CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Lobo]

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.

Personally, I like all 3 finalists, and think the fact all 3 can’t be used is a shame in a certain way.  But the reality is, NASA only needs about two crew missions to the ISS per year.  Maybe 3 tops.  So even one provider will be operating at a very low capacity.  Much less two or three.  Keeping two just for “assured access” would mean one crew mission each per year likely.  There will be a lot of overhead with such a low flight rate. 
I don’t think “competition” will do anything to keep costs down, any more than it did for EELV’s.  Part of the reason ULA was formed (as I understand) was because after getting caught swiping info form LM, Boeing was going to drop Delta IV and get out of EELV.  USAF/DoD wanted “assured access” to space, so they subsidized them both to retain the two EELV’s, and people have been complaining about the high costs of maintaining two [mostly] redundant EELV’s all of this time.  Without Boeing’s swiping LM’s data, ULA might not have been formed, but USAF/DoD would have probably kept both Boeing and LM making Delta and Atlas for them, and costs would be about the same.

So what makes anyone think that NASA keeping two commercial crew providers flying at an incredibly low rate, will have any different of a result?  I think the more likely outcome is what happened with EELV’s.  The Government is paying twice as much for two expensive redundant providers than they need to, flying at rates too low to benefit from any economies of scale.  If USAF/DoD worked with ULA to retire one of the EELV’s and just focus on the other, likely rates would come down because even though there’d be a “monopoly” (although there is already), the remaining LV will double production, and all assets will be focused on just that one.  Two pads ULA maintains could be closed down, people who work on the retired core would probably be let go from Decatur, etc. 
If NASA maintains two providers for commercial crew, that’s two separate spaceship programs that will have to be subsidized to keep them active.  Even SpaceX would have to charge a lot of money for one single Dragon Rider flight per year.   Moreso with Boeing and SNC because at least SpaceX can cost share part of Dragon Rider with commercial cargo, assuming they maintain that contract while doing Dragon Rider.  Boeing will pretty much have to charge NASA the full annual cost of the CST-100 program into that single commercial crew flight per year. 

Now, with all of that said, a few things could happen.  NASA could combine a SpaceX’s commercial cargo and commercial crew contracts into one contract that is worth less money than the two would be individually, and give them the option to take that.  Which they may do because it’d be more money than just commercial cargo, and they do benefit from a certain amount of cost sharing, and that would help pay for full Dragon Rider development, which I think SpaceX would like to have for other possible plans Elon has (or hopes too).

SNC could get a contract to build a finite amount of DC’s for NASA to have in inventory.   Remember, they will be like the Shuttle, and planned for full reused.  They don’t need to make a new one for each mission like Dragonrider and CST-100.  (as long as NASA plans for brand new crew capsules for every mission anyway). 
So, for some up front costs, NASA can actually have a small fleet of “mini-shuttles” for use.  I don’t think the maintenance of DC will be very much, so if NASA owns 3 or 4 of them, that could be their backup.  ULA will keep Atlas V flying for the EELV program, so DC’s booster will always be there.  After a number are built, then production could be shut down, just like it was for Shuttle.

In this way, NASA might retain two commercial crew vehicles “on the cheap”.  That might leave Boeing out of the picture though.

However, all of that said, two commercial crew providers really aren’t necessary to maintain for NASA.  Orion will be the ISS backup in case of some catastrophic problem in the commercial crew provider that can’t be resolved in about 6 months (the likely time between commercial crew missions).  Also, Soyuz will always be backup to the ISS as it is now, and would probably be utilized before Orion, as Orion will need to launch on a full SLS unfortunately.  If there is a commercial crew mission every 6 months to the ISS, and there is some major problem on a mission.  There is 6 months to get it resolved.  If it can’t be resolved in 6 months, NASA would probably buy seats on a Soyuz for their crew rotation.  If the problem with the commercial crew provider is so catastrophic it can’t be resolved in a whole YEAR, then NASA either plans to buy another Soyuz mission, or they plan an extra Orion and SLS LV to do the crew rotation.  So it’s not like if there was a problem, it would mean that provider would never fly again, or we’d be stuck with no access.  And with a fully disposable, and FAR more simple system like Commercial Crew, the chances that a problem couldn’t be fixed in 6 months or a year are almost impossible I’d think.  Plus the commercial crew vehicle and LV can fly unscrewed on a test mission.  Something that was impossible for STS, which is why the fleet was grounded for so long after Challenger and Columbia.  So they had to be very, VERY sure the problem was fixed before risking another crew on it.  Again, that’s not a problem for commercial crew, which can fly an unscrewed checkout flight to verify the problem has been resolved before risking another crew.  So I don’t really see having just one provider as the problem many make it out to be.

Although this would be where NASA maybe owning a couple of DC’s would be handy to have in the OPF in storage for just such an occasion.  If there’s a problem with the chosen provider, NASA can buy an Atlas, prep DC-1, or DC-2 sitting in the OPF, and send it over to LC-41 for a launch to the ISS.  And when it comes back, you process it and put it back into storage.

[joek]

I suppose you could test your hypothesis by reading the three SAAs I linked above to see if SpaceX and SNC have any single milestones that large. (Hint: SpaceX does, and SNC has one nearly as large.)

Yes, there are several.  (Sorry, I think I posted the charts some time ago but can't find it.)  The exposure or risk from underfunding depends on milestone amounts and timing.  The milestones of particular concern are those in Q4 FY2013 or Jul-Sep CY2013; as can be seen, Boeing appears to be the most exposed.

[rcoppola]

I honestly don't know the decision tree that designates how many Crewed flights there needs to be in any given year to the ISS. But I would think that if we had increased capability with 2 or 3 providers, we could either ensure a full US contingent at all times or a more timely rotation allowing for a more varied occupation schedule.

I'd love to see a greater number of people from varying industries be allowed to rotate on and off more frequently.

[BrightLight]

The HL-20 and I assume the DC was designed for low refurbishment cost - is there any data to suggest that this is true.  The Boeing CST-100 cost model should show that a new CST-100 will be less than the cost to refurbish the DC or
is the reliability of either the CST-100 or Dragon Rider better than the DC and worth the extra cost for new vehicles every launch.

[Robotbeat]

The HL-20 and I assume the DC was designed for low refurbishment cost - is there any data to suggest that this is true.  The Boeing CST-100 cost model should show that a new CST-100 will be less than the cost to refurbish the DC or
is the reliability of either the CST-100 or Dragon Rider better than the DC and worth the extra cost for new vehicles every launch.

Dragon and cst100 are both reusable.

[Comga]

I suppose you could test your hypothesis by reading the three SAAs I linked above to see if SpaceX and SNC have any single milestones that large. (Hint: SpaceX does, and SNC has one nearly as large.)

Yes, there are several.  (Sorry, I think I posted the charts some time ago but can't find it.)  The exposure or risk from underfunding depends on milestone amounts and timing.  The milestones of particular concern are those in Q4 FY2013 or Jul-Sep CY2013; as can be seen, Boeing appears to be the most exposed.

I really like graphs and that is a great bar chart.  Thanks!

SpaceX and Boeing have milestones scheduled for September, the last month of FY 13, that total more than the $18M that is really being "sequestered".  If these get paid, or even accomplished, in October, the start of FY-14, all would be well.

If NASA insists on withholding >$80M to cover the <$20M sequester, then there would be an issue, as they would eat into the July milestones, perhaps paying some of them three months late.

And why sould NASA be making a decision of whose milestones to defund?  What's wrong with first come, first served?  Are there political issues to be made by skewing the payouts?

edit: spelling

[rcoppola]

I honestly don't know the decision tree that designates how many Crewed flights there needs to be in any given year to the ISS. But I would think that if we had increased capability with 2 or 3 providers, we could either ensure a full US contingent at all times or a more timely rotation allowing for a more varied occupation schedule.

The current traffic model is 2 flights/year with 4 crew each, total of 8 seats/year. At least 6 are needed to replace what we have now with Soyuz. 8 would enable expansion of ISS crew to 7 (4 USOS+3 ROS).

Thanks for that. So that's a 6 month rotation? Could we not designate 2 of those 4 seats as bi-monthly rotations? What is currently driving the rotations for crew? Could we not, with more cost effective commercial providers, increase crew rotations?

[Lurker Steve]

I honestly don't know the decision tree that designates how many Crewed flights there needs to be in any given year to the ISS. But I would think that if we had increased capability with 2 or 3 providers, we could either ensure a full US contingent at all times or a more timely rotation allowing for a more varied occupation schedule.

Only if you are willing to find the additional funding for these additional flights. Spaceflight isn't free.


The current traffic model is 2 flights/year with 4 crew each, total of 8 seats/year. At least 6 are needed to replace what we have now with Soyuz. 8 would enable expansion of ISS crew to 7 (4 USOS+3 ROS).

Thanks for that. So that's a 6 month rotation? Could we not designate 2 of those 4 seats as bi-monthly rotations? What is currently driving the rotations for crew? Could we not, with more cost effective commercial providers, increase crew rotations?

[erioladastra]

I honestly don't know the decision tree that designates how many Crewed flights there needs to be in any given year to the ISS. But I would think that if we had increased capability with 2 or 3 providers, we could either ensure a full US contingent at all times or a more timely rotation allowing for a more varied occupation schedule.

The current traffic model is 2 flights/year with 4 crew each, total of 8 seats/year. At least 6 are needed to replace what we have now with Soyuz. 8 would enable expansion of ISS crew to 7 (4 USOS+3 ROS).

Thanks for that. So that's a 6 month rotation? Could we not designate 2 of those 4 seats as bi-monthly rotations? What is currently driving the rotations for crew? Could we not, with more cost effective commercial providers, increase crew rotations?

What is the benefit?  Even if the commercial crew providers get their costs WAAAAY down, it wil still be more than zero.  More flights means more costs.  You would incur more training overhead too - you get effeciencies by training 1 crew for 6 months than 2 crews for 3 months. The crew usually take a few weeks to get up to top performance 9and you need to conduct more handover between crews) so you have decreased crew efficiency. So all you have done is add costs and reduced productivity.

it would be awesome to have 3 companies.   Reality is that we will only be able to support funding for one.

[Robotbeat]

There's enough flights for two companies, if you combine crew and cargo.

[yg1968]

If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

[Robotbeat]

If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

Additionally, if the Gateway /is/ actually assembled, it'd have some of its own ECLSS, so the complex's crew compliment could be expanded by a few (partially for the purpose of testing the gateway).

But of course, the gateway hasn't been officially approved or anything yet. A wonderful idea, though.

But seriously, ISS needs a LOT of unmanned cargo flights and only a handful of crew flights. There were 4 Soyuz flights, 4 Progress flights, 2 Dragon flights, 1 ATV (which can carry a lot but is being retired... necessitating more cargo flights) and 1 HTV. And Cygnus hasn't even started, yet. Long term, you can guesstimate about 6 US cargo flights per year and two crew flights per year. 8 flights per year, split between two providers... that's a respectable flight rate for any spacecraft type (the launchers will already be busy with lots of non-HSF flights).

[joek]

I really like graphs and that is a great bar chart.  Thanks!

SpaceX and Boeing have milestones scheduled for September, the last month of FY 13, that total more than the $18M that is really being "sequestered".  If these get paid, or even accomplished, in October, the start of FY-14, all would be well.

If NASA insists on withholding >$80M to cover the <$20M sequester, then there would be an issue, as they would eat into the July milestones, perhaps paying some of them three months late.

And why sould NASA be making a decision of whose milestones to defund?  What's wrong with first come, first served?  Are there political issues to be made by skewing the payouts?

Thanks and welcome.  I think there's more in play than a $18M sequestration shortfall as you suggest.  But that's a discussion for a different thread.

A "first come, first served" approach won't work as these are extant contracts.  If the work is completed NASA is committed to pay.  Nor would anyone likely commit to the work for milestones based on "first come, first served" unless they have a reasonable guarantee of payment.  That leaves someone--most obviously NASA--to determine which milestones are defunded or delayed.

It is also worth noting that commercial crew commitments for FY2013 total ~$625M = ~$595M CCiCap milestones + ~$30M CPC.  Some of the difference might be made up with funds carried forward (?), but there still appears to be a significant hole--even without sequestration reductions--that I've yet to see explained.

[QuantumG]

If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

Sure.. but they're going to be arguing for Orion for anything Gateway related. I think you just made the case for an early Orion to ISS capability.

[manboy]

There's enough flights for two companies, if you combine crew and cargo.

That could be challenging to implement. Cygnus will never be able to carry and return crew. I don't believe a CBM would fit on a CST-100 or Dream Chaser and those vehicles currently aren't being designed to be able berth to the ISS. As of this writing only two SIMAC adapters (APAS to SIMAC) are planned to be installed there, if CCP goes with a direct handover than they will both see often use. Which would result in more docking ports needed, new SIMAC adapters would need to be developed to convert the open CBMs but if they don't protrude enough than there may be clearance issues with Dream Chaser's wings.

The standard-sized CBM hatch is much larger than that of SIMAC so your payloads would have to be smaller. I'm unsure how Cygnus' mini-hatch compares.

[Robotbeat]

If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

Sure.. but they're going to be arguing for Orion for anything Gateway related. I think you just made the case for an early Orion to ISS capability.

Hardly. There'd still be no money for launching SLS (though enough to keep it afloat), and commercial logistics will already be well-established at that point. Orion on Delta IV Heavy, maybe, but a lot would have to change between where things stand and that point. I think relying on Soyuz alone for keeping ISS crewed (with either Orion or commercial crew as "backup") is far more likely than some switch to using Orion for regular trips to ISS, especially Orion launched on SLS.

[QuantumG]

If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

Sure.. but they're going to be arguing for Orion for anything Gateway related. I think you just made the case for an early Orion to ISS capability.

<snip>I think relying on Soyuz alone for keeping ISS crewed (with either Orion or commercial crew as "backup") is far more likely than some switch to using Orion for regular trips to ISS, especially Orion launched on SLS.

Who said anything about regular trips to the ISS?

The question was about Gateway assembly at the ISS. How do you think they're planning to get Gateway into orbit?

What's the argument against Orion to ISS? "It's inefficient, why? Because SLS throws at least twice (or even three times) the Orion capsule mass. The supporters are going to say they can just fly cargo with crew.. the detractors are going to say: what cargo? Well there's your answer: Gateway.

When this argument is put to the legislators they're going to start to wonder why they're paying for two (or three, or four) systems to do the same thing. The sensible argument, dissimilar redundancy and competition, is over their heads.

[Robotbeat]

If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

Sure.. but they're going to be arguing for Orion for anything Gateway related. I think you just made the case for an early Orion to ISS capability.

<snip>I think relying on Soyuz alone for keeping ISS crewed (with either Orion or commercial crew as "backup") is far more likely than some switch to using Orion for regular trips to ISS, especially Orion launched on SLS.

Who said anything about regular trips to the ISS?

The question was about Gateway assembly at the ISS. How do you think they're planning to get Gateway into orbit?...

In fact, EELV-class launch vehicles are considered. They are the likely option at LEAST as much as SLS is, provided first launch this decade.

[joek]

If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

Almost certainly that would be separate from the initial commercial crew contracts to ISS, and would be considerably later. So the initial contract(s) must be based solely on ISS needs, not exploration needs.

In any case, L2 Gateway is off-topic for a CCiCAP thread.

Yes.  CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.  L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.

[Robotbeat]

If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

Almost certainly that would be separate from the initial commercial crew contracts to ISS, and would be considerably later. So the initial contract(s) must be based solely on ISS needs, not exploration needs.

In any case, L2 Gateway is off-topic for a CCiCAP thread.

Yes.  CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.  L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.

One single note: The reason we talked about it here in the first place is that the gateway (if built) would likely be built at ISS, thus the crew used to build it would use the same ISS crew transport system. Just to make that clear.