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

[mike robel]

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.
:-)

My feeling on this is it is imperative to get independent manned spaceflight going again.  Two things seem to be able to accomplish that in the near term:  D4H/Orion and Falcon 9/Dragon.  If we accelerate those programs, we might have the money to get other things that some believe gives us BLEO:  Depots, DSHs, SEP engines etc.  What seems certain is that the SLS/Orion capability is coming along slowly.  (And you know what a big booster fan I am, so it pains me to say it.).

I guess the alternative is turn off Commercial Crew and put the money into SLS/Orion so it comes on line faster and use it for the ISS Crew Rotation.  The rocket and the capsule don't care where they are going.

What are we going to do with the ISS after 2020?  If we splash it, are we going to replace it?  If not, why did we bother in the first place?  It suffers from the same issue the Shuttle did - we are not developing its replacement.  And Apollo before that.

WOW!  We landed on the moon!  Now What?
WOW!  We made the Space Shuttle?  Now What?
WOW!  We have a Space Station!  Now What?

It is possible that Bigalow will launch his stations, but how big is the market for the ultra rich to go stay there?  Will NASA contract with him for services?  What will we lose if we send money there?  Will there be money for BLEO when we do that?

I grant that SLS at least is trying to advance the art, while using upgraded proven systems from both Shuttle and Saturn, with a new capsule design.  Will it be too little too late?

Just some thoughts.  I have no answers.

[john smith 19]

My feeling on this is it is imperative to get independent manned spaceflight going again. 

Well manned spaceflight independent of the US already exists. I think you should be clear you mean returning NASA (and the US) to having an independent HSF capability.

Two things seem to be able to accomplish that in the near term:  D4H/Orion and Falcon 9/Dragon.  If we accelerate those programs, we might have the money to get other things that some believe gives us BLEO:  Depots, DSHs, SEP engines etc.

There is no plan to human rate Delta. That would finally admit that Ares 1 was a completely pointless vehicle. And if other posters are correct the USAF has the final say on this and they say "no." So there is no programme to accelerate in the first place.

I guess the alternative is turn off Commercial Crew and put the money into SLS/Orion so it comes on line faster and use it for the ISS Crew Rotation.  The rocket and the capsule don't care where they are going.

Wrong.
CCiCAP funding is a drop in the ocean of cash SLS, Orion and CxP have soaked up. Orion alone is meant to have soaked up $1Bn+, and it still lacks a Support Module. The funding law also states that cuts in SLS cannot be transferred to CCiCAP and vice versa, so what you're talking about is illegal.
 
The real alternative is to cancel Commercial Crew, run with Soyuz till its time to down the ISS and end all NASA HSF activity.

For a lot in the Legislature 4 more years to Orion flies unmanned 13 years after 1st attempt and 19 years from 1st efforts to 1st SLS launch will be asking "Why bother? Once it flies, it has no payloads and it's launch rate is absurd."

You might believe such an option is "unthinkable." I would prefer it not to happen. You can bet there is a a faction in the Legislature that thinks it is.

I'll also note that any claims that the SRB capability some how preserves the defense capability to mfg ICBM stages is also wrong. When I suggested SRB's could be mfg in series and stored in pits in the Utah desert (like low rent ICBM silos) I was told they "slump" unlike ICBM propellant. So loosing this capability would not affect US defense capabilities but it might raise unemployment a bit in Utah.

What are we going to do with the ISS after 2020?  If we splash it, are we going to replace it?

A good question. But it's not soley NASA's to make. Half of it was built and paid in Europe and Russia. But note that payment is only up to 2017, not 2020. Those seat prices can still go up and every time they do Commercial Crew looks a better investment, and every cut in funding from the Legislature just makes them look dumber, IMHO.

It is possible that Bigalow will launch his stations, but how big is the market for the ultra rich to go stay there?

Well while the only way to get there is by a Soyuz at $20m/seat not very big. Commercial crew leverages a lot of potential applications and they (in turn) can leverage lower launch prices for NASA through economies of scale.

Will NASA contract with him for services?  What will we lose if we send money there?

Control.
Absolute FAR25 spell out exactly what color the switches are levels of control.

I grant that SLS at least is trying to advance the art, while using upgraded proven systems from both Shuttle and Saturn, with a new capsule design.  Will it be too little too late?

How so? Re-designing the SSME so it's cheap enough to throw away. How much of that was worked out by the RS68 programme? What hardware from Saturn? The J2-x under development has nothing in common with the cutting edge development programme of that name in the 1960s. The only thing it retains is some of the pump hardware, which (magically) makes this a human rated engine, despite the fact most of the other bits are from non human rated engines. They of course, could not be human rated.

Just some thoughts.  I have no answers.

Yes.

[Edit. Over the years I've heard, seen and read all sorts of "historical inevitability" claims and arguments. When the situation has been looked at more closely they all turn out to be complete rubbish.

Complex situations have many factors which can push the balance one way or another. A more creative approach and less of a willingness to admit defeat can shift that balance. COTS/CCiCAP has delivered actual launches and built substantial hardware.

The real question is what is the long term objective of NASA's human spaceflight programme and how important is how those objectives are met (IE with a an LV, owned, designed and managed by NASA) versus simply getting them met?]


 

[john smith 19]

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

Individual letters are unlikely to work.

It's when they receive a a lot of them together that they start to get concerned.

This is where coalescing around particular dates in the Legislature calendar (IE when they're actually thinking about appropriations) counts.

[Phosphorus]

The $424M is for 6 seats. This means $70.7M per seat. The price has gone up again. Commercial crew should be competitive with those prices.

Yes, but not unexpected per attached graph...

Interesting graph. Are these inflation-adjusted, and if yes -- indexed to which year? When is the money paid? Upfront in full upon contract signing, or after launch?

A quick look from the other side -- what should be Roscosmos strategy in the picturesque mess, so aptly described on the previous 11 pages?

Don't they generally seem to be too good of a supplier generally:
1) fixed-cost contract, priced in the customer's currency
2) patiently performing the essential service to the customer, who screams about need to immediately stop dealing with the supplier ("stop sending money to Ruskies")
3) waiting patiently to be replaced (with gloating post-factum) with someone else once and for all?

Considering all of the above, shouldn't Roscosmos just squeeze every penny it can out of NASA? This reduces funds availability for other programs, and pushes both commercial crew SLS further into future -- thus being an ideal protector to status quo. (Considering the widely held premise that bloody Ruskies are in just for cash, and stopping this flow of cash from NASA to Roscosmos is a proper thing to do).

[jimhillhouse]

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.

The Orion/SLS programs were established in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act and enjoyed, unlike the President's plan announced on Feb. 5, 2010, broad and strong bipartisan support in the Democratically controlled House and Senate, both of which voted-down the President's path for spaceflight. Here's a little refresher.

On Feb. 5, 2010, Charlie and Lori gave presentations on NASA's FY11 budget. Constellation was canceled, the Moon was no longer the next-step, all future human spaceflight would be done by commercial space companies, Shuttle would get an additional mission, and NASA would be turned-into a hybrid R&D Center and contracting agency. It would be an understatement to say this plan landed like a basket of snakes at a picnic. There had been no review, no consultation with Congress, and none with the aerospace industry. In early May 2010 Armstrong and Cernan testified before the House and Senate committees with oversight for NASA against the President's plan.

http://voices.yahoo.com/armstrong-cernan-testify-against-obama-space-plan-6018504.html

The Senate approved its version of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, S 3729, on August 5, 2010 by unanimous consent. It was largely crafted by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison's office and staffers on the Senate Commerce Committee along with help from members of the Augustine Committee.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/nasa-authorization-bill-passes-senate#.UYVkuJXXC3I
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31548.msg1037772#msg1037772

The House version of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, HR 5781 authored by Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) would have maintained the status quo antebellum, in other words Constellation would have largely remained and it would be as though Feb. 5, 2010 never happened.

On Sept. 30, the House held an extremely rare nationally televised nightime debate and vote on the House and Senate versions of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act. The White House and NASA had been forced into the very unexpected place of lobbying for House passage of the Senate's NASA Authorization Act. Talk about a turning of the tables. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords pushed hard for the House version. But in the end, by an over 2/3rds vote, the House, in a rare show of bipartisanship, enacted the Senate version. That lopsided vote, following the Senate's previous unanimous consent vote for the same bill, sent a message to the White House that the chambers would, even happily, override the tacitly threatened veto.

In every subsequent appropriations act, Congress has rebuffed White House proposed cuts to Orion/SLS and increases to commercial crew. And twice, language stating the support by Congress of those two programs has been passed in the last few months. I have heard nothing from those staffers with whom I talk on Capitol Hill that indicates the support for Orion/SLS is wavering in either chamber.

[Lar]

[quote author=Lars_J link=topic=31803.msg1047208#msg1047208

In every subsequent appropriations act, Congress has rebuffed White House proposed cuts to Orion/SLS and increases to commercial crew. And twice, language stating the support by Congress of those two programs has been passed in the last few months. I have heard nothing from those staffers with whom I talk on Capitol Hill that indicates the support for Orion/SLS is wavering in either chamber.

Thanks for that useful summary.

IMHO Congress, NASA current admins and Obama ALL are wrong. But Congress most of all. Not that it matters.

[Lars_J]

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.

The Orion/SLS programs were established in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act and enjoyed, unlike the President's plan announced on Feb. 5, 2010, broad and strong bipartisan support in the Democratically controlled House and Senate, both of which voted-down the President's path for spaceflight. Here's a little refresher.

...[snip]...

In every subsequent appropriations act, Congress has rebuffed White House proposed cuts to Orion/SLS and increases to commercial crew. And twice, language stating the support by Congress of those two programs has been passed in the last few months. I have heard nothing from those staffers with whom I talk on Capitol Hill that indicates the support for Orion/SLS is wavering in either chamber.

Past performance is an indicator - but no guarantee - of future results. You should know that. Especially when this is an issue that the majority of Congress does not feel strongly about.

[spectre9]

Trying to outsource LEO was a bad idea politically not technically or fiscally.

You can't take funding away from NASA centers and give it to private contractors. It just creates an absolute mess and huge fights all round.

This will go on for years and NASA will be worse off for it.

Commercial Crew just isn't cheap enough.

It's not buying a service, it's spending billions to develop brand new spacecraft that only have one customer.

NASA has to buy all the seats for ESA/JAXA anyway so whether it's Soyuz or Dragon capsule NASA is still the only customer.

Creating the whole industry with many working spacecraft was a pipe dream. It's now clear there's zero chance of that ever happening. I speculate those that underfunded the initial stages of development are getting their wish.

The problem is that NASA themselves doesn't want to build cheap efficient rockets or spacecraft. They will always aim for 130mt monster launchers and spacecraft as big as they can possibly make them. I mean look at shuttle, 7 seats, giant payload bay. If they could've made it bigger they would've.

Everything is going to come crashing down very soon if a clear, efficient, politically acceptable path isn't found soon.

The best case scenario right now is a giant rocket with no payload except a giant capsule and overpriced commercial crew seats from a single provider with an aging space station eating up more and more budget for ongoing repairs as old systems begin to degrade.

I'm disappointed, confused and I pity the American political system that values pork over progress.

[Lar]

spectre9: Zero chance seems a bit harsh to me. There are some scenarios that could come out better. Some of us are banking on newspace not giving up this time.

[spectre9]

But didn't Charlie say the best case they can hope for is 1.5 providers?

It's harsh but I don't think any of the companies that were part of CCDev will develop their spacecraft fully without NASA funding.

Blue Origin might do a suborbital spacecraft self funded but I don't think others will spend the money to chase orbital tourism.

As QG has already pointed out to me, NASA pays much better.

The market for Space Adventures is small and people aren't going to pay that much if they can't go to ISS like those lucky bunch that went on Soyuz.

If the chances are above zero I'd love to see the argument. My optimism might need a boost 

[john smith 19]

Trying to outsource LEO was a bad idea politically not technically or fiscally.

Which suggest more attention should have been paid to the politics of the situation.

You can't take funding away from NASA centers and give it to private contractors. It just creates an absolute mess and huge fights all round.

How exactly has that happened? Several NASA centres are quite deeply involved in all aspects of both COTS and CCiCAP.

This will go on for years and NASA will be worse off for it.

Commercial Crew just isn't cheap enough.

Are you kidding? $5Bn = 2 new LVs and cargo carriers, 1
already delivering cargo to the ISS, 2 human rated LVs and substantial work done on 3 human rated spacecraft, 1 of which is already racking up delivery experience. As for how much CC will cost has any supplier issued pricing?

It's not buying a service, it's spending billions to develop brand new spacecraft that only have one customer.

It's only a service because the former Soviet Union invested in Soyuz to begin with. [Edit NASA made several attempts to replace Shuttle over the last 30 years. All failed. So far the more "arms length" approach of COTS has got them 2 cargo ELVs and 2 cargo spacecraft, one with the capability of being upgraded to carry humans. Contrast that with every internally managed programme from X33 onward (and a few before that).]
 
BTW COTS and CCiCAP require all winning bidders to commit some of their own funds to their vehicles, [edit unlike SLS/Orion where the contractors commit nothing and NASA meets any cost increases (presumably until they get too big even for the Legislature to swallow, which so far they have not)]

NASA has to buy all the seats for ESA/JAXA anyway so whether it's Soyuz or Dragon capsule NASA is still the only customer.

Except with Dragon, CTS100 or Dream Chaser most of those funds remain in the US on every launch.

Creating the whole industry with many working spacecraft was a pipe dream. It's now clear there's zero chance of that ever happening.

I think that should be "IYHO".

I speculate those that underfunded the initial stages of development are getting their wish.

Then they should be careful what they wish for. The simplest option is to end all NASA human space flight. I'm pretty sure they really won't like that option. [Edit with the modern news cycle no one is going to be that impressed by a 1st Orion launch 13 years after it was first proposed, with a possible crewed mission 19 years after 1st proposal.]

The problem is that NASA themselves doesn't want to build cheap efficient rockets or spacecraft. They will always aim for 130mt monster launchers and spacecraft as big as they can possibly make them.

True some factions of NASA want this. Others consider this an inappropriate use of resources at this time. I'm sure others view it as just a giant jobs programme for some states.

I mean look at shuttle, 7 seats, giant payload bay. If they could've made it bigger they would've.

That comment suggests a profound level of ignorance about the history of the STS programme. This information is widely accessible. The fact you appear unaware of it does not say much for your insight into NASA.

Everything is going to come crashing down very soon if a clear, efficient, politically acceptable path isn't found soon.

Perhaps you should adopt a highish pitched Scottish ascent and practice the following.

The best case scenario right now is a giant rocket with no payload except a giant capsule and overpriced commercial crew seats from a single provider with an aging space station eating up more and more budget for ongoing repairs as old systems begin to degrade.

Alternatively CCiCAP starts carrying the full 6 ISS crew at seat prices substantially below the Russian price (which continues to rise).  A sudden change of key Senators and Congressmen prompts a review of the SLS programme and a recognition that up to $16Bn and has no launch date in sight while ESA delivers the Support Module for Orion and NASA comes up with a better plan to use it and the other assets available to them (Delta, Atlas, F9 and F9H) to build a more sustainable exploration that lands 2 astronauts on a NEO by 2018.

I'm disappointed, confused and I pity the American political system that values pork over progress.

And you discovered this fact when?

[clongton]

Creating the whole industry with many working spacecraft was a pipe dream. It's now clear there's zero chance of that ever happening.

You're forgetting that Elon has stated several times that SpaceX is going to the moon with or without NASA's help. NASA has become a cash cow for him for a while on 3 counts.

1. It provides him cash flow and profit to grow his company, which enables his future plans.
2. Dragons are reusable and the NASA contract specifies a new spacecraft for every launch. When they return after the mission, any down mass is returned to NASA and the spacecraft is returned to SpaceX. The first couple are to be disassembled and studied intently. After that the returned spacecraft are to be refurbished and outfitted for SpaceX's own space program. NASA has paid him for the spacecraft already so he doesn't have to build his program's spacecraft on his own dime, just refurbish and outfit them. And the profit he made on the NASA mission that spacecraft flew will have paid for that expense too. -Nice!
3. He will have spacecraft available for commercial missions, already built and tested. I predict that commercial customers will begin to surface and will migrate to SpaceX for transportation to their desired destination. I fully expect the Bigelow stations to play a prominent role in that.

NASA may be the only customer - for now - but SpaceX is geared and funded to making sure that does not remain static. Smart guy this.

[MP99]

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.

ISTM the disagreements are mostly about maximising what can be accomplished with (or despite reduced) Congress funding.

cheers, Martin

[john smith 19]

2. Dragons are reusable and the NASA contract specifies a new spacecraft for every launch.

I thought this but Jim pointed out that NASA asked for pricing on the assumption that they were not re-used simply to give a common base line for costs. As he explained NASA would consider supply missions with re-furbished Dragons and now that Spacex has run real missions to ISS I guess those re-furb costs are much better understood. I can't remember if CST100 is designed for reuse though.
That said I expect Spacex will want to maintain a Dragon mfg line so may not go with the maximum possible reuse and build a pipeline of Dragons in various stages of re-furb. Or as you say re-furb for sale (or rent as "Dragon labs") to other customers.

3. He will have spacecraft available for commercial missions, already built and tested. I predict that commercial customers will begin to surface and will migrate to SpaceX for transportation to their desired destination. I fully expect the Bigelow stations to play a prominent role in that.

Bigelow is saying 2016 before 1st launch. I'd guess all the CCiCAP winners have their eyes on supplying Bigelow and it would be interesting if Bigelow were to announce that they were accelerating their schedule.

NASA may be the only customer - for now - but SpaceX is geared and funded to making sure that does not remain static. Smart guy this.

I think so too. But a lot can still go wrong. Nothing is ever "inevitable."

[Step55]

Apparently the AIAA is encouraging Congress to provide more funding to commercial crew.

http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/private-space-lauded-at-aiaa-meeting.html

[Zed_Noir]

You're forgetting that Elon has stated several times that SpaceX is going to the moon MARS with or without NASA's help. NASA has become a cash cow for him for a while on 3 counts.

Think you meant Mars, not the Moon. AFAIK Musk and SpaceX have no plans to go to the Moon. Unless someone needs transportation to cis-lunar region and is paying for the service.

[Prober]

Apparently the AIAA is encouraging Congress to provide more funding to commercial crew.

http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/private-space-lauded-at-aiaa-meeting.html

extra funds were found.....seems the WH screwed up the numbers on cuts FY 2013, and found a bunch of funds.  Google for the story a couple days ago.

[Lar]

Apparently the AIAA is encouraging Congress to provide more funding to commercial crew.

http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/private-space-lauded-at-aiaa-meeting.html

extra funds were found.....seems the WH screwed up the numbers on cuts FY 2013, and found a bunch of funds.  Google for the story a couple days ago.

Your google-fu may be better than mine, can you do the honors?

[joek]

2. Dragons are reusable and the NASA contract specifies a new spacecraft for every launch.

I thought this but Jim pointed out that NASA asked for pricing on the assumption that they were not re-used simply to give a common base line for costs.

Correct.  CRS is a firm fixed price contract.  SpaceX could not state with confidence the price for a refurb Dragon.  Thus they went with CRS pricing based on new Dragons based on NASA's request/demand for a firm fixed price.  (There's a transcript of a press conference somewhere from way-back-when where that was covered, but I can't find it at the moment).

That does not preclude use of refurb Dragons on CRS flights.  The only relevant stipulation in the CRS contract is that "Falcon 9" and "Dragon" manufactured by SpaceX are used to fulfill the contract.  Whether SpaceX finds it more advantageous to: (a) reuse Dragons for future CRS flights (potentially better margins on those flights); or (b) build/stockpile new used ones for sale/rent to other future customers (potentially increased future revenue) is anyone's guess at this point.

[joek]

Apparently the AIAA is encouraging Congress to provide more funding to commercial crew.
http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/private-space-lauded-at-aiaa-meeting.html

extra funds were found.....seems the WH screwed up the numbers on cuts FY 2013, and found a bunch of funds.  Google for the story a couple days ago.

Your google-fu may be better than mine, can you do the honors?

Second that.  I'd think that would be Big News and can not find anything to suggest such.