CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[joek]

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.

I'm surprised nobody else has commented on this one yet. Does anybody know how much if any funds were going to carry forward from FY12? My curiosity has definitely been piqued.

Ed Mango has mentionned that 75% of the FY 2012 amount for commercial crew would be spent on CCiCap (the other 25% was spent on CCDev2 optional milestones). So you have 75% x 406M = $304.5M for CCiCap for FY 2012. Plus you have at least $385M for commercial crew for FY 2013 if the sequester kicks in (reduction of 5% over FY 2012 amounts) and if the CR continues for the rest of the year. I am not sure about the exact number but I believe that the commercial crew office gets about $30M per year from the commercial crew budget (which must be substracted from the above amounts).  So you get about $637M (95%x406M-30M+75%x406M-75%x30M) for CCiCap less the CCiCap milestones that were already paid in FY 2012 (which obviously don't get carried over to FY 2013) which were for an amount of $160M (60M+20M+50M+30M) based on the SAAs.

So you get about $477M for CCiCap for FY 2013 according to my rough estimates if you carryover the FY 2012 amounts. The commercial crew office was expecting $525M based on the Senate's draft FY 2013 appropriation legislation. So that would essentially explain the hole of about $140-150M (525M-386M =139M) caused by the CR and the sequester.

See this link for more information:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28395.msg881383#msg881383

Yes, so based on appropriated funds, without sequester it's ~$60M shortfall; with sequester it's ~$80M shortfall.

[yg1968]

Yes, so based on appropriated funds, without sequester it's ~$60M shortfall; with sequester it's ~$80M shortfall.

I get a $140M to $150M shortfall including the sequester. I am not sure why we end up with different numbers. As I said, I believe that NASA was expecting $525M for commercial crew for FY 2013 based on the Senate draft appropriation bill and on representations made by Wolf on the House side. So the end result is a shortfall of 139M ($525M less $386M). My other (more detailed) calculations are more complicated but I essentially get the same results (shortfall of $625M less $477M = $148M).

[Robotbeat]

It's a program that needs ~$800 million to work, everyone SHOULD have known that from day 1. It's a bargain. Why does it seem every Congressional staffer and Congressperson (who absolutely should know better) treat it as if the only relevant question is what slice of NASA's budget it gets, as if the only point of NASA is pork for whichever district and not actually accomplishing a goal? In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.

[Robotbeat]

Yes, so based on appropriated funds, without sequester it's ~$60M shortfall; with sequester it's ~$80M shortfall.

I get a $140M to $150M shortfall including the sequester. I am not sure why we end up with different numbers. As I said, I believe that NASA was expecting $525M for commercial crew for FY 2013 based on the Senate draft appropriation bill and on representations made by Wolf on the House side. So the end result is a shortfall of 139M ($525M less $386M). My other (more detailed) calculations are more complicated but I essentially get the same results (shortfall of $625M less $477M = $148M).

If NASA actually *planned* on $525M (or *anything* more than $406M) after the CR passed, they were in violation of the law. So no, they weren't doing that.

Regardless, the program needs ~$800 million a year at some point.

[yg1968]

Yes, so based on appropriated funds, without sequester it's ~$60M shortfall; with sequester it's ~$80M shortfall.

I get a $140M to $150M shortfall including the sequester. I am not sure why we end up with different numbers. As I said, I believe that NASA was expecting $525M for commercial crew for FY 2013 based on the Senate draft appropriation bill and on representations made by Wolf on the House side. So the end result is a shortfall of 139M ($525M less $386M). My other (more detailed) calculations are more complicated but I essentially get the same results (shortfall of $625M less $477M = $148M).

If NASA actually *planned* on $525M (or *anything* more than $406M) after the CR passed, they were in violation of the law. So no, they weren't doing that.

CCiCap was awarded last August before the CR was passed. They had no way of knowing whether we would be on a CR or not. Officially, their plans relied on the President's requested amounts. But unofficially, it had enough flexibility for a lesser amount. At least, that's how I understood it. But I could be wrong.

[yg1968]

Yes, so based on appropriated funds, without sequester it's ~$60M shortfall; with sequester it's ~$80M shortfall.

I get a $140M to $150M shortfall including the sequester. I am not sure why we end up with different numbers. As I said, I believe that NASA was expecting $525M for commercial crew for FY 2013 based on the Senate draft appropriation bill and on representations made by Wolf on the House side. So the end result is a shortfall of 139M ($525M less $386M). My other (more detailed) calculations are more complicated but I essentially get the same results (shortfall of $625M less $477M = $148M).

If NASA actually *planned* on $525M (or *anything* more than $406M) after the CR passed, they were in violation of the law. So no, they weren't doing that.

Regardless, the program needs ~$800 million a year at some point.

Even if everybody agreed on that amount, it is unlikely to happen in the short term. It seems that the sequester will happen. But there may be hope that the effect of the sequester wil be dealt with in an appropriation bill or in a new CR that is not clean. I am not very hopeful that this will happen but it is not completely impossible.

[Robotbeat]

The continual fiscal crises are unnecessarily harming commercial crew and NASA. So is adding language into bills so that NASA can't finally finish the systems necessary to stop having to buy crew rides from the Russians.

[woods170]

The continual fiscal crises are unnecessarily harming commercial crew and NASA. So is adding language into bills so that NASA can't finally finish the systems necessary to stop having to buy crew rides from the Russians.

Purely based on witnessing the actions of Congress in the past few years it seems that neither the US Senate, nor the US House of Representatives are really bothered by paying the Russians for flying US astronauts.

[QuantumG]

In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.

If that's true, cancel it now.

[Lars_J]

In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.

If that's true, cancel it now.

But that is by far the best deal for NASA out of its HSF projects. (development of two independent HSF systems) If you think that is bad, I assume you just want to cancel the entire HSF program.

[QuantumG]

In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.

If that's true, cancel it now.

But that is by far the best deal for NASA out of its HSF projects. (development of two independent HSF systems) If you think that is bad, I assume you just want to cancel the entire HSF program.

If, as Robotbeat says, the program can't achieve those goals without funding which is never going to materialize, then why keep throwing money down the black hole?

[Robotbeat]

In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.

If that's true, cancel it now.

But that is by far the best deal for NASA out of its HSF projects. (development of two independent HSF systems) If you think that is bad, I assume you just want to cancel the entire HSF program.

If, as Robotbeat says, the program can't achieve those goals without funding which is never going to materialize, then why keep throwing money down the black hole?

Cancel all of NASA, then.

We actually don't know it will "never" materialize. We shouldn't reward those who have been trying to hold Commercial Crew (and thus ISS and thus NASA's current primary HSF program) hostage to ensure funding for a rocket (SLS) we don't need by canceling commercial crew. They are a minority, what they say isn't the end-all be-all.

And it isn't a blackhole, either. Milestones are being completed and even if the program gets prematurely canceled, it will have greatly increased the possibility of non-gov't human orbital spaceflight.

[QuantumG]

Cancel all of NASA, then.

Glad you agree.

We actually don't know it will "never" materialize.

Yes, we do. Some never-say-never optimists not withstanding.

And it isn't a blackhole, either. Milestones are being completed and even if the program gets prematurely canceled, it will have greatly increased the possibility of non-gov't human orbital spaceflight.

.. but you said it can't meet its goals without that $800M/year at some point. Make up your mind!

[Robotbeat]

You're arguing that no significant new program in NASA can ever get enough funding. That's a pretty high bar. You're basically saying that every program will either get canceled, have its funding reduced, or at very best remain constant. By supporting such nonsense, you're supporting the very sort of waste you claim to reject. But if you're going to cancel, on purpose, one of the most useful, cost-effective NASA programs just because you throw up our hands at some resistance... Well, that's a small, sad creature. Futilism itself is futile.

To say we should support an effective program isn't naive optimism, it's common freaking sense.

As far as your "cancel NASA" idea, then you should read the URL of this forum, and: http://m.xkcd.com/893/ (read the alt-text).

Cancel all of NASA, then.

Glad you agree.
...

Do not agree whatsoever.

[QuantumG]

You're arguing that no significant new program in NASA can ever get enough funding.

No I'm not. Where did I argue that?

You said:

In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.

I say it is never going to get around $800M/year. This is not a very controversial statement!

So, IF it's not going to get around $800M/year AND it needs to THEN why fund it at a lower level? Just cancel it and send the money to some other program where that will be full funding, or where a less than total funding will still deliver some results.

To say we should support an effective program isn't naive optimism, it's common freaking sense.

You said it will not be an effective program without full funding. It's not getting full funding. How is it common sense to support an ineffective program because you really really want it to get full funding?

As far as your "cancel NASA" idea

Umm.. cancelling NASA was your idea:

Cancel all of NASA, then.

I merely agreed with you.

Do not agree whatsoever.

Then why'd you say it? I thought you were coming to a logical conclusion based on NASA's recent track record.

you should read the URL of this forum

This isn't the NASA fan club.

http://m.xkcd.com/893/

Oh, I see. It's the but I really really want it argument again.

Sorry for letting reality and logic intrude.

[Lars_J]

In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.

I say it is never going to get around $800M/year. This is not a very controversial statement!

So, IF it's not going to get around $800M/year AND it needs to THEN why fund it at a lower level? Just cancel it and send the money to some other program where that will be full funding, or where a less than total funding will still deliver some results.

Who has claimed that it will deliver no result with less than full funding? Of course it will. The schedule will slip, however.

[A_M_Swallow]

CCDev may have passed its half way mark.  Paying for the paperwork may continue for a couple of years after the spacecraft fly.

CCOps may get called a lot of things and be paid for from some other money pot.

[QuantumG]

Who has claimed that it will deliver no result with less than full funding? Of course it will. The schedule will slip, however.

Robotbeat did. If he'd like to withdraw that claim, I'll withdraw the recommendation to stop wasting money on a project that he says can't succeed without full funding (at some point).

But the point stands for any other project that needs $X/year and can't get it.

[erioladastra]

CCiCap was awarded last August before the CR was passed. They had no way of knowing whether we would be on a CR or not. Officially, their plans relied on the President's requested amounts. But unofficially, it had enough flexibility for a lesser amount. At least, that's how I understood it. But I could be wrong.

Correct - the iCAP plan with optional milestones was to allow fo rall options and funding levels.  The only question is how many partners and if FAR (likely due to congressional demands) or SAA.

[spectre9]

Right now the idea is "integrated capability"

The only sensible option is CST-100 but Boeing wants full funding and a monopoly to make it worthwhile. That's fair enough if Americans want astronauts launching from their own soil.

Falcon 9 simply doesn't have the launch rate and demonstrated reliability to be able to compete with Atlas V in any way, shape or form.

SpaceX can't simply shaft their commercial customers while doing CRS at the same time forever.

Man rated Atlas V is the most sensible option and Boeing has already been given a larger slice of funding than SNC.

Just cut the waste already.

Some feel SpaceX and SNC are getting money for nothing and this is why.