-
#60
by
FinalFrontier
on 07 Apr, 2013 23:08
-
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.
Utterly disappointed with NASA. Just utterly. The entire idea of this "hand over LEO to commercial" business was always
to do so as quickly as possible.
It was literally finally within site, the end of the "gap" was within site it was just 2 years away!. And now they took it away again for no good reason.
And ISS may not operate much further beyond 2020, it remains to be seen. So we could potentially be resuming crewed flight just three years before ISS could potentially end operations? This is sensible?
There is just no technical argument that can be made to justify this. It is totally a political decision and its a very very poor one. The only thing I can hope for is that this is reversed sometime before 2017. But I doubt it will be.
This is without a doubt one of the most disappointing things to happen in the last ten years with the space program. First the giant charlie foxtrot that was CXP now "well because (insert bs political reason here) we will go ahead and delay return to space of american crewed flights by another 2 possibly 4 years just because".
Horrible decision. I fail to see the argument for doing this. Rather they should have tried to push the schedule to the left instead.
I feel like I am watching CXP all over again between this and SLS.
-
#61
by
FinalFrontier
on 07 Apr, 2013 23:14
-
What are if any commercial plans for-
1 ) CST-100
2 ) Dragon
3 ) Dream Chaser
4 ) Other commercial crew
?
Could that get the test flights done by 2016?
Ordering Soyuz thru 2019 now shows that NASA/Congress does not believe that American commercial crew taxi will be ready ( meet their standards ) any sooner than 2019.
Which is nonsense and purely political given the fact that most of the providers involved have already demonstrated they can meet their requirements between 2014-2016 depending on which company it is, regardless they all fall right in that timeline.
We LITERALLY just got done awarding the freaking contracts to actually build the crewed vehicles did we not? Now we are going to go back on all of that?
I cannot help but feel that not only was this political, but that this was a political bone thrown to the right by the administration as they are increasingly desperate to come up with a budget that can be agreed upon by both sides. It would not surprise me if this were part of that as just yesterday, much to the shock of many people, POTUS caved on Medicare and Social Security and added fairly large cuts to both programs in his latest budget deal.
So I think this is a bone being thrown to your proverbial "big nasa/big rocket/cxp" crowd (yes they still exist). Namely since they were always staunchly against commercial and viewed it as a waste of money or as one representative put it in 2010 a "threat to national security to use the money for that instead of building the big rocket" (basically).
This just stinks of beltway politics.
-
#62
by
FinalFrontier
on 07 Apr, 2013 23:17
-
Just so I can lose an equal number of friends on both sides of the fence:
I bet they don't even hit this date.
That wouldn't surprise me at this point at all.
I am beginning to wonder why I even follow the space program anymore. Clearly it is no longer in the interest of anyone in our government to have anything to do with space unless it can be used to gain earmark dollars or make budget deals.
-
#63
by
QuantumG
on 07 Apr, 2013 23:23
-
Just so I can lose an equal number of friends on both sides of the fence:
I bet they don't even hit this date.
That wouldn't surprise me at this point at all.
I am beginning to wonder why I even follow the space program anymore. Clearly it is no longer in the interest of anyone in our government to have anything to do with space unless it can be used to gain earmark dollars or make budget deals.
It's always been that way.
-
#64
by
Orbiter
on 07 Apr, 2013 23:38
-
What are if any commercial plans for-
1 ) CST-100
2 ) Dragon
3 ) Dream Chaser
4 ) Other commercial crew
?
Could that get the test flights done by 2016?
Ordering Soyuz thru 2019 now shows that NASA/Congress does not believe that American commercial crew taxi will be ready ( meet their standards ) any sooner than 2019.
1) CST-100 plans for an manned test in 2016.
2) Dragon plans for two manned tests in 2015.
3) DreamChaser plans for a manned test in 2017
4) Blue Origin has a target for a manned launch, I've just forgotten it.
5) Virgin Galactic will probably be manned in a year or two, rumor has it April 22nd is the first powered flight.
People are acting like all hope is lost and that we won't see a single person out of the USA in space until 2019. Reminds me how people felt when the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 passed and CxP got canned. I doubt that Elon Musk will let his company not fly manned missions that late because of the current bureaucratic ineptitude. He's far too ambitious for that. We just won't have a NASA crew flight commercial for a long time - which is what angers me.
-
#65
by
QuantumG
on 07 Apr, 2013 23:40
-
All those plans assume full funding.
Some assume more funding than they were ever likely to get.
-
#66
by
deltaV
on 07 Apr, 2013 23:54
-
Utterly disappointed with NASA. Just utterly. The entire idea of this "hand over LEO to commercial" business was always to do so as quickly as possible.
Congress is pushing NASA to spend more money on SLS and less on commercial crew. Shouldn't the blame for the resulting commercial crew delays rest with Congress?
-
#67
by
Orbiter
on 07 Apr, 2013 23:55
-
All those plans assume full funding.
Some assume more funding than they were ever likely to get.
And some assume that the people pushing for commercial crew aren't going to fight for funding.
-
#68
by
rcoppola
on 07 Apr, 2013 23:57
-
All those plans assume full funding.
Some assume more funding than they were ever likely to get.
The plans also assume there is a place for them to go to and someone to pay for them to get there. At this point, I just wish instead of pie-in-the-sky one-off PR Mars or Moon announcements, a consortium of like-minded wealthy individuals and or companies, would build a new Private Space Station out of BA 330s and sell units like condos for both tourism and science for any international clientele who wants to pay for it. And we will have plenty of cargo and crew launch providers for building and servicing.
The quicker we can extricate ourselves from depending on the vagaries and whims of NASA and Congress, the better. I just don't see how without some visionary with lots of money stepping up to the plate.
-
#69
by
Prober
on 08 Apr, 2013 00:13
-
IMO, there is zero chance Nasa will be allowed to buy seats on Soyuz if a domestic provider is ready in 2015. The political fallout of NOT using a domestic provider if one is ready, especially if our anemic job growth continues, would be profound.
Nobody will want to be part of a split screen where the left side shows the Soyuz blasting off with a single American Astronaut on board, while the right side of the screen show's a perfectly capable domestic Dragon, sitting idle on a factory floor.
That kind of PR is toxic and not going to be allowed to happen.
And I think Elon knows this. In fact I suspect, Elon and Bolden has either had or will have this type of "Off-The-Record" conversation.
It would make absolutely zero sense to refuse Musk to fly manned in 2015 if he's perfectly ready just because "NASA won't be ready until 2017." That means extending, on purpose, the US manned spaceflight gap to look good to the public. Have the first test flight in 2015, delay the second test flight to mid-2016, and have the first USCV-1 flight in 2017 with SpaceX.
I'm not sure I understand your response with regards to extending, on purpose, the US manned spaceflight gap to look good?
I am not suggesting that SpaceX will not be allowed an internal crewed launch in 2015 if they are ready. But what the hell good does that do if we have nobody to pay for a ride and nowhere to send it? Will Bigelow be ready by 2015? Doubtful.
I'm simply stating if SpaceX brings Crewed Dragon online in 2015 and for whatever reason, NASA is not "Ready" to purchase a domestic capability while still paying for Soyuz flights for another 2-3 years after...well, that will be exceptionally embarrassing...And will not be allowed to happen.
If SpaceX, regardless of sequestration etc, is deemed on track to be ready to go by 2015, you'll see some congressional budgetary shifting of funds to ensure NASA can purchase said flights. I can't say with regards to Boeing or SNC, but that's how I see it going down. To the victor go the spoils.
Bolden went before congress last year and told them he made the contract with Russia.
-
#70
by
RocketmanUS
on 08 Apr, 2013 00:24
-
Could a commercial option be to a Dragon Lab ( mini temp station, in space use up to two years with Earth return ) ?
Is there a commercial venture there?
If so would there be enough business sense to pay for it for a 2016 flight?
-
#71
by
Jim
on 08 Apr, 2013 00:26
-
Can't do this under that contract but you can do that under this contract as long as....WTF? Too many layers, too many complications, too many bureaucrats, too many rules written by too many lawyers.
CCiP is not a contract
-
#72
by
QuantumG
on 08 Apr, 2013 00:31
-
Could a commercial option be to a Dragon Lab ( mini temp station, in space use up to two years with Earth return ) ?
Is there a commercial venture there?
If so would there be enough business sense to pay for it for a 2016 flight?
You mean a crewed Dragon Lab?
I guess so. If you believe Bigelow has a market, then presumably some of those customers could be interested in a free flying lab.
I don't think it will happen unless NASA pulls all their funding for the Dragonrider program.
-
#73
by
rcoppola
on 08 Apr, 2013 00:34
-
Can't do this under that contract but you can do that under this contract as long as....WTF? Too many layers, too many complications, too many bureaucrats, too many rules written by too many lawyers.
CCiP is not a contract
Thanks Jim. I suppose you could put whatever word you like in place of "Contract". Program, initiative, project etc. etc. etc. As Led Zeppelin once sang, "The point remains the same."
-
#74
by
RocketmanUS
on 08 Apr, 2013 00:38
-
Could a commercial option be to a Dragon Lab ( mini temp station, in space use up to two years with Earth return ) ?
Is there a commercial venture there?
If so would there be enough business sense to pay for it for a 2016 flight?
You mean a crewed Dragon Lab?
I guess so. If you believe Bigelow has a market, then presumably some of those customers could be interested in a free flying lab.
I don't think it will happen unless NASA pulls all their funding for the Dragonrider program.
Dragon Lab capsule in space.
Dragon Rider to dock with Dragon Lab for short stays at a time.
With Dragon Lab to stay in orbit up to two years before returning to Earth.
-
#75
by
joek
on 08 Apr, 2013 00:39
-
Can't do this under that contract but you can do that under this contract as long as....WTF? Too many layers, too many complications, too many bureaucrats, too many rules written by too many lawyers.
CCiP is not a contract
If by that you mean CCiCap or SAA's, then yes it is still a contract. Unless you are limiting your definition of "contract" to mean FAR?
-
#76
by
yg1968
on 08 Apr, 2013 01:14
-
Can't do this under that contract but you can do that under this contract as long as....WTF? Too many layers, too many complications, too many bureaucrats, too many rules written by too many lawyers.
CCiP is not a contract
If by that you mean CCiCap or SAA's, then yes it is still a contract. Unless you are limiting your definition of "contract" to mean FAR?
That is generally how it is referred to. SAAs are said to be "agreements" where as FAR contracts are said to be "contracts". But legally and technically speaking, you are correct that both are binding legal contracts.
-
#77
by
Jim
on 08 Apr, 2013 01:18
-
Can't do this under that contract but you can do that under this contract as long as....WTF? Too many layers, too many complications, too many bureaucrats, too many rules written by too many lawyers.
CCiP is not a contract
Thanks Jim. I suppose you could put whatever word you like in place of "Contract". Program, initiative, project etc. etc. etc. As Led Zeppelin once sang, "The point remains the same."
Not really. It matters what the gov't is paying for.
-
#78
by
rcoppola
on 08 Apr, 2013 01:43
-
Can't do this under that contract but you can do that under this contract as long as....WTF? Too many layers, too many complications, too many bureaucrats, too many rules written by too many lawyers.
CCiP is not a contract
Thanks Jim. I suppose you could put whatever word you like in place of "Contract". Program, initiative, project etc. etc. etc. As Led Zeppelin once sang, "The point remains the same."
Not really. It matters what the gov't is paying for.
Or in this case, what they aren't. But yes, transparency is always a good thing.
-
#79
by
Elmar Moelzer
on 08 Apr, 2013 02:38
-
Congress is pushing NASA to spend more money on SLS and less on commercial crew. Shouldn't the blame for the resulting commercial crew delays rest with Congress?
Absolutely!