-
#160 by Lobo on 10 Apr, 2013 18:07
-
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.
As cool as commercial crew is...anyone have an idea of how much it would have cost NASA to man-rate Atlas V-551 to launch a short-fueled Orion CSM to the ISS to service it? (Like was done with the Apollo CSM launching on Saturn 1B) Vs. the eventual total of the entire commercial crew program funding?
Couldn't we have just done that instead for probably less money and maybe got the Block 1 Orion flying to the ISS before late 2017?
Maybe saved a few years of buying seats on Soyuz in that mix? -
#161 by Lobo on 10 Apr, 2013 18:13
-
Lobo: those would be interesting comments in a space policy thread.
Sorry...I'm feeling a bit depressed about all of this, and I am brooding...
-
#162 by RocketmanUS on 10 Apr, 2013 18:19
-
Cost of Orion might be much greater than a commercial LEO capsule.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.
As cool as commercial crew is...anyone have an idea of how much it would have cost NASA to man-rate Atlas V-551 to launch a short-fueled Orion CSM to the ISS to service it? (Like was done with the Apollo CSM launching on Saturn 1B) Vs. the eventual total of the entire commercial crew program funding?
Couldn't we have just done that instead for probably less money and maybe got the Block 1 Orion flying to the ISS before late 2017?
Maybe saved a few years of buying seats on Soyuz in that mix?
Plus we could also loose out on the commercial possible future market.
Originally they were to start out with a LEO capsule, then go to a Lunar version and finally a Mars version.
Commercial LEO taxi's will be more of an importance than BLEO Orion.
There not just for ISS, ISS runs are just a bonus for them. -
#163 by Go4TLI on 10 Apr, 2013 19:02
-
There not just for ISS, ISS runs are just a bonus for them.
It's just the opposite. ISS runs are their primary reason for possible existance. Anything else, that is the bonus.
If what you said was true, then corporate or private funding would be flowing in and other customers would be evident. NASA funding would be non-consequential. -
#164 by Lobo on 10 Apr, 2013 19:23
-
Cost of Orion might be much greater than a commercial LEO capsule.
Plus we could also loose out on the commercial possible future market.
Originally they were to start out with a LEO capsule, then go to a Lunar version and finally a Mars version.
But Orion's being developed anyway, so it doesn't matter how much cheaper a commercial capsule is, NASA pays for that on top of Orion. And like most things, I imagine that much of the Orion cost will be overhead, rather than the per unit cost. So with the higher production rate of extra Orions per year to service ISS crew and pressurized cargo, the per unit cost would probably come down. (The Orion SM could deliver unpressurized Cargo without the Orion capsule, per the Original ESAS plan, which would be even cheaper).
And Orion will already be capable of BLEO service as well as simple LEO service.
Some funds going into SLS could have been directed to man-rate Atlas-551 and hurry Orion along to try to get flying by 2015, and after that those funds would go to finishing SLS.
If the deal was a commercial capsule -or- Orion, then you'd have a point. But we are getting both. In fact, right now we are paying for Orion and -three- commercial spacecraft...
-
#165 by Space Pete on 10 Apr, 2013 19:25
-
If what you said was true, then corporate or private funding would be flowing in and other customers would be evident. NASA funding would be non-consequential.
Agreed. The companies involved would be putting in much more of their own finance (you know, where the market justifies its own investment - like real commerce, not just government contracting v2.0). -
#166 by Go4TLI on 10 Apr, 2013 19:29
-
Cost of Orion might be much greater than a commercial LEO capsule.
Plus we could also loose out on the commercial possible future market.
Originally they were to start out with a LEO capsule, then go to a Lunar version and finally a Mars version.
I imagine that much of the Orion cost will be overhead, rather than the per unit cost. So with the higher production rate of extra Orion's ber year to service ISS crew and pressurized cargo, the per unit cost would probably come down.
And Orion will already be capable of BLEO service as well as simple LEO service.
If the deal was a commercial capsule -or- Orion, then you'd have a point. But we are getting both. In fact, right now we are paying for Orion and -three- commercial spacecraft...
No, NASA is paying for DDT&E on three semi-commercial craft. Operations is something different.
If there are no other customers, NASA still pays all that overhead that is required to keep these vehicles and their support offices (Logistics, flight support, ground support, engineering, etc) viable.
How it is presented is an accounting trick. One can pay "per unit" prices if one wants but all that program overhead to keep the program viable plus some sort of profit for the company will be baked in. Otherwise there is no business case. -
#167 by Go4TLI on 10 Apr, 2013 19:33
-
If what you said was true, then corporate or private funding would be flowing in and other customers would be evident. NASA funding would be non-consequential.
Agreed. The companies involved would be putting in much more of their own finance (you know, where the market justifies its own investment - like real commerce, not just government contracting v2.0).
Right. And the NASA requirments and/or insight that is so often complained about around the web would be a non-starter as the market either forces NASA to use what the market dictates or NASA to build their own LEO-specific vehicle, with a contract to some commerical company, to their specified requirements and verifiation methods. -
#168 by Jim on 10 Apr, 2013 19:42
-
No, NASA is paying for DDT&E on three semi-commercial craft.
It is paying for a portion of DDT&E. -
#169 by yg1968 on 10 Apr, 2013 21:19
-
Cost of Orion might be much greater than a commercial LEO capsule.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.
As cool as commercial crew is...anyone have an idea of how much it would have cost NASA to man-rate Atlas V-551 to launch a short-fueled Orion CSM to the ISS to service it? (Like was done with the Apollo CSM launching on Saturn 1B) Vs. the eventual total of the entire commercial crew program funding?
Couldn't we have just done that instead for probably less money and maybe got the Block 1 Orion flying to the ISS before late 2017?
Maybe saved a few years of buying seats on Soyuz in that mix?
Plus we could also loose out on the commercial possible future market.
Originally they were to start out with a LEO capsule, then go to a Lunar version and finally a Mars version.
Commercial LEO taxi's will be more of an importance than BLEO Orion.
There not just for ISS, ISS runs are just a bonus for them.
A while ago, HEFT had estimated the cost of an Orion capsule to be $800M per unit. If you are going to build extra Orion capsules, you should use them for other BLEO missions IMO. -
#170 by yg1968 on 10 Apr, 2013 21:23
-
That's not terribly relevant to NASA's commercial crew, though. Both were working on reusability before. I agree reusability would be a breakthrough. But ISS is still spectacular.
Agreed. ISS is a spectacular achievement.The commercial crew programme is the best thing NASA has done for manned spaceflight in 30 years.
A biased and unsubstantiated statement.
And Jim was being kind there. ...
It is. But if reusability works out, SpaceX and Blue Origin will have achieved something great.
Although not directly funded by them, NASA is enabling such technological advancements through its investments in the commercial crew and cargo programs. -
#171 by Lar on 10 Apr, 2013 21:43
-
A while ago, HEFT had estimated the cost of an Orion capsule to be $800M per unit. If you are going to build extra Orion capsules, you should use them for other BLEO missions IMO.
800 million for ONE capsule? That can't be right. Gulp, at least I hope it's not right. -
#172 by Lobo on 10 Apr, 2013 21:54
-
I imagine that much of the Orion cost will be overhead, rather than the per unit cost. So with the higher production rate of extra Orion's ber year to service ISS crew and pressurized cargo, the per unit cost would probably come down.
And Orion will already be capable of BLEO service as well as simple LEO service.
If the deal was a commercial capsule -or- Orion, then you'd have a point. But we are getting both. In fact, right now we are paying for Orion and -three- commercial spacecraft...
No, NASA is paying for DDT&E on three semi-commercial craft. Operations is something different.
If there are no other customers, NASA still pays all that overhead that is required to keep these vehicles and their support offices (Logistics, flight support, ground support, engineering, etc) viable.
How it is presented is an accounting trick. One can pay "per unit" prices if one wants but all that program overhead to keep the program viable plus some sort of profit for the company will be baked in. Otherwise there is no business case.
[/quote]
Well, good point. I think the savings in a commercial capsule vs. Orion, even if NASA was the only customer for it, would be the commercial company would have the freedom to design and build it as efficiently as possible, where as Orion was designed by MSFC, and then LM won the contract to build it. But they were basically building a piece of NASA equipment for them, rather than having their own design and using their own creativity to meet some specific specs that NASA would put out. Which is more the case with the current commercial crew program. LM, Boeing, and several others had various CEV designs, and many of those would probably have been cheaper to develop and maintain than Orion. But NASA wiped all of that aside, and designed Orion themselves, with (I’m assuming) lots of 1-off custom pieces, parts and processes. The other CEV concepts I’d assume would use in house resources where possible to get costs down.
Orion should have been handled like commercial crew, just not let it get as far it’s going now. Get it down to a couple of the most viable concepts and then fund them to a level where NASA can be sure they’ll work, then pick just one.
But regardless your point is valid. Even such a vendor in-house designed CEV would need to be fully maintained by NASA. Just as whatever eventual commercial crew spacecraft is chosen, NASA will have to maintain the full cost of that, after the millions spent developing 3 different ones…unless there’s another commercial customer besides NASA.
And that ON TOP of maintaining Orion.
Seems like we are paying double for two spacecraft, when one would do and there’s not even enough missions to keep it busy enough.
-
#173 by yg1968 on 10 Apr, 2013 21:56
-
A while ago, HEFT had estimated the cost of an Orion capsule to be $800M per unit. If you are going to build extra Orion capsules, you should use them for other BLEO missions IMO.
800 million for ONE capsule? That can't be right. Gulp, at least I hope it's not right.
It's actually $840M. See page 69 of this 2010 HEFT presentation (the MPCV was called a CTV‐Ascent/Entry ):
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/09/human-explorati.html -
#174 by deltaV on 10 Apr, 2013 22:13
-
A while ago, HEFT had estimated the cost of an Orion capsule to be $800M per unit. If you are going to build extra Orion capsules, you should use them for other BLEO missions IMO.
800 million for ONE capsule? That can't be right. Gulp, at least I hope it's not right.
1. Hopefully that number includes both the costs of the capsule itself and also a share of the fixed costs. Assuming that's true the interpretation of that figure critically depends on the assumed flight rate, which isn't clear to me from reading the source presentation yg1968 linked to.
2. Looking at page 41 of that presentation it seems the $840 million figure includes the capsule, service module, and launch escape system. A minimal MPCV capable of reentry only is $400 million according to pages 41 & 69. -
#175 by Lobo on 10 Apr, 2013 22:26
-
A while ago, HEFT had estimated the cost of an Orion capsule to be $800M per unit. If you are going to build extra Orion capsules, you should use them for other BLEO missions IMO.
800 million for ONE capsule? That can't be right. Gulp, at least I hope it's not right.
It might be right if Orion only flies once every other year. That's my point. If Orion did a BLEO mission per year, or every other year, plus 3-4 ISS missions per year, I'm sure that "per unit" cost would come down significantly. That $800million probably is to maintain the entire production line for two years, plus have one actual capsule.
STS cost about $1Billion per launch when launching like 3-6 times per year (Shuttle and stack). But if it were launching 20 times per year, I'm sure the cost wouldn't still be $1 billion per launch.
But if it only launched once every other year, it'd probably cost like $10 billion per launch.
So again, we get back to the merrits of having man-rated an Atlas V-551, instead of develop commercial crew, to launch a short fueled Orion to the ISS for crew and cargo, and using some SLS money to make that happen as quick as it could have been to reduce the gap and save some of that money paid to the Russians.
Maybe launched 4-6 Orions per year (two crew, 3-4 cargo) on Atlas V-551 and that per unit Orion cost likely comes way down.
And Orion would launch on the SLS stack down the road a bit when it's finished.
Now we'll be maintaining Orion production line along with whichever commercial crew spacecraft is chosen, in addition to the commercial cargo spacecraft.
And Orion could have been used for cargo to do something like Cygnus, per original ESAS. Put a MPLM derived expendable pressurized cargo container on the Orion service module (again, short fueled...Like Apollo-Saturn 1B), and launch it on the Atlas V-5xx series with the 5.4m PLF to enclose the E-MPLM/SM. Use that for large volume payloads, and use Orion for small volume payloads. Maybe cargo-Orion could be refurbished and reused becaue astronauts wouldn't be flying on it?
Then we would just be maintaining the Orion production line (which we will be anyway), and not cargo Dragon, Cygnus, and whatever commercial crew wins.
Atlas would get an additional 4-6 launches per year, helping to bring it's costs down some for both USAF and NASA, although Cargo-Orion and MPLM-Orion could also launch on Delta 4 Medium+ (5,4) if they didn't have too much mass in it. -
#176 by neilh on 10 Apr, 2013 22:28
-
No, NASA is paying for DDT&E on three semi-commercial craft. Operations is something different.
If there are no other customers, NASA still pays all that overhead that is required to keep these vehicles and their support offices (Logistics, flight support, ground support, engineering, etc) viable.
How it is presented is an accounting trick. One can pay "per unit" prices if one wants but all that program overhead to keep the program viable plus some sort of profit for the company will be baked in. Otherwise there is no business case.
I'm a little confused, are you claiming that Falcon 9 and Atlas V don't have non-NASA customers? -
#177 by yg1968 on 10 Apr, 2013 23:21
-
This thread is starting to upset me too. The 2010 NASA Authorization implemented a compromise that is likely to stay in effect until 2017 (when a new President is inaugurated). There is no point in demanding the cancellation of either the SLS/MPCV or the commercial crew program as it is not going to happen.
But if you are still interested in debating this topic, deltaV has created a separate thread for it:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31610.0 -
#178 by RocketmanUS on 11 Apr, 2013 00:15
-
Their are letting government take much more of the financial risk right now. They are more than likely putting their efforts into what they will need the LEO crew taxi's for. They would most likely step in when it makes financial cents for them to do so.If what you said was true, then corporate or private funding would be flowing in and other customers would be evident. NASA funding would be non-consequential.
Agreed. The companies involved would be putting in much more of their own finance (you know, where the market justifies its own investment - like real commerce, not just government contracting v2.0). -
#179 by QuantumG on 11 Apr, 2013 00:44
-
I concur. There's absolutely no chance at all the ISS will be splashed in 2020.
Anyone using that argument as the concern is being silly.
We generally just called them "congressmen" and women.
