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

[Lar]

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.

Exactly but I didn't want to go there

[joek]

Alternatively CCiCAP starts carrying the full 6 ISS crew at seat prices substantially below the Russian price (which continues to rise).

Nits: (a) ISS crew will be carried out under a CTS contract (crew transportation system) not CCiCap; (b) the full ISS USOS crew is 4 (4 seats x 2 flights/yr = 8 seats/yr), not 6; (c) whether that marginal CTS pricing for those ISS crew seats will be substantially lower than Soyuz is speculative at best.

Again, on an all-up cost basis (that is, including DDT&E) and based on current projections, CCP can not compete with Soyuz on a $/seat basis at 6 seats/yr for the foreseeable future; break-even appears to be in the late 2020's at best.  Pitting CCP against Soyuz on a strictly $/seat basis is a fast way to get marginalized and reamed by the accountants.

That's not to say that we should simply give up and send money to Russia, but you gotta bring more to the table than simply $/seat to make a convincing argument.  (Of which I have opined previously, so won't repeat myself here.)

[Patchouli]

I am mistaken?

The decision to go with Orion and two rockets in CXP was Griffin's and he was Bush's guy so that can be laid squarely on the previous President.

It was Griffin's alone and President Bush had nothing to do with that. The VSE was a brilliant and bold move by the President but Congress was having none of Administrator O'Keefe's implementation plans. Those plans didn't bring enough hard cash to the Alabama and Utah coffers so O'Keefe had to go. So Sean decided it was time to "spend time with his family" (with a little "help" from his "friends"). This fiasco convinced the President that he no longer had enough capital in Congress to move his VSE forward so he effectively washed his hands of HSF. Griffin was not the President's choice - he was the last man standing after all the other *FAR* more qualified candidates said "no thank you". The slot had to be filled by somebody and Griffin was the only one willing to fill it so the President gave the nod and then walked away. CxP was Griffin's alone.

Well it's also Congress's fault for not giving NASA enough funding but yes VSE could have been done for far cheaper then the plan that was eventually chosen.

[QuantumG]

Well it's also Congress's fault for not giving NASA enough funding but yes VSE could have been done for far cheaper then the plan that was eventually chosen.

.. again.. on his one appearance on The Space Show, Mike Griffin said Congress gave him every dollar that he requested for Constellation.

[Patchouli]

Alternatively CCiCAP starts carrying the full 6 ISS crew at seat prices substantially below the Russian price (which continues to rise).

Nits: (a) ISS crew will be carried out under a CTS contract (crew transportation system) not CCiCap; (b) the full ISS USOS crew is 4 (4 seats x 2 flights/yr = 8 seats/yr), not 6; (c) whether that marginal CTS pricing for those ISS crew seats will be substantially lower than Soyuz is speculative at best.

Again, on an all-up cost basis (that is, including DDT&E) and based on current projections, CCP can not compete with Soyuz on a $/seat basis at 6 seats/yr for the foreseeable future; break-even appears to be in the late 2020's at best.  Pitting CCP against Soyuz on a strictly $/seat basis is a fast way to get marginalized and reamed by the accountants.

That's not to say that we should simply give up and send money to Russia, but you gotta bring more to the table than simply $/seat to make a convincing argument.  (Of which I have opined previously, so won't repeat myself here.)

Dragon,the CST-100, and DreamChaser all are more capable then Soyuz and can swap out the entire crew in a single flight.

They have less demanding physical requirements so more people can fly on them.

They land in the US close to civilization and one can land at many airports.

I feel if commercial crew is fully funded they will produce  safe,cost effective, and reliable vehicles.

Well it's also Congress's fault for not giving NASA enough funding but yes VSE could have been done for far cheaper then the plan that was eventually chosen.

.. again.. on his one appearance on The Space Show, Mike Griffin said Congress gave him every dollar that he requested for Constellation.

Maybe he is mostly at fault then.
Personally I think if an EELV based architecture was chosen we would be flying something today.

[spectre9]

Several NASA centres are quite deeply involved in all aspects of both COTS and CCiCAP.

They are? Perhaps Charlie should've spoke up about it. SpaceX tests everything at their own facilities. Which NASA center was Boeing testing at in Nevada? Also which NASA center was SNC testing at in Colorado?

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 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).

Cargo isn't crew. The modifications and milestones to bring Dragon up to scratch are expensive. That information is around somewhere. The seats will cost whatever the company wants to bid the contract for which will be more the less competition there is.
 

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)]

This makes the program less attractive. Boeing wouldn't even still be going if Bigelow wasn't putting in those required funds.

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

True but many other things worth much more money are outsourced. Does the USA make the Iphones Apple loves to peddle for insane prices?

I think that should be "IYHO".

Fair enough it should be IMHO.

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.

Doesn't meet the pork test. NASA wants it's own launch vehicles and spacecraft built in house.

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.

Nobody at NASA is going to speak out against SLS/Orion.

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.

The price has never been a big issue until now. The shuttle was acceptable for a long time which is why it has launched more people to LEO than any other spacecraft. Shuttle met the required standards of pork. Look at how many people were laid off in Florida.

Astronauts on a NEA in any time frame isn't possible under NASAs flat and falling budget.

Maybe he is mostly at fault then.
Personally I think if an EELV based architecture was chosen we would be flying something today.

That would be nice as long as NASA centers wanted to build payloads. From what I can tell they don't.

[john smith 19]

Nits: (a) ISS crew will be carried out under a CTS contract (crew transportation system) not CCiCap; (b) the full ISS USOS crew is 4 (4 seats x 2 flights/yr = 8 seats/yr), not 6; (c) whether that marginal CTS pricing for those ISS crew seats will be substantially lower than Soyuz is speculative at best.

Again, on an all-up cost basis (that is, including DDT&E) and based on current projections, CCP can not compete with Soyuz on a $/seat basis at 6 seats/yr for the foreseeable future; break-even appears to be in the late 2020's at best. 

On that basis  no new launch system or spacecraft could complete with Soyuz because most of the costs were sunk by the USSR in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. I rather doubt Shuttle could have either. CCiCAP is a development programme and as you say the CTS contract will be charged on a different basis.

The only figure I can recall was something from Spacex at a total cost of $170m mission, which if NASA only requires 4 seats still comes in at $42.5m/seat, but as someone else pointed out NASA also pays for ESA astronauts so they will need seats as well.

Pitting CCP against Soyuz on a strictly $/seat basis is a fast way to get marginalized and reamed by the accountants.

That's not to say that we should simply give up and send money to Russia, but you gotta bring more to the table than simply $/seat to make a convincing argument.  (Of which I have opined previously, so won't repeat myself here.)

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

Well my fairly quick search on this suggested that following sequestration the CC budget would be about $406m but following a revised Senate appropriations bill this would be increased to about $499m.

I'm not quite sure if this has been settled or if this is still in discussion within the Legislature.

[john smith 19]

They are? Perhaps Charlie should've spoke up about it. SpaceX tests everything at their own facilities. Which NASA center was Boeing testing at in Nevada? Also which NASA center was SNC testing at in Colorado?

The TPS Spacex use was originally developed (and AFAIK licensed) from NASA Ames. The core of the DC design came from Dryden and of course as Cygnus, Dragon, DC and CTS100 all have to dock or berth to the ISS they all have to interface to Johnson for HSF and I think Glenn for life support work.

Did you not know this?

Cargo isn't crew. The modifications and milestones to bring Dragon up to scratch are expensive.

That implies the vehicle is sub standard in some way. It is not. Like man rating the F9, if you plan for it from day 1 it's an upgrade, not a re-design.

That information is around somewhere. The seats will cost whatever the company wants to bid the contract for which will be more the less competition there is.

Funny how that works. Downselect to 1 LV/SC combination and the supplier prices can rise almost without limit, which, strange to say is what is happening with Soyuz. OTOH fund say 3 to completion (a 1 time cost) and those prices could start to fall because no supplier would have NASA by the sensitive parts.

But as someone pointed out a long time back all vehicles that connect to he ISS have to be crew rated otherwise you could (literally) suffocate inside them while you were unloading them. If  you plan from day 1 to a) Survive reentry to Earths atmosphere (even from a Mars return) and b) Plan to carry humans it's not that expensive to do so when the time comes.

This makes the program less attractive. Boeing wouldn't even still be going if Bigelow wasn't putting in those required funds.

Yes their business plan was listed as "weak." In fact CC has demonstrated 3 different types of American corporation. The publicly traded corp seems the one most likely to cut and run.

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

True but many other things worth much more money are outsourced. Does the USA make the Iphones Apple loves to peddle for insane prices?

The polite answer is that if the US government were the only buyers I would bet some member of the Legislature would ask why production was not moved to Arkansas, or whatever part of the country they represented. The short answer is that's a strawman argument as you should know.

Fair enough it should be IMHO.
Doesn't meet the pork test. NASA wants it's own launch vehicles and spacecraft built in house.

True. But the people who ask for (and dish out) the pork are mostly in the Legislature.

Nobody at NASA is going to speak out against SLS/Orion.

In public no. The reactions of the various HSF centre in response to NAS A HQ should have shown you that NASA is not some Borg like entity where everyone is in complete agreement. Silence does not mean agreement.

The price has never been a big issue until now. The shuttle was acceptable for a long time which is why it has launched more people to LEO than any other spacecraft.

No. Carrying 7 people at a time and being the only vehicle capable of carrying most of the ISS sections (because they were designed to fit it) gave it that status.

Shuttle met the required standards of pork. Look at how many people were laid off in Florida.

True. The challenge is to educate the Legislature that there is more to a space programme than pork.

Astronauts on a NEA in any time frame isn't possible under NASAs flat and falling budget.

By your yardstick "So what?" You're pitching SLS as a jobs programme with most of key Legislature who backed it taking the view that it keeps people in high paid jobs and that fact it won't lauch this decade is simply irrelevant to them.

That would be nice as long as NASA centers wanted to build payloads. From what I can tell they don't.

Again that rather depends on which NASA centres you're talking about.

[QuantumG]

SpaceX tests everything at their own facilities.

Wrong.

[spectre9]

SpaceX tests everything at their own facilities.

Wrong.

Quite right, stupid off the cuff remark that I fully retract. 

Perhaps SpaceX needs their own vacuum chambers and missile test range

That implies the vehicle is sub standard in some way. It is not. Like man rating the F9, if you plan for it from day 1 it's an upgrade, not a re-design.

The milestones are so expensive NASA doesn't know how they will pay for them at this point. NASA man rated and able to safely transport humans are 2 different things. Thorough qualification and testing of the LAS is needed.

Funny how that works. Downselect to 1 LV/SC combination and the supplier prices can rise almost without limit, which, strange to say is what is happening with Soyuz. OTOH fund say 3 to completion (a 1 time cost) and those prices could start to fall because no supplier would have NASA by the sensitive parts.

But as someone pointed out a long time back all vehicles that connect to he ISS have to be crew rated otherwise you could (literally) suffocate inside them while you were unloading them. If  you plan from day 1 to a) Survive reentry to Earths atmosphere (even from a Mars return) and b) Plan to carry humans it's not that expensive to do so when the time comes.

The technology might be well proven but it's not cheap. Since 3 vehicles funded to completion is now almost certainly off the table I think it's a moot point about falling seat prices.

The polite answer is that if the US government were the only buyers I would bet some member of the Legislature would ask why production was not moved to Arkansas, or whatever part of the country they represented. The short answer is that's a strawman argument as you should know.

ISS modules were built in Europe. The US government loves it's Atlas V, where do you think the engines come from? Saving money is saving money. There's only so much money to meet the demands for US built space hardware and that goes to big states, not Arkansas.

Silence does not mean agreement.

If any NASA employee is against SLS speak now or forever hold your peace.

*crickets*

No. Carrying 7 people at a time and being the only vehicle capable of carrying most of the ISS sections (because they were designed to fit it) gave it that status.

Shuttle had no competition. Hard argument to have this one.

True. The challenge is to educate the Legislature that there is more to a space programme than pork.

Culbertson seemed to pander to this point of view recently. I have no idea if he was being genuine.

By your yardstick "So what?" You're pitching SLS as a jobs programme with most of key Legislature who backed it taking the view that it keeps people in high paid jobs and that fact it won't lauch this decade is simply irrelevant to them.

It's not my place to challenge NASAs mission selection. Has Obama said anything about the matter?

Again that rather depends on which NASA centres you're talking about.

If NASA wants payloads for HSF they need to ask for them. Charlie has found a way around needing a DSH by moving the goal (NEA) closer.

[john smith 19]

The milestones are so expensive NASA doesn't know how they will pay for them at this point. NASA man rated and able to safely transport humans are 2 different things. Thorough qualification and testing of the LAS is needed.

You're rather fond of that verbal sleight-of-hand, implying that somehow Commercial Crew is hugely expensive.

As we know from Shuttle if NASA wanted it badly enough they'd just sign a safety waiver (which they did on numerous items on Shuttle launches).
Of course that system was NASA's direct brain child.

The test flights were affordable in the budget NASA requested.

The good news is that the revised Appropriations act may be enough to get some of those flights back in. I'm hoping at least the pad tests can be done.

The technology might be well proven but it's not cheap. Since 3 vehicles funded to completion is now almost certainly off the table it's a moot point about falling seat prices.

You have a very odd idea of what "cheap" means.

COTS/CCiCAP money for Spacex (who I'm most familiar with) has bought them a crew rated LV and a capsule for what $800m? Lockmart have burnt $1Bn+ and still don't have a Support Module just for Orion. How much will it cost to for LAS test, or will NASA write a waiver?

ISS modules were built in Europe. The US government loves it's Atlas V, where do you think the engines come from? Saving money is saving money. There's only so much money to meet the demands for US built space hardware and that goes to big states, not Arkansas.

Interesting point. The RD180 was built in the same part of the world as the Antares 1st stage and its engines. Yet only the design built in the US has any down mass available. So you can outsource and get a lower price. But you don't get the performance, or if you do you don't get redundancy.

Silence does not mean agreement.

If any NASA employee is against SLS speak now or forever hold your peace.

*crickets*

NASA is a mature federal bureaucracy, not a marriage ceremony. You're either startlingly naive about how such institutions operate, very trusting in human nature  or an outright troll.

It's not my place to challenge NASAs mission selection. Has Obama said anything about the matter?

You don't seem backward about coming forward on other matters.

Again that rather depends on which NASA centres you're talking about.

If NASA wants payloads for HSF they need to ask for them. Charlie has found a way around needing a DSH by moving the goal (NEA) closer.

Or perhaps they don't trust SLS will stay within budget and swallow anything that the get allocated to a payload because, let's just remember SLS is the only programme that is hard wired into the funding.

In case you haven't noticed there has been an across the board downsizing of the NASA budget and a rocket that big needs a huge payload to justify it. Given that situation anyone pushing for serious funding for a massive payload to stick on top of SLS would be a) delusional b) on mind altering drugs.


They may be forced to cut everything else but SLS has to continue its snails pace death march to 1st launch.

Unless of course the rest of the Legislature decides to stick a stake through its heart and take the remaining funding away from NASA for something perceived to be more "useful."

By that point of course Commercial Crew will be a memory, as shortly will NASA's HSF division.

Of course as non Americans this is an academic exercise for us. I imagine US readers are less sanguine.

[gospacex]

Because giving more money to a grossly inefficient organization is a questionable strategy.

And that is over the top.  Without this organization, your handle would be just "Go"

Without police, there would be anarchy on the streets. Does it mean that criticizing police should be off-limits?

[Prober]

Alternatively CCiCAP starts carrying the full 6 ISS crew at seat prices substantially below the Russian price (which continues to rise).

Nits: (a) ISS crew will be carried out under a CTS contract (crew transportation system) not CCiCap; (b) the full ISS USOS crew is 4 (4 seats x 2 flights/yr = 8 seats/yr), not 6; (c) whether that marginal CTS pricing for those ISS crew seats will be substantially lower than Soyuz is speculative at best.

If true this brings up another point.  We are loosing (1) crew members time on the ISS x late 2015 onward.  We can't recover that time, so we need a fix now.
 

[john smith 19]

Because giving more money to a grossly inefficient organization is a questionable strategy.

And that is over the top.  Without this organization, your handle would be just "Go"

Without police, there would be anarchy on the streets. Does it mean that criticizing police should be off-limits?

Note, without Ames developing the PICA ablative (and supplying test facilities) their would be no PICAX ablative for Dragon capsules. Those facilities are quite specialized and very expensive to duplicate.

OTOH I would suggest some sections of NASA do seem to consume a huge amount of cash for certain programmes without showing very much progress in achieving their goals.

I'll note in 2006 NASA (as an institution) had built 3 generations of capsule (Mercury, Gemini and Apollo), Spacex had built none. In 7 years they have gone from no history to a partly human rated capsule capable of carrying live cargo poised to upgrade to a human carrying capsule, learning (and applying) everything they needed in that time.

People will say it's not a fair comparison, apples to oranges etc but you'd expect NASAto have something flying by this time, given NASA substantial existing knowledge of the size of the problems it would face.

Note it's likely most of what Spacex know they got from NASA. It's not some "secret stash" of information only they have access to. But it's NASA's to begin with. It's not a race but given NASA's intimate connection with all this information it's not unreasonable to expect a block 1 vehicle in orbit by now. The fact they have not (for a programme which essentially started in 2004) suggests some kind of institutional problem between getting the idea (and the funding) and actually implementing it. I think that's a fair criticism.

[Jim]

Because giving more money to a grossly inefficient organization is a questionable strategy.

And that is over the top.  Without this organization, your handle would be just "Go"

Without police, there would be anarchy on the streets. Does it mean that criticizing police should be off-limits?

Never said anything about criticizing.  Just sweeping unsubstantiated and biased statements

[Lar]

Never said anything about criticizing.  Just sweeping unsubstantiated and biased statements

What part of "giving more money to a grossly  inefficient organization is a questionable strategy" do you disagree with?

[beancounter]

Because giving more money to a grossly inefficient organization is a questionable strategy.

And that is over the top.  Without this organization, your handle would be just "Go"

Without police, there would be anarchy on the streets. Does it mean that criticizing police should be off-limits?

Note, without Ames developing the PICA ablative (and supplying test facilities) their would be no PICAX ablative for Dragon capsules. Those facilities are quite specialized and very expensive to duplicate.

OTOH I would suggest some sections of NASA do seem to consume a huge amount of cash for certain programmes without showing very much progress in achieving their goals.

I'll note in 2006 NASA (as an institution) had built 3 generations of capsule (Mercury, Gemini and Apollo), Spacex had built none. In 7 years they have gone from no history to a partly human rated capsule capable of carrying live cargo poised to upgrade to a human carrying capsule, learning (and applying) everything they needed in that time.

People will say it's not a fair comparison, apples to oranges etc but you'd expect NASAto have something flying by this time, given NASA substantial existing knowledge of the size of the problems it would face.

Note it's likely most of what Spacex know they got from NASA. It's not some "secret stash" of information only they have access to. But it's NASA's to begin with. It's not a race but given NASA's intimate connection with all this information it's not unreasonable to expect a block 1 vehicle in orbit by now. The fact they have not (for a programme which essentially started in 2004) suggests some kind of institutional problem between getting the idea (and the funding) and actually implementing it. I think that's a fair criticism.

Yes I'd agree that it's fair criticism.  More than fair in fact.  NASA has no answers to this other than to continually cite lack of funding.  Given the SpaceX example, this does not seem a valid argument.

[spectre9]

You're rather fond of that verbal sleight-of-hand, implying that somehow Commercial Crew is hugely expensive.

As we know from Shuttle if NASA wanted it badly enough they'd just sign a safety waiver (which they did on numerous items on Shuttle launches).
Of course that system was NASA's direct brain child.

The test flights were affordable in the budget NASA requested.

It is hugely expensive to build a man rated spacecraft to NASA standards. 800m until 2018 is a lot of money.

I could argue that the spacecraft being developed are too big and the reason for that is forced bloat to meet the requirements. 7 seats, big batteries, LAS that pulls the ever increasing mass away from a potential disaster.

Comparing to Orion isn't possible. Orion is designed to go much deeper into space without any support from a DSH because NASA isn't sure they'll ever be able to afford one.

Interesting point. The RD180 was built in the same part of the world as the Antares 1st stage and its engines. Yet only the design built in the US has any down mass available. So you can outsource and get a lower price. But you don't get the performance, or if you do you don't get redundancy.

There's a very small market for cargo down mass. It's mostly urine samples from what I can tell. SpaceX isn't making a big killing there but yes it is good that particular capability is not outsourced.

Redundancy? Making space hardware work properly the first time seems to happen more often than not these days. I don't even know what the last rocket system to fail on an initial launch was. Delta III? Even in Asia things seem to have gone fairly well. When there is an issue it's been sorted quickly. No vehicles are ever ground long.

NASA is a mature federal bureaucracy, not a marriage ceremony. You're either startlingly naive about how such institutions operate, very trusting in human nature  or an outright troll.

If NASA employees are against SLS but not brave enough to speak out they're cowards but that's only my opinion and I might be a troll 

You don't seem backward about coming forward on other matters.

You got me. I question NASAs decisions all the time but that doesn't mean I have any bearing on the selection of a destination. Zubrin has worked his whole life to make the goal Mars and the current situation is the best "Humans to Mars in the 2030s". Not a landing, just "to Mars" whatever that means.

Or perhaps they don't trust SLS will stay within budget and swallow anything that the get allocated to a payload because, let's just remember SLS is the only programme that is hard wired into the funding.

In case you haven't noticed there has been an across the board downsizing of the NASA budget and a rocket that big needs a huge payload to justify it. Given that situation anyone pushing for serious funding for a massive payload to stick on top of SLS would be a) delusional b) on mind altering drugs.


They may be forced to cut everything else but SLS has to continue its snails pace death march to 1st launch.

I used to buy this "payload later" argument. In fact quite recently I was promoting it but it's just not going to happen. ISS isn't going to be splashed soon enough. The SLS program can't be stretched out for 20 years, it just takes too much money to maintain the production line.

Unless of course the rest of the Legislature decides to stick a stake through its heart and take the remaining funding away from NASA for something perceived to be more "useful."

By that point of course Commercial Crew will be a memory, as shortly will NASA's HSF division.

NASA will not stop HSF it's just that the people paying the bills want NASA to build all their own hardware. It's a big clash of ideals and not one that will be sorted any time soon.

Of course as non Americans this is an academic exercise for us. I imagine US readers are less sanguine.

Are you Australian? If you are you should be proud enough to display it on your profile. There's no need to hide. Space has no borders.

[guckyfan]

I could argue that the spacecraft being developed are too big and the reason for that is forced bloat to meet the requirements. 7 seats, big batteries, LAS that pulls the ever increasing mass away from a potential disaster.

I have a question for that. Is 7 seats a requirement by NASA? One would think so because all three vehicles offer 7. But I have found only a document where 4 seats were mentioned as requirement.

[spectre9]

I could argue that the spacecraft being developed are too big and the reason for that is forced bloat to meet the requirements. 7 seats, big batteries, LAS that pulls the ever increasing mass away from a potential disaster.

I have a question for that. Is 7 seats a requirement by NASA? One would think so because all three vehicles offer 7. But I have found only a document where 4 seats were mentioned as requirement.

I don't actually have a definitive answer to that so I will answer your question with a question.

If the requirement was 4 seats why did all 3 providers make sure they could squeeze in 7?

If anybody knows where the full requirements can be found that would be much appreciated.