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

[Mader Levap]

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....

Nope. Russian benefits are accidental side efect of this whole insanity.

In my personal opinion, whole mess comes from very simple notion: "we do not want to let commercial space launch crew first, before our beloved white elephant". New Space, after all, does not meet (by design) Congress Pork Standards.

[Lurker Steve]

I agree with Jim.  This one is squarely on Congress and the President.
NASA is being told what to do.

Don't forget the OMB.

[Rocket Science]

I agree with Jim.  This one is squarely on Congress and the President.
NASA is being told what to do.

Don't forget the OMB.

Since we are pointing fingers today we might as well point to the majority of our fellow Americans who don’t really give a rat's a$$ about spaceflight...

[Lobo]

Challenged myself with this one. Avoided a rehash of the presser and went at it with how it's all been translated to me.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/04/nasas-commercial-catch-22-424m-to-russia/

Dip my toe into the political, which is as far as I'll go. This is mainly about the mess.

Really hope this comes across as balanced.

Considering this situation seems like the ultimate political mess that was perfectly avoidable, but the result of bad political planning by congress and bad leadership on the part of NASA administration and the president...I think you dd a heck of a job of stating the situation with as much objectivity as is possible.

Such a sad situation as it was completely and totally avoidable.
Starting with NASA wanting a new capsule and two new rockets back in 2005 without the guarantee of money for them, instead of a new capsule and an EXISTING rocket in Atlas...which would have completely avoided this ISS situation. 
Then the cancellation of that new spaceship.... Then lack of any direction and leadership from the president and Bolden...Then NAA2010 direction NASA to start Orion again, but only to launch on a HLV in 2016/17...
And to drag feet on commercial crew...

Etc. etc.

On existing budget you do one thing at a time.  A space ship or a rocket.  Not both and certainly not two.  We aren't much better off that CxP.  cxP was trying to build two rockets and a spaceship.  Not we are funding a spaceship and rocket...plus F9, Antares, Dragon, Cygnus, Dreamchaser and CST-100.  So eight spaceships and rockets...all at the same time!!!
(Some are only partial funding, but still....)

It's like a slow barge heading for a rock and two people pulling on the helm in different directions...so it slowly keeps heading for that rock.
Lots of time to turn and miss it, but no agreement on which way to turn o avoid it..

So frustrating...

Certainly if Orion had started development in 2005 with a program to man rate Atlas, that could have been servicing the ISS by 2011 if funds were concentrated on that only. 
Even in 2010, instead of canceling Orion, a shift to getting a block 1 LEO version ready ASAP with a man rated Atlas (still cancel CxP, but replace it with something definitive), and something else heavier to follow after that should have gotten Orion going to ISS by 2013-ish...minimizing the gap.

Now we need to send limited funds to Russia until 2017 because we kept pulling the wheel in opposite directions...arrrggghhh!

[Lobo]

 
Let's remember too that Mr. Musk also feeds very well at the Federal trough with other businesses, not just for Space X (and he deserves a lot of credit for what Space X has done). While Mr. Bush has to share blame for the problems of NASA HSF, one party has had control of Congress and the Presidency since January 2007 (as a fact or a practical matter) and they need to be held accountable for it. 

One party has not had control of Congress since 2007.  The Democrats had super majorities in both houses for only 3 months. The Republicans have had majority status in the House since 2010.

The democrats had large majorities in both houses from jan 2007 to jan 2011, and the White House since jan 2009.  Just because they didn't have a super majority for more than several months, the still had very large majorities.
The republicans taking the House in jan 2011 has only meant little NEW law has been passed due to gridlock.  Everything passed prior to that can't be changed or removed.  We are still technically operating under the FY2010 budget for that reason...with continuing resolutions passed ever time there is a budget showdown for a government shutdown.

It's fair to say both sides are to blame...but at this time, it's also fair to say one side is -more- to blame lately...
Bolden is the President's man, and has had the helm of NASA for about four years now, and our current budget is an all-democrat budget which saw a big jump in spending from the previous FY2009 budget.  (So if NASA is currently underfunded...and they didnt get a jump in funding like other parts of the federal government...the finger can be pointed there)
NASA's budget is basically from that FY2010 all democrat budget, unless 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.
What's happened since cant be though...

[Lobo]

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.

Umm...the Atlas 552 can do just over 20mt to LEO.  How exactly couldn't it get a short fueled Orion to the ISS the way Saturn 1b got a short fueled Apollo to Skylab?

You need something else to go to the Moon...but not the ISS.
However, Atlas 552 with 5m Centaur could get the full Orion to LEO for a lunar program.  (According to a post by Jim at on time anyway)
 So Atlas could have been the platform for "Ares 1" in a 1.5 architecture and been ready for ISS operations well before 2010, then NASA could have had ULA develop the WBC for lunar-Orion.  (Or Atlas V heavy if needed)

Then they could have followed up with the lunar cargo HLV after Orion was going to the ISS.  AJAX would have been a pretty good option for a Cargo HLV then.  Or a 7-core Delta super heavy.  Or something else.

[QuantumG]

To get back on topic: replacing Soyuz flights with commercial crew only makes sense from the perspective of "national pride", or if there's a long term tangible need for flying humans into space. So far, there isn't even a commitment to extending ISS beyond 2020, and there's no commitment to using commercial crew for anything else. So why the big hoo-har about underfunding this program?

[happyflower]

Challenged myself with this one. Avoided a rehash of the presser and went at it with how it's all been translated to me.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/04/nasas-commercial-catch-22-424m-to-russia/

Dip my toe into the political, which is as far as I'll go. This is mainly about the mess.

Really hope this comes across as balanced.

For people that have been waiting since the late 70s for humans to go to the Moon or Mars this is very depressing. Going out for a walk.

[Patchouli]

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.

Umm...the Atlas 552 can do just over 20mt to LEO.  How exactly couldn't it get a short fueled Orion to the ISS the way Saturn 1b got a short fueled Apollo to Skylab?

You need something else to go to the Moon...but not the ISS.
However, Atlas 552 with 5m Centaur could get the full Orion to LEO for a lunar program.  (According to a post by Jim at on time anyway)
 So Atlas could have been the platform for "Ares 1" in a 1.5 architecture and been ready for ISS operations well before 2010, then NASA could have had ULA develop the WBC for lunar-Orion.  (Or Atlas V heavy if needed)

Then they could have followed up with the lunar cargo HLV after Orion was going to the ISS.  AJAX would have been a pretty good option for a Cargo HLV then.  Or a 7-core Delta super heavy.  Or something else.

Orion probably can act as it's own third stage on an Atlas 552.
I also seen a variant of the Delta IV-H missing the second stage used as a CLV.
Dream Chaser and the CST-100 do this to get away with cheaper version of Atlas V.

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.

Even the Boeing CST-100 probably the most expensive per seat of the commercial crew vehicles would be competitive at those prices.
Though some credit to Boeing their vehicle might be the quickest to bring into service.
Spacex would beat the Russians so badly at that price it wouldn't even be funny.

I think when you include the cost of the cargo pretty much an ATV's worth even the Shuttle looks competitive.

Seriously someone needs to step down or be fired over this decision.

[spectre9]

This is the reason why there's no payload for SLS.

ISS takes all the money. We can argue about the next astronaut launched from US soil for years on end but it doesn't change the fact that it doesn't matter.

ISS or BEO exploration.

You can't have both.

It's been tried and it's failed.

Time to make a choice.

NASA is going straight down past $16b and nothing is being done to prevent it.

I'm not saying cancel everything. I'm saying focus on what you've got before building a system that can't fly men to the lunar surface or far off asteroids anyway because there's no will to fund such missions.

Commercial crew/cargo are now a part of ISS. Cancel them and you might as well cancel ISS. They're entwined.

[QuantumG]

ISS or BEO exploration.

You can't have both.

Oh what a hard choice: the program that might actually one day produce something tangible that the public might care about or the "exploration" program which produces nothing but intangibles.

[clongton]

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.

[spectre9]

It's effectively the same reason CxP was cancelled.

There's a flat out refusal by congress to fund NASA at a level that supports BEO exploration.

I've only finally been able to accept this truth.

It's depressing and so it should be to all fans of human space exploration.

One by one people in the government asked Charlie "Why no moon?" and he told them "We can't afford it, we can't even afford to send people to an asteroid between Jupiter and Mars, that's never going to happen".

All my hopes and dreams for NASA sending humans beyond LEO were shattered. Surprising it took that long really.

Time to quit with the launch vehicle fetishism.

This isn't about replacing shuttle, shuttle launched 24mt blocks, this is about replacing Saturn V.

Well in the time between Saturn V's last launch and today private companies have developed launch vehicles, launch vehicles just as good or better than the one NASA relied on happily for 3 decades.

Why was ISS built from small payloads?

NASA can't afford the big ones. There's no hope they'll be able to either with the budgets only heading in one direction.

Should KSC be shut down and left to rot?

As sad as that is I'm starting to think it's a good option.

The VAB can be a museum and we can all laugh at the size of the Saturn V and those that tried to emulate it.

[Jim]

I agree with Jim.  This one is squarely on Congress and the President.
NASA is being told what to do.

Don't forget the OMB.

OMB works for the president

[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"

[QuantumG]

It's effectively the same reason CxP was cancelled.

There's a flat out refusal by congress to fund NASA at a level that supports BEO exploration.

I've only finally been able to accept this truth.

It's depressing and so it should be to all fans of human space exploration.

When you're done feeling sorry for the space program, come join those of us who came to this conclusion years ago and have advocated for a real space industry ever since.

Commercial crew is a debacle because it has been reduced to "a better contracting methodology" for the same old goals: flying a few select government employees to a government outpost, a few times a year. All the empty promises of non-government markets for these vehicles are just side dishes.

[kirghizstan]

Take the $436M people like Rob Portman are trying to force the Pentagon to use on tanks they don't want nor need and use that for commercial crew.  Problem solved

[mr. mark]

One thing that SpaceX can do is cut all Grasshopper research until Manned Dragon is flying. Put your money into a system that forces some change. No one else is anywhere near getting reuse to work so there is no danger of being one uped by any competitors for a couple of years. Yes, lowering costs with reusables is important but, not now. SpaceX can't expect the money to always be there from NASA. By investing in their own manned vehicle SpaceX can really sprint ahead and make their 2015 manned target.

[joek]

Umm...the Atlas 552 can do just over 20mt to LEO.  How exactly couldn't it get a short fueled Orion to the ISS the way Saturn 1b got a short fueled Apollo to Skylab?

Because even a short-fueled Orion--which was exactly what the Orion "ISS configuration" called for back in 2010--would still be too heavy for an Atlas 552?  That "ISS configuration" was about 60K lbs.  Albeit somewhat dated and that configuration was for a crew of 6, I don't think reducing the crew to 4 in the ISS configuration is going to make up the difference.  In any case, this is getting OT and the discussion is probably better addressed in the Orion and Exploration Vehicles section.

[spectre9]

It's effectively the same reason CxP was cancelled.

There's a flat out refusal by congress to fund NASA at a level that supports BEO exploration.

I've only finally been able to accept this truth.

It's depressing and so it should be to all fans of human space exploration.

When you're done feeling sorry for the space program, come join those of us who came to this conclusion years ago and have advocated for a real space industry ever since.

Commercial crew is a debacle because it has been reduced to "a better contracting methodology" for the same old goals: flying a few select government employees to a government outpost, a few times a year. All the empty promises of non-government markets for these vehicles are just side dishes.

Empty promises?

I would've thought it's been demonstrated to exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceflight_participant#List_of_spaceflight_participants

At the $20m pricepoint anyway. Not $70m+

Bigelow hasn't even had a chance to put up a station yet. He would've paid for an Atlas V if the taxi was ready. He gets to wait for Falcon 9 because he has time not because it was the first preference.

LEO isn't the wild west but it's hardly somewhere nobody wants to go on their own dime.

I'm not done feeling sorry for the space program just yet. It's an absolute pork fest, a program being funded has nothing to do with usefulness, technological reward or scientific gain, just funding moving through certain select congressional districts.