-
#100
by
yg1968
on 09 Apr, 2013 16:16
-
It seems to me that whenever someone says that the primary goal of the CCP is ISS transportation for US astronauts, someone else counter-claims that by saying that it doesn't prevent CCP from having a secondary purpose of developing a commercial crew industry.
Both of those statements are true, however, my point is this: If ever NASA get to a situation where those two objectives no longer align, and they have to choose one over the other (a point I think we're reaching now), which one will they choose?
I.e., will they A) Down-select to a single provider to speed up ISS IOC, or B) Maintain multiple providers (despite the fact that only one will likely be ultimately selected) to try and stimulate the industry as long as possible?
If there is a conflict, the primary goal would take precedence over the secondary goal in my opinion. But affordability is also part of the primary goal. So maintaining competition is warranted if it keeps prices down in the long term.
One potential option would be to have 1.5 providers for phase 2 of certification as has been recently suggested by the commercial crew office (see link below). I don't believe that this approach would conflict with the primary goal of servicing the ISS. It's also similar to the approach taken under COTS where SpaceX is ahead of Orbital by over a year.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30772.msg1034062#msg1034062
-
#101
by
Go4TLI
on 09 Apr, 2013 16:19
-
I.e., will they A) Down-select to a single provider to speed up ISS IOC, or B) Maintain multiple providers (despite the fact that only one will likely be ultimately selected) to try and stimulate the industry as long as possible?
Or C) which is it will kill itself because most companies do not truly believe in the commercial market beyond NASA (and it's funds) to invest the necessary significant amounts to burden DDT&E and then operational costs themselves.
-
#102
by
Lars_J
on 09 Apr, 2013 16:43
-
One thing seems clear - to me at least. Thanks to monumental missteps of Congress and the involved NASA centers, the last decade have been an enormous bungling (or consistent self-inflicted shooting) that is resulting in the last gasp of NASA HSF launch hardware.
Not NASA missions. But NASA designed launch vehicles and associated hardware.
Commercial cargo and crew is the beginning of the future of NASA HSF. The sooner Congress and the NASA centers realize that, the less painful the transition will be. Unfortunately by anchoring CCrew to SLS funding, they still haven't realized it.
Is human spaceflight going to be abandoned? Unlikely. But when NASA and others do it, they will be buying tickets, chartering, or special-ordering commercial hardware. And that is not a bad thing. It's a good thing.
-
#103
by
Go4TLI
on 09 Apr, 2013 17:00
-
One thing seems clear - to me at least. Thanks to monumental missteps of Congress and the involved NASA centers, the last decade have been an enormous bungling (or consistent self-inflicted shooting) that is resulting in the last gasp of NASA HSF launch hardware.
Not NASA missions. But NASA designed launch vehicles and associated hardware.
Commercial cargo and crew is the beginning of the future of NASA HSF. The sooner Congress and the NASA centers realize that, the less painful the transition will be. Unfortunately by anchoring CCrew to SLS funding, they still haven't realized it.
Is human spaceflight going to be abandoned? Unlikely. But when NASA and others do it, they will be buying tickets, chartering, or special-ordering commercial hardware. And that is not a bad thing. It's a good thing.
Well, no. Signigicant money is coming from the government. Operational costs will be paid by the government. Commerical is meeting government requirements.
Commercial is the same as always but with a slightly different contract mechanism and the *possible* opportunity to do more with hardware *if* that situation arises. However, rest assured, that if this is to continue every single business case will close (which includes some sort of corporate profit) with just government money or else there is no point in doing it from a business perspective.
This is in many significant ways the same as always as commercial companies have always designed the vehicles.
Commercial cargo and crew will and does utilize GFE, GFD or GFF....just as always.
-
#104
by
Lars_J
on 09 Apr, 2013 17:44
-
Yes - the distinction is not black and white, I realize that. Operational costs for NASA missions will always come from the government.
But to take it the other way - "that nothing can be called commercial if it has a only government customer" (as some claim) - that isn't correct either. The contracting and design responsibility matters.
-
#105
by
Go4TLI
on 09 Apr, 2013 18:00
-
Yes - the distinction is not black and white, I realize that. Operational costs for NASA missions will always come from the government.
But to take it the other way - "that nothing can be called commercial if it has a only government customer" (as some claim) - that isn't correct either. The contracting and design responsibility matters.
Of course contracting and design responsibility matters, it always has. Design responsibility has always been with the contractor, or commercial company under contract. NASA cannot go in and change them at their will.
Operational costs are not just because NASA buys a flight. Operational costs go into everything that make that flight possible and retaining the personnel to make that flight happen over the course of the year. Since NASA is likely to be the only customer, those business cases will close with NASA paying for that and it can be rolled into, sliced and diced, etc however is convienent to say "per flight" costs to make it look different than it really will be.
-
#106
by
Prober
on 09 Apr, 2013 18:19
-
It seems to me that whenever someone says that the primary goal of the CCP is ISS transportation for US astronauts, someone else counter-claims that by saying that it doesn't prevent CCP from having a secondary purpose of developing a commercial crew industry.
Both of those statements are true, however, my point is this: If ever NASA get to a situation where those two objectives no longer align, and they have to choose one over the other (a point I think we're reaching now), which one will they choose?
I.e., will they A) Down-select to a single provider to speed up ISS IOC, or B) Maintain multiple providers (despite the fact that only one will likely be ultimately selected) to try and stimulate the industry as long as possible?
My guess is that the budget on the 10th, will not deal with the problems at all. The political games begin again anew.
-
#107
by
Lar
on 09 Apr, 2013 19:01
-
Before the ISS was built, the Shuttle still flew missions to LEO. I doubt NASA will abandon LEO altogether after ISS is deorbited in 2028. One possibility would be for NASA to build or rent an inflatable module in LEO.
Space Stations should not be deorbited, but upgraded.
Indeed.
Why would we ever want to deorbit ISS as a whole? I can see deorbiting pieces that are no good any more, maybe. But even then I would say why not use them (if hab modules or convertable) in an Aldrin cycler?
-
#108
by
Jim
on 09 Apr, 2013 19:04
-
Why would we ever want to deorbit ISS as a whole? I can see deorbiting pieces that are no good any more, maybe. But even then I would say why not use them (if hab modules or convertable) in an Aldrin cycler?
Because the parts will have outlived their certifications. The ISS doesn't not have "reusable" pieces. The core modules are very unique and not adaptable to other missions and are not separable from the ISS.
Ships even though they can still float eventually are taken apart or sunk
-
#109
by
Lar
on 09 Apr, 2013 19:34
-
Why would we ever want to deorbit ISS as a whole? I can see deorbiting pieces that are no good any more, maybe. But even then I would say why not use them (if hab modules or convertable) in an Aldrin cycler?
Because the parts will have outlived their certifications. The ISS doesn't not have "reusable" pieces. The core modules are very unique and not adaptable to other missions and are not separable from the ISS.
Ships even though they can still float eventually are taken apart or sunk
Many more are taken apart than are sunk... when we have recycling facilities in orbit I'd support scrapping modules but deorbiting? No. Never will i favor that until and unless we have a robust in space manufacturing infrastructure... Mass up costs too much.
Of course my opinion matters not a whit except to me.
-
#110
by
erioladastra
on 10 Apr, 2013 01:05
-
Mr Brooks asks a long series of questions about funding providers who will eventually not be selected. Mr Gerstenmaier answers well on the benefits of competition to NASA and explains the motivations of the providers in continuing even if they expect they won't be ultimately selected. At no point does he say there's a goal of establishing a space transportation industry.. he makes it sound more like a convenient side benefit and suggests that it might be tapped into later and suggests possible ISS extension to 2018 as a time when that might happen.
This is a fictitious argument. The prices have hardly moved and the potential cost savings will never equate to the money spent to carry two or more. It would be great if we could carry more but it is not possible on the funding that NASA will get.
-
#111
by
QuantumG
on 10 Apr, 2013 01:23
-
This is a fictitious argument. The prices have hardly moved and the potential cost savings will never equate to the money spent to carry two or more. It would be great if we could carry more but it is not possible on the funding that NASA will get.
Yeah, I agree.. that's not how competition works. You don't pay two contractors to start building houses with the promise of only paying one of them to finish construction. That's just a great way to pay for part of someone else's house.
-
#112
by
joek
on 10 Apr, 2013 01:36
-
It seems to me that whenever someone says that the primary goal of the CCP is ISS transportation for US astronauts, someone else counter-claims that by saying that it doesn't prevent CCP from having a secondary purpose of developing a commercial crew industry.
Both of those statements are true, however, my point is this: If ever NASA get to a situation where those two objectives no longer align, and they have to choose one over the other (a point I think we're reaching now), which one will they choose?
I.e., will they A) Down-select to a single provider to speed up ISS IOC, or B) Maintain multiple providers (despite the fact that only one will likely be ultimately selected) to try and stimulate the industry as long as possible?
NASA will choose--and by all indications has already chosen--option (A). While NASA has done everything possible to keep option (B) open as long as possible, that option will disappear very soon unless there is miraculous large infusion of money into CCP.
-
#113
by
Robotbeat
on 10 Apr, 2013 01:41
-
Large compared to what? Compared to SLS/Orion?
-
#114
by
yg1968
on 10 Apr, 2013 01:48
-
It seems to me that whenever someone says that the primary goal of the CCP is ISS transportation for US astronauts, someone else counter-claims that by saying that it doesn't prevent CCP from having a secondary purpose of developing a commercial crew industry.
Both of those statements are true, however, my point is this: If ever NASA get to a situation where those two objectives no longer align, and they have to choose one over the other (a point I think we're reaching now), which one will they choose?
I.e., will they A) Down-select to a single provider to speed up ISS IOC, or B) Maintain multiple providers (despite the fact that only one will likely be ultimately selected) to try and stimulate the industry as long as possible?
NASA will choose--and by all indications has already chosen--option (A). While NASA has done everything possible to keep option (B) open as long as possible, that option will disappear very soon unless there is miraculous large infusion of money into CCP.
From the document linked below, I get the impression that NASA is thinking about downselecting to 1.5 for the next round (phase 2 of certification) because of the lack of funding.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30772.msg1034062#msg1034062
-
#115
by
yg1968
on 10 Apr, 2013 01:49
-
Mr Brooks asks a long series of questions about funding providers who will eventually not be selected. Mr Gerstenmaier answers well on the benefits of competition to NASA and explains the motivations of the providers in continuing even if they expect they won't be ultimately selected. At no point does he say there's a goal of establishing a space transportation industry.. he makes it sound more like a convenient side benefit and suggests that it might be tapped into later and suggests possible ISS extension to 2018 as a time when that might happen.
This is a fictitious argument. The prices have hardly moved and the potential cost savings will never equate to the money spent to carry two or more. It would be great if we could carry more but it is not possible on the funding that NASA will get.
The prices have not been set, so it's hard for them to move. But the idea would be for NASA to have two companies bidding for the crew transportation systems (CTS) contract. If you downselect to only one provider during phase 2 of certification, you would likely only have one bidder for the CTS contract. However, if you certify two providers, you would have competition for the CTS contract.
Another advantage of not having an early down selection is that it gives more time to SpaceX to prove itself. Until SpaceX flies its Falcon 9 version 1.1 a few times, it's hard to consider them the front runner.
I like the idea of having 1.5 participants in phase 2 of certification as it ensures the possibility of competition in the future between ULA and SpaceX. I am not convinced that Blue Origin or SNC would fund the man rating of the Atlas V if NASA doesn't pay for it.
-
#116
by
QuantumG
on 10 Apr, 2013 01:52
-
The prices have not been set, so it's hard for them to move. But the idea would be for NASA to have two companies bidding for the crew transportation systems (CTS) contract. If you downselect to only one provider during phase 2 of certification, you would likely only have one bidder for the CTS contract. However, if you certify two providers, you would have competition for the CTS contract.
Another advantage of not having an early down selection is that it gives more time to SpaceX to prove itself. Until SpaceX flies its Falcon 9 version 1.1 a few times, it's hard to consider them the front runner.
I like the idea of having 1.5 participants in phase 2 of certification as it ensures the possibility of competition in the future between ULA and SpaceX. I am not convinced that Blue Origin or SNC would fund the man rating of the Atlas V if NASA doesn't pay for it.
There's nothing wrong with what you've said here, but you've failed to make the argument that it will cost less overall.
I don't think that argument can be made. The only way NASA can justify pouring money into multiple providers and then only selecting one of them is if it is okay for NASA to be trying to encourage non-NASA customers to appear. The politicians understand this, which is why they ask how these eventual non-providers having non-NASA customers will lower the prices NASA pays for seats in the future.
I think there could be a complex economic argument made here, which basically boils down to "a rising tide lifts all boats" but it still depends on how much the government is paying to rise the tide and how far into the future you care to look. If actions taken now are supposed to affect seat prices in 30 years time, then it's easier to make the economic argument than it is if they only care about servicing ISS until 2020.
-
#117
by
Robotbeat
on 10 Apr, 2013 01:53
-
...Until SpaceX flies its Falcon 9 version 1.1 a few times, it's hard to consider them the front runner. ...
I'm supportive of CST-100 (especially) and Dreamchaser, but I still don't think one could claim SpaceX /isn't/ the front-runner right now after 4 successful cargo Dragons and 3 successful trips to and from ISS. Heck, the very port that any potential commercial crew vehicle will dock with (and Orion, if it comes to that) will be delivered by a Dragon on a Falcon 9 v1.1.
Both CST-100 and Dreamchaser (I think) want to use a new version of dual-engine Centaur, remember, which I haven't seen any hardware of. (Correct me if I'm wrong, here.)
Not that I think dual-engine Centaur is especially difficult.
-
#118
by
joek
on 10 Apr, 2013 02:00
-
The prices have not been set, so it's hard for them to move. But the idea would be for NASA to have two companies bidding for the crew transportation systems (CTS) contract. If you downselect to only one provider during phase 2 of certification, you would likely only have one bidder for the CTS contract. However, if you certify two providers, you would have competition for the CTS contract.
Another advantage of not having an early down selection is that it gives more time to SpaceX to prove itself. Until SpaceX flies its Falcon 9 version 1.1 a few times, it's hard to consider them the front runner.
I like the idea of having 1.5 participants in phase 2 of certification as it ensures the possibility of competition in the future between ULA and SpaceX. I am not convinced that Blue Origin or SNC would fund the man rating of the Atlas V if NASA doesn't pay for it.
There's nothing wrong with what you've said here, but you've failed to make the argument that it will cost less overall.
I don't think that argument can be made. The only way NASA can justify pouring money into multiple providers and then only selecting one of them is if it is okay for NASA to be trying to encourage non-NASA customers to appear. The politicians understand this, which is why they ask how these eventual non-providers having non-NASA customers will lower the prices NASA pays for seats in the future.
I think there could be a complex economic argument made here, which basically boils down to "a rising tide lifts all boats" but it still depends on how much the government is paying to rise the tide and how far into the future you care to look. If actions taken now are supposed to affect seat prices in 30 years time, then it's easier to make the economic argument than it is if they only care about servicing ISS until 2020.
The "fly before you buy" approach has been successful in the past, precisely because it maintains competitive pressures as long as possible, even though everyone involved realizes that only one will be awarded a production contract.
-
#119
by
yg1968
on 10 Apr, 2013 02:07
-
The prices have not been set, so it's hard for them to move. But the idea would be for NASA to have two companies bidding for the crew transportation systems (CTS) contract. If you downselect to only one provider during phase 2 of certification, you would likely only have one bidder for the CTS contract. However, if you certify two providers, you would have competition for the CTS contract.
Another advantage of not having an early down selection is that it gives more time to SpaceX to prove itself. Until SpaceX flies its Falcon 9 version 1.1 a few times, it's hard to consider them the front runner.
I like the idea of having 1.5 participants in phase 2 of certification as it ensures the possibility of competition in the future between ULA and SpaceX. I am not convinced that Blue Origin or SNC would fund the man rating of the Atlas V if NASA doesn't pay for it.
There's nothing wrong with what you've said here, but you've failed to make the argument that it will cost less overall.
I don't think that argument can be made. The only way NASA can justify pouring money into multiple providers and then only selecting one of them is if it is okay for NASA to be trying to encourage non-NASA customers to appear. The politicians understand this, which is why they ask how these eventual non-providers having non-NASA customers will lower the prices NASA pays for seats in the future.
I think there could be a complex economic argument made here, which basically boils down to "a rising tide lifts all boats" but it still depends on how much the government is paying to rise the tide and how far into the future you care to look. If actions taken now are supposed to affect seat prices in 30 years time, then it's easier to make the economic argument than it is if they only care about servicing ISS until 2020.
If downselection had been made early. The most likely outcome is that the Boeing proposal would have won given the Atlas V's track record. However, NASA would have ended up paying more given the rising cost of the Atlas V.
Even if NASA only chooses one provider for CTS. Blue Origin will continue to compete with that provider. It would be easier for Blue Origin to compete if the Atlas V is manrated. As far as SNC, I am not sure what will happen to them. My guess is that Paul Allen or Richard Branson might be interested in completing DC if they acquire a majority interest in that project. However, that outcome is more likely if the Atlas V is manrated.