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

[QuantumG]

All of these program could be fully funded for a year on what we spend in one week in Afghanistan.

I haven't done a personal survey of everyone in the United States but I expect we'd find the support for US military activities in Afghanistan isn't very deep, or wide. If this were true, could we conclude that a majority would support transferring those funds to NASA? Probably not, but who knows. More importantly, who cares? It's not like that is an option. So why'd you bring it up?

[RocketmanUS]

In my view, the fact that they are launching an Orion on a Delta IV next year means we should stop SLS development.  Take the money and put it to Delta IV man rating and accelerate Orion.  Any left over should be given to the company with the best chance of flying a manrated craft within the next 3 years.  If we don't want to launch off of 37, then we can either crash develop the capability to launch from 39 or from 34.

The goal is to either get Delta IV Heavy/Orion flying or Falcon 9/Dragon up in 36 months from contract award.  Maybe its doable maybe its not.  I think Gemini did  it though.  Surely we can do now what we did in the 60's.

But I'm probably just generating wishful thinking, and the professionals will tell me I'm wrong, which is ok.

Mike,
A few issues with this, aside from the argument about whether USAF will allow it or not.

First, if you do this, cancel SLS and accelerate D4H man-rating, then what?  You now have a $300-$400 million dollar 23mt crew launcher to the ISS.  But Orion doesn't need to go to the ISS now because of commercial crew.
(again, I think commercial crew is cool, but wholly unnecessary.  Orion needed to be doing that work on an EELV launcher to get it's flight rate up to something reasonable, rather than spreading NASA's limited crew launches between 1-2 commercial crew providers, and the occasional BLEO Orion). 

I think that ship has sailed. There was a time that'd be a good option.  But now?
I think it might make more sense to cancel SLS and put Orion on FH if you are going that way, starting from the point we are now.  I'm sure Elon would love Orion flying on his LV, and would cooperate fully.  And I think FH will be pretty easy to man-rate, as F9 is designed from the start with HSF in mind.  Delta IV is not.
But even if you do that, then what?
You have a 50mt crew launcher.  You need more launches to do anything BLEO.  You have options with Orion on FH, but you'd need at least 3 launches to put together any BLEO mission.  Where do you launch 3 FH's in rapid succession from?  You'll need an EDS that FH can carry, etc. etc.
you can do something that way, but that's a completely different type of architecture.  Again, at -this- point that would probably be a more likely way to go.  Back in 2004 and 2005, D4H and it's upgrades would have been a good option.  I think Orion on a man-rated Atlas, and then a 7-core Delta 4 super heavy cargo launcher (so it never needs man-rated) with big upper stage/EDS would have been a good 1.5 architecture if NASA had scaled down the CxP requirements to fit a 100mt-ish cargo launcher instead of the 125mt-ish cargo launcher Ares V started out as.

But right now, I don't think D4H is the way to go for Orion.  If you want to do something that way, cancel commercial crew, and man-rate Atlas 551/552 (which is already happening for commercial crew) and use Orion as the American ISS crew service spacecraft.
Or...launch it on FH, and make sure Elon gets a contract to expeditiously man-rates FH in leu of getting a commercial crew contract for DRagonrider.
Which again, I'm sure Elon would like and be fully cooperative on.
FH with Orion can launch from a modifed existing MLP at KSC, so NASA can retain the optics.
Then roll FH into a brand new multi-launch BLEO architcture.

Or just stick with SLS, as it does seem to be progressing reasonably well.
:-)

Orion is for cislunar space and will need SLS block I to do that.

If there were flight to cislunar with FH then it would be with a Lunar version Dragon based on the LEO crew version ( it would most likely be a commercial venture ).

We need the commercial crew taxi's for hopeful commercial use. Orion would not be practical for commercial use.

Our problem here is we keep sending money to Russia and helping their economy while at the same time hurting our own along with the possible commercial use of space. We could be getting non-U.S. customers for our LEO taxi's. Commercial crew funding by the U.S. government is an investment in a possible near future business. The small amount invested in the program could return many folds back to the U.S. goernment, plus the enhanced use of ISS ).

It will be future in space craft that will bring crew BLEO.

Orion does not need the high flight rate to justify it. Commercial crew will need the high flight rate that it should see from commercial use once it proves it's self by sending crew to the ISS.

[QuantumG]

If there were flight to cislunar with FH then it would be with a Lunar version Dragon based on the LEO crew version ( it would most likely be a commercial
venture ).

That's just one of many ways you could do it.

Commercial crew funding by the U.S. government is an investment in a possible near future business. The small amount invested in the program could return many folds back to the U.S. goernment, plus the enhanced use of ISS ).

Investment (n). The surrounding of a place by a hostile force in order to besiege or blockade it.

 

[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.

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

SLS/Orion As mentioned in the article SLS to ISS would be wasteful but it is an option. Regardless of contracting methods NASA is paying for 3 human rated LVs and will likely end up with at least 2, likely 3, maybe even four space craft in the near future.

[joek]

1. Likely:
a) SLS is not going to be canceled any time soon, if ever.
b) MPCV is not going to be canceled any time soon. if ever.
c) MPCV (crewed) is not launching on anything other than SLS any time soon, if ever.
2. Moreover:
a) Buying Soyuz seats to ISS will continue until CCP can state with a high degree of confidence that services will be available within 3 years of the last Soyuz contract (3 years being the stated required lead time for Soyuz seats).
b) CCP will not be able to state with a high degree of confidence that services will be available in any given time frame (much less within 3 years) given current and projected funding levels.
c) Increased ISS utilization offered by CCP (4 USOS crew) appears to have little or no traction.
3. Therefore:
a) CCP will likely limp along underfunded.
b) We will continue to buy Soyuz seats.
4. Thus, given the current and likely future political and funding climate:
a) We might see CCP carry crew to ISS by 2020.
b) The promised commercial era of other commercial flights to LEO, Bigelow stations, etc. will not occur any time soon.

Oh well.  Life sucks.  It is what it is.  Patience everyone.  I've been waiting for the dawn as long as anyone; I'm willing to wait a bit longer.

[jnc]

Congress needs to increase NASA's budget. And we (NASA supporters) should be letting them know this, instead of going at each other in these forums.

And we'd be out-numbered 100:1 by people who don't want, say, SNAP cut.

Noel

[Lars_J]

They realize that the moment a commercial crew vehicle flies manned, Orion is on its death bed.

The fiction that Orion is for "deep space" and commercial crew vehicles are only for LEO is easily maintainable.

When spending $1+ billion per year, that fiction will have a *very* limited lifetime.

(Just like SLS will be on life support when FH flies)

Not even comparable.

Just like a small truck is not comparable to a large truck. But hold on - I guess they *are* comparable after all. They are comparable in every metric. (Sorry, this is going off topic)

Why else would their rancor against CC keeps growing, and they make more and more outrageous statements as time passes.

Because the program makes no sense and every time they ask NASA representatives leading questions they get more nonsensical answers. We've been over this.

Yes, it is rather clear that one of the programs makes no sense. We seem to disagree which one, however. As for "We've been over this"... 

[Lars_J]

They realize that the moment a commercial crew vehicle flies manned, Orion is on its death bed.

Why do people keep saying this? Orion is designed exclusively for BLEO missions, and CC craft are designed to be LEO taxis and freighters. If Elon ever does send a Dragon craft to Mars, it will be much different than the CC Dragons.

Either you are mis-informed, or being misleading on purpose. You should know that the bolded part is not true.

[QuantumG]

When spending $1+ billion per year, that fiction will have a *very* limited lifetime.

Why? It's money in their districts.. who do you imagine is going to care?

Just like a small truck is not comparable to a large truck. But hold on - I guess they *are* comparable after all. They are comparable in every metric. (Sorry, this is going off topic)

Then bring it back on topic.. they're not comparable because SLS and Falcon Heavy serve completely different purposes. Unless you're suggesting that Falcon Heavy can employ all the same people in the same districts as SLS, they're not comparable.

Yes, it is rather clear that one of the programs makes no sense. We seem to disagree which one, however. As for "We've been over this"... 

again, we're talking about things that make sense to Congress, not space cadets.

[woods170]

Just like a small truck is not comparable to a large truck. But hold on - I guess they *are* comparable after all. They are comparable in every metric. (Sorry, this is going off topic)

Then bring it back on topic.. they're not comparable because SLS and Falcon Heavy serve completely different purposes. Unless you're suggesting that Falcon Heavy can employ all the same people in the same districts as SLS, they're not comparable.

Yes, it is rather clear that one of the programs makes no sense. We seem to disagree which one, however. As for "We've been over this"... 

again, we're talking about things that make sense to Congress, not space cadets.

Why the bl**dy h*ll do the people from down under understand the workings of the US political system better than the average US citizen?   

[john smith 19]

Yea, and I'd guess there's maybe more concensus politics that maybe don't want to see a commercial provider be ready to send astronauts to space before NASA's flagship program can.

And that would be the most petty minded spiteful cutoff-my-nose-to-spite-my-face attitude possible. To prefer sending close to $1/2Bn overseas rather than spend it in the US (but not their state).
 

I doubt the senator from Alabama has much interest in sending money to the Ruskies over having an out-of-his-state US company do it.
I think MOST wrankle at that situation, regardless of their personal turf wars.

I can only suggest that US readers contact both their Congressman and their state Senators and make their views on this situation known to them.

Further out (come election time) you might like to ask yourself has the incumbent in both Houses helped resolve this situation or contributed to it? Should they be left in place or given a chance to experience the real world again? 

[john smith 19]

Why the bl**dy h*ll do those d**n people from down under understand the workings of the US political system better than the average US citizen?   

Perhaps because they never had to write an essay in 6th grade about "Why our system is the best system of government in the world?"
(something I think children in the Soviet Union also used to do).

The rest of us have had to figure out the US political system as we've dug into the background of various assorted programmes. It also helps that as outsiders we don't view NASA as our space agency but more objectively as a large mature bureaucracy, which it is. Protective of its turf and very resistant to change.

[Lar]

Why the bl**dy h*ll do the people from down under understand the workings of the US political system better than the average US citizen?   

Detached observation often works better? But I thought QG was a transplanted yank for some reason. I could be confused.

Plus what JS19 said...

[jnc]

Why the bl**dy h*ll do the people from down under understand the workings of the US political system better than the average US citizen?

Umm, because the average US citizen doesn't have much of a clue? (I can cite all sorts of polls, on various topics, to back this up.)

But, on topic, I can't blame Congress too much for being a bit confused about that to do about this. I mean, the people here (who are relatively well informed on space stuff) don't seem to have much agreement on what the right thing to do is, either.

Noel

[Sesquipedalian]

I can only suggest that US readers contact both their Congressman and their state Senators and make their views on this situation known to them.

I am skeptical how well this could work without a special interest group behind it.

I wrote my Congressman and two Senators about the Shuttle program and DIRECT back during the Augustine Commission.  I got no response from the Congressman, a form letter from one Senator, and for the other, I got a response that rhapsodized about how much the Senator was doing to bring space-related jobs to my state -- while completely failing to address the topics I had written about.

[Prober]

I can only suggest that US readers contact both their Congressman and their state Senators and make their views on this situation known to them.

I am skeptical how well this could work without a special interest group behind it.

I wrote my Congressman and two Senators about the Shuttle program and DIRECT back during the Augustine Commission.  I got no response from the Congressman, a form letter from one Senator, and for the other, I got a response that rhapsodized about how much the Senator was doing to bring space-related jobs to my state -- while completely failing to address the topics I had written about.

letters for the most part no longer work.   Get them in front of a camera and you have a little more leverage.

[Mader Levap]

Why the bl**dy h*ll do the people from down under understand the workings of the US political system better than the average US citizen?   

Because madness is best observed from far, far away.

[Lars_J]

When spending $1+ billion per year, that fiction will have a *very* limited lifetime.

Why? It's money in their districts.. who do you imagine is going to care?
...
 Unless you're suggesting that Falcon Heavy can employ all the same people in the same districts as SLS, they're not comparable.
...
again, we're talking about things that make sense to Congress, not space cadets.

In the real world, the Orion/SLS backers in Congress are actually a vocal minority (but an influential minority). As spread out as NASA has made it, their centers/contractor still do not cover that many districts. Call it benign neglect by the rest of Congress if you wish.

But if the budget situation worsens, and Orion/SLS continues eat up funds with little progress (and no flights), this could turn into a "bridge to nowhere" situation. If Congress in general is looking for programs to cut (to spare their own districts), it will be open season on wasteful spending.

Why the bl**dy h*ll do the people from down under understand the workings of the US political system better than the average US citizen?   

Yeah, we don't know sh*t, do we?  What is this, the "holier than thou" mutual appreciation society?

[Lar]

Why the bl**dy h*ll do the people from down under understand the workings of the US political system better than the average US citizen?   

Yeah, we don't know sh*t, do we?  What is this, the "holier than thou" mutual appreciation society?

He was talking about the *average* US Citizen, not *us*. We're all of us far above average, I suspect[1].

1 - with all due respect to Lake Woebegone residents[2], we actually all probably know far more about the inner workings of government than the average mundane. Sadly.
2 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Wobegon#The_Lake_Wobegon_effect ... yes I am running the risk of asserting the very thing that section warns about.

[RocketmanUS]

I can only suggest that US readers contact both their Congressman and their state Senators and make their views on this situation known to them.

I am skeptical how well this could work without a special interest group behind it.

I wrote my Congressman and two Senators about the Shuttle program and DIRECT back during the Augustine Commission.  I got no response from the Congressman, a form letter from one Senator, and for the other, I got a response that rhapsodized about how much the Senator was doing to bring space-related jobs to my state -- while completely failing to address the topics I had written about.

letters for the most part no longer work.   Get them in front of a camera and you have a little more leverage.

That is why I was looking to send a carbon copy letter to each of the Congressman and the major U.S. news media. It would be a little difficult to ignore when so many would be getting a copy.

Now just need their emails and a nice letter to send them all to help the commercial crew program and future U.S. flights to the ISS ( plus any other LEO flights for the commercial crew taxi's ).