Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[yg1968]

As mentionned before, the right of NASA to acquire IP is only in the case of default or non-production by the commercial crew provider and would apply to any developmental phases.

[CitabriaFlyer]

"This is about creating an industry, with multiple providers".

If you are passionate about having more than one provider you must figure out how you are going to increase the flight rate (and more significantly pay for it.) 

At present the US needs two sorties per year to maintain the current ISS utilization rate.  If you are not going to have more demand than that it is hard to see how you have a market that supports TWO providers.  Explain how that is in the economic interest of the nation.

If you are going to increase sorties to ISS who is going to pay for it?

My sense is that the only thing Congress is going to want out of commercial crew is a means to continue the status quo without being dependent on Russia. 

If you want to "create an industry" it is going to take more than NASA and Bigelow.  You are going to need Chevron, BHP Billiton, Las Vegas Sands, Apple, etc... 

If you spend billions of dollars on subsidizing a fleet of unnecessary manned space vehicles that will (at best) create a Solyndra in space that will engender taxpayer hostility that will ultimately cause more harm than good.

Congress is willing a very expensive subsidized EELV program because space supremacy facilitates information dominance and short decision cycles which give the American service member unprecedented precision, lethality and survivability.  The benefits of space supremacy, among other things, are the reason we have prosecuted a continuous war for more than ten years without having to resort to a draft.  Therefore Congress will pay perhaps grudgingly for Atlas V and Delta IV even though DoD does not have enough payloads for either booster's production line to run anywhere close to maximum.

Frankly the truth is that there is nothing on ISS that is as important in the short and medium term as DoD's space supremacy so I don't think there will be importance placed on having redundant commercial crew providers.  Besides, Souyz will still be a backup and if relations between our countries deteriorates to a point that Souyz is not feasible then operation of the USOS would probably not be feasible anyway.  Also, Orion would (if schedules hold) be available a few years after commercial crew to provide US manned LEO capability albeit at much greater cost.

Bottom Line:  My first thoughts on this issue was that we should have as many diverse spacecraft as possible. However, I think at this point given financial realities, political realities, and the fact that NASA has a lot of other mandates (SLS, JWST, BEO exploration, planetary science) supported by their own powerful constituencies creating a "viable industry with multiple providers" is not realistic.  Therefore the more I think about it the more convinced I am that we should down select to one provider ASAP.  In that way we maximize the chances that the one winner will have a better chance for a viable business plan.  Otherwise we will have two providers that cannot survive in such a limited market without massive subsidies that will most likely prove not to be politically sustainable over the long term.

Think about it.  There is only one company in the US that can build a commercial airliner?  Why do we need two companies in the US to build commercial spacecraft when the market is orders of magnitude smaller?

[Arceus12345]

Just wondering, am i the only one that's gonna feel sad for all of the companies that are going to be cut off from the next round all because of congress? Imagine having to spend a few years designing a vehicle, only to have it rejected!

[QuantumG]

As mentionned before, the right of NASA to acquire IP is only in the case of default or non-production by the commercial crew provider and would apply to any developmental phases.

Then expect SpaceX, Blue Origin and maybe even SNC to walk.

When the government gets to decide if you've "defaulted" on a contract and then take all your assets, even if they promise to compensate you, run away and don't look back.

[Jim]

As mentionned before, the right of NASA to acquire IP is only in the case of default or non-production by the commercial crew provider and would apply to any developmental phases.

Then expect SpaceX, Blue Origin and maybe even SNC to walk.

When the government gets to decide if you've "defaulted" on a contract and then take all your assets, even if they promise to compensate you, run away and don't look back.

You really don't know how things work.  They all know this. There is no basis for them bailing.  They know where the real money is and it isn't tourism.  Tourism will be viable with subsidized systems just like it was airmail and passenger planes.

[CitabriaFlyer]

As far as my preference for the one provider, I am not qualified to say and they all have cool features.  However, if I had to pick one I would pick:

Dragon/Falcon

Reasons:
1)  Falcon seems to be more cost effective than Atlas
2)  Merlin engines have flown more than RS-68s and in another year SpaceX will have operated more Merlins than ULA has operated RD-180s
3)  Dragon has flown twice already.
4)  Related to #1 I think it is in our national interest to have a more cost effective booster in order to assure cost effective science missions, to recapture the commercial launch market, and potentially to offer lower cost military space lift for certain payloads.  Selecting Dragon/Falcon helps those goals.

Bottom Line:
If you put a couple of ejection seats in the current Dragon spacecraft you would probably have a spacecraft as safe as what Young and Grissom had on Gemini 3.  I would volunteer to fly a Dragon in that configuration next launch.

[CitabriaFlyer]

Just wondering, am i the only one that's gonna feel sad for all of the companies that are going to be cut off from the next round all because of congress? Imagine having to spend a few years designing a vehicle, only to have it rejected!

Sounds like my love life in college

[QuantumG]

You really don't know how things work.  They all know this. There is no basis for them bailing.  They know where the real money is and it isn't tourism.  Tourism will be viable with subsidized systems just like it was airmail and passenger planes.

No Jim.. you're the one in the dark here. Jim Benson used to say that anyone who signed a contract with NASA was forfeiting their right to private property.

[CitabriaFlyer]

Just wondering, am i the only one that's gonna feel sad for all of the companies that are going to be cut off from the next round all because of congress? Imagine having to spend a few years designing a vehicle, only to have it rejected!

Seriously, I will feel sorry for the losers just like I feel sorry for the folks who lost their jobs with the end of Apollo and shuttle.  If it is any consolation, a lot of good ideas in aviation did not happen when they were first considered because the technology was not good enough or the market was not ready.  But eventually if it is a good idea it will find a place.

[Jim]

You really don't know how things work.  They all know this. There is no basis for them bailing.  They know where the real money is and it isn't tourism.  Tourism will be viable with subsidized systems just like it was airmail and passenger planes.

No Jim.. you're the one in the dark here. Jim Benson used to say that anyone who signed a contract with NASA was forfeiting their right to private property.

they know it and will accept it.  After all, Benson and his companies took NASA money

[yg1968]

You really don't know how things work.  They all know this. There is no basis for them bailing.  They know where the real money is and it isn't tourism.  Tourism will be viable with subsidized systems just like it was airmail and passenger planes.

No Jim.. you're the one in the dark here. Jim Benson used to say that anyone who signed a contract with NASA was forfeiting their right to private property.

The chances of them defaulting under CCiCap is not that high given that companies don't put that much skin into the game.

[CitabriaFlyer]

Jim I am wondering what your position is on immediate down select vs continuing to fund multiple companies.  Just interested in the opinion of someone with a better understanding of the business then we a matures.

[Go4TLI]

I wonder if this could be a solution under a 2.5 commercial crew provider scenario:
1- SpaceX
2- Boeing with ULA as a subcontractor
2.5- DC without any funding going to ULA.

In order to preserve maximum options now that we are no longer creating an industry as a goal,  I expect it to be

1.  Boeing
2.  SNC
2.5.  SpaceX

This is of course assuming good proposals to the RFP.  Subcontractors are not a consideration and it is up to the awarded company to spend the money accordingly in order to meet agreed to milestones

[Political Hack Wannabe]

CitabriaFlyer

Part of increasing the flight rate is figuring out what we are actually using ISS for.  This is a key aspect, and there are definite uses for it.  But we REALLy haven't figured out how we are going to use ISS.  And frankly that is a shame. 

So part of increasing the flight rate HAS to be related to that.  Because greater utilization of ISS is at least likely to result in greater number of vehicles needing to visit ISS.

Secondly, there is the need to look at other customers, beyond those at ISS.  Here I see Bigelow playing a role, but I don't see them as the only one.  I see a few others, INCLUDING NASA exploration (much discussion about propellant depots could go here).  Also, I think satellite launches could play a role, at least for the rockets.

Yes, DOD space supremacy will remain more important than HSF and the others.  But we are going to spend 7-10 Billion on HSF.  Therefore, I'd like to spend it towards space settlement, and the quickest way there is building the industry up. 

Bottom Line:  My first thoughts on this issue was that we should have as many diverse spacecraft as possible. However, I think at this point given financial realities, political realities, and the fact that NASA has a lot of other mandates (SLS, JWST, BEO exploration, planetary science) supported by their own powerful constituencies creating a "viable industry with multiple providers" is not realistic.  Therefore the more I think about it the more convinced I am that we should down select to one provider ASAP.  In that way we maximize the chances that the one winner will have a better chance for a viable business plan.  Otherwise we will have two providers that cannot survive in such a limited market without massive subsidies that will most likely prove not to be politically sustainable over the long term.

If thats the case, then frankly, we might as well declare the glory that is NASA over.  IMHO, the goal of US HSF must be space settlement.  If its not that, then I fail to see the value of HSF when compared to other things elsewhere that have value.  Maybe that is overly harsh, but that is how I see it.  And you don't have to fall into that trap, IF you are willing to have your pieces work together (and I grant that statement is a lot of hand waving). 

Think about it.  There is only one company in the US that can build a commercial airliner?  Why do we need two companies in the US to build commercial spacecraft when the market is orders of magnitude smaller?

You want to have companies have hardware, looking to use it to make a profit in areas beyond NASA crew rotations 2 times a year.  Maybe we'll find that satellite repair is a very viable industry.  Maybe we'll find that the idea of a turn key space program, ala Bigelow Aerospace, is viable. 

Because the goal of doing all of this is to create a self-sustaining industry, that will bring prices down, so we can do more in space, and start settling it. 

Otherwise, if we can't figure how to get NASA to do that, IMHO, it really isn't serving a purpose. 

[QuantumG]

they know it and will accept it.  After all, Benson and his companies took NASA money

And look what happened to it. Neither Musk nor Bezos need it, so they won't accept new strings being attached. Musk has already said so publicly, and we know which way Bezos leans. I haven't heard SNC say enough to indicate what they'll do.

[joek]

Then expect SpaceX, Blue Origin and maybe even SNC to walk.

I don't see why.  The stipulations are the same as COTS and CCDev (AFAICT COTS, CCDev and CCiCAP are identical).  Nothing new or aberrant.

[CitabriaFlyer]

Political Hack,
I agree with a lot of your sentiments.  I think our difference of opinion has primarily to do with timing. 

My concern at present is that it takes a lot of money to build any spacecraft and as outrageous as it sounds I am very concerned that anybody can develop any manned spacecraft for less than $1 billion/year for five years.  We are getting half that for commercial crew.  My concern is that if we spread that over multiple vehicles we will wind up in 5 years with two half vehicles that are far less than the one vehicle we might have had.  Mitigating the risk of having no vehicle other than Souyz or Orion for LEO is the big thing driving me to advocate an early down select at the present time.

Ideally, you would have an industry or industries looking to a Virgin or some other space line for transport and then you would have the space line looking to several companies for one or more commercial vehicles depending on the mission.  You seem to be saying that we need to have that fleet of vehicles to get the industry into space and that such an industry can be the basis for space colonization.  I am thinking that it is even harder than that because you need the industry in space first to generate a demand for the fleet of commercial vehicles.  So it gets even harder because I don't see an industry at this point in time that does that.  So we need a would be entrepreneur to go into space and create an entire new industry that the rest of us did not even know that we needed just like Steve Jobs gave me an iPad when less than a year ago I asked the question, "Why the heck would I ever need an iPad?"

For a long time I thought energy might be the killer app either solar or He3 on the moon.  Now natural gas and new oil drilling in CONUS make that unlikely for several decades at least. 

Question is what is the industry that generates the demand for the fleet of diverse vehicles that we would both one day like to see?

[Jim]

Musk has already said so publicly,

He said they can do without it but they does mean they aren't going to take it. He is going to take the money if it is there. 

[Jim]

, so they won't accept new strings being attached.

They aren't new.  They have always been there.

[CitabriaFlyer]

In the short term, if you are any a position to advocate two vehicle funding with out political leadership I would suggest trying to sell that as a package that includes more flights to ISS.  Perhaps sending payload specialists there for a week at a time.  Then commercial crew can get some of the funds from the station budget.