NASA’s Commercial Crew Catch 22 as another $424m heads to Russia

[Sesquipedalian]

1) The ISS was designed for seven people - three American, three Russian, and one international.  But two Soyuz only provide six seats, so NASA has to give up one crew position for every flight.  That greatly handicaps utilization.

2) Nationalism: spend US money on US technology.

3) If there is a major problem that causes the Soyuz to be grounded, there is currently no crewed spacecraft alternative.

[kollapsderwellenfunktion]

when will there be a lifeboat option available ? if you need soyuz as a rescue vehicle anyway after 2017 the whole thing doesn't make sense... the russians would not fly with empty seats i guess...

[rcoppola]

This isn't a Catch 22, it's an exercise in unimaginative, 2D thinking.

I'm sure you are all aware of what the Export - Import Bank of the US does? In essence, it assures credit to foreign entities so they may purchase US goods and services. Boeing for example, being one of many US companies that benefits, specifically with regards to commercial plane sales.

And do you know how much the E/I Bank is authorized to lend through September 2014? $140 Billion.

I'm not here to argue Pro or Con of the EIB, or even that it fits this specific scenario. I'm just saying, I think we can find a creative solution to ensure that our domestic industry be given the resources they need to establish commercial crew in a timely way. Why does the $800 Million, or whatever it is now, have to come from NASA?

NASA just needs funds to purchase the service. Why not find another creative way to fund commercial Crew? I mean please, over the last few years we have funded billions of dollars in Green Energy companies, only to see many of them go bankrupt. I'm just asking the same level of commitment for commercial crew.

Why? Because I firmly believe that at least one of these companies will succeed. And the multiplier of their success will have positive reverberations throughout Education, Industry and Culture.

[jnc]

The Ares I design predated Griffin's involvement.  It came out of the NASA Astronaut Office during 2003 in the wake of Columbia.

Anything you can point to so that I can read up on that?

I happen to disagree with those who opposed Ares I.  It would have put Orion into orbit with crew faster than the current plan.

I blow hot and cold on Ares. I don't think its problems were as bad as the naysayers said they were - sure, there were problems, but point to a LV that didn't have problems.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how taking the other path turned out. If we get to 2016 (say) and there is still no US manned launcher, that will give us some perspective.

Noel

[gospacex]

I happen to disagree with those who opposed Ares I.  It would have put Orion into orbit with crew faster than the current plan.

I blow hot and cold on Ares. I don't think its problems were as bad as the naysayers said they were

I don't know, but from my POV the "Ares I is not needed, we already have DIVH which can do this job even better" problem looks quite bad.

[yg1968]

The test flights would not be done without NASA funding. It will be funded through the certification phase. The certification will include some test flights but I don't think that they have decided how many flights yet.

Need to qualify that with "crewed".  Specifically, within the bounds of the CCP: crewed test flights will occur only under certification phase II; uncrewed test flights might still occur under CCiCap or under certification phase II.  Crewed test flights could still happen outside of CCP (CCiCap or certification) if Boeing, SNC or SpaceX did it with their own money and presumably at arms-length from CCP...

1. CCiCap (CCP funded)
a) Uncrewed test flights: Maybe, depending on optional milestones funded
b) Crewed test flights: No, per NASA "we will not pay to fly anyone..."

2. Certification Phase II (CCP funded)
a) Uncrewed test flights: Likely
b) Crewed test flights: Yes

3. Independent (non-CCP/provider funded)
a) Uncrewed test flights: Possible
b) Crewed test flights: Possible

That is a very good summary. The only part that I am not sure about is the independent. I hope that it will be possible for companies like Blue Origin and Stratolaunch to be certified by NASA through unfunded SAAs.

As far as having uncrewed test flights under the CCiCap optional milestones, I hope that NASA will do so. But Gerst said that NASA only intended to exercise a few (if any) of the CCiCap optional milestones and only if it is in NASA's interest to do so.

[yg1968]

p.s. FWIW, the GSFC Mission Set Database shows a total of 7 CCP tests FY2015-2017.  Those obviously have to be considered notional (in the "formulation" stage) and there's no indication of which are crewed.

That link is interesting, the probable mission end dates suggests that NASA intends to have 3 test flights per year (likely with 1.5 providers). Once a CTS contract is signed, it would go down to 2 commercial crew flights per year (with probably one provider). The fact that there is 4 test flights per company suggest that there will probably be at least one uncrewed flight, perhaps one non-ISS flight and 2 ISS flights. 

CCP/Test Flights (Probable Mission End)
1- 2015-05-01
2- 2015-09-01
3- 2016-01-01
4- 2016-05-01
5- 2016-09-01
6- 2017-01-01
7- 2017-05-01
0- 2017-09-30 (It's not clear if this mission is related to the other ones)

Commercial Crew Flights (Probable Mission End)
1- 2018-03-01
2- 2018-09-01
3- 2019-03-01
4- 2019-09-01
5- 2020-03-01
6- 2020-09-01
7- 2021-03-01

[Sesquipedalian]

when will there be a lifeboat option available ? if you need soyuz as a rescue vehicle anyway after 2017 the whole thing doesn't make sense... the russians would not fly with empty seats i guess...

The US Crew Vehicle would be the lifeboat for the US section.

[yg1968]

For reference purposes, here is where NASA said that it would not fund the optional milestones for CCiCap for crewed flights:

Before NASA crew or personnel on NASA-sponsored missions will be allowed to fly on commercially provided spacecraft, the systems will need to be certified. NASA is still refining the details of the certification process, but as part of the recently awarded Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) Space Act Agreements (SAAs), the partners were asked to provide NASA with recommendations for what they believe it would take to complete a certification milestone, including an “option” to conduct an orbital flight-test demonstration (demo)—under the SAA (outside of a NASA contract)—with a non-NASA crew. Although there is plenty of precedent for contractor test flights in government aviation developments, such flights are always under the certification authority of the government (either the contracting agency, Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], or both). For this NASA option, the demo flight would be outside of NASA’s acquisition authority, thus raising several safety-relevant questions: (1) Would the SAA partner’s demo flight be conducted outside of NASA’s launch and entry certification authority? (2) To the extent that the required FAA license would not cover crew safety systems and procedures (FAA authority is limited by statute), would any other government agency step in to certify flight crew safety? (3) If not, would NASA be legally obligated to certify for crew safety? (4) If the answers to (1) through (3) leave a gap in government crew safety certification, would Agency stakeholders perceive NASA as irresponsible in its sponsorship/facilitation or tacit acceptance of a high-risk activity? Even if the demo flight is successful, the statistical relevance of one flight (or even a few successful flights) is almost negligible without a thorough understanding of every aspect of the flight data. NASA should be looking for ways to maximize its insight into what will most likely be a short flight-test program, regardless of how it is contracted, incentivized, or facilitated. When asked about the potential exercise of the option, the CCP program manager informed the ASAP that there was no current plan to exercise the option. The ASAP was on one hand encouraged that the option would not be invoked but is concerned that NASA would continue to maintain the option if it truly had no intention of using it. Such a “mixed message” serves to add unnecessary confusion and attendant risk to the program.

VADM Dyer read a statement prepared by NASA regarding certification:

“NASA is running the CPC contracts in parallel with the Commercial Crew Integration Capability (CCiCap) space act agreements today. This is allowed because they are separate activities with distinct goals. However, the goals of the program do not change nor do they end at the conclusion of the [SAA] base period. There has been no formal Agency-level decision at an Acquisition Strategy Meeting regarding the specific scope and mechanism of the Phase 2 Certification effort. However, we have determined that all NASA certification activity needs to be performed under a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based contract. In addition, NASA has been clear that it does not intend to exercise the optional milestones [carrying out flight test by the provider under the SAA]. However, 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.”

VADM Dyer noted that this statement attempts to capture a lot of the discussion and provides some clarity with regard to
yesterday‟s dialog on commercial space.

See pages 4 and 5 of this report:
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2013_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf

See also page 4 of this document:
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/ASAP_Public_Meeting_Minutes_1st-Qtr-2013.pdf

[clongton]

The Ares I design predated Griffin's involvement.  It came out of the NASA Astronaut Office during 2003 in the wake of Columbia.  Griffin was briefed on the concept in late 2003, before he became NASA Administrator.

Clongton likes to say that Griffin designed Ares, but it simply is not true.

I happen to disagree with those who opposed Ares I.  It would have put Orion into orbit with crew faster than the current plan.  KSC would still be alive now.

Better than sending the money to Moscow. 

 - Ed Kyle

What came out of the Astronaut Office, more specifically from Owen Garrett, was an idea: “What if we did thus and so?”, back in 2003. But what became the Ares-I and Ares-V didn’t actually take shape until Griffin and Garrett collaborated on that paper in 2004. Garrett was an astronaut with an idea but Griffin was the engineer that put flesh on the bones that became the Ares launch vehicles. The idea may have been Garrett’s, but the vehicles were Griffin’s. He’s the one that turned a BOTE idea into an actual LV.

And toward the end of Griffin’s tenure as Administrator he literally gave up any hope of the Ares-V ever getting off the ground, and said we should just think about getting crews back to LEO. The Ares-1 could actually do this, just barely, but only with a service module that had been short-fueled and a 1/2 crew load. They were literally looking for ounces of mass to delete, even restricting the crew water supply to save just a couple of pounds. Despite all the billions of dollars spent on the Ares-I CLV, the fact remains that it was unable to accomplish its primary mission; that of inserting a lunar-bound Orion into orbit. It just could not lift enough mass. And the main reason for that is the mass of the rocket. It was the mass of the solid propellant that finally did in the whole idea.

[Joel]

Do I understand it right that SpaceX is on track to launch crews by 2015. Then for two years, NASA astronauts will continue to fly with Russian vehicles because of a corrupt Alabama senator?

[john smith 19]

No, they did not.

That is what I suspected. Yet about 7 years after COTS/CCiCAP started here we are with an ELV & spacecraft delivering cargo to the ISS, 1 getting ready to do so, 2 human rated LV's and (potentially) 3 spacecraft (1 of which has a version already flying) capable of human rating and carriage.

Which suggests it can be done, but not by NASA under BAU.

Who knows how much further all 3 designs could be along if they'd received what the WH and NASA asked for?   

[john smith 19]

Do I understand it right that SpaceX is on track to launch crews by 2015. Then for two years, NASA astronauts will continue to fly with Russian vehicles because of a corrupt Alabama senator?

Careful now, that's getting a bit too far OT and we don't want to upset our hosts. 

Personally I'd say it's the "Gentleman from Utah" and his need to keep that SRB casting shop open that has somewhat skewed things.

Despite 3 decades of STS SRB ops they still seem no closer to being able to shut them down without ripping the stack to pieces.

Multiplying that by sticking a big SRB casting shop in a state with no water access to the Cape continues to ensure that the US taxpayer gets first class servicing

[yg1968]

1. CCiCap (CCP funded)
a) Uncrewed test flights: Maybe, depending on optional milestones funded
b) Crewed test flights: No, per NASA "we will not pay to fly anyone..."

What I'd like to know is why this policy only came out after they had already allowed crewed test flights in the optional milestones of CCiCap.

Good question.  Given that the context of those and similar statements always (?) seems to involve ASAP, I'd guess there's a connection.  I'll refrain from opining on why ASAP might exert pressure to disallow crewed test flights under CCiCap and why that appears to have surfaced only relatively recently.

Gerst answered that question in a hearing. He said that the optional milestones allowed them to figure how much the commercial crew companies thought the program would cost. It also gives NASA some flexibility to exercise some early milestones if there is delays in implementing phase 2 of certification. 

[renclod]

...
Spacex would beat the Russians so badly at that price it wouldn't even be funny.
...

How bad would that beating on price be ? Would you care to express the quantity of that beating ? How many flights, seats, over how many months ? per ISS requirements, of course.

[mduncan36]

Do I understand it right that SpaceX is on track to launch crews by 2015. Then for two years, NASA astronauts will continue to fly with Russian vehicles because of a corrupt Alabama senator?

Sen. Shelby is not corrupt. He's serving his constituents which is his job. Now he might be that rare politician who rises above parochial interests but he might not get elected again as a result. This brings up the very off-topic subject of term limits. Welcome to American politics.

[RocketmanUS]

Noel, there is litterally tons of information out there on this. But for openers, try here:
 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategies/AdvisoryGroupReports/garriott_griffin_2004.pdf

Ares-I is even shown. What became the Ares-V is not shown but is discussed.
This paper was published in July 2004 and was the brainchild of Dr. Mike Griffin (primary) and former astronaut Owen Garriott.

An interesting read.

They thought NASA using BAU cost plus FAR25 contracting rules could a)Design a new human rated LV built around the SRB and b)Design a capsule for it for LEO use within 6 years to be ready by 2010.

I just wonder if any of this team had any experience of actual large scale projects within NASA.

The Ares I design predated Griffin's involvement.  It came out of the NASA Astronaut Office during 2003 in the wake of Columbia.  Griffin was briefed on the concept in late 2003, before he became NASA Administrator.

Clongton likes to say that Griffin designed Ares, but it simply is not true.

I happen to disagree with those who opposed Ares I.  It would have put Orion into orbit with crew faster than the current plan.  KSC would still be alive now.

Better than sending the money to Moscow. 

 - Ed Kyle

It would have been better and faster to human rate Atlas V or Delta IV.

Have a LEO six or seven capsule, cargo version, and a Cygnus like cargo canister. If I remember right this is close to what they had planned on.

Not sure if it would have been a good idea to launch from LC-39 or the Atlas/Delta pads? Two crew and two cargo launches a year it could have been a good idea to use LC-39 and be out of the way of the other launches for Atlas V or Delta IV.

The could have also introduce the COTS program too to increase the number of cargo and LEO crew taxi's and as a back up.

Now after that was put in they could have looked to BLEO.

That is water under the bridge now. So for now we need to look to the future of were we want NASA to be. Do we want LEO crew access or not? Is the ISS to be used beyond 2020? A yes to either of these questions means there needs to be priority to the LEO commercial crew taxi's over the BLEO programs for now.

It would be interesting to see what of the three competitors would have their system ready for ISS crew by 1st quarter 2016 on their own dime if NASA had a paid contract for that service?

There is a lot more going on in the back ground than people realize.

[notsorandom]

No, they did not.

That is what I suspected. Yet about 7 years after COTS/CCiCAP started here we are with an ELV & spacecraft delivering cargo to the ISS, 1 getting ready to do so, 2 human rated LV's and (potentially) 3 spacecraft (1 of which has a version already flying) capable of human rating and carriage.

Which suggests it can be done, but not by NASA under BAU.

Who knows how much further all 3 designs could be along if they'd received what the WH and NASA asked for?   

I am counting 3 human rated LVs being developed with components which have already flown numerous times. There are also four human rated spacecraft under development.

[JBF]

No, they did not.

That is what I suspected. Yet about 7 years after COTS/CCiCAP started here we are with an ELV & spacecraft delivering cargo to the ISS, 1 getting ready to do so, 2 human rated LV's and (potentially) 3 spacecraft (1 of which has a version already flying) capable of human rating and carriage.

Which suggests it can be done, but not by NASA under BAU.

Who knows how much further all 3 designs could be along if they'd received what the WH and NASA asked for?   

I am counting 3 human rated LVs being developed with components which have already flown numerous times. There are also four human rated spacecraft under development.

Which 3rd LV are you thinking of?  The only 2 that I'm aware of that have ongoing work are the Atlas and Falcon.

[Rocket Science]

No, they did not.

That is what I suspected. Yet about 7 years after COTS/CCiCAP started here we are with an ELV & spacecraft delivering cargo to the ISS, 1 getting ready to do so, 2 human rated LV's and (potentially) 3 spacecraft (1 of which has a version already flying) capable of human rating and carriage.

Which suggests it can be done, but not by NASA under BAU.

Who knows how much further all 3 designs could be along if they'd received what the WH and NASA asked for?   

I am counting 3 human rated LVs being developed with components which have already flown numerous times. There are also four human rated spacecraft under development.

Which 3rd LV are you thinking of?  The only 2 that I'm aware of that have ongoing work are the Atlas and Falcon.

Liberty...