Soyuz independence drive continues as CCP companies progress

[A_M_Swallow]

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.

[RocketmanUS]

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 ).

[Danderman]

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.

[docmordrid]

I can see anything that hands taxpayer dollars to Russia making it into the 2014 campaigns, especially where US alternatives are based.

[Ben the Space Brit]

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'.

[RonM]

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

[Lurker Steve]

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 ?

[Elmar Moelzer]

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).

[bad_astra]

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.

[Lurker Steve]

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

[Lar]

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:

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...

[RocketmanUS]

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.

[Elmar Moelzer]

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.

[yg1968]

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.

[Lurker Steve]

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.

[Elmar Moelzer]

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.

[dcporter]

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.

[yg1968]

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.

[manboy]

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:

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.

[llanitedave]

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.