Frustration grows as lawmakers continue to penny pinch commercial crew

[Joel]

Well, we all know that nine women cannot get pregnant in one month, but this is not that problem.

Are you completely sure of that?

[kch]

Well, we all know that nine women cannot get pregnant in one month, but this is not that problem.

Are you completely sure of that?

"A penny saved is worth two in the bush." -- Anomalous 

[LegendCJS]

... The cost of Orion was estimated to be more than $800M per unit a few years ago in a HEFT presentation.

$800M is too much money for a friggin' capsule.  There is a falsehood in those cost figures somewhere.

This sounds like a call for a citation to me.  YG, do you have a link to that HEFT presentation, or at least can you tell me what the acronym HEFT stands for?

Edit: I think I found it: http://www.nasawatch.com/images/heft.presentation.pdf

JohnF, in the same presentation HEFT discussed 2 striped down CTV/Orion options that costed less.  The trade off is that they both options launch empty, and need Commercial crew launches to get people on board.  The cheapest one, costed at $400 million per unit, also has only a pittance dV of 200 m/s, while the upscale one costed at $540 million had 1.5+ km/s dv. The full up Orion at $840 million per unit launches manned, has the same larger dv capability, and has an escape tower ascent abort functionality.  That might give you some idea where the cost in the Orion is located.

[zt]

So $400M for capsule, life support, de-orbit engines and heat shield. $140M for fancy propulsion. $300M for LAS (?!). Are those numbers inevitable outcomes of the requirements for dV and endurance, or not?

[CNYMike]

Commercial crew taxi's are not just for ISS crew. They are for opening up a new non government crewed space frontier.

The what?  The __________ crew taxis are being developed with government money, and the us government is the only customer.  "Non government crewed"?  Who's going to put up the private capital for that?  The risks are so incredibly huge the government is the only one who can live with it.  And if worse comes to worse and the station is deorbited before one of the __________ crew vehicles is ready, the odds are better than 99.5% that those vehicles will cease to exist.  Is it any wonder that SpaceX is trying to get contracts for launching Air Force satellites, and has broken ground on a pad at Vandenberg?  HINT: You don't launch for Mars from Vandenberg!

There's little or nothing "commercial" about the __________ crew vehicles, which is why I refuse to use that word in that program title.  I prefer to think of them as "government commissioned," since they are being designed to meet government requirements.  I have nothing against the program and I hope they succeed (I'm personally a fan of CST-100 -- how can you hate an Apollo capsule with a Gemini-esque service module?), but I wish we would call a spade a spade.

[clongton]

Another clueless poster

[yg1968]

Commercial crew taxi's are not just for ISS crew. They are for opening up a new non government crewed space frontier.

The what?  The __________ crew taxis are being developed with government money, and the us government is the only customer.  "Non government crewed"?  Who's going to put up the private capital for that?  The risks are so incredibly huge the government is the only one who can live with it.  And if worse comes to worse and the station is deorbited before one of the __________ crew vehicles is ready, the odds are better than 99.5% that those vehicles will cease to exist.  Is it any wonder that SpaceX is trying to get contracts for launching Air Force satellites, and has broken ground on a pad at Vandenberg?  HINT: You don't launch for Mars from Vandenberg!

There's little or nothing "commercial" about the __________ crew vehicles, which is why I refuse to use that word in that program title.  I prefer to think of them as "government commissioned," since they are being designed to meet government requirements.  I have nothing against the program and I hope they succeed (I'm personally a fan of CST-100 -- how can you hate an Apollo capsule with a Gemini-esque service module?), but I wish we would call a spade a spade.

They are using more and more the expression "public-private partnerships" to avoid any misunderstandings about their nature.

[john smith 19]

Commercial crew taxi's are not just for ISS crew. They are for opening up a new non government crewed space frontier.

The what?  The __________ crew taxis are being developed with government money, and the us government is the only customer. 

Partly with govt money.
And unlike every previous NASA crewed system it is not designed by NASA, owned by NASA and operated by NASA

They are designed to operated from non NASA pads and will be the first crewed systems that the USG does not own the design for and operating rights of.

Part of the contract also requires the companies to invest internal funds as well and their business plan should look at other potential customers. Only Boeing has no other potential business, which is why they were rated "weak" in that area.

"Non government crewed"?  Who's going to put up the private capital for that?  The risks are so incredibly huge the government is the only one who can live with it.

And yet several space tourists have already visited the ISS and Bob Bigelow expects to set up a space hotel if his company can find a safe enough and cheap enough transport system. In fact if ESA or JAXA wanted to go the ISA I'm not sure if they could get a better price if they just called the winner direct and asked to put their crew (with the winner's pilot) on the manifest. IIRC with a non NASA flight and non NASA crew I think that would also put them under the FAA rather than NASA.

Perhaps you need to do a bit more reading and less posting?

  And if worse comes to worse and the station is deorbited before one of the __________ crew vehicles is ready, the odds are better than 99.5% that those vehicles will cease to exist. 

And the odds of ISS being deorbited before 2028 are
rather longer than the 1 in 200 odds you give that it will not survive. I'll be looking forward to Chris's article on that subject.

IOW The USG can look forward to continuing to hand Russia at least another $400m/yr for the foreseeable future.

Is it any wonder that SpaceX is trying to get contracts for launching Air Force satellites, and has broken ground on a pad at Vandenberg?  HINT: You don't launch for Mars from Vandenberg!

It's a business. It'll look to not be beholden to any single customer for its revenue. Doesn't ULA already have at least one pad there already?

There's little or nothing "commercial" about the __________ crew vehicles, which is why I refuse to use that word in that program title.  I prefer to think of them as "government commissioned," since they are being designed to meet government requirements. 

The difference is that they are meeting a set of requirements rather than having every detail about how those requirements are met spelled out in the contract.

That on its own make a huge difference to a normal NASA FAR25 Cost plus contract works. It's literally several hundred pages shorter.

It might also explain why after 7 years after contract start NASA already has 1 new LV and cargo carrier supporting the ISS, and should have 2 by the end of the year. It might also explain how since 2010 3 companies have built vehicles and are in flight test in some cases when the nearest NASA programme (Orion/MPCV) has not left the ground, despite twelve years of development and is not scheduled to do so for 4 more years, while the SM has been outsourced to the ESA. HINT: Outsourcing the development of a key component of the flagship crewed programme of the Agency would have been unthinkable a decade ago.

I have nothing against the program and I hope they succeed (I'm personally a fan of CST-100 -- how can you hate an Apollo capsule with a Gemini-esque service module?), but I wish we would call a spade a spade.

Because the developer is playing the old defense contractor trick of dangling a big contract offering a lot of jobs and telling the Legislature (in effect) "if we don't win we won't spend a cent continuing."
Something similar happened with ATK/Liberty. Anyone heard anything more from them either?

Personally I believe if properly funded all of them can and should be certified to dock with the ISS, but I would not guarantee any specific design would get a launch. Putting all the eggs in one basket is a very bad idea.

[CNYMike]

Bob Bigelow expects to set up a space hotel if his company can find a safe enough and cheap enough transport system ....

If he does that, I'll be a believer.  Until he does, there will be no commercial market. 

..... the nearest NASA programme (Orion/MPCV) has not left the ground, despite twelve years of development ......

? Twelve years would be 2001.  Are you saying they started working on Orion two years before Columbia?  That would be news to me.

[CNYMike]

....They are designed to operated from non NASA pads....

Hair splitting: LC 40 and 41 are on Cape Caneveral Air Force Station, so technically, not NASA, but still USG.

.... the odds of ISS being deorbited before 2028 are
rather longer than the 1 in 200 odds you give that it will not survive.... 

If it's around past 2020, great.  (And the way the gov't "works," they probably won't hash out the details until the last minute.)

While I stand corrected on the details, government money is still bankrolling the New Crew Vehicles, and at the moment, the government is the only customer, with the only destination a government spacecraft.  Without government involvement, this would not be happening.  I'll be very happy when a truly private LEO market opens up.  But that has been promised for a very long time, and so far no delivered on.  And I still don't see the New Crew Vehicles as having being that yet.


I'll be looking forward to Chris's article on that subject.

IOW The USG can look forward to continuing to hand Russia at least another $400m/yr for the foreseeable future.

Is it any wonder that SpaceX is trying to get contracts for launching Air Force satellites, and has broken ground on a pad at Vandenberg?  HINT: You don't launch for Mars from Vandenberg!

It's a business. It'll look to not be beholden to any single customer for its revenue. Doesn't ULA already have at least one pad there already?

There's little or nothing "commercial" about the __________ crew vehicles, which is why I refuse to use that word in that program title.  I prefer to think of them as "government commissioned," since they are being designed to meet government requirements. 

The difference is that they are meeting a set of requirements rather than having every detail about how those requirements are met spelled out in the contract.

That on its own make a huge difference to a normal NASA FAR25 Cost plus contract works. It's literally several hundred pages shorter.

It might also explain why after 7 years after contract start NASA already has 1 new LV and cargo carrier supporting the ISS, and should have 2 by the end of the year. It might also explain how since 2010 3 companies have built vehicles and are in flight test in some cases when the nearest NASA programme (Orion/MPCV) has not left the ground, despite twelve years of development and is not scheduled to do so for 4 more years, while the SM has been outsourced to the ESA. HINT: Outsourcing the development of a key component of the flagship crewed programme of the Agency would have been unthinkable a decade ago.

I have nothing against the program and I hope they succeed (I'm personally a fan of CST-100 -- how can you hate an Apollo capsule with a Gemini-esque service module?), but I wish we would call a spade a spade.

Because the developer is playing the old defense contractor trick of dangling a big contract offering a lot of jobs and telling the Legislature (in effect) "if we don't win we won't spend a cent continuing."
Something similar happened with ATK/Liberty. Anyone heard anything more from them either?

Personally I believe if properly funded all of them can and should be certified to dock with the ISS, but I would not guarantee any specific design would get a launch. Putting all the eggs in one basket is a very bad idea.
[/quote]

[LegendCJS]

  ..... the nearest NASA programme (Orion/MPCV) has not left the ground, despite twelve years of development ......

? Twelve years would be 2001.  Are you saying they started working on Orion two years before Columbia?  That would be news to me.

I believe it is fair to lump in the efforts of the (pre Columbia) orbital space plane (OSP) program into the timeline when recounting why we are frustrated at the slowness.

[sdsds]

Part of the contract also requires the companies to invest internal funds as well and their business plan should look at other potential customers. Only Boeing has no other potential business, which is why they were rated "weak" in that area.

I don't believe this telling of the story. More, I see no benefit in singling out one provider for "analysis" of this type.

Just sayin'.

[john smith 19]

  ..... the nearest NASA programme (Orion/MPCV) has not left the ground, despite twelve years of development ......

? Twelve years would be 2001.  Are you saying they started working on Orion two years before Columbia?  That would be news to me.

I believe it is fair to lump in the efforts of the (pre Columbia) orbital space plane (OSP) program into the timeline when recounting why we are frustrated at the slowness.

Actually that was unfair of me. I'd recalled CxP as starting 2001 and it started 2004.

Lockmart have only had nine years to get it ready instead of the 12 I had claimed.

My apologies.

Assuming it flies in 2017 that will have only taken 13 years to build a scaled up Apollo capsule, rather than the 16 I thought. I don't think the SM will be part of it, but I don't want to make another howler with my memory. 

<stuff>

I suggest you do a preview before you post. You're quoting is off.

Part of the contract also requires the companies to invest internal funds as well and their business plan should look at other potential customers. Only Boeing has no other potential business, which is why they were rated "weak" in that area.

I don't believe this telling of the story. More, I see no benefit in singling out one provider for "analysis" of this type.

I suggest you read the progress reports of the competitors and the assessment of their proposals.

I could have said that 2/3 of all competitors had found non NASA business. The question was "What's not to like about CTS-100" and I'd start with that. Promising they will sign a lease (if they get the down select) is also a form of "negotiation" which I don't much like.

If Congress did cancel the James Webb Space Telescope to transfer funds to the commercial crew taxi I personally thinks this would be a good move. We could always built and launch a telescope later on. I think that we will have a better return on the LEO taxi's in the near term over the telescope.

Highly unlikely. They might cancel it to keep SLS alive.

The world once again could benefit from having three nations with the ability to send people to LEO.

I be more than happy to trade in the high speed train too for the LEO taxi's. 

Two U.S. launch vehicles and three crew taxi's would be a nice new addition. A good start to future crewed space travel for man kind.

Congress has the ability to add more funding to commercial crew program if they wanted to ( to much waste in other U.S. budget as we already know ). If they did down select they others that did not get funding could continue on their own, after all they were to have other business plan(s) other than the U.S. government as their only customer. It's not that much that is needed to keep all three going through their test flights compared the the whole U.S. yearly federal budget.

By some yardsticks the cost of an Orion capsule or two.

Edit:
If so that would remove the ability to send cargo or crew to the moon or Mars.
Then that looks like law makers don't want to have a crewed  BLEO program from NASA.

Well they like the idea of a BLEO programme but launching it on SLS will be eyewateringly expensive and space will still be there in a few years, so as long as those folks stay employed moving forward to the launch however slowly that that pace is, it's all good with them.

Those on milestone based payments IE payment by results, seem a little more motivated to proceed at a slightly faster pace.

[joek]

Part of the contract also requires the companies to invest internal funds as well and their business plan should look at other potential customers. Only Boeing has no other potential business, which is why they were rated "weak" in that area.

I don't believe this telling of the story. More, I see no benefit in singling out one provider for "analysis" of this type.

Agree if we're talking solely about crew in isolation.  If there are future commercial (non-NASA) markets, then it would generally apply to all contenders, although the willingness of each to pursue and invest in such potential markets may differ.

OTOH, a valid question is: How much of the entire crew system is dependent on NASA as the customer?  In that respect, SpaceX appears to have an advantage: greater economies and commonality with their commercial business of the LV (and possibly other parts).  Granted, Boeing and SNC obtain some of that with Atlas, but to a lesser extent.

[Occupymars]

And if worse comes to worse and the station is deorbited before one of the __________ crew vehicles is ready, the odds are better than 99.5% that those vehicles will cease to exist.

Unsubstantiated drivel.

[Robotbeat]

Indeed. ALL the commercial crew providers have potential business beyond NASA, including Boeing.

[SpacexULA]

At the very least Space Adventures has an established market $20 Million dollar flights to the ISS which require almost 8 months worth of training and medical exams.

If you can afford $20 Million the 8 months is the more painful cost that the $20 million price tag.

I can not help but think once the CCDEV vehicles are operational SA will be offering packages for free flight on said vehicles, at some price. 

Boeing/Bigelow already have a contract with Space Adventures.

http://www.newspacejournal.com/2011/04/18/on-ccdev-2s-eve-boeings-plans/

If ISS is splashed, it will leave a huge gap in micro-gravity research, all 3 vehicles can attempt to service the gap that the loss of the ISS's test racks will leave.  Just because the ISS budget is zeroed out does not mean that the budget for all research currently done at the ISS will be zeroed out also.  A manned moon/mars/astorid mission will still need equipment tested in microgravity, and the CCDEV vehicles will be the most cost effective way to test this hardware.

The simple truth is these capsules are just spacecraft, unlike the rockets they go to orbit on a high operational tempo is really not critical.  After development and certification if the Dragon/CST-100/Dreamchaser if they only fly to orbit once every few years, the companies behind them will not go broke because they already have other work the employees that work on the capsules can do.

[R7]

There's little or nothing "commercial" about the __________ crew vehicles, which is why I refuse to use that word in that program title.  I prefer to think of them as "government commissioned," since they are being designed to meet government requirements.  I have nothing against the program and I hope they succeed (I'm personally a fan of CST-100 -- how can you hate an Apollo capsule with a Gemini-esque service module?), but I wish we would call a spade a spade.

govmercial crew? 

[Occupymars]

There's little or nothing "commercial" about the __________ crew vehicles, which is why I refuse to use that word in that program title.  I prefer to think of them as "government commissioned," since they are being designed to meet government requirements.  I have nothing against the program and I hope they succeed (I'm personally a fan of CST-100 -- how can you hate an Apollo capsule with a Gemini-esque service module?), but I wish we would call a spade a spade.

govmercial crew? 

 

[Occupymars]

I can not help but think once the CCDEV vehicles are operational SA will be offering packages for free flight packages on said vehicles, at some price.

Governments that's where the big buck's are! Just look at what ESA contributes to the Iss program in exchange for their one crew member a year. Basically an ATV and Ariane 5 that's over 500 million for a crew member. They could rent there own space station off of Bigelow for that kind of money. But yeah a free flight for tom cruise or something would be great advertisement for Bigelow