Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[joek]

Boeing has a contract for a small fraction of the the expected Commercial Crew launches. Another small fraction are contracted to SpaceX. The majority of CC flights will be competitively bid between SpaceX and Boeing in the future, and Starliner is unlikely to be competitive on price with Crew Dragon.

Point taken, but I don't think I would call a guaranteed 1/3 of the missions (minimum of 2 out of a maximum of 6) a "small fraction".  If ISS CCtCap demand extends ~+6 years after CCtCap IOC, both Boeing and SpaceX will max out their awards.  Only after that, or after issuance of another award in the interim (doubtful?), are we likely to see head-to-head CCtCap competition between Boeing and SpaceX.

[joek]

Fine, but what is an op-ed now going to do for a competition that doesn't even exist yet?  Furthermore, since when do selection authorities take their data from op-eds written in newspapers?  As someone who works in the industry, I don't trust most newspapers to get even basic facts about space flight correct.

Agree.  At a nominal rate of one flight/yr per provider (2 crew flights/yr to ISS), and a guarantee of two post-certification missions per provider, any real competition is at minimum 2 years after CCtCap starts post-certification missions.  At that point the providers will have proved themselves (or not).  The path has already been set and the decisions made.  These sorts of op-eds count for squat.

[deruch]

Fine, but what is an op-ed now going to do for a competition that doesn't even exist yet?  Furthermore, since when do selection authorities take their data from op-eds written in newspapers?  As someone who works in the industry, I don't trust most newspapers to get even basic facts about space flight correct.

Agree.  At a nominal rate of one flight/yr per provider (2 crew flights/yr to ISS), and a guarantee of two post-certification missions per provider, any real competition is at minimum 2 years after CCtCap starts post-certification missions.  At that point the providers will have proved themselves (or not).  The path has already been set and the decisions made.  These sorts of op-eds count for squat.

Personally, I don't think this has much to do with CCtCap specifically but rather see it as more of a response to recent statements/comments/potential moves towards NASA embracing the use of commercial launchers (and most specifically SpaceX's offerings) instead of SLS for things like LOP-G supply.  That's got to be seen as just a stepping stone.  The goal being not to try to directly affect a specific program that's already been, more or less, awarded but rather to stop a potential change in NASA direction that would reduce the reliance on the program of record.  Stopping such a change in its tracks, at this point in time, would be made easier by "changing the narrative" around SpaceX (and other commercial upstarts).

[Lar]

The SLS defense theory?

(mod) some posts were moved here from another thread where they did not belong. If you think I moved one by mistake, report to mod...

[Semmel]

Too bad that Ars brought in Boeing as a suspect in this. It makes itself an op-ed. Without that statement, it was very informative and well researched. I would not be surprised to see similar attempts in the future.

On the whole pointing fingers though... It seems unlikely that aerospace companies smear each other in public news. Just like they dont shoot each others rockets on the launch pad. I hope all remember that debate as a particular negative example of unfunded speculation. Please stay away from unfunded speculation.

[woods170]

It's pathetic and sad. Now there's a real possibility we'll celebrate 50 years of Apollo 11 without having the ability to send a human to LEO.

Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?

[Svetoslav]

Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?

Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care

Okay, my answer goes like that: I (just like you) am an European. As an European, I belong to the Western part of the World, just like the USA. To me, it's very important the Western world to have independent transportation systems to sub-orbit (VG, BO), or to orbit (SX, Boe). As for interplanetary manned missions, ESA will already play a bigger role next decade with Orion.

This is not to say I don't admire Russian, Chinese, Indian or Japanese missions. It's just that it's closer for me to relate to Westen missions. It's not entirely rational. It's more like having a favorite sports team.

Part of my preference also comes from the argument of openness. If the USA (and ESA) are those who first send people to lunar orbit, the missions will be much more open. In democracy, public relations come first.

[woods170]

Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?

Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care

If that is your line of reasoning than I counter with "We have Soyuz to get to LEO".

[ncb1397]

Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?

Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care

If that is your line of reasoning than I counter with "We have Soyuz to get to LEO".

He doesn't count Russia/China as on his team. The only countries with HSF capability being authoritarian/aggressively expansionist powers is...a problem. Anyways, democracies will soon have 4+ seperate independant systems. So, the situation is being remedied.

[Steven Pietrobon]

It's pathetic and sad. Now there's a real possibility we'll celebrate 50 years of Apollo 11 without having the ability to send a human to LEO.

Well, it will have only taken 30 years since NASA first began looking at a separate crew return system for the space station. You can't expect miracles! :-) So why has it taken so long? Politics (turf fight with with Space Shuttle and lack of funding), the continual cancellation of one program after another (HL-20 PLS, ACRV, Lifeboat Alpha, X-38, OSP, Orion), bad design decisions (10 t Orion capsule and development of Ares I) and now NASA having to supervise three different capsules, putting a high workload on its plate.

[jtrame]

I'll counter with the possibility that Dragon 2 Crewed will have flown and that CST-100 crewed will be in the final stages of readiness on July 20, 2019.  It's possible.  It's capability.

[woods170]

Given that you are not from the USA, what do you care?

Weren't the Apollo missions touted as "for all mankind"? If so, why shouldn't I care

If that is your line of reasoning than I counter with "We have Soyuz to get to LEO".

He doesn't count Russia/China as on his team. The only countries with HSF capability being authoritarian/aggressively expansionist powers is...a problem. Anyways, democracies will soon have 4+ seperate independant systems. So, the situation is being remedied.

Two things:

- "All of mankind" includes China and Russia. Like it or not.
- Assuming that India is a democracy is far-fetched.

[rayleighscatter]

You’re never going to find out who paid for these op-eds as these kind of companies pride themselves on their confidentiality. Companies wouldn’t use them if they couldn’t keep a secret.

OP-ED's aren't paid for, in fact many major newspapers pay writers a nominal fee for content (usually less than $100). Anyone can contact a newspaper and submit a one-off opinion piece.

[abaddon]

It seems unlikely that aerospace companies smear each other in public news.

You're right, they don't.  They contribute to think-tanks that do the dirty work for them.  I'm not pointing a finger at Boeing in this case.  But let's not be naive about how this game works, either.

The original op-ed and the later flurry of reprintings in various other cities look like spadework for possible future use in discrediting Musk and SpaceX.  Op-eds like this are written to lay the groundwork for later citation by a congressperson to throw shade behind a fig leaf of non-partisonship.  Congressional concern trolling at its finest.

And if it doesn't work?  Well you can always save it for later, or not.

You’re never going to find out who paid for these op-eds as these kind of companies pride themselves on their confidentiality. Companies wouldn’t use them if they couldn’t keep a secret.

OP-ED's aren't paid for, in fact many major newspapers pay writers a nominal fee for content (usually less than $100). Anyone can contact a newspaper and submit a one-off opinion piece.

Op-Ed's aren't paid (much) for by the newspaper, sure.  That doesn't mean the author wasn't paid to write it.

[oiorionsbelt]

... It seems unlikely that aerospace companies smear each other in public news.

[ncb1397]

Trash talk is part of the business. SpaceX does it too.

"If they do somehow show up in the next 5 years with a vehicle qualified to NASA's human rating standards that can dock with the Space Station, which is what Pad 39A is meant to do, we will gladly accommodate their needs," writes Musk. "Frankly, I think we are more likely to discover unicorns dancing in the flame duct."

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-accuses-blue-origin-of-blocking-spacex-2013-9

Blue Origin didn't show up with a vehicle within 5 years, but neither did SpaceX.

[oiorionsbelt]

Trash talking is a little different than taking out full page advertisements.

Florida Today says the ads “have been running for about six weeks in Washington, D.C.-based political media outlets, directed toward policy makers in Congress and the Obama administration. The president’s proposed 2013 budget will be unveiled early next month.”

    http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/01/22/pratt-whitney-rocketdyne-takes-shot-at-spacex/

[Lars-J]

Too bad that Ars brought in Boeing as a suspect in this. It makes itself an op-ed. Without that statement, it was very informative and well researched. I would not be surprised to see similar attempts in the future.

Facts are facts. And when Boeing is touted as the #1 client of this... organization, that needs to be stated. The conclusion is obvious.

On the whole pointing fingers though... It seems unlikely that aerospace companies smear each other in public news. Just like they dont shoot each others rockets on the launch pad. I hope all remember that debate as a particular negative example of unfunded speculation. Please stay away from unfunded speculation.

That is quite a naive world view, not backed up by recent history. The smearing through official and unofficial channels happens all the time.

[Star One]

Too bad that Ars brought in Boeing as a suspect in this. It makes itself an op-ed. Without that statement, it was very informative and well researched. I would not be surprised to see similar attempts in the future.

Facts are facts. And when Boeing is touted as the #1 client of this... organization, that needs to be stated. The conclusion is obvious.

On the whole pointing fingers though... It seems unlikely that aerospace companies smear each other in public news. Just like they dont shoot each others rockets on the launch pad. I hope all remember that debate as a particular negative example of unfunded speculation. Please stay away from unfunded speculation.

That is quite a naive world view, not backed up by recent history. The smearing through official and unofficial channels happens all the time.

I don’t believe they were touted as number one client just as one amongst a small group of prominent clients.

[Lars-J]

Too bad that Ars brought in Boeing as a suspect in this. It makes itself an op-ed. Without that statement, it was very informative and well researched. I would not be surprised to see similar attempts in the future.

Facts are facts. And when Boeing is touted as the #1 client of this... organization, that needs to be stated. The conclusion is obvious.

I don’t believe they were touted as number one client just as one amongst a small group of prominent clients.

True, but if you are listed first... That implies it. Heavily.