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

[RocketmanUS]

Just to your post.
I'm saying any company should deliver on time.
For the thread we need a company that can deliver on time what is ordered. Who can and is willing to do so?

Fine, I'll consider it a new thread then... whether or not a company delivers on time is entirely dependent upon the incentives of the contract. If you award them the follow on contract before they've even finished the current contract, then it's pretty obvious that they can take all the time in the world, and they will, the whole time claiming that they couldn't possibly go any faster. The question you gotta ask yourself is: does anyone actually want delivery on time? Or is NASA just another avenue for gaining access to taxpayer money?

The last question is the right one. Unfortunately to true as it has become. If there was only the crew delivery contract and the companies had to come up with their own development funds would there be any takes?

Edit:
We give the Russians a contract to deliver crew to the ISS because the have the capability. So if an American company had that ability for the same or less cost would the U.S. government use them?

[Robotbeat]

...because Musk started SpaceX in order to get access to taxpayer money. Right.

[QuantumG]

...because Musk started SpaceX in order to get access to taxpayer money. Right.

Government payloads were in the business plan - if you can call it that - from the very beginning, yes.

It's a means to an end, but what money isn't?

[Garrett]

Their goal is not to just service three customers. If that was their only goal, they wouldn't be doing so much vertical integration and advanced R&D.

I'm not judging them by their stated goals. I'm judging them by the same standard that I judge every other startup. Why should they get special treatment?

They shouldn't. But maybe one should try to nuance their judgement a little bit when it comes to rocket and spaceship start-ups?
Also, earlier you were lamenting that SpaceX had a reduced "incentive to get paying customers" (emphasis mine). I strongly disagreed (they've already got lots of customers), but reading your follow-up posts I assume you meant to emphasize their lack of incentive to service customers.
Again, I would disagree. From listening to Elon and following the SpaceX story, my impression has always been that NASA held SpaceX's hand, so to speak, during the F9 and Dragon development programs. In that context, I'm very doubtful that SpaceX could ever have been in a position to service private companies without having first serviced several NASA missions.

[QuantumG]

Also, earlier you were lamenting that SpaceX had a reduced "incentive to get paying customers" (emphasis mine). I strongly disagreed (they've already got lots of customers), but reading your follow-up posts I assume you meant to emphasize their lack of incentive to service customers.

Until they get something, they're not customers.
 
But that's okay, apparently I'm just a shill for SpaceX anyway.

[Biolawyer]

The Senate Launch System may be the biggest boondoggle in American history.  Perhaps we should start calling it the Solyndra Launch System. 

I figured out long ago it is very hard to do anything with the WRONG tools.  When you don't have the right tools you don't keep trying to fix it with the tools at hand.  It is MUCH easier just to go to the store and BUY the right tools for the job.

SLS is overpowered and was NEVER designed to take humans into orbit.  Why do we need a 250,000 pound launcher for a 50,000 pound capsule?  It makes sense ONLY as a cargo carrier.  Commercial space craft WERE designed to launch humans into orbit.  They are the right tools.  SLS is not.

The $424M sent to Russia would have had a human rated Falcon AND Falcon Heavy in less than 2 years.  The decision is not a catch-22 but an incredible, almost unbelievable total disaster. 

[renclod]

...because Musk started SpaceX in order to get access to taxpayer money. Right.

In 2006 SpaceX filed complaints with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission over pending approval of the United Launch Alliance (ULA).

[Chris Bergin]

The Senate Launch System may be the biggest boondoggle in American history.

You'd help your points if you didn't preface it with silly comments such as above.

It will also help me decide if you're here to add value or troll.

[Lar]

The Senate Launch System may be the biggest boondoggle in American history.

You'd help your points if you didn't preface it with silly comments such as above.

It will also help me decide if you're here to add value or troll.

SLS *is* a huge boondoggle. What is the fully loaded cost per pound to LEO averaged over say (to be charitable) the first 5 flights? Hint, it has more zeroes than many other systems.

"Biggest" might be hyperbole, because there have been other, bigger ones. But it's not a silly comment. It might be off topic though. Except that people keep suggesting that it could be a crew launch system for ISS.

[deltaV]

SLS is overpowered and was NEVER designed to take humans into orbit.  Why do we need a 250,000 pound launcher for a 50,000 pound capsule?  It makes sense ONLY as a cargo carrier.  Commercial space craft WERE designed to launch humans into orbit.  They are the right tools.  SLS is not.

The $424M sent to Russia would have had a human rated Falcon AND Falcon Heavy in less than 2 years.  The decision is not a catch-22 but an incredible, almost unbelievable total disaster. 

1. Discussion of whether or not SLS is a good idea presumably belongs in the Space Policy section, not here.

2. I also think SLS should be canceled but your reasons stated here are mostly wrong. SLS has always been designed to carry crew. Sending Orion/MPCV to Earth escape requires a much bigger launcher (or an annoying LEO rendezvous) than sending Orion to LEO does. Have you read the Augustine Commission's report?

[RocketmanUS]

{snip} 

I figured out long ago it is very hard to do anything with the WRONG tools.  When you don't have the right tools you don't keep trying to fix it with the tools at hand.  It is MUCH easier just to go to the store and BUY the right tools for the job.

SLS is overpowered and was NEVER designed to take humans into orbit.  Why do we need a 250,000 pound launcher for a 50,000 pound capsule?  It makes sense ONLY as a cargo carrier.  Commercial space craft WERE designed to launch humans into orbit.  They are the right tools.  SLS is not.

The $424M sent to Russia would have had a human rated Falcon AND Falcon Heavy in less than 2 years.  The decision is not a catch-22 but an incredible, almost unbelievable total disaster. 

I would agree the $424M for SpaceX if they had delivered on time in the past and it would be for Falcon 9 v1.1 and crewed Dragon.

And I still think Atlas V/CST-100 should get full funding over the other two as I believe they over the other two would more than likely deliver on time.

The Senate Launch System may be the biggest boondoggle in American history.

You'd help your points if you didn't preface it with silly comments such as above.

It will also help me decide if you're here to add value or troll.

SLS *is* a huge boondoggle. What is the fully loaded cost per pound to LEO averaged over say (to be charitable) the first 5 flights? Hint, it has more zeroes than many other systems.

"Biggest" might be hyperbole, because there have been other, bigger ones. But it's not a silly comment. It might be off topic though. Except that people keep suggesting that it could be a crew launch system for ISS.

As we know if we had proper funding for commercial crew we would not need SLS/Orion as a backup for ISS crew.

The thing is for now the priority needs to be LEO crew taxi's over the crewed BLEO program, get our foundations set up first ( infrastructure ). The VSE and CxP should not have been started until we first had a replacement for cargo and crew to LEO ( shuttle replacement ).

[john smith 19]

I would agree the $424M for SpaceX if they had delivered on time in the past and it would be for Falcon 9 v1.1 and crewed Dragon.

And I still think Atlas V/CST-100 should get full funding over the other two as I believe they over the other two would more than likely deliver on time.

Why? The fact the name above the door is the same as the one that built human spaceflight hardware decades ago is no guarantee they have that experience today. 

If Boeing were to build it I would expect it would be a complete cost plus deal and they'd expect NASA to pick up the cost of any over runs.

Currently Boeing has no experience of ISS ops or interfacing, no experience of capsule design (IIRC LM have been building Orion) and no experience of interfacing their capsule to the Atlas V I think schedule and cost over runs would be practically guaranteed.

As we know if we had proper funding for commercial crew we would not need SLS/Orion as a backup for ISS crew.

Probably true but this is not going to happen and the changes to the NASA funding law means that you can't take money out of the SLS budget and put it into the CCiCAP budget (or vice versa).

The thing is for now the priority needs to be LEO crew taxi's over the crewed BLEO program, get our foundations set up first ( infrastructure ). The VSE and CxP should not have been started until we first had a replacement for cargo and crew to LEO ( shuttle replacement ).

Except the SLS is the only programme NASA has a legal requirement to continue.

In NASA HSF everything else is expendable (that's CCiCAP and Orion and the Orion SM) and SLS will continue its underfunded cost plus trip to first launch, whenever that will be, barring changes to the Legislature and NASA senior management.   

[RocketmanUS]

I would agree the $424M for SpaceX if they had delivered on time in the past and it would be for Falcon 9 v1.1 and crewed Dragon.

And I still think Atlas V/CST-100 should get full funding over the other two as I believe they over the other two would more than likely deliver on time.

Why? The fact the name above the door is the same as the one that built human spaceflight hardware decades ago is no guarantee they have that experience today. 

If Boeing were to build it I would expect it would be a complete cost plus deal and they'd expect NASA to pick up the cost of any over runs.

Currently Boeing has no experience of ISS ops or interfacing, no experience of capsule design (IIRC LM have been building Orion) and no experience of interfacing their capsule to the Atlas V I think schedule and cost over runs would be practically guaranteed.

As we know if we had proper funding for commercial crew we would not need SLS/Orion as a backup for ISS crew.

Probably true but this is not going to happen and the changes to the NASA funding law means that you can't take money out of the SLS budget and put it into the CCiCAP budget (or vice versa).

The thing is for now the priority needs to be LEO crew taxi's over the crewed BLEO program, get our foundations set up first ( infrastructure ). The VSE and CxP should not have been started until we first had a replacement for cargo and crew to LEO ( shuttle replacement ).

Except the SLS is the only programme NASA has a legal requirement to continue.

In NASA HSF everything else is expendable (that's CCiCAP and Orion and the Orion SM) and SLS will continue its underfunded cost plus trip to first launch, whenever that will be, barring changes to the Legislature and NASA senior management.   

Going on what Boeing and Lockheed have done in the past compared to SpaceX. Dream Chaser would still use Atlas V however I have less confidence in that mini shuttle than the capsules ( still would like to see it in service too ).

Not attaching SLS or Orion. Not trying to take funds away from them to another program. Was just saying what I believe we need more since the shuttle was called for retirement, that being cargo and crew transport to LEO.

[Mark S]

The VSE and CxP should not have been started until we first had a replacement for cargo and crew to LEO ( shuttle replacement ).

This is wrong on many levels.

First, VSE was in fact announced as the follow-on program for the Space Shuttle. Shuttle was to be canceled as soon as ISS was complete, due to unsolveable safety problems. So you're saying that they shouldn't have announced the replacement for Shuttle until they had a replacement for Shuttle. It would be more logical to say that we shouldn't have canceled Shuttle until a replacement capability was in place.

Second, CxP was the Bush Administration's implementation of VSE. VSE was the policy, CxP was planned to be its embodiment. Overly expensive architecture and poorly thought out design changes were its undoing. Along with McCain losing to Obama.

Third, the Obama Administration delayed any possible replacement for Shuttle by at least two years, maybe more. They knew even before Inauguration Day 2009 that a Shuttle replacement was a high priority. Instead of acting quickly, they dragged things out by every possible means. And they're still dragging their feet, and trying (every single year) to re-prioritize Commercial over SLS/MPCV in the budgeting process.

We would be much further along if Obama had acted decisively in 2009 to get NASA quickly back on track with a restructured CxP program, instead of canceling it outright. Thank goodness for the Senate and PL.111-267, which mandated a balanced dual-track approach with SLS/MPCV and Commercial, or we'd still be twiddling our thumbs.

So the "gap", which had been predicted to be 2-3 years in 2008, has now grown to at least ten years (first manned SLS flight no earlier than 2021).

We're paying Russia to do NASA's job because the Administration doesn't want NASA doing its own job.

Mark S.

[JBF]

This is wrong on many levels.

First, VSE was in fact announced as the follow-on program for the Space Shuttle. Shuttle was to be canceled as soon as ISS was complete, due to unsolveable safety problems. So you're saying that they shouldn't have announced the replacement for Shuttle until they had a replacement for Shuttle. It would be more logical to say that we shouldn't have canceled Shuttle until a replacement capability was in place.

Second, CxP was the Bush Administration's implementation of VSE. VSE was the policy, CxP was planned to be its embodiment. Overly expensive architecture and poorly thought out design changes were its undoing. Along with McCain losing to Obama.

Third, the Obama Administration delayed any possible replacement for Shuttle by at least two years, maybe more. They knew even before Inauguration Day 2009 that a Shuttle replacement was a high priority. Instead of acting quickly, they dragged things out by every possible means. And they're still dragging their feet, and trying (every single year) to re-prioritize Commercial over SLS/MPCV in the budgeting process.

We would be much further along if Obama had acted decisively in 2009 to get NASA quickly back on track with a restructured CxP program, instead of canceling it outright. Thank goodness for the Senate and PL.111-267, which mandated a balanced dual-track approach with SLS/MPCV and Commercial, or we'd still be twiddling our thumbs.

So the "gap", which had been predicted to be 2-3 years in 2008, has now grown to at least ten years (first manned SLS flight no earlier than 2021).

We're paying Russia to do NASA's job because the Administration doesn't want NASA doing its own job.

Mark S.

No We would be much further along if Congress had gone with the President and fully funded Commercial

[Lar]

No We would be much further along if Congress had gone with the President and fully funded Commercial

Pains me to admit Obama's guys are right about anything whatever, but roger that.

[Lars_J]

I would agree the $424M for SpaceX if they had delivered on time in the past and it would be for Falcon 9 v1.1 and crewed Dragon.

And I still think Atlas V/CST-100 should get full funding over the other two as I believe they over the other two would more than likely deliver on time.

When was the last time Boeing delivered any aerospace project on time? Can you tell us?

[Jim]

When was the last time Boeing delivered any aerospace project on time? Can you tell us?

Many spacecraft.

[RocketmanUS]

The VSE and CxP should not have been started until we first had a replacement for cargo and crew to LEO ( shuttle replacement ).

This is wrong on many levels.

First, VSE was in fact announced as the follow-on program for the Space Shuttle. Shuttle was to be canceled as soon as ISS was complete, due to unsolveable safety problems. So you're saying that they shouldn't have announced the replacement for Shuttle until they had a replacement for Shuttle. It would be more logical to say that we shouldn't have canceled Shuttle until a replacement capability was in place.

Second, CxP was the Bush Administration's implementation of VSE. VSE was the policy, CxP was planned to be its embodiment. Overly expensive architecture and poorly thought out design changes were its undoing. Along with McCain losing to Obama.

Third, the Obama Administration delayed any possible replacement for Shuttle by at least two years, maybe more. They knew even before Inauguration Day 2009 that a Shuttle replacement was a high priority. Instead of acting quickly, they dragged things out by every possible means. And they're still dragging their feet, and trying (every single year) to re-prioritize Commercial over SLS/MPCV in the budgeting process.

We would be much further along if Obama had acted decisively in 2009 to get NASA quickly back on track with a restructured CxP program, instead of canceling it outright. Thank goodness for the Senate and PL.111-267, which mandated a balanced dual-track approach with SLS/MPCV and Commercial, or we'd still be twiddling our thumbs.

So the "gap", which had been predicted to be 2-3 years in 2008, has now grown to at least ten years (first manned SLS flight no earlier than 2021).

We're paying Russia to do NASA's job because the Administration doesn't want NASA doing its own job.

Mark S.

As shuttle was called for retirement they should have funded it's replacement. The funding for the BLEO crew program ( Lunar/Mars ) should have taken place after the shuttle replacement was already flying. Funding into Ares 1 and Orion is one of the problems that has caused us not to have the replacement already. The Lunar/Mars program should have only been in the study phase ( looking for ideas on how to do it ). There should have been a competition for ideas on how to do this. We could have ended up with the Direct's Jupiter instead of the Ares 1/5. Other options were Atlas phase II, side mount ( shuttle C like ), ect.

The point is we need to focus on what we need now and not on what might be more than 10 years down the road.

America needs it's own crew and cargo access to LEO. The world needs at least two providers for crew and cargo to LEO.

You do bring up some good points.

I would agree the $424M for SpaceX if they had delivered on time in the past and it would be for Falcon 9 v1.1 and crewed Dragon.

And I still think Atlas V/CST-100 should get full funding over the other two as I believe they over the other two would more than likely deliver on time.

When was the last time Boeing delivered any aerospace project on time? Can you tell us?

I do post over the other two options and I would like to see all three in service sooner than later ( that includes commercial use outside of government contracts ).

[Prober]

seems like this thread keeps on turning into a "blame game" thread when we have all these creative minds out there.