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

[Prober]

Anyone wish to post about real fixes to the problem?

The solution is kind of related to the discussion that we were having:
Solution A- increase funding to $821M per year or
Solution B- Continue under SAAs as long as possible and reduce paperwork to a minimum.

Both solutions will be difficult to implement politically. But Solution A is probably easier to push than B at this point. 

How about an out of the box Solution C or D?
 
Sorry to say but no one in the media is talking about the debt limit increase mess coming on in a few days.  Money might fix this problem but I just don't see that as a realistic fix.
 

[yg1968]

Anyone wish to post about real fixes to the problem?

The solution is kind of related to the discussion that we were having:
Solution A- increase funding to $821M per year or
Solution B- Continue under SAAs as long as possible and reduce paperwork to a minimum.

Both solutions will be difficult to implement politically. But Solution A is probably easier to push than B at this point. 

How about an out of the box Solution C or D?
 
Sorry to say but no one in the media is talking about the debt limit increase mess coming on in a few days.  Money might fix this problem but I just don't see that as a realistic fix.
 

It seems like the debt ceiling deadline has been pushed to September:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/26/news/economy/debt-ceiling/index.html

[guckyfan]

How about an out of the box Solution C or D?
 

What might that be?

Assuming the pad-abort and max-q  abort tests by SpaceX go as planned. Then what would be wrong to fly Dragon with crew after integration of the Paragon ECLSS and installing seats? Seems possible to me some time next year. What about the docking ports and procedure?

Would that be a solution C or D? Or would it be solution B, cutting paperwork? Or is there anything seriously wrong that I miss? Genuine question, not rhetorical.

[Prober]

How about an out of the box Solution C or D?
 

What might that be?

Assuming the pad-abort and max-q  abort tests by SpaceX go as planned. Then what would be wrong to fly Dragon with crew after integration of the Paragon ECLSS and installing seats? Seems possible to me some time next year. What about the docking ports and procedure?

Would that be a solution C or D? Or would it be solution B, cutting paperwork? Or is there anything seriously wrong that I miss? Genuine question, not rhetorical.

Sounds like the sooner the better to me. 

[Prober]

Anyone wish to post about real fixes to the problem?

The solution is kind of related to the discussion that we were having:
Solution A- increase funding to $821M per year or
Solution B- Continue under SAAs as long as possible and reduce paperwork to a minimum.

Both solutions will be difficult to implement politically. But Solution A is probably easier to push than B at this point. 

How about an out of the box Solution C or D?
 
Sorry to say but no one in the media is talking about the debt limit increase mess coming on in a few days.  Money might fix this problem but I just don't see that as a realistic fix.
 

It seems like the debt ceiling deadline has been pushed to September:
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/26/news/economy/debt-ceiling/index.html

will see, US Treasury reports $113B surplus in April  (sounds better)
http://news.yahoo.com/us-treasury-reports-113b-surplus-180737732.html
 
Catch the surplus quick before it disappears.   

[QuantumG]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704726104575290604217670696.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

Pasztor got a bit confused

Bahahaha.. you're quoting Andy Pasztor at me? REALLY?

See also this article where Musk's estimates for commercial crew development went from $500M to $1B:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1101/18spacex/

"If a reasonable number of test articles and abort flights are assumed, then the total development cost to get crew to station and meet all the NASA requirements is probably around $1 billion and three years from initial contract award," Musk told Spaceflight Now Monday. [...] Musk acknowledged his estimates are "a bit fuzzy" and will depend on the safety requirements levied by NASA. He has long publicly disclosed it would cost roughly $500 million for the hardware modifications themselves, but a "huge variable is what level of testing is required, how many tons of paperwork and how many qualification articles need to be built," Musk said, emphasizing extras could push the cost closer to $1 billion.

Yes, exactly. COTS-D was a straight-up "just demonstrate you can fly astronauts" with minimum paperwork and no requirement to prove undefined and unspecified human ratings. After COTS-D, humans would have flown to the ISS and it would have been very difficult to get the genie back in the bottle.

[QuantumG]

I am not sure what you mean by your comment. CRS was awarded in December 2008 when Griffin was still NASA Administrator (Griffin stepped own in January 2009).

The CRS contracts specifically said that no payments could be made until the COTS demos had been completed. As soon as Griffin was gone, NASA abandoned that requirement and gave both SpaceX and Orbital Sciences some early CRS payments.

Griffin made the point that he was in favour of putting the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow (not at the beginning) for commercial programs.

Which is just blatantly obvious. His successors completely screwed up the incentives of the program and that's why Orbital Sciences still hasn't finished COTS and SpaceX was years late.

Regardless what Griffin said on the Space Show, he appeared on a number of hearings and wrote articles stating that commercial crew companies were not ready and that we shouldn't "bet the farm" on them. It's hard to see him as a proponent of commercial crew because of this.

Why? He was a supporter of his commercial cargo and crew program, where the partners were required to actually perform before they got paid and they got paid for actually delivering hardware or demonstrating a capability, not for completing paperwork.

[QuantumG]

I have trouble believing that he was a strong proponent for it.

Your belief is not required, it's a fact.

I cannot fathom how you can think Griffin was ever friend of commercial space. He allowed it only because he fully expected it to fail, everyone ending up like Kistler.

Then Griffin would came on white horse, bringing his oversized rocket and saying "see, we give them try, they failed *snicker*. Time for goverment calvarly using biggest phallic symbol rocket known to man to rescue HSF!".

This plan of course backfired horribly.

There's no evidence for this.

Also, Kistler failed because NASA broke their confidentiality agreement on the financing milestones. It's very difficult to raise funding when NASA is telling everyone you're broke.

[jnc]

required to actually perform before they got paid and they got paid for actually delivering hardware or demonstrating a capability, not for completing paperwork.

But, but, but... {sputters} .. completing paperwork is what large parts of the mega-bureacracy called the government does. You mean it's not actually productive?

Noel

PS: In fairness to both SpaceX and Orbital, they are actually building stuff and launching rockets...

[QuantumG]

required to actually perform before they got paid and they got paid for actually delivering hardware or demonstrating a capability, not for completing paperwork.

But, but, but... {sputters} .. completing paperwork is what large parts of the mega-bureacracy called the government does. You mean it's not actually productive?

Noel

PS: In fairness to both SpaceX and Orbital, they are actually building stuff and launching rockets...

Heh.. just to be clear, I wasn't making any particular comment on the need or not for paperwork. PDRs and CDRs and test reviews and other things are very important paperwork. The counterproductive thing is paying as much for those paper milestones as the actual hardware and demonstration milestones.

[yg1968]

required to actually perform before they got paid and they got paid for actually delivering hardware or demonstrating a capability, not for completing paperwork.

But, but, but... {sputters} .. completing paperwork is what large parts of the mega-bureacracy called the government does. You mean it's not actually productive?

Noel

PS: In fairness to both SpaceX and Orbital, they are actually building stuff and launching rockets...

Heh.. just to be clear, I wasn't making any particular comment on the need or not for paperwork. PDRs and CDRs and test reviews and other things are very important paperwork. The counterproductive thing is paying as much for those paper milestones as the actual hardware and demonstration milestones.

COTS was front loaded too and also paid for paperwork. The paperwork shows that you have made the work.

[QuantumG]

COTS was front loaded too and also paid for paperwork. The paperwork shows that you have made the work.

Your second statement contradicts your first statement. The milestone payment is for the work, not the paperwork. The CCDev contracts have payments for both!

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}The paperwork shows that you have made the work.

Only if it is a test report by the quality inspector.

[yg1968]

This video isn't new but I don't think that it has been posted before:

[Garrett]

Griffin made the point that he was in favour of putting the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow (not at the beginning) for commercial programs.

Which is just blatantly obvious. His successors completely screwed up the incentives of the program and that's why Orbital Sciences still hasn't finished COTS and SpaceX was years late.

Yeah, that's why those space projects were delayed: monetery incentive positioning. 
(rocket engineering is child's play afterall. I mean, come on, SpaceX took, like, 5 whole years to provide a rocket and a cargo capsule for ISS. They could have completed it way, way quicker if the carrot was placed at the right position)
// endofsacarsm

[QuantumG]

Griffin made the point that he was in favour of putting the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow (not at the beginning) for commercial programs.

Which is just blatantly obvious. His successors completely screwed up the incentives of the program and that's why Orbital Sciences still hasn't finished COTS and SpaceX was years late.

Yeah, that's why those space projects were delayed: monetery incentive positioning. 
(rocket engineering is child's play afterall. I mean, come on, SpaceX took, like, 5 whole years to provide a rocket and a cargo capsule for ISS. They could have completed it way, way quicker if the carrot was placed at the right position)
// endofsacarsm

Thanks for contributing nothing. It doesn't matter how important you think the incentive was, the fact is that it was removed. That can do nothing but slow the approach taken by the partners. In the case of SpaceX, it removed their incentive to get paying customers other than the government and that slowed their rocket development.

[kiba]

Thanks for contributing nothing. It doesn't matter how important you think the incentive was, the fact is that it was removed. That can do nothing but slow the approach taken by the partners. In the case of SpaceX, it removed their incentive to get paying customers other than the government and that slowed their rocket development.

Isn't delays in R&D a fact of life?

[QuantumG]

Isn't delays in R&D a fact of life?

Don't they teach Root Cause Analysis anymore?

[john smith 19]

Yes, exactly. COTS-D was a straight-up "just demonstrate you can fly astronauts" with minimum paperwork and no requirement to prove undefined and unspecified human ratings. After COTS-D, humans would have flown to the ISS and it would have been very difficult to get the genie back in the bottle.

If that assertion is correct that would have been a seismic change in the way that NASA HSF organization operates.

Successful flights under this process (IE without FAR25 poking into every little corner) would provide an existence proof that other ways of delivering the mission (at one hopes would be substantially lower costs) were possible.

Sadly we will never know. But CCiCAP is not dead yet.
 

[Garrett]

Griffin made the point that he was in favour of putting the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow (not at the beginning) for commercial programs.

Which is just blatantly obvious. His successors completely screwed up the incentives of the program and that's why Orbital Sciences still hasn't finished COTS and SpaceX was years late.

Yeah, that's why those space projects were delayed: monetery incentive positioning. 
(rocket engineering is child's play afterall. I mean, come on, SpaceX took, like, 5 whole years to provide a rocket and a cargo capsule for ISS. They could have completed it way, way quicker if the carrot was placed at the right position)
// endofsacarsm

Thanks for contributing nothing. It doesn't matter how important you think the incentive was, the fact is that it was removed. That can do nothing but slow the approach taken by the partners. In the case of SpaceX, it removed their incentive to get paying customers other than the government and that slowed their rocket development.

You keep asserting that SpaceX had a reduced incentive and therefore had a slow rocket development. You are probably one of the only people following the space industry who I've heard suggest that SpaceX's development has been "slow". To me, it just sounds like you're incredibly impatient and your assertions that a different incentive structure would have made SpaceX develop rockets quicker sound like fantasy.

By the way, I do not necessarily favor the current incentive program over any other. All I'm saying is that I think many other factors were responsible for SpaceX's delays, notably their overly optimistic schedule and the challenges involved in developing a new fleet of space vehicles from a blank page.

Also, you need to point to some sort of market survey evidence to back up your claim that SpaceX could have found sufficient alterative customers to satisfy your preferred incentive structure (pot of gold at end). Again, given SpaceX's pretty aggressive entrance into the commercial launch market, you are again one of the only people I've heard suggesting that SpaceX have not been motivated enough to find non-government paying customers.