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

[QuantumG]

Fiscal Year End 2009 started on October 1, 2008. The 2008 NASA Authorization Act was enacted later that month on October 16, 2008. But the process had started much earlier than that (the House passed its version of the bill in May of 2008; the Senate passed an amended version at the end of September). So NASA knew what was coming for commercial crew before FY 2009 started.

So you agree you're wrong but want to keep playing.. okay.

Scolese didn't decide that CCDev had to have two commercial crew providers, Congress decided this as I explained above in section 902 of the 2008 NASA Authorization Act (the amount for commercial crew was supposed to be $100M for FY 2009 in the NASA Authorization Act). NASA implemented section 902 of the 2008 NASA Authorization Act later than it was supposed to since it was only funded through the 2009 stimulus bill.

Exactly! We're talking about the $150M allocated for COTS-D in the FY09 budget request. Nelson is asking why they didn't enact COTS-D with the money they were given to do that. He's saying that if they had they'd have been able to contribute the stimulus bill funding to the already enacted option, completing the required funding for two years and possibly halving the schedule.

There was a war going on here, between Nelson and the other senators, to get COTS-D funded. He fought gallantly for years and finally won, only to have NASA redirect the funding and delay long enough for new legislation to be passed which prevented the option from being activated. It couldn't be more clear, thanks to Scolese's straight talking.

[RocketmanUS]

And COTS-D was never intented to be carried out. 

Then why was it there?
Then what was to replace shuttle crew to LEO once they canceled the LEO version of Orion ( CEV )?

Anyway they are way past there due date!

I say lets get one flying and then others. I think CST-100/Atlas V HR based on the companies history of launches.

[pathfinder_01]

And COTS-D was never intented to be carried out. 

Then why was it there?
Then what was to replace shuttle crew to LEO once they canceled the LEO version of Orion ( CEV )?

COTS-D was the Bush administration. Orion was originally to do both cargo and crew to the ISS but COTS took the cargo role from Orion(NASA did it to save money to direct at Orion). Obama attempted to cancel CXP and Orion, Congress shoved SLS/Orion on to NASA but went along with Obama's Preference for Commercial crew. Orion and Ares-1 were running late very late and at best would have been ready Circa 2015-2017. There was always going to be a gap once Orion fell behind and the Shuttle was canceled(and frankly the ISS has been dependent on Soyuz since day 1 because the US lifeboat was cancelled..).

[RocketmanUS]

And COTS-D was never intented to be carried out. 

Then why was it there?
Then what was to replace shuttle crew to LEO once they canceled the LEO version of Orion ( CEV )?

COTS-D was the Bush administration. Orion was originally to do both cargo and crew to the ISS but COTS took the cargo role from Orion(NASA did it to save money to direct at Orion). Obama attempted to cancel CXP and Orion, Congress shoved SLS/Orion on to NASA but went along with Obama's Preference for Commercial crew. Orion and Ares-1 were running late very late and at best would have been ready Circa 2015-2017. There was always going to be a gap once Orion fell behind and the Shuttle was canceled(and frankly the ISS has been dependent on Soyuz since day 1 because the US lifeboat was cancelled..).

From what I understood back then was COTS was brought in as a back up plan to Orion ( LEO ) with $500M that NASA had in a fund ( I think that fund was money they could choose what to do with ).

So we have started to get one supplier with Dragon and now waiting on it's launcher. While we wait still for the 3rd winner of the COTS competition to finish it's qualifications flights.

Now we are spending millions more trying to get a commercial crew provider to 1st launch. Good think ISS has Soyuz or it would be unmanned.

[Lar]

I say lets get on flying and then others. I think CST-100/Atlas V HR based on the companies history of launches.

Worst choice of the three, in my view.

[john smith 19]

There was a war going on here, between Nelson and the other senators, to get COTS-D funded. He fought gallantly for years and finally won, only to have NASA redirect the funding and delay long enough for new legislation to be passed which prevented the option from being activated. It couldn't be more clear, thanks to Scolese's straight talking.

You really make NASA sound like a rougue agency that follows the law controlling it when it suits some parts of it.

The NID of space exploration?   

[QuantumG]

You really make NASA sound like a rougue agency that follows the law controlling it when it suits some parts of it.

You can't argue with history.

[yg1968]

Fiscal Year End 2009 started on October 1, 2008. The 2008 NASA Authorization Act was enacted later that month on October 16, 2008. But the process had started much earlier than that (the House passed its version of the bill in May of 2008; the Senate passed an amended version at the end of September). So NASA knew what was coming for commercial crew before FY 2009 started.

So you agree you're wrong but want to keep playing.. okay.

Scolese didn't decide that CCDev had to have two commercial crew providers, Congress decided this as I explained above in section 902 of the 2008 NASA Authorization Act (the amount for commercial crew was supposed to be $100M for FY 2009 in the NASA Authorization Act). NASA implemented section 902 of the 2008 NASA Authorization Act later than it was supposed to since it was only funded through the 2009 stimulus bill.

Exactly! We're talking about the $150M allocated for COTS-D in the FY09 budget request. Nelson is asking why they didn't enact COTS-D with the money they were given to do that. He's saying that if they had they'd have been able to contribute the stimulus bill funding to the already enacted option, completing the required funding for two years and possibly halving the schedule.

There was a war going on here, between Nelson and the other senators, to get COTS-D funded. He fought gallantly for years and finally won, only to have NASA redirect the funding and delay long enough for new legislation to be passed which prevented the option from being activated. It couldn't be more clear, thanks to Scolese's straight talking.

Nelson is saying that NASA should have contributed $150M to commercial crew in FY 2009 and another $150M in the stimulus bill. But what he is calling COTS-D is actually the section 902 commercial crew program of the 2008 NASA Authorization bill (not the original 2006 COTS-D). Scolese had to implement a program that had at least two participants according to that legislation. The Senate passed the 2008 NASA Authorization bill in late September 2008 (it was signed by the President on October 15 2008). Fiscal year 2009 started on October 1 2008. NASA had to implement what was in that legislation. Scolese had no choice. He had to follow what was in the 2008 NASA Authorization bill which was different from the original 2006 COTS-D.

[yg1968]

You really make NASA sound like a rougue agency that follows the law controlling it when it suits some parts of it.

You can't argue with history.

You have to remember that Shelby was also preventing funds from being appropriated to commercial crew. Shelby managed to reduce the funding for commercial crew in the stimulus bill down to $50M. There was a disconnect between the Authorizers and the Appropriaters on this issue. 

[jnc]

There was a disconnect between the Authorizers and the Appropriaters on this issue. 

That whole bifucation is useless, stupid replication that ought to be ditched (across the board).

Noel

[renclod]

Remember Elon went in front of Congress and said it would cost 20Millon per seat (based on 7 SpaceX design).  ...
 

Also based on 4 flights per year IIRC.

[john smith 19]

Worst choice of the three, in my view.

But.

10s of successful launches behind it already, albeit at very substantial costs.

Only other vehicle to get a full award.

Realistically it and Dragon are the front runners. 

[Mark S]

And now we are coming up with conspiracy theories?  Might as well as say that NASA faked the moon landings too.

At this point, they may as well have faked the landings. What's the point if we're never going back?

[RocketmanUS]

Worst choice of the three, in my view.

But.

10s of successful launches behind it already, albeit at very substantial costs.

Only other vehicle to get a full award.

Realistically it and Dragon are the front runners. 

Opinion(s) far enough.

I choose the CST-100/Atlas V do to the companies record of launches and I believe if they were fully funded they would get the job done on time ( at least if kept in the public eye month to month, on the prime time news ).

Dream Chaser would still need the Atlas V ( my opinion I think it has more work ahead of it than CST-100).

SpaceX look to be more interested in their RLV than crew Dragon ( my opinion ).

[Lar]

I choose the CST-100/Atlas V do to the companies record of launches and I believe if they were fully funded they would get the job done on time ( at least if kept in the public eye month to month, on the prime time news ).

Dream Chaser would still need the Atlas V ( my opinion I think it has more work ahead of it than CST-100).

SpaceX look to be more interested in their RLV than crew Dragon ( my opinion ).

CST-100 doesn't seem like it's very far along, or Boeing are very lax in the PR department... I have no worries about Atlas, only the capsule. And I think DC is farther ahead and Dragon a better capsule.

SpaceX may seem more interested but there's also more money there to be made. Not sure why you would think they are lacking interest enough in crew Dragon.

[jnc]

At this point, they may as well have faked the landings. What's the point if we're never going back?

Touché!

Noel

[QuantumG]

Nelson is saying that NASA should have contributed $150M to commercial crew in FY 2009 and another $150M in the stimulus bill. But what he is calling COTS-D is actually the section 902 commercial crew program of the 2008 NASA Authorization bill (not the original 2006 COTS-D).

Wrong. Prove that Nelson is saying something other than what he is saying. He said COTS-D and he meant COTS-D. It's right there in black and white and the only way you can argue is by changing the meaning of words.

Scolese had to implement a program that had at least two participants according to that legislation.

That legislation didn't even exist when Griffin requested the $150M for COTS-D that Nelson got pushed through.

[Jim]

I say lets get on flying and then others. I think CST-100/Atlas V HR based on the companies history of launches.

Worst choice of the three, in my view.

Unsubstantiated, even "in your view".  It is not based on logic, data or knowledge.

[Jim]

And now we are coming up with conspiracy theories?  Might as well as say that NASA faked the moon landings too.

At this point, they may as well have faked the landings. What's the point if we're never going back?

It accomplished its goal, to beat the Soviets.  That was the point, and nothing more. 

[yg1968]

Nelson is saying that NASA should have contributed $150M to commercial crew in FY 2009 and another $150M in the stimulus bill. But what he is calling COTS-D is actually the section 902 commercial crew program of the 2008 NASA Authorization bill (not the original 2006 COTS-D).

Wrong. Prove that Nelson is saying something other than what he is saying. He said COTS-D and he meant COTS-D. It's right there in black and white and the only way you can argue is by changing the meaning of words.

Scolese had to implement a program that had at least two participants according to that legislation.

That legislation didn't even exist when Griffin requested the $150M for COTS-D that Nelson got pushed through.

I decided to look it up. The NASA FY Budget 2009 said that COTS-D was not funded. The FY 2009 Appropriation bill did not fund COTS-D either. COTS-D was an option that was never funded.

Currently, there is no acquisition strategy for Capability D (crew transport).

See page 399 (Exp-46):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/210019main_NASA_FY09_Budget_Estimates.pdf

Commercial orbital transportation services (COTS).—For fiscal year 2009, the bill provides $153,045,000 for COTS program elements A through C, a reduction of $20,000,000 from the request. The reduction is taken without prejudice to the program, and is based on NASA’s estimated expenditures for fiscal year 2009 while accounting for program management costs and anticipated payments to industry partners who successfully meet milestones in current Space Act agreements

See page 355:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-111JPRT47494/pdf/CPRT-111JPRT47494-DivisionB.pdf

However, funding was provided for commercial crew in the 2008 NASA Authorization Act and the amount was for $100M (not $150M). However, an amount of $150M was discussed as part of the stimulus bill in 2009 but this amount was eventually reduced to $50M by Senator Shelby.