Author Topic: Soyuz independence drive continues as CCP companies progress  (Read 24126 times)


Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9646
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 465
This is probably NASA's most important development program, so why Congress is starving this and instead throwing money at the Russians is a mystery to me.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3728
  • Boca Chica, Texas
  • Liked: 9933
  • Likes Given: 408
 Although it might be hoped that the present political situation might loosen the purse strings a tad and fully fund at least two programs, I have to wonder how much it would help schedule wise at this stage. Particularly with a company that does pretty much everything in house, having more money available might not make things happens that much sooner once the program is settled into the schedule.
 I'd really hate to see the Russians and other ISS partners part ways badly at this point. Soyuz and it's builders have kept the Station going for a while now and deserve all the credit for saving our bacon while we farted around, trying to figure out what to do next. People caught up in unrelated problems or petty issues can lose sight of what a fantastic partnership this has been.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3266
  • Liked: 654
  • Likes Given: 930
Although it might be hoped that the present political situation might loosen the purse strings a tad and fully fund at least two programs, I have to wonder how much it would help schedule wise at this stage. Particularly with a company that does pretty much everything in house, having more money available might not make things happens that much sooner once the program is settled into the schedule.
 I'd really hate to see the Russians and other ISS partners part ways badly at this point. Soyuz and it's builders have kept the Station going for a while now and deserve all the credit for saving our bacon while we farted around, trying to figure out what to do next. People caught up in unrelated problems or petty issues can lose sight of what a fantastic partnership this has been.
Well according to NASA, the cuts to commercial crew delayed the program by 2 years. So I believe it is correct to assume that more money would accelerate things (or at least prevent further slips).

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4425
  • Liked: 195
  • Likes Given: 396
This is probably NASA's most important development program, so why Congress is starving this and instead throwing money at the Russians is a mystery to me.
Agreed it's even more important then SLS and orion.

As for getting it more money just take it from the NSA domestic spying program and maybe also defund the TSA as well.

Other good places to get money defund the DEA's funding for raids on legal clinics that sell pot.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 01:06 am by Patchouli »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8593
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Well according to NASA, the cuts to commercial crew delayed the program by 2 years. So I believe it is correct to assume that more money would accelerate things (or at least prevent further slips).

There is one area that additional money can help with - the unforeseen problem.

The official purpose of the money may be "for additional testing requested by NASA".  The real purpose would be to pay to fix what ever the company messed up.  Something always gets messed up!

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4415
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 3066
  • Likes Given: 4164
Although it might be hoped that the present political situation might loosen the purse strings a tad and fully fund at least two programs, I have to wonder how much it would help schedule wise at this stage. Particularly with a company that does pretty much everything in house, having more money available might not make things happens that much sooner once the program is settled into the schedule.

Just because they do the work in-house doesn't mean that they don't pay those people - the money to do the work has to come from somewhere.  And Boeing especially hasn't been going out of it's way to use it's own funds to move the CST-100 further along, so I would say all Commercial Crew participants could move up their flight dates if NASA was allowed to fully fund the program.  The sooner the better

I'd really hate to see the Russians and other ISS partners part ways badly at this point. Soyuz and it's builders have kept the Station going for a while now and deserve all the credit for saving our bacon while we farted around, trying to figure out what to do next. People caught up in unrelated problems or petty issues can lose sight of what a fantastic partnership this has been.

I think we've all learned that the people of a country are usually more "normal" than the people that run their countries, and I think that's definitely true for Russia.  Unfortunately Putin exercises an extraordinary amount of influence in Russia, so he can cause mischief wherever he wants, regardless the consequences.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
I see no excuse that the CST-100 and Dragon should not be ready before December 2017 for first crew to ISS.
There is no excuse to say that the provider(s) would need to take shortcuts that would affect safety by having the vehicles ready by December 2017 instead of a later date.

I hope the Dragon is not delayed for land-landing and would use water recovery to get it launching soon as possible. Then later add in land-landing if it is not ready by December 2017.

Why should America even keep going to the ISS if it won't even use it's own vehicles to get crew to the space station?

It will be sad day for America if we don't get at least one commercial crew taxi launching before December 2017 with crew.

Now if Blue Origin launches crew before December 2017 on it's own dime  ;D! What will that make Congress and White house look like since the program started and before with all their delay debates.

Edit:
Were are these providers commercial customers?
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 04:17 am by RocketmanUS »

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
Blue Origin will probably never launch crew.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6870
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1861
  • Likes Given: 1906
Edit:
Were are these providers commercial customers?

It's OT here but they won't appear before Commercial Crew launches.

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 343
I know it's been around, but the 4th image in the article of the two astronauts walking up to Dreamchaser is pretty boss.

Offline Joffan

  • NSF Irregular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1435
  • Liked: 452
  • Likes Given: 1322
Nice article, thanks Chris. I still don't know which of these aspiring crew launch providers I'd be most happy to see win the contract - it all looks good.

I seem to remember there was some talk of increasing (redirecting?) funding to the SLS (or maybe Orion?) to an accelerated scheduled "just in case" there was no commercial provider ready. This seems like the least efficient use of government funds towards stated objectives. There appears to be no doubt that adding funding for the commercial developments would be the most effective way of securing early crew launching capability - or, on the converse, that directing funding away from these projects will delay them.
Max Q for humanity becoming spacefaring

Offline Chris Bergin

Nice article, thanks Chris. I still don't know which of these aspiring crew launch providers I'd be most happy to see win the contract - it all looks good.

I seem to remember there was some talk of increasing (redirecting?) funding to the SLS (or maybe Orion?) to an accelerated scheduled "just in case" there was no commercial provider ready. This seems like the least efficient use of government funds towards stated objectives. There appears to be no doubt that adding funding for the commercial developments would be the most effective way of securing early crew launching capability - or, on the converse, that directing funding away from these projects will delay them.

Thanks!

I don't think any increase in funding for SLS as the back up role was viable (or announced). That's a throwback to the initial SLS drive per the 2010 Authorization Act.

It seems almost traditional to look at SLS and Commercial Crew funding, but I'd say we need to look at what's mentioned in the article, the decision of paying for more Soyuz seats or "gambling" that end of 2017 isn't too much (and it really should not be) for Commercial Crew and using any projected Soyuz money to bolster Commercial Crew.

If we're looking at current funding mistakes, I'd look at JWST.


Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Love that George Jetson

Offline Bubbinski

Very good overview Chris, good job of summarizing the situation.

In view of what's going on internationally right now, this program is very important to NASA.
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline Chris Bergin

Very good overview Chris, good job of summarizing the situation.

In view of what's going on internationally right now, this program is very important to NASA.

Thanks! :)

And yes, I'd say it's priority number one for NASA.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11340
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8372
  • Likes Given: 6712
Very good overview Chris, good job of summarizing the situation.

In view of what's going on internationally right now, this program is very important to NASA.

Thanks! :)

And yes, I'd say it's priority number one for NASA.

WE'D say that. But do the Powers That Be think so? I'm dubious.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline Mader Levap

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 963
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 501
This is probably NASA's most important development program, so why Congress is starving this and instead throwing money at the Russians is a mystery to me.
Why? Simple. For politician, it is better to spend 1$ in his district and 9$ to Russia than 10$ going to different district in same country.
Be successful.  Then tell the haters to (BLEEP) off. - deruch
...and if you have failure, tell it anyway.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8593
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
This is probably NASA's most important development program, so why Congress is starving this and instead throwing money at the Russians is a mystery to me.
Why? Simple. For politician, it is better to spend 1$ in his district and 9$ to Russia than 10$ going to different district in same country.

Unless spending the money produces a scandal that will hurt the politician.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3266
  • Liked: 654
  • Likes Given: 930
Unless spending the money produces a scandal that will hurt the politician.
Hasn't so far, so why do you think it would?

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8593
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 167
Unless spending the money produces a scandal that will hurt the politician.
Hasn't so far, so why do you think it would?

Politicians have got into trouble with defence contracts.

Politicians are betting on space spending avoiding scandals.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Edit:
Were are these providers commercial customers?

It's OT here but they won't appear before Commercial Crew launches.
I posted that here because if they exist I figure they would want the crew taxi sooner than later for business case and work out the bugs in the system.

ISS as of now only needs the commercial taxi by December 2017 flight date. However it would be better to have it ready early if needed and to possible have extra flights before ( possible rich for some orbits ).

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9646
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 465
Unless spending the money produces a scandal that will hurt the politician.
Hasn't so far, so why do you think it would?
Because the $9 is going to a country that just invaded the Ukraine.

My feeling is that cooler heads will prevail and this crisis will blow over, but if it doesn't, I can't see Americans flying on Soyuz much longer.

Online docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5322
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2628
  • Likes Given: 1
I can see anything that hands taxpayer dollars to Russia making it into the 2014 campaigns, especially where US alternatives are based.
DM

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7144
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 663
  • Likes Given: 777
Personally, I expect Orion to be held up as the 'US alternative' unless SpaceX and SNC shout loud enough. Boeing is unlikely to rock the boat and, overall, CCP is something of a program out of the public and political eye in terms of it being 'a US alternative'.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2647
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1439
  • Likes Given: 1070
CNN article "Here's why the Ukraine crisis won't affect Russia, U.S. space collaboration."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/tech/russia-us-space-program-ukraine/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
I looked at the NASA budget for the FY 2015 thru FY 2019.
There is a total of over 3.4 Billion dollars budgeted for commercial crew.
I assume this means no one at NASA ever plans on doing a down-select or asking any of the vendors to provide some percentage of matching funding for the rest of the development.
This is very unlike COTS where the vendors were required to provide a greater percentage of the development funding.


So what happens when we have 3 completed vehicles and only 2 flights to the ISS per year ?
How is that cost-effective ?

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3266
  • Liked: 654
  • Likes Given: 930
Competition is good for NASA. Having two human rated launch vehicles and 3 very different spacecraft provides redundancy, so US astronauts are not grounded in case something goes wrong. Also, look at how much ULA launches cost the DOD to see what a monopoly does to prices (up 60% now). If a provider acts up, NASA can threaten to switch.
Also want to point out that NASA is opening cargo for the ISS extension timeframe up to competition again. A crew capable vehicle will most likely also be able to provide ISS cargo transport. That way one of the 3 competitors can go for the less prestigious but equally valuable resupply contract and we are down to two crew providers. What NASA did with commercial crew is fantastic, because it (for the first time) provided NASA with a pool of such options. The commercial crew providers also have the option to use their spacecraft and launchers for commercial business (e.g. Bigelow stations, Dragon Lab, etc), which is another way to make money from their development effort.
I think the outcome is really great and I see this as a very positive development, especially for the little money it cost NASA (especially compared to past efforts that resulted in nothing).

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1874
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 323
3 vehicles in the end is probably overkill, two most likely as well. I suspect best we can hope for sustainably, would be one crew provider with a cargo provider capable of moving quickly into the role if necessary for redundancy.

It would be great to have four manned spaceship designs flying in the next few years but it is not going to happen.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Competition means there are winners and losers.

In NASA's version of competition, everyone but the taxpayer is a winner.

Except when there is no money for missions.
Then what happens ???

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11340
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8372
  • Likes Given: 6712
CNN article "Here's why the Ukraine crisis won't affect Russia, U.S. space collaboration."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/tech/russia-us-space-program-ukraine/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Quoting from the article:
Quote
Plans are in the works for private U.S. companies to begin shipping cargo to the station

Hello? What are Cygnus and Dragon? Chopped liver?

That reporter's not too bright... or lazy... or sloppy. Whichever...
« Last Edit: 03/05/2014 04:13 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
I looked at the NASA budget for the FY 2015 thru FY 2019.
There is a total of over 3.4 Billion dollars budgeted for commercial crew.
I assume this means no one at NASA ever plans on doing a down-select or asking any of the vendors to provide some percentage of matching funding for the rest of the development.
This is very unlike COTS where the vendors were required to provide a greater percentage of the development funding.


So what happens when we have 3 completed vehicles and only 2 flights to the ISS per year ?
How is that cost-effective ?

3 vehicles in the end is probably overkill, two most likely as well. I suspect best we can hope for sustainably, would be one crew provider with a cargo provider capable of moving quickly into the role if necessary for redundancy.

It would be great to have four manned spaceship designs flying in the next few years but it is not going to happen.
Possible commercial launches not related to ISS and or NASA.
Also possible other NASA crew or cargo needing life support systems launched to LEO.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3266
  • Liked: 654
  • Likes Given: 930
Competition means there are winners and losers.

In NASA's version of competition, everyone but the taxpayer is a winner.

Except when there is no money for missions.
Then what happens ???
Dude, looking at how little commercial crew costs compared to ANY manned space program, the taxpayer is already a winner.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9769
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 886
Competition means there are winners and losers.

In NASA's version of competition, everyone but the taxpayer is a winner.

Except when there is no money for missions.
Then what happens ???

If you only have one winner, you no longer have competition, you have a monopoly. Ideally, you maintain competition as long as possible. I am hoping that NASA will select 3 cargo providers for CRS2 in order to ensure that 2 out of 3 cargo suppliers can also provide crewed services when needed.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Competition means there are winners and losers.

In NASA's version of competition, everyone but the taxpayer is a winner.

Except when there is no money for missions.
Then what happens ???

If you only have one winner, you no longer have competition, you have a monopoly. Ideally, you maintain competition as long as possible. I am hoping that NASA will select 3 cargo providers for CRS2 in order to ensure that 2 out of 3 cargo suppliers can also provide crewed services when needed.

With 3 winners, you have a Triopoly.
Same as a monopoly, but only more expensive.

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3266
  • Liked: 654
  • Likes Given: 930
With 3 winners, you have a Triopoly.
Same as a monopoly, but only more expensive.
Sorry, but that is silly. The fact that there are other competitors available makes sure that they wont simply raise prices without NASA being able to do anything about it. SpaceX thinks they can raise prices, their flights go to ULA and the CST 100. It is that easy. With a single provider, you obviously cant do that (which is why it is then called a monopoly). Also as we have seen in history, whenever an accident happens with one transport system, it is followed by months of investigations. Having a diverse set of crew transport providers makes sure that American astronauts are not grounded (or stuck at the ISS) for months in that case.
Also want to add that if you are oh so concerned about wasteful government spending, there are much more wasteful hate targets that commercial crew. This is as cheap as manned spaceflight gets.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2014 09:25 pm by Elmar Moelzer »

Online dcporter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 873
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 411
With 3 winners, you have a Triopoly.
Same as a monopoly, but only more expensive.

With 70 winners you have a septuagopoly. Word games are fun! Each winner gets a monopoly on 1/70th of the power to dictate terms and conditions. By the way, an opolist with one third of the power has way, way, way less control over the situation. So not the same as a monopoly.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9769
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 886
Competition means there are winners and losers.

In NASA's version of competition, everyone but the taxpayer is a winner.

Except when there is no money for missions.
Then what happens ???

If you only have one winner, you no longer have competition, you have a monopoly. Ideally, you maintain competition as long as possible. I am hoping that NASA will select 3 cargo providers for CRS2 in order to ensure that 2 out of 3 cargo suppliers can also provide crewed services when needed.

With 3 winners, you have a Triopoly.
Same as a monopoly, but only more expensive.

If one becomes much more expensive than the others for no reason, you have the option of dropping them.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
CNN article "Here's why the Ukraine crisis won't affect Russia, U.S. space collaboration."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/05/tech/russia-us-space-program-ukraine/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Quoting from the article:
Quote
Plans are in the works for private U.S. companies to begin shipping cargo to the station

Hello? What are Cygnus and Dragon? Chopped liver?

That reporter's not too bright... or lazy... or sloppy. Whichever...
Article has been corrected.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Online llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2163
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1350
  • Likes Given: 1585
With 3 winners, you have a Triopoly.
Same as a monopoly, but only more expensive.
Sorry, but that is silly. The fact that there are other competitors available makes sure that they wont simply raise prices without NASA being able to do anything about it. SpaceX thinks they can raise prices, their flights go to ULA and the CST 100. It is that easy. With a single provider, you obviously cant do that (which is why it is then called a monopoly). Also as we have seen in history, whenever an accident happens with one transport system, it is followed by months of investigations. Having a diverse set of crew transport providers makes sure that American astronauts are not grounded (or stuck at the ISS) for months in that case.
Also want to add that if you are oh so concerned about wasteful government spending, there are much more wasteful hate targets that commercial crew. This is as cheap as manned spaceflight gets.

It's beyond silly.  You're being way too kind.  Some people look at the world through rose colored glasses, others just want to project their misery.

"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline simonbp

Chopped liver with an eastern Ukrainian-built first stage...

That might be one of the largest risks, that something happens to mean that Yuzhnoye can't deliver any more Antares first stages.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7144
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 663
  • Likes Given: 777
@simonbp,

If I were a senior at OSC, I'd be sweating bullets about this situation in Ukraine. I'd also be talking to Aerojet about getting domestic AJ-26 production going and seeing about sourcing an alternate subcontractor for the Antares core.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline BrianNH

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • Liked: 106
  • Likes Given: 326
Some people look at the world through rose colored glasses, others just want to project their misery.

New favorite quote!  Thanks for that.   ;)

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 0
I looked at the NASA budget for the FY 2015 thru FY 2019.
There is a total of over 3.4 Billion dollars budgeted for commercial crew.
I assume this means no one at NASA ever plans on doing a down-select or asking any of the vendors to provide some percentage of matching funding for the rest of the development.
This is very unlike COTS where the vendors were required to provide a greater percentage of the development funding.


So what happens when we have 3 completed vehicles and only 2 flights to the ISS per year ?
How is that cost-effective ?

Interesting how you conclude that from the WH budget.  The vendors will, and are, providing significant skin in the game in the next phases.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 0
Competition is good for NASA. Having two human rated launch vehicles and 3 very different spacecraft provides redundancy, so US astronauts are not grounded in case something goes wrong. Also, look at how much ULA launches cost the DOD to see what a monopoly does to prices (up 60% now). If a provider acts up, NASA can threaten to switch.
Also want to point out that NASA is opening cargo for the ISS extension timeframe up to competition again. A crew capable vehicle will most likely also be able to provide ISS cargo transport. That way one of the 3 competitors can go for the less prestigious but equally valuable resupply contract and we are down to two crew providers. What NASA did with commercial crew is fantastic, because it (for the first time) provided NASA with a pool of such options. The commercial crew providers also have the option to use their spacecraft and launchers for commercial business (e.g. Bigelow stations, Dragon Lab, etc), which is another way to make money from their development effort.
I think the outcome is really great and I see this as a very positive development, especially for the little money it cost NASA (especially compared to past efforts that resulted in nothing).

Redudnancy is good, but by the end if CCiCAP, NASA will have gotten about as much as they can hope to gain from competition.  Costs and vehicle will be pretty much locked in at that point.  In my personal opinion I think there are two possible paths:

1) The funding level is not affected by the crises and stays the same:
     A) NASA picks more than one provider, which thereby underfunds them stretching out first crewed flight to 2018+
     B) NASA picks one provider.  Might make 2017.  Have no redudancy but crew flying sooner.

2) Funding level increased because of the crises.
     A) NASA picks 2 providers

Knowing how congress works I would be stunned if the funding in 2A would really trully fund 2 providers at the full level to meet 2017 and doubt it would be more than that to come in earlier (and not sure the companies could do so unless funding increased significantly, NOW).

My prediction is that congress huffs and puffs and mainly pushes NASA to make 1B work. [EDITED]
« Last Edit: 03/07/2014 05:31 pm by erioladastra »

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
I looked at the NASA budget for the FY 2015 thru FY 2019.
There is a total of over 3.4 Billion dollars budgeted for commercial crew.
I assume this means no one at NASA ever plans on doing a down-select or asking any of the vendors to provide some percentage of matching funding for the rest of the development.
This is very unlike COTS where the vendors were required to provide a greater percentage of the development funding.


So what happens when we have 3 completed vehicles and only 2 flights to the ISS per year ?
How is that cost-effective ?

Interesting how you conclude that from the WH budget.  The vendors will, and are, providing significant skin in the game in the next phases.

How does that add up ?

It's already been stated that the vendors have provided around 10 percent of the total development cost. That's petty cash compared to the percentages in COTS, and other earlier NASA programs.

Now, after 2 of the vendors will be at the CDR level and another not far behind, NASA is budgeting more than 1.1 Billion per vendor in the next phase, and that is still separate from the CCT production contract. How much more than 1 Billion each do the vendors need post-CDR to get certified ??

Wanna bet this same conversation happens in a congressional hearing later this year ??


Offline Sesquipedalian

  • Whee!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • Liked: 199
  • Likes Given: 626
2) Funding level increased because of the crises.
     A) NASA picks 2 providers

[...]

My prediction is that congress huffs and puffs and mainly pushes NASA to make 2B work.

2B, or not 2B?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9769
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 886
I looked at the NASA budget for the FY 2015 thru FY 2019.
There is a total of over 3.4 Billion dollars budgeted for commercial crew.
I assume this means no one at NASA ever plans on doing a down-select or asking any of the vendors to provide some percentage of matching funding for the rest of the development.
This is very unlike COTS where the vendors were required to provide a greater percentage of the development funding.


So what happens when we have 3 completed vehicles and only 2 flights to the ISS per year ?
How is that cost-effective ?

Interesting how you conclude that from the WH budget.  The vendors will, and are, providing significant skin in the game in the next phases.

How does that add up ?

It's already been stated that the vendors have provided around 10 percent of the total development cost. That's petty cash compared to the percentages in COTS, and other earlier NASA programs.

Now, after 2 of the vendors will be at the CDR level and another not far behind, NASA is budgeting more than 1.1 Billion per vendor in the next phase, and that is still separate from the CCT production contract. How much more than 1 Billion each do the vendors need post-CDR to get certified ??

Wanna bet this same conversation happens in a congressional hearing later this year ??

That budget includes a number of ISS missions (including post-certification missions).

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3266
  • Liked: 654
  • Likes Given: 930
How does that add up ?
It's already been stated that the vendors have provided around 10 percent of the total development cost. That's petty cash compared to the percentages in COTS, and other earlier NASA programs.
Now, after 2 of the vendors will be at the CDR level and another not far behind, NASA is budgeting more than 1.1 Billion per vendor in the next phase, and that is still separate from the CCT production contract. How much more than 1 Billion each do the vendors need post-CDR to get certified ??
Wanna bet this same conversation happens in a congressional hearing later this year ??
Well, you should check what NASA gets for that money. I will give you a hint: More than they ever got for that little money. NASA really is a very bad hate target for tax money whiners. If I was looking for a hate target, it would be trillion USD monsters like the F35.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9769
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 886
Redudnancy is good, but by the end if CCiCAP, NASA will have gotten about as much as they can hope to gain from competition.  Costs and vehicle will be pretty much locked in at that point.  In my personal opinion I think there are two possible paths:

1) The funding level is not affected by the crises and stays the same:
     A) NASA picks more than one provider, which thereby underfunds them stretching out first crewed flight to 2018+
     B) NASA picks one provider.  Might make 2017.  Have no redudancy but crew flying sooner.

2) Funding level increased because of the crises.
     A) NASA picks 2 providers

Knowing how congress works I would be stunned if the funding in 2A would really trully fund 2 providers at the full level to meet 2017 and doubt it would be more than that to come in earlier (and not sure the companies could do so unless funding increased significantly, NOW).

My prediction is that congress huffs and puffs and mainly pushes NASA to make 2B work.

Robinson said on Tuesday that $848M is enough to maintain competition through the next phase. The way that CCtCap is set up, it seems to be made for having two providers. Bolden made the point on Tuesday that he does not expect the FY 2015 Appropriation bill to have an impact on how many providers NASA selects because he doesn't think that the bill will be passed prior to the end of August when CCtCap is awarded.
« Last Edit: 03/07/2014 06:49 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9

That budget includes a number of ISS missions (including post-certification missions).

Add it up. 3.4 Billion is just the budgeted amounts for FY 2015, 2016, 2017, and a very small amount of 2018.
Are those post-certification missions happening in FY 2016 and 2017 ??

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463

That budget includes a number of ISS missions (including post-certification missions).

Add it up. 3.4 Billion is just the budgeted amounts for FY 2015, 2016, 2017, and a very small amount of 2018.
Are those post-certification missions happening in FY 2016 and 2017 ??

Payments begin before launch day.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 0
Redudnancy is good, but by the end if CCiCAP, NASA will have gotten about as much as they can hope to gain from competition.  Costs and vehicle will be pretty much locked in at that point.  In my personal opinion I think there are two possible paths:

1) The funding level is not affected by the crises and stays the same:
     A) NASA picks more than one provider, which thereby underfunds them stretching out first crewed flight to 2018+
     B) NASA picks one provider.  Might make 2017.  Have no redudancy but crew flying sooner.

2) Funding level increased because of the crises.
     A) NASA picks 2 providers

Knowing how congress works I would be stunned if the funding in 2A would really trully fund 2 providers at the full level to meet 2017 and doubt it would be more than that to come in earlier (and not sure the companies could do so unless funding increased significantly, NOW).

My prediction is that congress huffs and puffs and mainly pushes NASA to make 2B work.

I think that you mean 1B, you don't have a 2B option.

Robinson said on Tuesday that $848M is enough to maintain competition through the next phase. The way that CCtCap is set up, it seems to be made for having two providers. Bolden made the point on Tuesday that he does not expect the FY 2015 Appropriation bill to have an impact on how many providers NASA selects because he doesn't think that the bill will be passed prior to the end of August when CCtCap is awarded.

It may be enough to maintain competition, but ti won't be enough to get you flying in 2017.  The math don't add up.  Period.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 0
2) Funding level increased because of the crises.
     A) NASA picks 2 providers

[...]

My prediction is that congress huffs and puffs and mainly pushes NASA to make 2B work.

2B, or not 2B?

yeah I corrected it, 1B :)  Sorry

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9769
  • Liked: 1459
  • Likes Given: 886

I think that you mean 1B, you don't have a 2B option.

Robinson said on Tuesday that $848M is enough to maintain competition through the next phase. The way that CCtCap is set up, it seems to be made for having two providers. Bolden made the point on Tuesday that he does not expect the FY 2015 Appropriation bill to have an impact on how many providers NASA selects because he doesn't think that the bill will be passed prior to the end of August when CCtCap is awarded.

It may be enough to maintain competition, but ti won't be enough to get you flying in 2017.  The math don't add up.  Period.

Well, perhaps, you could have 1.5 CCtCap providers instead of two (i.e., one provider would be given priority funding). I don't have access to the math. So I am not sure how it adds up. All I know is that the CCiCap optional milestones for all three providers had a total value of $4.5B (per information disclosed at a September 12, 2012 House hearing). If you down select to two, you could reduce that amount to less than $3B. 
« Last Edit: 03/07/2014 07:00 pm by yg1968 »

Tags: