-
#80
by
mlindner
on 08 Apr, 2013 03:10
-
The google translate on that garbles the meaning. I'm not sure why you bolded what you did
Okay, I'll try to explain. At Soyuz TMA-08M launch on Baikonur cosmodrome Aleksey Krasnov, the head of department of manned programs of Roskosmos, spoke with NASA representative (Gerstenmaier?) about beginning of flights of U.S. commercial manned spacecrafts to ISS. NASA representative told to him that, due to recent sequestrum of NASA budget, USCV-1 launch will be likely postponed further. In other words, he said that we should forget about possibility of USCV-1 launch in the end of 2017. Do you understand now?
That helps a lot, thank you.
-
#81
by
Jason Davies
on 08 Apr, 2013 16:08
-
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!
I believe they were attempting to stop Bolden and company from taking money out of SLS to make up for shortfalls in Commercial.
NEVER have they tried to spend MORE money on SLS. That's a lie spread by the handful of anti-SLS/anti-NASA people on the internet.
What is stupid is paying several companies hundreds of millions of dollars when only one has any chance of making it to providing the role. Paying hundreds of millions of dollars to the Russians and paying hundreds of millions of dollars to lay off 1000s of skilled workers from the one program we had that allowed us domestic access to space.
-
#82
by
watermod
on 08 Apr, 2013 16:34
-
If SLS is such a good idea then nobody should have any qualms about privatizing that segment of NASA!
-
#83
by
RocketmanUS
on 08 Apr, 2013 17:04
-
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!
I believe they were attempting to stop Bolden and company from taking money out of SLS to make up for shortfalls in Commercial.
NEVER have they tried to spend MORE money on SLS. That's a lie spread by the handful of anti-SLS/anti-NASA people on the internet.
What is stupid is paying several companies hundreds of millions of dollars when only one has any chance of making it to providing the role. Paying hundreds of millions of dollars to the Russians and paying hundreds of millions of dollars to lay off 1000s of skilled workers from the one program we had that allowed us domestic access to space.
If I remember right, each of the commercial crew companies were asked if their business plan would work for their LEO crew taxi without NASA. So the U.S. government is not only investing in American crew access to ISS but also commercial crew LEO access ( what ever these companies have in mind ).
-
#84
by
Chris Bergin
on 08 Apr, 2013 17:10
-
Ok guys, let's try and keep this thread from wandering into politics. I know it's unavoidable, but let's keep it on the mechanics of enabling commercial crew from a planning standpoint and not fingerpointing at SLS or JWST etc.
-
#85
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Apr, 2013 20:12
-
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!
I believe they were attempting to stop Bolden and company from taking money out of SLS to make up for shortfalls in Commercial.
NEVER have they tried to spend MORE money on SLS. That's a lie spread by the handful of anti-SLS/anti-NASA people on the internet.
What is stupid is paying several companies hundreds of millions of dollars when only one has any chance of making it to providing the role. Paying hundreds of millions of dollars to the Russians and paying hundreds of millions of dollars to lay off 1000s of skilled workers from the one program we had that allowed us domestic access to space.
If I remember right, each of the commercial crew companies were asked if their business plan would work for their LEO crew taxi without NASA. So the U.S. government is not only investing in American crew access to ISS but also commercial crew LEO access ( what ever these companies have in mind ).
Exactly. I've seen several experts here talk as if the ONLY CONSIDERATION for commercial crew is a really tiny set of things: NASA's crewed access to ISS. And that NOTHING ELSE can be possibly allowed into the discussion.
But that is not reality. This is reality:
Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Office (C3PO)
Program Goal
The C3PO will extend human presence in space by enabling an expanding and robust U.S. commercial space transportation industry.
Program Objectives
Implement U.S. Space Exploration policy with investments to stimulate the commercial space industry
Facilitate U.S. private industry demonstration of cargo and crew space transportation capabilities with the goal of achieving safe, reliable, cost effective access to low-Earth orbit
Create a market environment in which commercial space transportation services are available to Government and private sector customers
ISS isn't even mentioned, though it is included in LEO access. So, commercial crew is relevant for post-ISS implicitly. Also, beyond-LEO capability fits in well with the last point, even if it isn't a minimum requirement for the actual CCiCap program. And third, it is EXPLICITLY stated as a goal of the commercial crew and cargo program to:
"
Create a market environment in which commercial space transportation services are available to Government and private sector customers."
(emphasis mine)
Note that Russia has provided these sorts of services in the past to the private sector. We shouldn't cede that to Russia, either. So not only is it the point of commercial crew to stop having to pay for Soyuz rides to ISS, but to actually encourage an American-led market for commercial crew and cargo services for the private sector.
-
#86
by
QuantumG
on 08 Apr, 2013 20:58
-
So, Robobeat, you're saying Bolden and co lied when they told Congress that servicing the ISS is the only goal of the commercial crew program?
Perhaps that's too brash.. perhaps they just simply were ignorant of the other goals?
-
#87
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Apr, 2013 21:24
-
So, Robobeat, you're saying Bolden and co lied when they told Congress that servicing the ISS is the only goal of the commercial crew program?
Perhaps that's too brash.. perhaps they just simply were ignorant of the other goals?
I'm not sure what the heck you're talking about.
I'm just quoting from here:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/home/c3po_goal_objectives.htmlAnd if Bolden actually said what you think he said, he's wrong. I demand a reference for your assertion.
-
#88
by
yg1968
on 08 Apr, 2013 22:08
-
So, Robobeat, you're saying Bolden and co lied when they told Congress that servicing the ISS is the only goal of the commercial crew program?
Perhaps that's too brash.. perhaps they just simply were ignorant of the other goals?
If you are referring to the letter between Wolf and Bolden, it says that servicing the ISS is the primary goal of the commercial crew program. But it doesn't prevent the commercial crew program from having secondary goals such as establishing a crew transportation industry.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29094.0The primary objective of the CCP is the achievement of the fastest, safest and most cost effective means of domestic access to the International Space Station (ISS).
-
#89
by
Elmar Moelzer
on 08 Apr, 2013 23:00
-
But Bolden ist right. Right now, NASA cant go to the moon. There is neither money, nor reason to do it as long as we dont have a real space infrastructure.
-
#90
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Apr, 2013 23:02
-
So, Robobeat, you're saying Bolden and co lied when they told Congress that servicing the ISS is the only goal of the commercial crew program?
Perhaps that's too brash.. perhaps they just simply were ignorant of the other goals?
If you are referring to the letter between Wolf and Bolden, it says that servicing the ISS is the primary goal of the commercial crew program. But it doesn't prevent the commercial crew program from having secondary goals such as establishing a crew transportation industry.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29094.0
Does QuantumG withdraw his claim, then?
-
#91
by
QuantumG
on 08 Apr, 2013 23:50
-
So, Robobeat, you're saying Bolden and co lied when they told Congress that servicing the ISS is the only goal of the commercial crew program?
Perhaps that's too brash.. perhaps they just simply were ignorant of the other goals?
If you are referring to the letter between Wolf and Bolden, it says that servicing the ISS is the primary goal of the commercial crew program. But it doesn't prevent the commercial crew program from having secondary goals such as establishing a crew transportation industry.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29094.0
Does QuantumG withdraw his claim, then?
Gee, can you at least give me a day to wade through the congressional testimony to give you a quote? .. there's only hours and hours of it and they don't even bother to do transcripts anymore.
I'm watching the Sep 2012 House subcommittee hearing right now but I haven't found what I'm looking for yet. This is after the Bolden-Wolf commercial crew agreement letters, so it's probably a prior session that I'm thinking about. Seeing as the letter supersedes that anyway, I guess I can only withdraw the claim.
Here's some points that are interesting anyway:
Ms Edwards asks what the commercial crew program will look like at $500M/year funding (because that's all they're going to get) and Mr Gerstenmaier is happily repeating the party line about $800M/year. He doesn't answer the question.
Ms Bonamici asks the relevant question right after. Is the goal transportation to the ISS or development of the industry? Admiral Dyer basically says it's both but the priority is not clear. Mr Gerstenmaier doesn't get an opportunity to answer the question.
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.
Ms Adams asks the $500M/year question and Mr Gerstenmaier says they'll work on it but says they don't have any information at all. He says they don't have a contingency plan for that level of funding.
-
#92
by
yg1968
on 09 Apr, 2013 02:18
-
Recently, Phil McAlister described the objective of the commercial crew program in the following manner (which is consistent with the agreement with Wolf):
The goal of the Commercial Crew Program is to facilitate the development of a U.S. commercial crew space transportation capability with the goal of achieving safe, reliable and cost-effective access to and from low-Earth orbit and the International Space Station.
See slide 4:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/718299main_CCP-Status-Update-1-9-13-finalSM.pdfYou can argue that cost-effectiveness requires competition.
-
#93
by
mr. mark
on 09 Apr, 2013 03:52
-
At this point getting manned Dragon to orbit with SpaceX astronauts ASAP is all the matters. The rest will follow including NASA.
-
#94
by
woods170
on 09 Apr, 2013 11:20
-
My take on all this:
If ISS does not get extended beyond 2020, the commercial crew program might just as well be cancelled.
Commercial crew is al about access to LEO and ISS. But, once ISS is out of the equation, there are no other destinations in LEO.
I simply don't believe that there is a viable business-case for the often-mentioned space-hotels and/or commercial space stations.
I know... I know.... some of you will have serious problems with me saying what I just said. But let me put it this way: How many hard contracts, with funding, does Bigalow have for their expandable commercial space modules? (And I don't mean BEAM. That does not qualify as a space-hotel or commercial space station.)
How many hard contracts, with funding, do the Russians have for their proposed commercial space hotels?
Commercial destinations in LEO are pie-in-the-sky right now and in the near future.
-
#95
by
yg1968
on 09 Apr, 2013 12:47
-
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.
-
#96
by
Prober
on 09 Apr, 2013 15:29
-
At this point getting manned Dragon to orbit with SpaceX astronauts ASAP is all the matters. The rest will follow including NASA.
maybe short term, long term many issues.
-
#97
by
Prober
on 09 Apr, 2013 15:35
-
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.
-
#98
by
Space Pete
on 09 Apr, 2013 15:50
-
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?
-
#99
by
mr. mark
on 09 Apr, 2013 15:53
-
In the end the future of general commercial spaceflight, minus ISS, will not be changed by SpaceX, Orbital, Sierra Nevada, Boeing. It will be changed by the public perception generated by Virgin Galactic taking average people to suborbital space. Once the TV ads go up perceptions will change. The general public are like sheep and they will buy into anything that's perceived as hip or a success. Once Space is seen as a cool destination everything else will follow. Look at the cruise ship industry. Once it was sold as a elitist ride (even though it wasn't) Now it's sold as a hip vacation alternative to average people.