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

[jnc]

Mike Griffin designed the CxP launch vehicles long before he became Administrator and heading NASA provided him the opportunity and the funding to build them.

I'm interested in finding out more about this - is there a link, or something?

Noel

[woods170]

<snip>
So I wonder what the final price will actually be once CCP makes its first operation flight, which I highly doubt will be on the current schedule. Given the fiscal history of the Congress of late, I don’t think that will happen for an additional 18 to 24 months past the current IMS, or sometime in the 2019-2020 timeframe.

The way things are going now there likely never will be a first flight of CCP. That program is headed for cancellation IMO. If and when CST-100 or crewed Dragon or DreamChaser ever make it to orbit manned, it will be on their respective companies own dimes.

[RocketmanUS]

How much more $ does each of the three need throw 1st crew launch?

Who if any are the non NASA funded competitors?
If any how much more funding and time do they need till 1st crew launch?

What do these companies plan on using these LEO taxi's for beyond ISS?

Would a letter to all the Congressman and news groups do any good?

Hind site:
If we kept shuttle till commercial crew was up and running.
Then retired the shuttle and then started the BLEO program there would have been enough funds and no gap.

COTS program took to long , still not done yet and option D was not used ( replaced by commercial crew program ).

[Prober]

don't you think the Orion could be launched via Delta or Atlas if human rated?

Orion/Atlas - No. Not enough lift capacity.
Orion/Delta - No. The Air Force has no interest in human rating the RS-68.

Commercial Crew cannot happen with Orion - it's too heavy for existing LVs except the Delta-IV. But that vehicle is not human rated so it will never lift a crewed Orion.

The path for Commercial Crew needs to be exactly what is happening - with a spacecraft designed for LEO, and massing FAR less than Orion. Only then are there launch vehicles available to lift them.

by your thinking the CC won't become operational when the ISS is near the eof as little in upgrades is being done.  The whole mess needs to change.

[john smith 19]

The simple and obvious solution is to properly fund NASA at a level that will allow timely completion of both SLS/MPCV and Commercial Crew.

Except NASA's history with previous programmes suggests that will not happen (although CCiCAP has delivered rather more closely to budget then any FAR 25 programme NASA has run recently in HSF).

One must ask, why is this obvious solution not even being discussed? Why is the Administration putting an artificial cap on NASA's budget,

I think you'll find that the Obama Administration put forward a spending request on both SLS and CCiCAP that would have moved things forward faster. Neither were accepted by either Congress or the Senate.

Perhaps you should understand a little more about how the cash is handed out in your government.

I don't have an answer. I just know that the amount of money it would take to properly fund these programs is a pittance. The Administration is derelict in its duty in this regard, and so is Congress for not overriding the President's slow strangulation of NASA.

It's Congress that's grabbing his hands round the throat of NASA and forcing him to throttle harder (if that's not too convoluted a metaphor  )

Of course the real problem is that our entire federal government is so totally dysfunctional now that NASA's problems are lost in the noise.

This sounds a bit closer to the mark. Could it be that this system suits some members of the Legislature to the point they have no desire to see it "fixed" ?

 Surely not.

However, that doesn't absolve the space-related committees in Congress and the Senate from doing their jobs. If NASA needs $19 billion or $20 billion, then it's their job to at least raise the issue.

On the whole it seems the job of members of the Legislature is to press for as much spending in their state or district as possible. Wheather that is the most optimal way to get anything done seems pretty much irrelevant.

I read a lot of RA Heinlein growing up. Might I suggest "Take Back Your Government," his only non fiction work?

[Khadgars]

One must ask, why is this obvious solution not even being discussed? Why is the Administration putting an artificial cap on NASA's budget, when many other federal expenditures, even other discretionary expenditures, are not? Of course the sequester has thrown a spanner in the works for everyone, but NASA has been short-shrifted continuously since well before the sequester took effect.

The Administration is derelict in its duty in this regard, and so is Congress for not overriding the President's slow strangulation of NASA.

You making things up in your head?  The Administration has continually asked for more funding than what Congress has actually allocated.  You may not like the direction the admin is moving NASA, but that is totally different than saying the administration is "starving the beast" intentionally.

[chrisking0997]

This is an epic failure, all around.  A national embarrassment.  If NASA were a professional sports team, the manager would have been fired long ago.

 - Ed Kyle

Actually, it isn't the managers fault, it is the owners (congress and president) and they are dictating to the manager what they want and can run the team to the ground if they so desire.

NASA - the Dallas Cowboys of spaceflight

[john smith 19]

How much more $ does each of the three need throw 1st crew launch?

2 got about $400m, the other about $250m. All 3 probably need about $800m

Who if any are the non NASA funded competitors?

There are none. ATk claimed they'd continue with their SRB +Ariane as a 2nd stage but that died a death.

What do these companies plan on using these LEO taxi's for beyond ISS?

Dragon acting as an on orbit lab, possible taxi to Bigelow inflatable hotel, possible tourist trip round the Moon. CST100 not really got a commercial plan (rated as weak IIRC). DC satellite servicing, Bigelow taxi, possible trips to GTO for sat servicing. On orbit construction.

Would a letter to all the Congressman and news groups do any good?

A coherent polite letter to your Congressperson and Senator to remind them that people are interested in space and it generates a lot of jobs in the US is always a good idea. Especially when votes on space funding are coming up and focused on the area you think should be funded.

COTS program took to long , still not done yet and option D was not used ( replaced by commercial crew program ).

But COTS is running and starting to make deliveries. COTS D should have been funded and that would have kicked off commercial HSF a lot sooner.

However my impression of the NASA HSF function is a vast labyrinthine bureaucracy and it has taken them a great deal of time to (very grudgingly in some cases) come round to the idea that maybe perhaps commercial companies could design a spacecraft that met with NASA approval and could join with their ISS without completely destroying it without every key design decision being taken by NASA.

If I'm right this is a seismic change in how NASA does business.

 
 

[swampcat]

I just know that the amount of money it would take to properly fund these programs is a pittance.

Could you send me one of those pittances? I could use the spare change.

[john smith 19]

Too many people in Congress are fed up with dealing with this airhead white house, on both sides of the aisle. And unfortunately commercial crew is sort of viewed as a White House incentive, so those folks in Congress see it as the enemy, always have.

Certainly some in Congress

I don't think we will get to see CC anymore. They will just keep cutting funding in steps to it to create delays until its so far behind it can be labeled as a failed program and then be cut by the next Administration.

You may think that just means the loss of CCiCAP.

I would suggest that means the beginning of the end of any NASA HSF operation. 

Why bother with Orion, it's first flight is maybe now 2018? SLS 1st launch 2023?

If you want to see NASA retain an HSF programme you'd better start working to convince your representatives that is a very bad idea.

[JBF]

This is what happens when your executive branch is run by naive in-experienced people right down the POTUS. You get a leadership vaccum.

No this is what you get when one political party has decided that if they can't be in charge nothing is going to get done.

[Rocket Science]

A thought is going through my head and I’m just throwing this out there. Is this possibly a form of welfare for the Russian Space Agency keeping them on board with us on ISS? What else would be the rationale if money spent here on Commercial Crew work expedite it....

[Halidon]

This is an epic failure, all around.  A national embarrassment.  If NASA were a professional sports team, the manager would have been fired long ago.

 - Ed Kyle

Actually, it isn't the managers fault, it is the owners (congress and president) and they are dictating to the manager what they want and can run the team to the ground if they so desire.

NASA, the Oakland Raiders of spaceflight.

Seriously, though, Jim's right. There's no Administrator out there, even in our fantasies, who could magically make things work with the directives handed down by those above him/her. Whatever you think of Charlie, the Sequester and the pressure to sacrifice all on the altar of SLS are not coming from his office.

I'm really worried it will only get worse. I'm really worried somewhere between here and the first manned Dragon/CST/DC launches some fools in Congress will manage to turn NASA into the National SLS Administration and the only manned access to space we'll have is a giant vehicle with a giant price tag and no budget room to DO ANYTHING with it.

[clongton]

Mike Griffin designed the CxP launch vehicles long before he became Administrator and heading NASA provided him the opportunity and the funding to build them.

I'm interested in finding out more about this - is there a link, or something?

Noel

Noel, there is litterally tons of information out there on this. But for openers, try here:
 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategies/AdvisoryGroupReports/garriott_griffin_2004.pdf

Ares-I is even shown. What became the Ares-V is not shown but is discussed.
This paper was published in July 2004 and was the brainchild of Dr. Mike Griffin (primary) and former astronaut Owen Garriott.

[docmordrid]

My $0.02

There is one thing that congresscritters cannot stand: the light of day, meaning uncomfortably questioning news stories.

Right now the purchase of $70M Russian seats is in the abstract as there is no current US alternative. However, as soon as a CCP participant actually flies crew the optics change radically to "why pay the Russians $million$ when there is a flying US alternative?"

This is when pressure tactics by a few very noisy people getting in front of cameras can do the most good. Metaphors can be applied; depending on Aeroflot to transport troops instead of the US Transportation Command, etc. The more outrageous, the better. It's turning Congresses own tactics back on them.

[joek]

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...

[collectSPACE]

The $424M is for 6 seats. This means $70.7M per seat. The price has gone up again.

According to NASA (as reported by Spaceflight Now), the contract extension folds in other support services that were previously paid for in a separate agreement. Thus, it is not as simple as dividing by the number of seats, nor do we know (from the numbers released alone) how much of an increase, if any, there was to the per seat price.

[edkyle99]

This is an epic failure, all around.  A national embarrassment.  If NASA were a professional sports team, the manager would have been fired long ago.

 - Ed Kyle

Actually, it isn't the managers fault, it is the owners (congress and president) and they are dictating to the manager what they want and can run the team to the ground if they so desire.

NASA, the Oakland Raiders of spaceflight.

Seriously, though, Jim's right. There's no Administrator out there, even in our fantasies, who could magically make things work with the directives handed down by those above him/her. Whatever you think of Charlie, the Sequester and the pressure to sacrifice all on the altar of SLS are not coming from his office.

Charlie should go.  So should Patrick Scheuermann, head of MSFC.  So should Mike Coats, head of JSC.  So should all of them, and their deputies.  Clean them out, every one, especially at HQ - that building should be emptied and sold off. 

Then, those of us in charge of this country should fire the rest - the Congressmen and Senators who've let this (and plenty of other unforgivable things) happen.  There is no excuse for any of them - NASA or elected official.   

 - Ed Kyle

[Prober]

This is an epic failure, all around.  A national embarrassment.  If NASA were a professional sports team, the manager would have been fired long ago.

 - Ed Kyle

Actually, it isn't the managers fault, it is the owners (congress and president) and they are dictating to the manager what they want and can run the team to the ground if they so desire.

NASA, the Oakland Raiders of spaceflight.

Seriously, though, Jim's right. There's no Administrator out there, even in our fantasies, who could magically make things work with the directives handed down by those above him/her. Whatever you think of Charlie, the Sequester and the pressure to sacrifice all on the altar of SLS are not coming from his office.

Charlie should go.  So should Patrick Scheuermann, head of MSFC.  So should Mike Coats, head of JSC.  So should all of them, and their deputies.  Clean them out, every one, especially at HQ - that building should be emptied and sold off. 

Then, those of us in charge of this country should fire the rest - the Congressmen and Senators who've let this (and plenty of other unforgivable things) happen.  There is no excuse for any of them - NASA or elected official.   

 - Ed Kyle
 

2013 still gives us time if something is done now.  What spacecraft LV would you use?

3-4 seats would do the job

[gospacex]

The simple and obvious solution is to properly fund NASA at a level that will allow timely completion of both SLS/MPCV and Commercial Crew. This would not be an exorbitant amount of money in relation to the federal budget. In fact such an increase would be statistically insignificant in relation to either the total federal budget or even just the federal deficit.

One must ask, why is this obvious solution not even being discussed?

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