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

[QuantumG]

One thing that SpaceX can do is cut all Grasshopper research until Manned Dragon is flying.

Heh, talk about eating your seed corn.

Put your money into a system that forces some change.

Okay, for the sake of discussion, let's say SpaceX (or any of the partners) just started running ahead of the CCiCap milestones.

Here's what's on SpaceX's plate already:

May 2013: Human Certification Plan Review.
July 2013: On-Orbit and Entry Preliminary Design Review (PDR).
September 2013: In-Flight Abort Test Review.
October 2013: Safety Review.
November 2013: Flight Review of Upgraded Falcon 9.
December 2013: Pad Abort Test.
January 2014: Dragon Primary Structure Qualification.
March 2014: Integrated Critical Design Review (CDR).
April 2014: In-Flight Abort Test.

Maybe there's some schedule in there that could be helped by greater funding, but I don't know, it already looks pretty breakneck to me. There's also the optional milestones, most of which are redacted:

Sometime 2015: Orbital Flight Test with Crew
Sometime 201?: Flight to ISS with non-NASA Crew

We've been told that neither of these optional milestones will be funded under CCiCap, even if full funding is available, but I don't know if that means NASA can't consult with SpaceX to ensure that these flights are done to their satisfaction, if they were to be done without NASA funding.

[QuantumG]

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+

Space Adventures - who is responsible for all those participants getting the opportunity to fly - hasn't been invited to the table by the US providers, because government money is so much easier to get. (Tourists won't pay for paperwork.)

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.

If Bigelow had customers actually willing to part with cash they'd be flying by now.

[yg1968]

One thing that SpaceX can do is cut all Grasshopper research until Manned Dragon is flying.

Heh, talk about eating your seed corn.

Put your money into a system that forces some change.

Okay, for the sake of discussion, let's say SpaceX (or any of the partners) just started running ahead of the CCiCap milestones.

Here's what's on SpaceX's plate already:

May 2013: Human Certification Plan Review.
July 2013: On-Orbit and Entry Preliminary Design Review (PDR).
September 2013: In-Flight Abort Test Review.
October 2013: Safety Review.
November 2013: Flight Review of Upgraded Falcon 9.
December 2013: Pad Abort Test.
January 2014: Dragon Primary Structure Qualification.
March 2014: Integrated Critical Design Review (CDR).
April 2014: In-Flight Abort Test.

Maybe there's some schedule in there that could be helped by greater funding, but I don't know, it already looks pretty breakneck to me. There's also the optional milestones, most of which are redacted:

Sometime 2015: Orbital Flight Test with Crew
Sometime 201?: Flight to ISS with non-NASA Crew

We've been told that neither of these optional milestones will be funded under CCiCap, even if full funding is available, but I don't know if that means NASA can't consult with SpaceX to ensure that these flights are done to their satisfaction, if they were to be done without NASA funding.

The test flights would not be done without NASA funding. It will be funded through the certification phase. The certification will include some test flights but I don't think that NASA has decided how many flights yet.

[Lar]

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.

Interesting but I have a suspicion that Grasshopper doesn't cost as much as some might think. Also there's the "tipping one's hand" aspect, and as QuantumG says, the "don't eat your seed corn" aspect. Higher profits on launches (if reuse works) mean more cash to fund things. Going breakneck to "show up" the porkers might result in difficulty, as satisfying as it would be to me!

[joek]

The test flights would not be done without NASA funding. It will be funded through the certification phase. The certification will include some test flights but I don't think that they have decided how many flights yet.

Need to qualify that with "crewed".  Specifically, within the bounds of the CCP: crewed test flights will occur only under certification phase II; uncrewed test flights might still occur under CCiCap or under certification phase II.  Crewed test flights could still happen outside of CCP (CCiCap or certification) if Boeing, SNC or SpaceX did it with their own money and presumably at arms-length from CCP...

1. CCiCap (CCP funded)
a) Uncrewed test flights: Maybe, depending on optional milestones funded
b) Crewed test flights: No, per NASA "we will not pay to fly anyone..."

2. Certification Phase II (CCP funded)
a) Uncrewed test flights: Likely
b) Crewed test flights: Yes

3. Independent (non-CCP/provider funded)
a) Uncrewed test flights: Possible
b) Crewed test flights: Possible


edit: p.s. FWIW, the GSFC Mission Set Database shows a total of 7 CCP tests FY2015-2017.  Those obviously have to be considered notional (in the "formulation" stage) and there's no indication of which are crewed.

[QuantumG]

1. CCiCap (CCP funded)
a) Uncrewed test flights: Maybe, depending on optional milestones funded
b) Crewed test flights: No, per NASA "we will not pay to fly anyone..."

What I'd like to know is why this policy only came out after they had already allowed crewed test flights in the optional milestones of CCiCap.

[Nascent Ascent]

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...

There are numerous things the general American public doesn't really care about - and yet these things are continually funded.

-NA

[joek]

1. CCiCap (CCP funded)
a) Uncrewed test flights: Maybe, depending on optional milestones funded
b) Crewed test flights: No, per NASA "we will not pay to fly anyone..."

What I'd like to know is why this policy only came out after they had already allowed crewed test flights in the optional milestones of CCiCap.

Good question.  Given that the context of those and similar statements always (?) seems to involve ASAP, I'd guess there's a connection.  I'll refrain from opining on why ASAP might exert pressure to disallow crewed test flights under CCiCap and why that appears to have surfaced only relatively recently.

[john smith 19]

Those plans didn't bring enough hard cash to the Alabama and Utah coffers so O'Keefe had to go.

So let's be clear about this.

SLS is really is about making sure enough cash goes to those states and pretty much nothing else.

The more I know of the SLS the more I keep thinking of the film Robocop.

Especially the part about "I had guaranteed orders, parts for 25 years. Who cared if it didn't work." 

I'll just repeat the rough numbers on CxP/SLS/Orion and COTS/CCiCAP

CxP/SLS/Orion
2004-
$12Bn and rising. 1 test flight of 4 seg SRB + dummy segment and dummy 2nd stage. Uncrewed Orion flight some time after 2017, 1st crewed 2023? Support module to be built in Europe for early flights.

COTS/CCiCAP
2006-13
$5Bn 2 New LV's flying (F9 and Antares). 1 New cargo spacecraft flying ISS delivery, 1 about to. 2 LV's human rated to NASA standards. 3 Human rated spacecraft going through detail design and 2 under construction. Dragon's SM will be built in the US, as I presume will the CTS100's.

[Lobo]

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.

The current Orion CSM (with ATV SM) according to Wikipedia (for what that's worth) is about 21.5mt.  22-23mt is a number I've heard before that.
And that's with a SM with about 8mt or so of propellant in it. 
Orion CM weighs about 9mt, so the SM is about 5mt dry, so about 14mt without any SMME propellant?  If Centaur is placing the CSM in LEO, then really no propellant is even required in the SM.  Dragon gets to the ISS without a service module with SSME at all. 
14mt is actually within the range of Atlas 531.  But if you actually want crew and/or cargo, you'd need to go larger.  Atlas 541, 551, or 552.

So, how can't Atlas get a short-fueled Orion to the ISS?  It should be able to just fine as far as I can tell. 

And (again, referencing Jim here), An Atlas 55x with the new 5m wide body Centaur (or ACES, or similar 5m common upper stage) would get an increase in LEO capability sufficient to get the fully fueled Orion there for EOR with the LSAM/EDS stack.  Which makes sense because Atlas 552 only needs 2 or 3 more metric tonnes of LEO capacity to get a 21-22mt Orion CSM to LEO.
That makes a pretty cheap and fast crew launcher for Orion to get our astronauts to the ISS after STS was retired.
An Atlas V-heavy could be used to get the full fueled Orion to LEO if it was deamed better/cheaper to pay ULA to develop AVH instead of the 5m common EELV upper stage.  Either way...

[MP99]

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....

If *this* money was spent on CC, it wouldn't expedite CC - it would just pay for US launches instead of Russian.

There would need to be additional money (or down-select, or more skin in the game) to expedite CC.

Cheers, Martin

[joek]

The current Orion CSM (with ATV SM) according to Wikipedia (for what that's worth) is about 21.5mt.  22-23mt is a number I've heard before that.

Add ~15K lbs for the LAS.  (Or is it intended to fly uncrewed, which would make it useless as an ISS crew transport?)  Might also want to include some margin for the adapter, which for Orion-on-Ares was ~3K lbs.

If Centaur is placing the CSM in LEO, then really no propellant is even required in the SM.

Then Orion-on-Ares with a J-2X in the "ISS configuration" shouldn't have needed any SM propellant either wouldn't you think?  Odd then that the SM still included ~8K lbs of SM propellant in the ISS configuration.

[john smith 19]

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.

An interesting read.

They thought NASA using BAU cost plus FAR25 contracting rules could a)Design a new human rated LV built around the SRB and b)Design a capsule for it for LEO use within 6 years to be ready by 2010.

I just wonder if any of this team had any experience of actual large scale projects within NASA.

[clongton]

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.

An interesting read.

They thought NASA using BAU cost plus FAR25 contracting rules could a)Design a new human rated LV built around the SRB and b)Design a capsule for it for LEO use within 6 years to be ready by 2010.

I just wonder if any of this team had any experience of actual large scale projects within NASA.

No, they did not.

[Ben the Space Brit]

The current Orion CSM (with ATV SM) according to Wikipedia (for what that's worth) is about 21.5mt.  22-23mt is a number I've heard before that.

Add ~15K lbs for the LAS.  (Or is it intended to fly uncrewed, which would make it useless as an ISS crew transport?)  Might also want to include some margin for the adapter, which for Orion-on-Ares was ~3K lbs.

If Centaur is placing the CSM in LEO, then really no propellant is even required in the SM.

Then Orion-on-Ares with a J-2X in the "ISS configuration" shouldn't have needed any SM propellant either wouldn't you think?  Odd then that the SM still included ~8K lbs of SM propellant in the ISS configuration.

I think that you're overestimating Ares-I's performance.  In its final iteration, it was a suborbital launcher and the Orion SM was needed to complete the ascent as well as to perform the circularisation burn.

FWIW, I have always understood the primary objection to using Atlas-V-552 is that it has a very high-g launch environment for its optimum lift performance (reaching over 6g in some phases).  It wouldn't be a nice ride for a crew.  Most crew launchers try to keep the g-loading below 5g and ideally below 4g.

[edkyle99]

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.

An interesting read.

They thought NASA using BAU cost plus FAR25 contracting rules could a)Design a new human rated LV built around the SRB and b)Design a capsule for it for LEO use within 6 years to be ready by 2010.

I just wonder if any of this team had any experience of actual large scale projects within NASA.

The Ares I design predated Griffin's involvement.  It came out of the NASA Astronaut Office during 2003 in the wake of Columbia.  Griffin was briefed on the concept in late 2003, before he became NASA Administrator.

Clongton likes to say that Griffin designed Ares, but it simply is not true.

I happen to disagree with those who opposed Ares I.  It would have put Orion into orbit with crew faster than the current plan.  KSC would still be alive now.

Better than sending the money to Moscow. 

 - Ed Kyle

[Prober]

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.

glad someone said this; and it was you.  I've had the same thoughts, and agree with you 100%.   That is why I said in another post that the CC program was dragging the timeline down.
 

[Prober]

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.

Interesting but I have a suspicion that Grasshopper doesn't cost as much as some might think. Also there's the "tipping one's hand" aspect, and as QuantumG says, the "don't eat your seed corn" aspect. Higher profits on launches (if reuse works) mean more cash to fund things. Going breakneck to "show up" the porkers might result in difficulty, as satisfying as it would be to me!

let's turn this around for a sec.   SpaceX has extra dragons (used) how much would it cost to install the super dracos and run the tests right now?
 
It won't happen, why because CC has a timeline and continued funding. I say go for a contract for services right now and you would see some Draco testing.

[JBF]

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.

glad someone said this; and it was you.  I've had the same thoughts, and agree with you 100%.   That is why I said in another post that the CC program was dragging the timeline down.
 

There is nowhere for a commercial spacecraft to go right now and won't be until 2016 (BA-330) at the earliest. So why rush CC on their own dime when they won't see profit from it. Pushing GH, which they will see profit from, makes more sense.

[notsorandom]

Okay so I will be the devil's advocate and ask the question. Not that I don't believe that there is value in the commercial crew program but I am sure that this is a perspective that many have on this issue. What is wrong with just paying the Russians? Based on the per seat estimates of cost by the commercial crew providers the Russians are offering a competitive price, even in light of the higher recent costs. The $800 million being asked for this year could be spent on all number of useful things. If the ISS is retired in 2020 then we will have spent all this money on only three years of life.