Soyuz independence drive continues as CCP companies progress

[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.

[Ben the Space Brit]

@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.

[BrianNH]

Some people look at the world through rose colored glasses, others just want to project their misery.

New favorite quote!  Thanks for that.   

[erioladastra]

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.

[erioladastra]

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]

[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 ?

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 ??

[Sesquipedalian]

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?

[yg1968]

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).

[Elmar Moelzer]

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.

[yg1968]

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.

[Lurker Steve]

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 ??

[arachnitect]

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.

[erioladastra]

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.

[erioladastra]

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

[yg1968]

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.