-
#120
by
joek
on 10 Apr, 2013 02:21
-
Forget about the potential for a truly commercial market for a moment..
If the U.S. government wants the best deal for CTS, they will extend competition for as long as reasonably possible. Where's the break-even between funding competition in order to get the best deal, while eliminating competition so as to not waste time and money?
Seems to me NASA is doing everything possible and pretty good job (given funding constraints) navigating those shoals.
-
#121
by
Prober
on 10 Apr, 2013 02:31
-
...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.
All things are not equal in your thinking. SpaceX is back to square 1 with their launcher while the Atlas V stays the same. I could go on...
-
#122
by
deltaV
on 10 Apr, 2013 02:36
-
(1) The Air Force conducts "fly-offs" between competing prototypes, e.g. during the F-16 and F-35 programs. Why shouldn't NASA do the same? Houses are a bad analogy since there's less uncertainty in house construction than in aerospace development.
(2) Supporting "2.5" (a.k.a. 3) commercial crew providers for so long seems excessive. I hope they down-select to two, which would be enough to keep the winners motivated.
(3) If NASA down-selects to 1 or "1.5" providers soon would they choose the provider of the actual crew transport services at that time too? It seems silly to down-select to one provider for development only to run another competition later where the winner of the development contest would be free to overcharge.
-
#123
by
QuantumG
on 10 Apr, 2013 02:47
-
"fly-offs" are irrelevant. The aviation industry already exists. The same is not true for human spaceflight.
Besides, this isn't a fly-off.
-
#124
by
Robotbeat
on 10 Apr, 2013 02:54
-
"fly-offs" are irrelevant. The aviation industry already exists. The same is not true for human spaceflight.
Besides, this isn't a fly-off.
It essentially is. They're going to do abort tests. That's flying. By some definitions.
-
#125
by
Robotbeat
on 10 Apr, 2013 02:59
-
...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.
All things are not equal in your thinking. SpaceX is back to square 1 with their launcher while the Atlas V stays the same. I could go on...
Atlas V has its upper stage change, plus minor changes for man-rating. V1.1 is a big change, but SpaceX most certainly isn't just at square 1. The launch pad is largely the same, the avionics are improved, the engines are much improved, the structure is much improved, mission control is largely the same. It's not square 1, they are in a vastly superior position than they were with the first launch of v1.0. Also, the hardware for the first v1.1 is already built and is being tested in Texas as we speak while most of the hardware for the next one or two v1.1s is already complete.
-
#126
by
joek
on 10 Apr, 2013 03:20
-
"fly-offs" are irrelevant. The aviation industry already exists. The same is not true for human spaceflight.
The same principles hold: We want something you haven't produced yet; we're going to give you some money for DDT&E; only one of you will get a production contract. The USAF's "fly before you buy" programs were conducted under a similar "other transaction authority" as NASA SAA's, and for the same reasons. You want to maintain competitive pressure for as long as possible. Obviously there is a point of diminishing returns depending on lifetime cost: e.g., you don't want to spend $10B to fund a "fly-off" in order to save $1B over the production lifetime cost. Some argue that NASA is doing that, but IMHO the numbers are far from clear.
-
#127
by
Lobo
on 10 Apr, 2013 03:54
-
I'm sick and tired, of the use of the term sequestration as a cover for everything going wrong.
X2!
It's becoming a catch all phrase to excuse and cover up government waste and inefficiency in all aspects
-
#128
by
Robotbeat
on 10 Apr, 2013 03:56
-
I'm sick and tired, of the use of the term sequestration as a cover for everything going wrong.
X2!
It's becoming a catch all phrase to excuse and cover up government waste and inefficiency in all aspects
which is why Congress should've done their fracking jobs.
-
#129
by
sdsds
on 10 Apr, 2013 04:14
-
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.
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.
One case where a down-select to 1.5 would make a big difference versus a down-select to just 1 is where the lead provider suffers a major system failure, i.e. LOV/LOM or worse, LOC. In that circumstance the "also ran" 0.5 provider might take the lead role, and still make the target date, at a cost considerably less than would be incurred if that 0.5 provider had instead been cut entirely.
When does it make sense for NASA to buy this kind of "insurance?" I dunno, but if NASA chose to fund 1.5 providers you would be hard-pressed to prove they were wrong without performing a sharp-penciled actuarial assessment!
-
#130
by
QuantumG
on 10 Apr, 2013 04:36
-
Obviously there is a point of diminishing returns depending on lifetime cost: e.g., you don't want to spend $10B to fund a "fly-off" in order to save $1B over the production lifetime cost. Some argue that NASA is doing that, but IMHO the numbers are far from clear.
It's crystal clear if you're only talking about servicing ISS until 2020. Less than three years of flights now. Maybe 12 flights total?
-
#131
by
QuantumG
on 10 Apr, 2013 05:06
-
At two flights per year, more like six than 12.
Hardly seems worth even having a commercial crew program, doesn't it?
Unless, ya know, your primary goal is something other than servicing the ISS until 2020.
-
#132
by
jimhillhouse
on 10 Apr, 2013 05:22
-
Nice article Chris - someone needed to draw attention to this, as my fear is that NASA will continue to tell lawmakers that commercial crew is targeted for 2017, as they have said all along - meaning this one-year slip will go unnoticed. 
Congressional staffers on both appropriations and authorization are very aware of the slipping schedule for commercial crew. But the response has been that it's a problem for NASA and the "commercial" space companies to resolve. I have heard of no movement for increasing commercial crew's $525M in funding.
Contrary to what some here think, most within NASA Orion and SLS programs who've had the misfortune to deal with NASA HQ will say that Agency leaders there have done everything possible to delay Orion and SLS. And they did so intentionally to make commercial crew look better than that old, slow NASA. Why fund Orion/SLS when SpaceX or Boeing is ready to send astronauts to LEO? So if SLS is ready before commercial crew, that's just karma.
Unfortunately, I think a downselect to a single provider may be coming sooner than planned.
It will be entertaining to see the fight within NASA's New Space guard over who within CCiCap to nix.
-
#133
by
QuantumG
on 10 Apr, 2013 05:30
-
Contrary to what some here think, most within NASA Orion and SLS programs who've had the misfortune to deal with NASA HQ will say that Agency leaders there have done everything possible to delay Orion and SLS.
Mr Gerstenmier was asked if HQ was giving him "go slow" hints or otherwise trying to delay Orion and SLS. He said they were not.
Personally, I think you're assigning to malice that which is more readily attributable to
being a government program.
-
#134
by
jimhillhouse
on 10 Apr, 2013 05:39
-
(1) The Air Force conducts "fly-offs" between competing prototypes, e.g. during the F-16 and F-35 programs. Why shouldn't NASA do the same?
Fly-off's work for DoD because its annual budget is in the hundreds of billions. NASA's business, at a billion or less, is not big enough that contractors will spend hundreds of millions in a fly-off. In fact, NASA space program is smaller than the DoD's.
I would direct you to the March 10, 2010 testimony before Nelson's Senate Subcommittee by the CEO's or ULA and OSC. Both companies made the case that they, after being burned by commercial space's implosion in the late 1990's, won't be spending their own money on commercial space. They did testify that they would be glad to build a rocket for NASA but on NASA's, not on their own, dime.
As it is, everything is currently on NASA's dime.
-
#135
by
jimhillhouse
on 10 Apr, 2013 06:47
-
Contrary to what some here think, most within NASA Orion and SLS programs who've had the misfortune to deal with NASA HQ will say that Agency leaders there have done everything possible to delay Orion and SLS.
Mr Gerstenmier was asked if HQ was giving him "go slow" hints or otherwise trying to delay Orion and SLS. He said they were not.
Personally, I think you're assigning to malice that which is more readily attributable to being a government program.
I'm not usually this binary, but no.
Gerst is by all accounts brilliant and he's a gentleman, so he isn't going to ascribe ill conduct to his leadership, and certainly not in public. Who among us would?
To be clear, I think the slow-roll efforts now are penny-ante focusing mainly on the Agency's new-found religion of the Anti-Deficiency Act. But back in 2010 through 2011, it was a much different story. And at that time, Gerst wasn't running ESMD or HEO when the Orion/SLS shenanigans were ongoing. That honor goes to Cooke. If memory serves, Gerst was running ISS and didn't came into HEO until Oct. 1, 2011, the beginning of FY12 and months after the Section 309 fight ended.
Do you think the Democratic-controlled full Senate Commerce Committee issued a subpoena over the Sec. 309 Report to NASA (I think that was a first in the Agency's history), in particular to capture communications among certain members of NASA's leadership, because the Agency was doing a bang-up job on the Sec. 309 report rather than delaying it, and the onset of the SLS program, for 9 months?
Those who were in the fights to preserve Orion and SLS are not going to talk publicly or on the record about what went on; they've got careers to worry about. But talk with them in private and off the record, and it's another matter.
-
#136
by
jimhillhouse
on 10 Apr, 2013 06:50
-
Hardly seems worth even having a commercial crew program, doesn't it?
That's what some committee leaders in Congress are asking.
-
#137
by
woods170
on 10 Apr, 2013 09:50
-
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.
Dead on! BTW, where the h*ll have you been the last few months? The Orion ATV SM threads have come to a complete stand-still without your input.
-
#138
by
woods170
on 10 Apr, 2013 09:59
-
Hardly seems worth even having a commercial crew program, doesn't it?
Unless, ya know, your primary goal is something other than servicing the ISS until 2020.
That was the whole point of
my post three pages back. Under the circumstances developing now it no longer looks worth to have a commercial crew program. The other primary goals don't exist, and likely will not come into existence in the near future. Unless Elon start flying his own orbital outposts. Oh... no... he's headed for Mars...
-
#139
by
yg1968
on 10 Apr, 2013 12:39
-
At two flights per year, more like six than 12.
Hardly seems worth even having a commercial crew program, doesn't it?
Unless, ya know, your primary goal is something other than servicing the ISS until 2020.
The intent is to extend the ISS until 2028. But even if that doesn't happen, NASA is unlikely to abandon LEO altogether.
