Frustration grows as lawmakers continue to penny pinch commercial crew

[john smith 19]

Things aren't quite as bad as the article makes them out to be.  The appropriators, who are the legislators that matter when it comes to budgets, have commercial crew up above $700M in both the House and Senate bills, which is a huge improvement over the $500M funding level provided in prior years:

$700m sounds a whole lot better than $500m

Enough to see some of those "optional milestones" being funded?

I don't think there's really any evidence that a downselect to a single provider at this point would speed up the availability of commercial crew.

What would light a fire under them is declaring that only one provider will be selected and that it will be whoever flies a crew to the ISS first. In other words: a race.

I like that idea. Someone else mentioned that EELV seemed to progress faster with 2 entrants.

If getting there faster was the goal, that's what they'd do. But I honestly don't see that this is the goal. NASA won't do that on their own, and I don't think Congress understands the situation enough to suggest it.

I guess a good question would be how much money has NASA already paid to Russia for those seats? If they make advance payments to OSC and Spacex for deliveries years down the line presumably they've coughed up some cash already.

[yg1968]

Things aren't quite as bad as the article makes them out to be.  The appropriators, who are the legislators that matter when it comes to budgets, have commercial crew up above $700M in both the House and Senate bills, which is a huge improvement over the $500M funding level provided in prior years:

"Although neither appropriations committee met the White House’s $821 million request for Commercial Crew, both approved more funding than the program has received since its inception. Senate appropriators set a new high water mark with a $775 million appropriation, well above the $489 million the program got in 2013 under NASA’s sequestered spending bill. The House, even in its sequester-level bill, provided $700 million."

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36339senate-house-nasa-bills-far-apart-on-funding-close-on-some-priorities#.UeiekSDD9pM

That article is incorrect. Although, the House has $700M in its authorization bill, the House only appropriated $500 million for FY 2014 in the report to its appropriation bill. The appropriators have the final say in what amount gets allocated.

See page 60 of the Report:
http://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hrpt-113-hr-fy2014-cjs.pdf

[Elmar Moelzer]

$700m sounds a whole lot better than $500m

IIRC, even that already meant a year delay for the program, as it is way less than what NASA requested. Every year delay means 400 million for the Russians. It makes no sense whatsoever to cut commercial crew.

[john smith 19]

$700m sounds a whole lot better than $500m

IIRC, even that already meant a year delay for the program, as it is way less than what NASA requested. Every year delay means 400 million for the Russians. It makes no sense whatsoever to cut commercial crew.

The Legislatures actions with regard to NASA and the space programme don't have to.

But I've got to admit "Every year you Mr/Mrs/Ms <Senator/Congressperson> delay Commercial Crew adds a further $400m to the money the US Government sends overseas"

does sound like it might a)Touch a chord in members of the Legislature b)Be simple enough for them to understand.

[yg1968]

Things aren't quite as bad as the article makes them out to be.  The appropriators, who are the legislators that matter when it comes to budgets, have commercial crew up above $700M in both the House and Senate bills, which is a huge improvement over the $500M funding level provided in prior years:

"Although neither appropriations committee met the White House’s $821 million request for Commercial Crew, both approved more funding than the program has received since its inception. Senate appropriators set a new high water mark with a $775 million appropriation, well above the $489 million the program got in 2013 under NASA’s sequestered spending bill. The House, even in its sequester-level bill, provided $700 million."

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36339senate-house-nasa-bills-far-apart-on-funding-close-on-some-priorities#.UeiekSDD9pM

The SN article has now been updated with the right numbers.

House and Senate appropriators are also hundreds of millions of dollars apart on the Commercial Crew Program. Neither appropriations committee met the White House’s $821 million request for Commercial Crew, but the Senate bill sets a new high water mark with a $775 million, well above the $489 million the program got in 2013 under NASA’s sequestered spending bill. The House, in its sequester-level bill, provided $500 million.

[yg1968]

Not surprisingly, NASA is also frustrated about the House appropriation bill:
http://blogs.nasa.gov/weaverblog/2013/07/17/nasas-appropriations-committee-markup/

We are especially concerned the bill cuts funding for [...]  the innovative and cost-effective commercial crew program, which will break our sole dependence on foreign partners to get to the Space Station. The bill will jeopardize the success of the commercial crew program and ensure that we continue to outsource jobs to Russia.

[spectre9]

Boeing and Atlas V have been purposefully crippled down to the pace of SpaceX. They could've been flying much sooner but there's a perception that they would charge too much which is why NASA was so scared to go that route.

Giggle. That's the opposite of what happened.

What surprises me is that people still pay attention to spectre9. So far he has blamed SpaceX and NASA. Who's next? The tooth fairy?

So nobody is to blame? Put it all back on those grubby politicians for not giving enough money. The way NASA has run commercial crew has been a bit of a debacle from the start. Stringing along multiple providers for an uncertain future. NASA talks about "handing over LEO operations" but shouldn't they be trying to get out of LEO altogether?

So what if they needed a super expensive contract to fill the gap. Spacecraft built the way NASA wants them built are never going to be as cheap as Soyuz. American workers get paid more for a start.

[Lobo]

IIRC, even that already meant a year delay for the program, as it is way less than what NASA requested. Every year delay means 400 million for the Russians. It makes no sense whatsoever to cut commercial crew.

I agree it's stupid to keep sending money to the Russians.

However, in the scheme of things, if they put Orion with a partial propellant load on an Atlas 552, they could use that for the ISS and not need commercial crew.
Rather than funding Orion develop -and- 2.5 commercial crew providers that can do the same thing Orion can do.

Not that I don't think commercial crew is cool, and wouldn't love to see Dreamchaser at the ISS.  But in reality NASA only needs a few crew missions to the ISS per year, and they are already developing a spececraft that can do it, which they will be paying for regardless of how often it flies.  Even if commercial crew is cheaper than Orion, they'll be paying for Orion -anyway-.  The more Orion flies, the cheaper per unit cost it will be.  And there's an existing EELV that can fly it.  Two actually, Atlas 552 (well, almost already existing) and D4H.  I believe Atlas will be the easier to man-rate though, an the cheaper of the two to use.
There should be a FH which could do it too, flying by the time Orion could possibly be ready to go to the ISS.

It's not a matter of paying for the expensive Orion -or- a cheaper commercial crew spacecraft, it's a matter of paying for just Orion or Orion plus a cheaper commercial spacecraft together.   Which I think will always be more than just Orion. 

Seems like a waste to cancel commercial crew at this point however.  This is a path I think should have been a part of NAA2010.

[mr. mark]

Reading back some posts not sure if things have been TOO mishandled as some are saying. Rocket science is hard and it takes time. SpaceX is scheduled for a pad abort test end of this year and a in flight abort test mid next year. A Dreamchaser prototype is undergoing testing and a drop test is coming soon. I guess people want the future tomorrow and that is just not going to happen. Commercial spaceflight has come a long way in a short time. As for me, I'm enjoying the journey not the destination.

[RocketmanUS]

IIRC, even that already meant a year delay for the program, as it is way less than what NASA requested. Every year delay means 400 million for the Russians. It makes no sense whatsoever to cut commercial crew.

I agree it's stupid to keep sending money to the Russians.

However, in the scheme of things, if they put Orion with a partial propellant load on an Atlas 552, they could use that for the ISS and not need commercial crew.
Rather than funding Orion develop -and- 2.5 commercial crew providers that can do the same thing Orion can do.

Not that I don't think commercial crew is cool, and wouldn't love to see Dreamchaser at the ISS.  But in reality NASA only needs a few crew missions to the ISS per year, and they are already developing a spececraft that can do it, which they will be paying for regardless of how often it flies.  Even if commercial crew is cheaper than Orion, they'll be paying for Orion -anyway-.  The more Orion flies, the cheaper per unit cost it will be.  And there's an existing EELV that can fly it.  Two actually, Atlas 552 (well, almost already existing) and D4H.  I believe Atlas will be the easier to man-rate though, an the cheaper of the two to use.
There should be a FH which could do it too, flying by the time Orion could possibly be ready to go to the ISS.

It's not a matter of paying for the expensive Orion -or- a cheaper commercial crew spacecraft, it's a matter of paying for just Orion or Orion plus a cheaper commercial spacecraft together.   Which I think will always be more than just Orion. 

Seems like a waste to cancel commercial crew at this point however.  This is a path I think should have been a part of NAA2010.

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

The ISS contracts would be their leg up ( starting point ). Once they start bringing crew to ISS they will have several years to prove them selves before starting a non government commercial venture.

And when could the earliest Orion with it's LAS be ready to take crew to ISS assuming it could use Atlas V?

Orion BLEO and commercial LEO taxi's are to different crew spacecraft.

[john smith 19]

I agree it's stupid to keep sending money to the Russians.

However, in the scheme of things, if they put Orion with a partial propellant load on an Atlas 552, they could use that for the ISS and not need commercial crew.

Except NASA stated neither EELV was crew rateable and only Ares1 could handle the mission with the level of safety NASA required.

Anything else is a revision of the actual (recent) history.

Rather than funding Orion develop -and- 2.5 commercial crew providers that can do the same thing Orion can do.

No they can't. OTOH if adequately funded it looks like one or more of them could be flying with crew before Orion manages its first (uncrewed) flight. I'm not even sure anyone knows what an "adequate" level of Orion funding would be.

Not that I don't think commercial crew is cool, and wouldn't love to see Dreamchaser at the ISS. 

Irrelevant.

But in reality NASA only needs a few crew missions to the ISS per year, and they are already developing a spececraft that can do it, which they will be paying for regardless of how often it flies.  Even if commercial crew is cheaper than Orion, they'll be paying for Orion -anyway-.  The more Orion flies, the cheaper per unit cost it will be. 

That's superficially a plausible idea.
Except NASA has been working on Orion since 2002 and nothing, let me just repeat that nothing has flown.
In contrast CC started around 2008 and all vehicles are in at least preliminary drop test, with some going to launch escape system tests. The core of Crewed Dragon is already flying, collecting data and flight hours.

And there's an existing EELV that can fly it.  Two actually, Atlas 552 (well, almost already existing) and D4H.  I believe Atlas will be the easier to man-rate though, an the cheaper of the two to use.

Atlas is man rated, although I cannot recall if it's in that configuration. The problem is not for Orion.

There should be a FH which could do it too, flying by the time Orion could possibly be ready to go to the ISS.

People are worried about CC schedule slippage, yet you don't seem to think Orion's schedule will not slip a day?

It's not a matter of paying for the expensive Orion -or- a cheaper commercial crew spacecraft, it's a matter of paying for just Orion or Orion plus a cheaper commercial spacecraft together.   Which I think will always be more than just Orion. 

This is still wishful thinking. The only programme NASA have to carry out is SLS. NASA is already outsourcing the SM to ESA. Does that not suggest they are having problems with it?

[Nate_Trost]

NASA is already outsourcing the SM to ESA. Does that not suggest they are having problems with it?

It suggests a political hedge against project cancellation.

[yg1968]

IIRC, even that already meant a year delay for the program, as it is way less than what NASA requested. Every year delay means 400 million for the Russians. It makes no sense whatsoever to cut commercial crew.

I agree it's stupid to keep sending money to the Russians.

However, in the scheme of things, if they put Orion with a partial propellant load on an Atlas 552, they could use that for the ISS and not need commercial crew.
Rather than funding Orion develop -and- 2.5 commercial crew providers that can do the same thing Orion can do.

It wouldn't be cheaper. The cost of Orion was estimated to be more than $800M per unit a few years ago in a HEFT presentation.

[Lars_J]

I agree it's stupid to keep sending money to the Russians.

However, in the scheme of things, if they put Orion with a partial propellant load on an Atlas 552, they could use that for the ISS and not need commercial crew.

Except NASA stated neither EELV was crew rateable and only Ares1 could handle the mission with the level of safety NASA required.

Anything else is a revision of the actual (recent) history.

Yes, they said so at the time - but in hindsight we know that this was at best an exaggeration, and at worst a bald-faced lie.

Otherwise CST and DC would not be an option on the Atlas V.

[Lobo]

I agree it's stupid to keep sending money to the Russians.

However, in the scheme of things, if they put Orion with a partial propellant load on an Atlas 552, they could use that for the ISS and not need commercial crew.

Except NASA stated neither EELV was crew rateable and only Ares1 could handle the mission with the level of safety NASA required.

Anything else is a revision of the actual (recent) history.

Yes, they said so at the time - but in hindsight we know that this was at best an exaggeration, and at worst a bald-faced lie.

Otherwise CST and DC would not be an option on the Atlas V.

Bingo.  You beat me to it.  Yes, it would mean NASA reversing policy, but how would that hurt them at this point?  99% of the public and politicians would not even know they originally claimed EELV's were impossible to use.  And even if they -did- need an "excuse", they could just say a separate CLV is not required to loft the BLEO Orion CSM now, as SLS will be launching both crew and cargo together.  And "lack of ability" of EELV's to loft hte full BLEO Orion to LEO is not longer a factor.  An EELV only needs to get a short-fueled LEO version of the Orion CSM to LEO for ISS service, just like Saturn 1B couldn't launch the full BLEO verison of Apollo CSM, but it could launch a LEO version with a partial propellant load to LEO, and was used for Apollo 7, and Skylab 2, 3, and 4, as well as ASTP.  And this is basically just redoing that strategy...as there is no dedicated CLV now. 

Everyone but the space nerds here would hear that and think, "Yea, that sounds like a really smart idea.  I'm glad NASA thought of doing that."

:-)

Obviously NASA has unofficially reversed their stance on EELV's or they'd not allow any commercial crew bidders to be proposing using EELV's to launch NASA crews to the ISS.

[Lobo]

IIRC, even that already meant a year delay for the program, as it is way less than what NASA requested. Every year delay means 400 million for the Russians. It makes no sense whatsoever to cut commercial crew.

I agree it's stupid to keep sending money to the Russians.

However, in the scheme of things, if they put Orion with a partial propellant load on an Atlas 552, they could use that for the ISS and not need commercial crew.
Rather than funding Orion develop -and- 2.5 commercial crew providers that can do the same thing Orion can do.

It wouldn't be cheaper. The cost of Orion was estimated to be more than $800M per unit a few years ago in a HEFT presentation.

But it's that based on the annual cost divided by the number of units per year?  If there's only one Orion per year, and the program costs $800 million per year, then it would be $800/unit, no?

But if there were four a year, it would be $200million per year.  That's still a lot per launch...but NASA will be paying that whether they are launching Orion, or just letting the production facility sit idle for the whole year.  So NASA paying that...plus whatever commercial crew will cost by the time it's finally downselected to one, and then the annual costs of that one, won't be more than just maintaining Orion alone.  It's an expense on top of Orion regardless of number Orion launches per year.

Or am I not understanding Orion's costs correctly?

[Lobo]

That's superficially a plausible idea.
Except NASA has been working on Orion since 2002 and nothing, let me just repeat that nothing has flown.
In contrast CC started around 2008 and all vehicles are in at least preliminary drop test, with some going to launch escape system tests. The core of Crewed Dragon is already flying, collecting data and flight hours.

Yea, well, unless Orion is cancelled in favor of a commercial crew provider adding BLEO capability into one of their spacecraft, then Orion will continue to be developed, and funded...regardless of if NASA is paying for Dragon to go to the ISS.  And if they aren't going to let a commercial crew provider go to the ISS prior to 2017 (silly in my book) then Orion should be ready to go by then too.

Atlas is man rated, although I cannot recall if it's in that configuration. The problem is not for Orion.

I believe Atlas 412 will be man-rated for CST-100.  So the Atlas CCB, the Atlas SRB, and two engine Centaur are to be manrated with continuation of CST-100.  Add four Atlas SRB's to that, and you have the 552.  I'm not sure if there's anything specficially different about the two configurations in terms of man-rating considerations.

People are worried about CC schedule slippage, yet you don't seem to think Orion's schedule will not slip a day?

Not saying that, I said that FH should be flying by the time Orion might be ready.  If that's 2017, then FH -should- have been flying for two years, baring some developmental delay. 
Now, could Orion be ready earlier than 2017?  Late 2017 is when SLS will hopefully be ready (no sooner for sure), and I'm sure they are scheduling Orion to match that.  But if Orion was cleared to launch on something available now, could Orion's schedule be improved some?  I don't know.  My guess is the SM might be a delay as I don't think they've even started it, but the CM could be ready ealier.
IF the SM were to cause the CSM to be delayed, maybe a LEO version could be made ready sooner.  All it really needs is a trunk with the ECLSS system like Dragon would have, and batteries that last long enough to get to the ISS.  I hope that wouldn't be the case though...what a depressing thought they couldn't even have a working CSM by 2017.

This is still wishful thinking. The only programme NASA have to carry out is SLS. NASA is already outsourcing the SM to ESA. Does that not suggest they are having problems with it?

I dunno.  I think the CM is proceeding fine.  Personally, I think the potential ESA SM is to defer some development costs, and utilize some existing hardware.  ESA developed ATV for just 5 missions.  Seems almost a waste to just retire it then.  I'm not necessarily a fan of an ESA SM, but I don't know that it forshadows doom either. 
But, I am worried about the SM.  But like I said, it really doesn't even need it to go to the ISS.  Centaur would place CST-100 in chase orbit with the ISS without a burn from a SMME.  I'd think the same would be the case for an Orion with a LEO "trunk", no?

[Chris Bergin]

On the Griffin, EELV and Ares I points:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/04/study-eelv-capable-orion-role-griffin-claims-alternatives-fiction/

[LegendCJS]

IIRC, even that already meant a year delay for the program, as it is way less than what NASA requested. Every year delay means 400 million for the Russians. It makes no sense whatsoever to cut commercial crew.

I agree it's stupid to keep sending money to the Russians.

However, in the scheme of things, if they put Orion with a partial propellant load on an Atlas 552, they could use that for the ISS and not need commercial crew.
Rather than funding Orion develop -and- 2.5 commercial crew providers that can do the same thing Orion can do.

It wouldn't be cheaper. The cost of Orion was estimated to be more than $800M per unit a few years ago in a HEFT presentation.

But it's that based on the annual cost divided by the number of units per year?  If there's only one Orion per year, and the program costs $800 million per year, then it would be $800/unit, no?

But if there were four a year, it would be $200million per year.  That's still a lot per launch...but NASA will be paying that whether they are launching Orion, or just letting the production facility sit idle for the whole year.  So NASA paying that...plus whatever commercial crew will cost by the time it's finally downselected to one, and then the annual costs of that one, won't be more than just maintaining Orion alone.  It's an expense on top of Orion regardless of number Orion launches per year.

Or am I not understanding Orion's costs correctly?

He stated the cost of Orion itself, not including the cost to send it up. 

The greatest cost of advanced aerospace products is wages for the employees who build the products.

The conditions under which your calculation of Orion cost is accurate assume that a large team of workers involved just twiddle their thumbs 364.999 days per year drawing $800 million in salary , and when the order comes in for a new Orion it is built instantaneously at no marginal cost.

In reality the program will have instead a team sized such that working only one shift a day and only 5 days a week one Orion can be built and delivered in 1 year.  To first order, if 2 Orions are needed then man hour worked/ total costs roughly double, if 3 then total costs roughly triple, and so on and so forth, keeping the per unit cost roughly constant.  This all assumes that the development and design cost is not factored in, which is isn't when discussing the cost to the ISS specific budget for an Orion flight.  The much lauded benefits of mass production lowering per unit cost are not achieved when talking about single digit deliveries per year.

[Lobo]

He stated the cost of Orion itself, not including the cost to send it up. 

The greatest cost of advanced aerospace products is wages for the employees who build the products.

The conditions under which your calculation of Orion cost is accurate assume that a large team of workers involved just twiddle their thumbs 364.999 days per year drawing $800 million in salary , and when the order comes in for a new Orion it is built instantaneously at no marginal cost.

In reality the program will have instead a team sized such that working only one shift a day and only 5 days a week one Orion can be built and delivered in 1 year.  To first order, if 2 Orions are needed then man hour worked/ total costs roughly double, if 3 then total costs roughly triple, and so on and so forth, keeping the per unit cost roughly constant.  This all assumes that the development and design cost is not factored in, which is isn't when discussing the cost to the ISS specific budget for an Orion flight.  The much lauded benefits of mass production lowering per unit cost are not achieved when talking about single digit deliveries per year.

So, you're saying that each Orion will cost roughly what an entire shuttle launch did, including hardware, processing, all the labor associated in that, etc.?
If four Orion's were ordered in a year, it would cost roughly as much as the entire Annual shuttle budget that averaged around four launches per year in the latter years?  And that's just four Orion CSM's sitting on the floor, not launching into space?

Well, I gotta say, that doesn't sound quite right.  But if it is, then I think NASA should close it's doors and get out of the HSF business altogether.