were in on ISS.
Dream Chaser lands on a runway where an ambulance can be already waiting.

Has this ever happened? Has it ever been a significant problem?

Admit it, you primarily think it looks cool.

[Patchouli]

Has this ever happened? Has it ever been a significant problem?

Admit it, you primarily think it looks cool.

Of course it looks cool but medical emergencies have happened.

http://articles.philly.com/1997-08-15/news/25566238_1_tsibliyev-and-alexander-lazutkin-mir-mission-cosmonauts

As for a bad landing.
http://www.videocosmos.com/soyuz23.shtm

[Robotbeat]

Has this ever happened? Has it ever been a significant problem?

Admit it, you primarily think it looks cool.

Of course it looks cool but medical emergencies have happened.

http://articles.philly.com/1997-08-15/news/25566238_1_tsibliyev-and-alexander-lazutkin-mir-mission-cosmonauts

As for a bad landing.
http://www.videocosmos.com/soyuz23.shtm

So what, they survived.
BTW, you don't want to know what happens when Dreamchaser goes into "ballistic mode"...


Also, Dragon will be doing precision powered landing.

[Patchouli]

So what, they survived.

They barely survived.

BTW, you don't want to know what happens when Dreamchaser goes into "ballistic mode"...

As for going into ballistic mode no spacecraft be it space plane or capsule should ever be allowed to go into an uncontrolled state.
Besides there has never been a catastrophic avionics failure on STS.
The failure rates of the rest of the system far outweigh that of the avionics and control systems.
How often do airliners just fall out of the sky from loss of their avionics and use of their control surfaces?

Also, Dragon will be doing precision powered landing.

The landing method is less proven then a gliding landing.
In fact on this last part of the mission STS probably has the best record of any vehicle.

DC is the only CCDev vehicle with non toxic RCS and thus is the only vehicle that is immediately safe to approach after landing.

[Robotbeat]

So what, they survived.

They barely survived.

BTW, you don't want to know what happens when Dreamchaser goes into "ballistic mode"...

As for going into ballistic mode no spacecraft be it space plane or capsule should ever be allowed to go into an uncontrolled state....

Regardless of whether you want to allow them, they might do it anyway.