CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[QuantumG]

Government Interference?

Yes, we were talking about the administration asking for enough CCDev funding to jump start the human spaceflight industry.. not just to service NASA's needs.

Also, the current administration has a bad record trying to jump start industries. See how poorly the green energy business is doing.

I believe that exact comparison was made by members of the House in rejecting the funding request for CCDev.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Also, the current administration has a bad record trying to jump start industries. See how poorly the green energy business is doing.

I believe that exact comparison was made by members of the House in rejecting the funding request for CCDev.

With every risk investment, you plan for one out of 10 to be a success. One example for such a success would be Tesla, another would be Solar City. So I would be careful with dismissing the notion that this works. Besides, the whole jobs creation argument was used by the opponents of commercial crew to funnel tax money to their favored space projects and centers. So lets be careful with that argument. Finally, there was unfortunately not enough money spent to really jump start the industry on the scale des

[Robotbeat]

Also, the current administration has a bad record trying to jump start industries. See how poorly the green energy business is doing.

I believe that exact comparison was made by members of the House in rejecting the funding request for CCDev.

With every risk investment, you plan for one out of 10 to be a success. One example for such a success would be Tesla, another would be Solar City. So I would be careful with dismissing the notion that this works. Besides, the whole jobs creation argument was used by the opponents of commercial crew to funnel tax money to their favored space projects and centers. So lets be careful with that argument. Finally, there was unfortunately not enough money spent to really jump start the industry on the scale des

No, but the COTS/CRS money /did/ help SpaceX enter the commercial satellite field in a significant way, bringing significant commercial launch business back to the US. And we don't actually know that CC won't end up jump-starting the commercial orbital human spaceflight industry, though Congress seems to be doing their best to make sure CC is done with cost-plus type contracts which are less likely to spur truly commercial development.

[QuantumG]

No, but the COTS/CRS money /did/ help SpaceX enter the commercial satellite field in a significant way, bringing significant commercial launch business back to the US.

Not taxing them so much or removing 1/10th of the regulations on private investment would have done the same thing. Why? Because Elon built that, not the government. They did more to hinder than they did to help and they continue to do so.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Not taxing them so much or removing 1/10th of the regulations on private investment would have done the same thing. Why? Because Elon built that, not the government. They did more to hinder than they did to help and they continue to do so.

I might be wrong there, as I do not have access to their books, but I somehow doubt that SpaceX was paying much taxes by the time they got the COTS money.

[Star One]

No, but the COTS/CRS money /did/ help SpaceX enter the commercial satellite field in a significant way, bringing significant commercial launch business back to the US.

Not taxing them so much or removing 1/10th of the regulations on private investment would have done the same thing. Why? Because Elon built that, not the government. They did more to hinder than they did to help and they continue to do so.

You're venturing into the area of political rhetoric now which I am not sure is on topic for this thread.

[Lars_J]

Not taxing them so much or removing 1/10th of the regulations on private investment would have done the same thing. Why? Because Elon built that, not the government. They did more to hinder than they did to help and they continue to do so.

I might be wrong there, as I do not have access to their books, but I somehow doubt that SpaceX was paying much taxes by the time they got the COTS money.

Indeed. When you are a start-up, there is a *massive difference* between just getting tax breaks (which don't amount to much if you aren't making much at the time) vs a $396 million contract (COTS) + $1.6 billion (CRS).

[Oli]

We will see when in ten years time there still isn't any kind of major competitive industry to LEO, perhaps people will then wake up and realise that. Even something like Dream Chaser, which I have a lot time for, I believe will struggle to move outside the taxi to ISS stage within this timespan.

SLS has for all its faults marginally more of a chance of doing something significant in that timeframe than all this commercialism of LEO people think is going to happen.

Agreed, NASA says commercial crew is expected to cost $80m per seat. That's for only 3 astronauts per flight, but even if you offer tourism flights you need pilots etc. and cargo.

I am pretty much convinced that there is no business case for manned LEO flights beyond the ISS in the next 10 years.

[yg1968]

We will see when in ten years time there still isn't any kind of major competitive industry to LEO, perhaps people will then wake up and realise that. Even something like Dream Chaser, which I have a lot time for, I believe will struggle to move outside the taxi to ISS stage within this timespan.

SLS has for all its faults marginally more of a chance of doing something significant in that timeframe than all this commercialism of LEO people think is going to happen.

Agreed, NASA says commercial crew is expected to cost $80m per seat. That's for only 3 astronauts per flight, but even if you offer tourism flights you need pilots etc. and cargo.

I am pretty much convinced that there is no business case for manned LEO flights beyond the ISS in the next 10 years.

Gerst said that NASA budgeted $480M per year for commercial crew transportation to the ISS. That amounts to $80M per seat if you take 3 astonauts on each flight. But if NASA decides to have a 7th crew on ISS, it would then be $480M for 4 astronauts per flight ($60M per flight). 

As far as a market for transportation beyond ISS, it rests entirely on Bigelow. But Bigelow needs NASA as a customer for him to have a business case. Bigelow is the missing piece of the puzzle for commercial crew. 

[Lurker Steve]

I am pretty much convinced that there is no business case for manned LEO flights beyond the ISS in the next 10 years.

There might be a business case for one or two vendors, but there isn't going to be enough volume to support more than that. Is it possible for any of the vendors to make a profit and pay off any of the investment expense on just one or two flights per year ? Look at how much overhead to support these low number of flights ? What is Boeing going to be doing in that OPF if the CST-100 only flights once per year. Are those employees going to spend 6 weeks on the capsule, and 46 weeks planning vacations ?

[Elmar Moelzer]

There might be a business case for one or two vendors, but there isn't going to be enough volume to support more than that. Is it possible for any of the vendors to make a profit and pay off any of the investment expense on just one or two flights per year ? Look at how much overhead to support these low number of flights ? What is Boeing going to be doing in that OPF if the CST-100 only flights once per year. Are those employees going to spend 6 weeks on the capsule, and 46 weeks planning vacations ?

If you assume that NASA will be the only client, then you have a problem.

[Star One]

There might be a business case for one or two vendors, but there isn't going to be enough volume to support more than that. Is it possible for any of the vendors to make a profit and pay off any of the investment expense on just one or two flights per year ? Look at how much overhead to support these low number of flights ? What is Boeing going to be doing in that OPF if the CST-100 only flights once per year. Are those employees going to spend 6 weeks on the capsule, and 46 weeks planning vacations ?

If you assume that NASA will be the only client, then you have a problem.

If you assume there is going to be other clients than NASA in the near term then you have a problem.

[Elmar Moelzer]

If you assume there is going to be other clients than NASA in the near term then you have a problem.

Maybe there will be others, maybe there wont. Bigelow certainly comes to mind. IIRC, transport of people to Bigelow stations was part of Boeings business plan for the CST-100 as it was presented to NASA for CCDev. Of course it depends a bit on what you call "near term".

[Go4TLI]

Maybe there will be others, maybe there wont. Bigelow certainly comes to mind. IIRC, transport of people to Bigelow stations was part of Boeings business plan for the CST-100 as it was presented to NASA for CCDev.

However, Bigelow needs clients as well outside of any potential NASA interest. 

[Elmar Moelzer]

Maybe there will be others, maybe there wont. Bigelow certainly comes to mind. IIRC, transport of people to Bigelow stations was part of Boeings business plan for the CST-100 as it was presented to NASA for CCDev.

However, Bigelow needs clients as well outside of any potential NASA interest.

Well, he seems to think that countries that are currently not space station partners and that cant afford ISS missions would be potential customers, as well as space tourists. I remember he originally wanted to charge about 15 million for a 4 week stay. That price has undoubtedly gone up since then. But I think that even twice as much puts this into the reach of a lot of small nations and institutions.

[newpylong]

Not taxing them so much or removing 1/10th of the regulations on private investment would have done the same thing. Why? Because Elon built that, not the government. They did more to hinder than they did to help and they continue to do so.

Please provide more information/evidence related to these claims. 

Besides some general non-SpaceX specific Commercial Crew funding issues I have seen nothing to indicate any of what you wrote is true. On the contrary, there are states and their congressmen/women practically begging SpaceX to set up shop there.

[Star One]

If you assume there is going to be other clients than NASA in the near term then you have a problem.

Maybe there will be others, maybe there wont. Bigelow certainly comes to mind. IIRC, transport of people to Bigelow stations was part of Boeings business plan for the CST-100 as it was presented to NASA for CCDev. Of course it depends a bit on what you call "near term".

I guessed Bigelow might be mentioned. I am just not sure myself whether their time has come yet. Hopefully we might have a better idea how things stand with them once we see how their ISS project gets along.

[Lurker Steve]

If you assume there is going to be other clients than NASA in the near term then you have a problem.

Maybe there will be others, maybe there wont. Bigelow certainly comes to mind. IIRC, transport of people to Bigelow stations was part of Boeings business plan for the CST-100 as it was presented to NASA for CCDev. Of course it depends a bit on what you call "near term".

I guessed Bigelow might be mentioned. I am just not sure myself whether their time has come yet. Hopefully we might have a better idea how things stand with them once we see how their ISS project gets along.

Actually, the lack of features in the BEAM module illustrate how far away they are from a true standalone station that can support humans.


Edit: fixed quotes... ++Lar

[guckyfan]

Actually, the lack of features in the BEAM module illustrate how far away they are from a true standalone station that can support humans.

Actually it illustrates, what NASA has ordered.

[yg1968]

Not taxing them so much or removing 1/10th of the regulations on private investment would have done the same thing. Why? Because Elon built that, not the government. They did more to hinder than they did to help and they continue to do so.

Please provide more information/evidence related to these claims. 

Besides some general non-SpaceX specific Commercial Crew funding issues I have seen nothing to indicate any of what you wrote is true. On the contrary, there are states and their congressmen/women practically begging SpaceX to set up shop there.

Elon (and others) have complained about California being a tough state to do business in because of its excessive regulations, taxes, etc.  As far as commercial crew is concerned, NASA should have stuck with the COTS model. Having said that, (IMO) the commercial crew program is still much better than any traditional cost-plus program.