Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[JasonAW3]

And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.

I can't get my head round their desire to cut Commercial Crew, and their willingness to keep funding Soyuz rather than US-built spacecraft, whether built by OldSpace or NewSpace.

Especially when Soyuz/Progress and Russian launchers have a number of issues which seem to be related not to their past record but their current managerial and manufacturing practices, and which could at any point cause a crew loss or spacecraft / launch vehicle stand-down.

I'm beginning to think perhaps an investigation into champaign contributors need to be conducted.  MIGHTY odd that Congress would prefer Russian rockets over American made rockets...

[nadreck]

And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.

I can't get my head round their desire to cut Commercial Crew, and their willingness to keep funding Soyuz rather than US-built spacecraft, whether built by OldSpace or NewSpace.

Especially when Soyuz/Progress and Russian launchers have a number of issues which seem to be related not to their past record but their current managerial and manufacturing practices, and which could at any point cause a crew loss or spacecraft / launch vehicle stand-down.

I'm beginning to think perhaps an investigation into champaign contributors need to be conducted.  MIGHTY odd that Congress would prefer Russian rockets over American made rockets...

Not just champagne contributors but caviar as well.

[Kryten]

And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.

I can't get my head round their desire to cut Commercial Crew, and their willingness to keep funding Soyuz rather than US-built spacecraft, whether built by OldSpace or NewSpace.

Especially when Soyuz/Progress and Russian launchers have a number of issues which seem to be related not to their past record but their current managerial and manufacturing practices, and which could at any point cause a crew loss or spacecraft / launch vehicle stand-down.

I'm beginning to think perhaps an investigation into champaign contributors need to be conducted.  MIGHTY odd that Congress would prefer Russian rockets over American made rockets...

Somehow I doubt NPO Energomash has much lobbying pull in congress.

[obi-wan]

A little crystal-ball gazing, just for discussion purposes:

Baseline response: NASA eats the cut, stretches out Commercial Crew, has to pay another ~$210M to Russia (estimating $70M/seat at three seats/year), which has to come out of CC, which stretches it out even farther. Boeing and/or SpaceX have first flight 2019-2020.

Alternative 1: Bolden says U.S. internal access to space is too important, drops SpaceX and fully funds Boeing. Everyone happy except for Elon and us amazing peoples. (As a NASA guy told me once, "We like working with people we're used to working with.") NASA throws Elon a bone with the next cargo contract.

Alternative 2: Bolden says U.S. internal access to space is too important, drops Boeing and fully funds SpaceX. Hordes of lobbyists make emergency phone calls.
  Outcome 1: Commercial crew funding restored, or
  Outcome 2: Bolden "resigns to spend more time with his family", Alternative 1 enacted.

Cost-optimal solution: Cancel commercial crew altogether, pay Russia ~$250M/year (the price will undoubtedly go up if they can't be threatened with an alternative) through 2024 and then splash ISS. NASA flies crew to DLRO in 2022-2023 and declares victory.

(When did I become this old and cynical?)

[nadreck]

Alternative 3 - SpaceX says we want to keep the current schedule up to the manned demo flight, you can settle the tab when we take the first contracted crew there.  Boeing cries fowl - SpaceX is using influence and power to steal Boeings future contract revenue and set themselves up as a a monopoly, besides Boeing already has a contract to deliver crew and SpaceX doesn't.

[JasonAW3]

     I'm not saying Bolden isn't a good director of Nasa, but we NEED someone who can go to Congress and explain to them, quite simply;

    "You have assigned us to perform a particular set of tasks, in order to perform those particular taskes, we require this much funding as that is what the equipment and manpower are going to cost to complete those tasks in the timeframe that you have given us.

     "You want us to innovate and create new technologies to make Areospace travel of all sorts safer, then this is how much the research is going to cost.  You want us to explore space, find out new things that could have a direct impact on how we live, we need this much to do what you want.

     "Will we fail at some things?  Will people likely die in some cases?  Yes to both questions.  We can try as we might to make sure we succeed in all of our experiments and designs, we do our best to avoid death and injury, but sometimes, things that now one imagines nor in some cases CAN imagine, go wrong, sometimes badly wrong.

     "Do we stop flying when a plane crashes?  No, we find out what went wrong, and correct the issues that lead to the crash.

     "Do we stop driving, using trains, tunnels, subways, buildings, and so forth, when soemone get's hurt, dies or something catastophic happens involving these?  No, we correct what went wrong and continue on.

     "When mankind first started to learn to fly, many people died in their experiments, but we continued on.

     "When we came to new frontiers, many died because of unforseen dangers along the way, yet we continued on.

     "Lives are lost pushing to new frontiers, in this case, designers, engineers, technicians, test pilots and astronauts, all have given their full measure, trying to explore those new frontiers.

     "As one of, if not the most innovative, and frontier pushing nations on Earth, we have it in our power to be the trail blazers, to chart new paths, and to go to lands yet unseen nor imagined, or we can follow as some other country, Russia, China, Japan, or maybe even India, blazes that trail.  It is here and NOW that that decision MUST be made, and her and now that that future must be invested in.

     "Do we want to allow the lives that have been lost in this pursuit to have been in vane?  Do we want the heritage that we have established to simply be a footnote in history?

     "No.  It is time to go back to the Moon, explore and sample asteroids and comets, go on to Mars, and learn what we need to do to not only push the boundries of who and what we are, but to learn what we need to to continue to thrive, grow and reach the potentile that we have as a species.

     "The Commercial Space program, both Cargo and Crew are needed, primarily, to allow Nasa to concentrate on projects that we already have scarce funding for, and to pave the way for the general public to start going into space.

     "When a government organization decides to build a new building, it is contracted out to Commercial companies, when a cargo needs to be transported from one facility to another, it is usually contracted out to a Commercial Contractor, when personnel need to get from one place to another, it is usually contracted out to a commercial airline.  We have now reached the point where we need commercial contractors to transport these cargos and personnel to space.

     "With most commercial contracts, bids are put out for the best price that can be gotten.  Without competition, prices escalate, and should the worst happen, there is no redundancy to use an alternative contractor.  Why fund SNC, Orbital Sciences, ULA and SpaceX?  To get them on their feet and create competetion and further commercial innovation.  No other organization will currently provide the funds needed to act as seed money for these companies, the risks are simply too high as yet.

     "At present, without Commercial Space companies, providing the needed services that they do, we will have to depend more and more upon foreign launch providers, sending money to other countries, to provide both the cargo and crew launch services at, if I may point out, far higher prices than commercial launch providers are currently asking.

     "It is with this in mind that not only do we ask Congress to fully fund our current budget requests, but to increase that budget to the point where Nasa and it's commercial providers of all levels, are ABLE to provide those goals that have been set before us, in a reasonable time frame."



     I seriously doubt anyone will use even a fraction of this when addressing Congess, but it would be nice to imagine if someone did...

[JasonAW3]

And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.

I can't get my head round their desire to cut Commercial Crew, and their willingness to keep funding Soyuz rather than US-built spacecraft, whether built by OldSpace or NewSpace.

Especially when Soyuz/Progress and Russian launchers have a number of issues which seem to be related not to their past record but their current managerial and manufacturing practices, and which could at any point cause a crew loss or spacecraft / launch vehicle stand-down.

I'm beginning to think perhaps an investigation into champaign contributors need to be conducted.  MIGHTY odd that Congress would prefer Russian rockets over American made rockets...

Somehow I doubt NPO Energomash has much lobbying pull in congress.

Maybe not, but I wouldn't put it past other individuals and organizations in Russia...

[JasonAW3]

And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.

I can't get my head round their desire to cut Commercial Crew, and their willingness to keep funding Soyuz rather than US-built spacecraft, whether built by OldSpace or NewSpace.

Especially when Soyuz/Progress and Russian launchers have a number of issues which seem to be related not to their past record but their current managerial and manufacturing practices, and which could at any point cause a crew loss or spacecraft / launch vehicle stand-down.

I'm beginning to think perhaps an investigation into champaign contributors need to be conducted.  MIGHTY odd that Congress would prefer Russian rockets over American made rockets...

Not just champaign contributors but caviar as well.

[John-H]

And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.

I can't get my head round their desire to cut Commercial Crew, and their willingness to keep funding Soyuz rather than US-built spacecraft, whether built by OldSpace or NewSpace.

Especially when Soyuz/Progress and Russian launchers have a number of issues which seem to be related not to their past record but their current managerial and manufacturing practices, and which could at any point cause a crew loss or spacecraft / launch vehicle stand-down.

I'm beginning to think perhaps an investigation into champaign contributors need to be conducted.  MIGHTY odd that Congress would prefer Russian rockets over American made rockets...

Somehow I doubt NPO Energomash has much lobbying pull in congress.

Maybe not, but I wouldn't put it past other individuals and organizations in Russia...

What about the many agents along the way? There is a huge difference between what NPO Energomach gets and what Lockheed gets.

John

[JasonAW3]

<SNIP>

What about the many agents along the way? There is a huge difference between what NPO Energomach gets and what Lockheed gets.

John

Too true, but the way that Congress is positioning things, the only ones who truely profit, are the Russians.

[rcoppola]

There are few paths to continue onwards through 2016 without an either/or down-select.

-NASA can renegotiate specific milestone costs. (Mostly with the highest bidder)

-NASA could potentially reduce (the scope) and/or eliminate certain milestones to reduce program costs. (take on increased risk)

-NASA can fully fund the vehicle that has the least costs associated with getting to a 2017 certification and extend the other vehicle and associated milestones out to 2018-2019.

-NASA can simply ask Boeing to find a way to come in at 4-Billion and SpaceX to come in at 2.5-Billion. Let industry figure this out as well.

There is a way to do this without pushing everything out into the 20s.

[Endeavour_01]

Alternative 1: Bolden says U.S. internal access to space is too important, drops SpaceX and fully funds Boeing. Everyone happy except for Elon and us amazing peoples. (As a NASA guy told me once, "We like working with people we're used to working with.") NASA throws Elon a bone with the next cargo contract.

Alternative 2: Bolden says U.S. internal access to space is too important, drops Boeing and fully funds SpaceX. Hordes of lobbyists make emergency phone calls.
  Outcome 1: Commercial crew funding restored, or
  Outcome 2: Bolden "resigns to spend more time with his family", Alternative 1 enacted.

If I were Bolden I would definitely make the Alternative 2 play (or a variation of it, i.e. fully fund SpaceX and partially fund Boeing). Even if it doesn't result in getting full funding restored and Alternative 1 happens we will at least have 1 provider ready by 2017.

[Star One]

And that is too simple.  What happened is that NASA said going forward we feel we need redundancy is human spaceflight and don't consider Orion practical for LEO operations.  Congress disagreed and said Orion is your backup and that is how we are going to fund you.

No.. they said Soyuz is the backup, as it has been since the beginning of the ISS program.

I can't get my head round their desire to cut Commercial Crew, and their willingness to keep funding Soyuz rather than US-built spacecraft, whether built by OldSpace or NewSpace.

Especially when Soyuz/Progress and Russian launchers have a number of issues which seem to be related not to their past record but their current managerial and manufacturing practices, and which could at any point cause a crew loss or spacecraft / launch vehicle stand-down.

I'm beginning to think perhaps an investigation into champaign contributors need to be conducted.  MIGHTY odd that Congress would prefer Russian rockets over American made rockets...

Somehow I doubt NPO Energomash has much lobbying pull in congress.

Maybe not, but I wouldn't put it past other individuals and organizations in Russia...

What about the many agents along the way? There is a huge difference between what NPO Energomach gets and what Lockheed gets.

John

I think this line of speculation needs to end before it gets any more tinfoil hat like!

[saliva_sweet]

partially fund Boeing

Not possible I would think. Boeing would not accept. Partially funding, thus prolonging, a fixed price (or any other) contract will make it more expensive.

[Endeavour_01]

partially fund Boeing

Not possible I would think. Boeing would not accept. Partially funding, thus prolonging, a fixed price (or any other) contract will make it more expensive.

Given that NASA will not have enough money to fully pay them under the current scenario I don't think they would have a choice. If I was Bolden I would tell them (and SpaceX too for that matter) that if they want to get fully paid they better lean as hard as they can on Congress. Maybe with a lot of lobbying from both companies they could get full funding.

[rcoppola]

I'd love to know of the 1.2 Billion NASA requested for 2016, how much did Boeing need Vs SpaceX to complete their 2016 milestones?

(And wouldn't it be depressingly ironic if the number for SpaceX was around...300Million.)

[joek]

A little crystal-ball gazing, just for discussion purposes:
...

NASA does not have all those options.  NASA is committed--unless Congress intervenes--to fulfilling the awarded CCtCap contracts with both Boeing and SpaceX.  That includes DDT&E through certification and a minimum of two post-certification missions for Boeing and SpaceX.  The only contractual wiggle room NASA has of its own accord is the number of post-certification missions (beyond the minimum of two each) awarded to Boeing and SpaceX.

[John-H]

A little crystal-ball gazing, just for discussion purposes:
...

NASA does not have all those options.  NASA is committed--unless Congress intervenes--to fulfilling the awarded CCtCap contracts with both Boeing and SpaceX.  That includes DDT&E through certification and a minimum of two post-certification missions for Boeing and SpaceX.  The only contractual wiggle room NASA has of its own accord is the number of post-certification missions (beyond the minimum of two each) awarded to Boeing and SpaceX.

How does this work? Have they already awarded the contracts even though the budget has not passed? Can the contractor depend on getting his money if it doesn't pass?

Or are the bids not binding if the money is not there, and the whole process starts over?

John

[QuantumG]

I'm just gunna remind y'all that CCDev1 was $50M, CCDev2 was $270M, CCiCap was $1112M and CCtCap is $6800M, for a grand total of $8232M. NASA most recently paid $76.3M/seat for Soyuz. So the cost of the Commercial Crew program is 107 Soyuz seats. For shuttling astronauts to a station that will be dumped into the Pacific in 2028, at the latest, even if the program had been fully funded so it could start flying this year (and completely ignoring the potentially low price per seat of Commercial Crew) it would still have been cheaper to just buy more Soyuz seats.

The argument that Commercial Crew is cheaper than the Soyuz just doesn't work. That's why Bolden stopped making it. A much worse calculation than mine was presented to him in the House (relying on the non-extended ISS retirement date) and he failed to respond to it. He can't even make the sunk cost argument, because the payments to Blue Origin and Sierra Nevada have torpedoed it. The Commercial Crew program budget has ballooned, as all NASA programs seem to do, and now the only argument he can make is nationalism. Russia is even making it incredibly easy to make that argument, and Bolden still can't sell it.

[rcoppola]

IIRC, I thought originally, Commercial Crew was to free up NASA to go to Mars / BLEO? Pass LEO off to industry, We'll save money and resources if industry does LEO and then we/NASA can focus on MARS.

That was the reason for Cargo and after the Ares I debacle, the reason for CC.