CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Lar]

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.

And some feel Boeing is getting money for nothing, especially if SpaceX can ramp up flight rates (it has to, or else game over). SNC's craft is not a capsule which is very attractive, and SpaceX's solution uses a different launcher and would be cheaper (if they hit their numbers, which they have to, or game over)

[joek]

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).

I think we're in nominal agreement.  The difference appears to be what is used as a baseline plus maybe a few assumptions in the detail numbers.  In broad strokes...

To the question: How much NASA needs through FY2013 to meet CCP commitments without significant impact to the program?  What I get is:
-$655M -- FY2013 CCP commitments (CPC + CCiCap) [1]
+$190M -- FY2012 CCDev carry-forward
------
-$465M -- FY2013 funding required

From that: What is the net or shortfall given funding assumptions, from optimistic to pessimistic:
+525M = +$60M (surplus) based on Senate FY2013 language
+406M = -$59M (deficit) based on FY2013 CR
+386M = -$79M (deficit) based on FY2013 CR and sequester

That also answers in part the question; How does a $20M shortfall due to sequester turn into inability to fund $80M of CCICap milestones?  The answer is that it doesn't; a sizeable chunk went away with the CR. [2]


[1] Assumes $30M/yr for CCP program office.  That's probably optimistic as between CPC and CCiCap there's a lot more work than there was under CCDev in FY2012.
[2] In a presentation early-mid last year before the CCiCap awards (sorry can't find the link), NASA stated that operating under a CR posed a significant risk.  Presumably they felt that risk was manageable or that they'd get a reasonable shot at mitigation with an actual budget.

[Lurker Steve]

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.

850 million per year was for a program with 4 participants.
Congress has been pushing NASA to down select.
425 million a year is full funding for 2 participants.

I don't believe Bigelow will ever have a private space station, and the whole exercise will enable us to have 2 providers each only providing a single flight to the ISS per year.

I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment. It would have been much better just to pick one, and finish the development ASAP. I don't buy the argument that you can develop 2 integrated crew systems cheaper than 1.

[QuantumG]

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.

Heh, how is it "fair enough" exactly? If government granted monopolies are "fair enough" to you then maybe we should just do away with this whole "commercial" nonsense eh? Boeing for LEO, Lockheed Martin for beyond.

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.

5 months (after only 5 launches) vs ~2 months after 36.

No engine out capability on the Atlas V.

if Americans want astronauts launching from their own soil.

But they don't care if the rockets are made in Russia?

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

Who said they were? Are BoeLockMart to shaft their government customers to do astronaut launches?

Some feel SpaceX, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and SNC are getting money for nothing and this is why.

There, fixed that for ya.

[joek]

850 million per year was for a program with 4 participants.
Congress has been pushing NASA to down select.
425 million a year is full funding for 2 participants.

$850M/yr was for three participants.  $425M/yr will not fully fund two participants, thus the pressure for early down-select to one.

[QuantumG]

850 million per year was for a program with 4 participants.
Congress has been pushing NASA to down select.
425 million a year is full funding for 2 participants.

Nope. The "compromise" that Bolden worked out with Wolf was before the FY13 budget request and it still said over $800M. That's why KBH went spare. OMB wants $800M for 2.5 participants. They've said they can't do it for less. That's where Robobeat is getting his "can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman" analogy from.

I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.

So, you don't think government should be in the business of seeding new industries? I happen to agree with that sentiment, but many others don't.

[yg1968]

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.

850 million per year was for a program with 4 participants.
Congress has been pushing NASA to down select.
425 million a year is full funding for 2 participants.

I don't believe Bigelow will ever have a private space station, and the whole exercise will enable us to have 2 providers each only providing a single flight to the ISS per year.

I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment. It would have been much better just to pick one, and finish the development ASAP. I don't buy the argument that you can develop 2 integrated crew systems cheaper than 1.

We already know that the price per seat of commercial crew will be between $26M and $36M per seat which is reasonable compared to other alternatives. NASA is paying commercial crew companies for a need that it has. If the companies are able to find other customers, NASA might be able to get a better price. So it's a win-win for both NASA and the private sector. Having competition prevents a monopoly down the road. Competition seems to have worked for COTS.

[yg1968]

I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.

So, you don't think government should be in the business of seeding new industries? I happen to agree with that sentiment, but many others don't.

So you think that COTS was a bad idea?

[Robotbeat]

I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.

So, you don't think government should be in the business of seeding new industries? I happen to agree with that sentiment, but many others don't.

So you think that COTS was a bad idea?

He thinks almost all (perhaps simply all) gov't spending is a bad idea, on principle.

To be honest, that's why it's pretty pointless to engage him. If the topic is a NASA program and the question is about whether it should continue or be funded or not, by default his answer is "cancel it."

[joek]

We already know that the price per seat of commercial crew will be between $26M and $36M per seat ...

Nit: Not necessarily the price/seat for CTS.  Those are based on Bigelow's statement and assumptions, some of which may apply to CTS, and some which may not.

[yg1968]

We already know that the price per seat of commercial crew will be between $26M and $36M per seat ...

Nit: Not necessarily the price/seat for CTS.  Those are based on Bigelow's statement and assumptions, some of which may apply to CTS, and some which may not.

Yes, I meant to say based on Bigelow prices. In any event, we have a pretty good idea that commercial crew prices will likely be no more than Soyuz prices and probably even cheaper.

[yg1968]

I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.

So, you don't think government should be in the business of seeding new industries? I happen to agree with that sentiment, but many others don't.

So you think that COTS was a bad idea?

He thinks almost all (perhaps simply all) gov't spending is a bad idea, on principle.

To be honest, that's why it's pretty pointless to engage him. If the topic is a NASA program and the question is about whether it should continue or be funded or not, by default his answer is "cancel it."

In principle, I usually agree with him. But in this case, the main (and almost the only) customer is the government. So unless a company is assured of getting a NASA crew transportation services contract, it is unlikely to invest the billion(s) of dollars required to get that capability.

[yg1968]

Here is the latest 60 day report:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/729639main_February_2013_60_Day_Report_508.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/document_library.html

[Lurker Steve]

I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.

So, you don't think government should be in the business of seeding new industries? I happen to agree with that sentiment, but many others don't.

So you think that COTS was a bad idea?

He thinks almost all (perhaps simply all) gov't spending is a bad idea, on principle.

To be honest, that's why it's pretty pointless to engage him. If the topic is a NASA program and the question is about whether it should continue or be funded or not, by default his answer is "cancel it."

The management of COTS was a bad idea. NASA did not need to fund the development of new launch vehicles when there were already too many launch vehicles on the market. You can add the cost of a couple of extra Shuttle logistics flights to the COTS program costs, since the CRS program did not deliver on schedule.

If COTS only funded the development of Dragon and Cygnus, it would have been worthwhile. At anytime, did Kistler look like they were going to deliver a product ?

If the CRS vehicles used an existing launcher, like Delta II, then the extra number of flights could have kept that program alive and lowered launch costs for other NASA missions that had to switch to Altas V instead. And ULA might have found ways to cost reduce Delta II instead of retiring the launcher.

CCDev/CCiCAP will end up costing at least 5 Billion. I believe it may even rival the JWST costs by the time it's done. And the only purpose of the exercise is to develop some domestic capability. Divide the 5 Billion development cost by 8 ISS astronauts per year plus another couple hundred million per flight, and it will always be cheaper to continue using the Russians for ISS flights.

[Robotbeat]

I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.

So, you don't think government should be in the business of seeding new industries? I happen to agree with that sentiment, but many others don't.

So you think that COTS was a bad idea?

He thinks almost all (perhaps simply all) gov't spending is a bad idea, on principle.

To be honest, that's why it's pretty pointless to engage him. If the topic is a NASA program and the question is about whether it should continue or be funded or not, by default his answer is "cancel it."

The management of COTS was a bad idea. NASA did not need to fund the development of new launch vehicles when there were already too many launch vehicles on the market. You can add the cost of a couple of extra Shuttle logistics flights to the COTS program costs, since the CRS program did not deliver on schedule.

If COTS only funded the development of Dragon and Cygnus, it would have been worthwhile. At anytime, did Kistler look like they were going to deliver a product ?

If the CRS vehicles used an existing launcher, like Delta II, then the extra number of flights could have kept that program alive and lowered launch costs for other NASA missions that had to switch to Altas V instead. And ULA might have found ways to cost reduce Delta II instead of retiring the launcher.

Quite reasonable points, IMHO, even though I think it has turned out better than should've been expected and in hindsight is a good investment. The EELVs should not have been excluded. Many think they were excluded in order to reduce the chance that NASA's main HSF turf would not be encroached upon.

CCDev/CCiCAP will end up costing at least 5 Billion. I believe it may even rival the JWST costs by the time it's done. And the only purpose of the exercise is to develop some domestic capability. ...

This last sentence is either untrue or very misleading. It is NOT to simply provide domestic access to ISS. It will provide access to LEO for any future stuff in LEO that NASA wishes with potential for beyond-LEO as well as providing seeds for a possible new commercial industry. Disagree with those goals if you wish, but don't say it has JUST the single purpose of replacing a few Soyuzes.

And where did you get that figure? It seems likely that much of the cause of reaching that level would be from several years of short-funding rather than a failure of the program itself. $5 billion for at least 2 functional commercial crew vehicles is an enormous bargain, by the way. Compare it to Ares I, SLS, Orion, etc.

[Lurker Steve]

Well, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew. 

Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense.

[Robotbeat]

Well, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew. 

Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense.

$5 billion? That's a complete bargain for 2.5 qualified crewed systems (with multiple abort tests and launches), with milestones paid only when each milestone is completed. JWST is a single, unmanned spacecraft with a single launch. Pretty much as apples-to-oranges as you can get.

[rcoppola]

Well, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew. 

Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense.

You can't base your reasoning on requested funds. The actuals are considerably less. And even if it did approach JWST, which they haven't and  most likely won't, it's still a huge bargain. Multiple commercial Cargo AND Crew capabilities for a few billion dollars? That is an incredible achievement that will pay dividends for years to come.

[erioladastra]

Well, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew. 

Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense.

$5 billion? That's a complete bargain for 2.5 qualified crewed systems (with multiple abort tests and launches), with milestones paid only when each milestone is completed. JWST is a single, unmanned spacecraft with a single launch. Pretty much as apples-to-oranges as you can get.

You will not have 2.5 qualified systems when this is done, not for $5B.  One.  Maybe 1.5.

[yg1968]

Quite reasonable points, IMHO, even though I think it has turned out better than should've been expected and in hindsight is a good investment. The EELVs should not have been excluded. Many think they were excluded in order to reduce the chance that NASA's main HSF turf would not be encroached upon.

The EELVs were not excluded from competing in COTS. This is a myth that people on this forum keep repeating but it isn't actually true. Boeing had a proposal that nearly won over Orbital's proposal in 2008. DC competed in 2006 and would have used an Atlas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services