Author Topic: USCV-1: NASA planners slip first ISS commercial crew mission to late 2017  (Read 68972 times)

Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2216
  • Florida
  • Liked: 412
  • Likes Given: 926
Why wouldn't SpaceX still stick with the two non-NASA crew flight missions in 2015? The CCiCap deadlines didn't get totally destroyed of funding.

The non-NASA flight was part of the CCiCAP optional milestones, which are unfunded.

So in short, it's not going to happen...?
« Last Edit: 04/06/2013 05:02 PM by Orbiter »
Attended space missions: STS-114, STS-124, STS-128, STS-135, Atlas V "Curiosity", Delta IV Heavy NROL-15, Atlas V MUOS-2, Delta IV Heavy NROL-37, Falcon 9 CRS-9, Falcon 9 JCSAT-16, Atlas V GOES-R, Falcon 9 SES-11, Falcon Heavy Demo.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 701
  • Likes Given: 728
I'm sick and tired, of the use of the term sequestration as a cover for everything going wrong.   
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline hydra9

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 5
First of all, there's not enough manned traffic to the ISS from the US side to sustain more than one company.

Secondly, NASA might end the ISS program after 2020 in order to fund the development of manned beyond LEO missions. So there might not even be any Commercial Companies shuttling humans into orbit for NASA after 2020.

So the future of the Commercial Crew companies is not in NASA's manned space programs-- its in private commercial space programs.

Space tourism to private space stations by the super wealthy will probably be the driving force for the sustainability of private spaceflight companies.

But the Federal government and possibly even a few State governments with launch facilities could significantly increase the traffic to private space stations if space lotto systems were developed so that billions of people-- around the world--  could risk a dollar or two every year for a chance to fly into space. You could even include a $250 thousand cash bonus  for the Space Lotto winners for their time off from work spent for  astronaut training and of course for their time in space.

Marcel F. Williams

Offline Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2216
  • Florida
  • Liked: 412
  • Likes Given: 926
Why wouldn't SpaceX still stick with the two non-NASA crew flight missions in 2015? The CCiCap deadlines didn't get totally destroyed of funding.

The non-NASA flight was part of the CCiCAP optional milestones, which are unfunded.

So in short, it's not going to happen..?

I've heard it's going to happen, but under CPC Phase 2, not CCiCAP.

Interesting, could you care to elaborate if possible? Would the date stay on the current target? (Don't have L2, might soon)
« Last Edit: 04/06/2013 05:10 PM by Orbiter »
Attended space missions: STS-114, STS-124, STS-128, STS-135, Atlas V "Curiosity", Delta IV Heavy NROL-15, Atlas V MUOS-2, Delta IV Heavy NROL-37, Falcon 9 CRS-9, Falcon 9 JCSAT-16, Atlas V GOES-R, Falcon 9 SES-11, Falcon Heavy Demo.

Offline rdale

  • Assistant to the Chief Meteorologist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9903
  • Lansing MI
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 28
I'm sick and tired, of the use of the term sequestration as a cover for everything going wrong.   

I don't see it used either in the article or in the L2 documentation... Are you sure that's the "excuse"?

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3165
  • Liked: 584
  • Likes Given: 847
They should have capped the SLS instead! Man am I annoyed with this development! Good job, congress!

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9683
  • Liked: 1399
  • Likes Given: 877
I'm sick and tired, of the use of the term sequestration as a cover for everything going wrong.   

I don't see it used either in the article or in the L2 documentation... Are you sure that's the "excuse"?

In a March 20th hearing, Bolden mentioned that sequestration will have no effect on commercial crew in FY 2013 but would impact FY 2014 and later years.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2013 08:09 PM by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2945
  • Liked: 703
  • Likes Given: 374
Why wouldn't SpaceX still stick with the two non-NASA crew flight missions in 2015? The CCiCap deadlines didn't get totally destroyed of funding.

As Jorge noted above, the optional milestones remain unfunded.  Beyond that, NASA has stated on a couple occassions they will not exercise the option for crewed test flights under CCiCap.  That appears to be independent of funding (?), possibly due to presure from ASAP (?); see also the thread Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Releases Annual Report.

From the NASA ASAP meeting minutes, February 11, 2013 (emphasis added):
Quote
... NASA may choose to pursue some of the initial optional milestones or a portion of a milestone if exercising them furthers the purpose of developing a capability that could ultimately be available to serve both government and commercial customers, but the benefit to the government would need to be high. NASA will not fly people to orbit under a space act agreement.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9683
  • Liked: 1399
  • Likes Given: 877
If you look at the recent presentation by the commercial crew office, they are considering having post-certification flights as part of phase 2 of certification. There should also be NASA astronauts on commercial crew test flights going to the ISS. All of these flights should happen prior to the first CTS flight in 2017.
« Last Edit: 04/06/2013 08:10 PM by yg1968 »

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1001
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 90
They should have capped the SLS instead! Man am I annoyed with this development! Good job, congress!
We should all call our legislators and complain.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/04/uscv-1-nasa-slip-iss-commercial-late-2017/

Via L2 documentation and some source work over the evening/night. We'll follow it up, given it's not official, it's planning documentation - but we have experience with how that works via the FAWGs for Shuttle, etc.
I believe this is what Congress wanted. They will now be able state that the Commercial Crew program experienced "long delays" despite the fact that they funded the program at half the requested amount for years.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3165
  • Liked: 584
  • Likes Given: 847
I believe this is what Congress wanted. They will now be able state that the Commercial Crew program experienced "long delays" despite the fact that they funded the program at half the requested amount for years.
Exactly!

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8653
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3586
  • Likes Given: 843
I believe this is what Congress wanted. They will now be able state that the Commercial Crew program experienced "long delays" despite the fact that they funded the program at half the requested amount for years.

NASA helped them do that by never offering any other date than 2017 as the target date and ~$800M as the funding level. Sometimes even providing one without the other.

I'm still waiting for another attempt to change the deal, like the failed attempt to switch to FAR contracting.

I hear those things are awfully loud. It glides as softly as a cloud. What's it called? Monowhale!

Offline jkumpire

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 3
http://www.interfax.ru/news.asp?id=299874

Aleksey Krasnov, head of department of manned programs of Roskosmos: "We discussed this subject on Baikonur Cosmodrome with our American colleagues. They say that taking into account the recent sequester of the budget first of all development of commercial projects will suffer. They don't exclude that readiness of space means for delivery of crews on ISS will be after planned terms. The end of 2017 doesn't sound any more".

"They say that taking into account the recent sequester of the budget first of all development of commercial projects will suffer."

Well, well, It's good to know that a government supposedly cuts 2% of a sham budget that was never approved by Congress, but still spends more in Fiscal 2013 than fiscal 2012 has to pull back on this too. Yeah, just like they pull back air traffic control towers, TSA, and White House Tours, but spend billions of dollars on worthless pork.

We have a fraudulent leadership in DC, and this is just another example of it.   

This kind of obscene treatment by the Obama Administration on Commercial Crew shows where the real problem lies in NASA today.   

Offline simonbp

I believe this is what Congress wanted. They will now be able state that the Commercial Crew program experienced "long delays" despite the fact that they funded the program at half the requested amount for years.

Well, there is another factor. Either the first CST-100 or the first Dragon with a crew would technically be the first commercial manned spacecraft, and would go in the history books as such. SpaceX especially might be willing to self-fund a flight simply to claim that record.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28475
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8345
  • Likes Given: 5482
Originally the plan was to, you know, actually fund Commercial Crew at the level it needs. But nope, the commercial crew companies haven't bought off enough Congressfolk, so we'll continue to export money to Russia.

When you see Congressfolk demanding that Commercial Crew not receive a single penny more than it does (even though the program--from the start--was planned to need a funding increase after the first few years) unless SLS/Orion get a proportional budget increase (and remember, SLS/Orion gets billions in funding, while commercial crew gets just half a billion... for /MULTIPLE/ vehicles), this is the unsurprising result when in a time of budget cutting/flat-line. Austerity is killing Europe (now has unemployment rate higher than Great Depression?) and here is delaying the future of space exploration; and Congressfolk who would rather federal taxpayer money be sent to Russia rather than their district lose a single cent are not helping the situation, either.

And no, pretending Commercial Crew can do with less funding and still accomplish its goals wouldn't have helped.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2013 02:10 AM by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
I believe this is what Congress wanted. They will now be able state that the Commercial Crew program experienced "long delays" despite the fact that they funded the program at half the requested amount for years.

NASA helped them do that by never offering any other date than 2017 as the target date and ~$800M as the funding level. Sometimes even providing one without the other.

Quantum, how many years do you believe the Commercial Crew program can be delayed until it's canceled? Remember, many in Congress still believe the ISS program is ending in 2020. Congress was told that funding CCP less than the requested amount would delay the program and those delays did occur, first to 2015 and now to 2018(?).

You shouldn't expect a gas tank to be full in the same amount of time when you're only filling it up at half the rate.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline 8900

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
So, if SpX is still hinting at 2015 for their first non-NASA crew, and they're still the nominal frontrunner, where's the year slip coming from? Docking hardware? Qualifying their longevity, assuming the commercial crew vehicles are expected to maintain the same six month on-orbit performance as Soyuz? Procedures and software on the ISS side? Quite curious about this.

I would guess that the manned Dragon's schedule will depend on the Bigelow-SpaceX partnership's ability to rent commercial station space.  If they get customers, they can fund earlier manned flights.  If they don't, they'd probably develop at the pace NASA sets.
The 2015 SpaceX manned flight is supposed to be a one-off test flight, demonstrating that they are ready to carry crew to space, it has nothing to do with Bigelow
« Last Edit: 04/07/2013 04:07 AM by 8900 »

Offline mr. mark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1996
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 0
There will be hearings on this to be sure. Elon Musk will say we're launching in 2015 with or without NASA. Then the pressure will be on NASA to take SpaceX as the sole provider because they are the only company capable of crossing the finish line with the least amount of expenditure. The decision has already been made. This is all a show at this point.
« Last Edit: 04/07/2013 04:18 AM by mr. mark »

Online Galactic Penguin SST

There will be hearings on this to be sure. Elon Musk will say we're launching in 2015 with or without NASA. Then the pressure will be on NASA to take SpaceX as the sole provider because they are the only company capable of crossing the finish line with the least amount of expenditure. The decision has already been made. This is all a show at this point.

.... assuming that SpaceX really can pull this one out in 2015.  ::)

What's the plan for self-funded test flights for Boeing's CST-100? IIRC it's one flight in 2016?
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Tags: