Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[guckyfan]

How?  They can have only two permanently parked Soyuz as rescue vehicles. That's 6 escape seats and that is what the station is limited to.

Yeah, because it's impossible to add more docking ports. I mean the commercial crew vehicles are going to just be tied to the station with silly string and the astronauts are going to space walk across.

*cough*http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_fgb2.html*cough*

So you suggest to alter the ports on the US-side to accomodate Soyuz? I could argue How likely is this to happen?
But instead I prefer to turn that argument around, asking how much would those extra two launches per year cost? It would certainly help amortizing the US vehicles sooner.

[QuantumG]

So you suggest to alter the ports on the US-side to accomodate Soyuz? I could argue How likely is this to happen?

I suggested nothing of the sort. The Russians didn't end up adding extra docking ports because couldn't convince NASA to pay for expanded Soyuz production.

[guckyfan]

So you suggest to alter the ports on the US-side to accomodate Soyuz? I could argue How likely is this to happen?

I suggested nothing of the sort.

Maybe not but your

I mean the commercial crew vehicles are going to just be tied to the station with silly string and the astronauts are going to space walk across.

gets very close to implying it.

But I don't like endless back and forth arguments and end it with the cost argument how much that extra two Soyuz would cost, plus installing extra ports at the russian side.

[QuantumG]

But I don't like endless back and forth arguments and end it with the cost argument how much that extra two Soyuz would cost, plus installing extra ports at the russian side.

It was offered for much cheaper than commercial crew and it would have been done by now (instead of whatever fictional date you prefer for commercial crew). This is irrelevant to your question, which was why no-one bothers to talk about this.. NASA has already decided that more seats isn't important, otherwise they would have just paid for it. You're presupposing that some sort of rational "utilization strategy" exists. It doesn't. The ISS is a white elephant.

[joek]

There is more to it than seat price. The extra crew member per CC flight (4 seats) allows NASA to double the ISS science experiments. While the 2 crew that are permanently maintaining station is far from wasted time as there is a lot to be learnt from ISS maintenance, it is a large overhead.

The cost comparison is based on 8 seats/yr, USOS crew of 4, for CC vs. Soyuz.  That is independent of the benefit for a USOS crew of 4.

Yes, there is presumably benefit for a USOS crew of 4.  I tried to quantify and illustrate with a simple cost-benefit analysis a few years ago (emphasis added)...

Agree.  I also believe that at least in the context of ISS, looking at this as a competition between CTS and Soyuz $/seat, or purely on a $/seat basis, is an extremely limited view.  An alternative metric is $/hr of usable crew time (time available for supporting research)...

A. Given:
1. ISS fixed cost of $3B/yr.
2. USOS crew of 3 provides ~35hrs of usable hrs/wk (per GAO).
3. Soyuz price $60M/seat (2015 pricing, per GAO).
4. Crew consumables 4.7kg/day/person (per NASA).
5. Crew cargo transportation $60K/kg (CRS pricing).
6. THEN ISS usable crew time cost is ~$1.8M/hr

B. Assuming:
1. An additional crew member for a total of 4.
2. Additional crew member adds 25% usable crew time(~44hrs total, conservative).
3. CTS price $80M/seat (+25% vs. Soyuz A.3).
4. THEN ISS usable crew time cost is ~$1.5M/hr (-16%).

In short, in the context of ISS, $/seat for crew transportation is pretty much in the noise when compared to $/hr of usable crew time.

While those numbers are dated, the conclusion is no different today (feel free to pick your own numbers).  Using a baseline of: nominal Soyuz cost of $70M/seat, ISS fixed cost of $3B/yr, a USOS crew of three with 42 usable hrs/wk usable crew time; then cost-benefit for a USOS crew of four...

Conservative: +25% usable crew time (52.5hr/wk) and $100M/seat = ~$360M/yr net benefit.
Annual net benefit becomes zero at ~$155M/seat.

Nominal: +50% usable crew time (63hr/wk) and $80M/seat = ~$1025M/yr net benefit.
Annual net benefit becomes zero at ~$275M/seat.

Optimistic: +75% usable crew time (73.5hr/wk) and $80M/seat = ~$1410M/yr net benefit.
Annual net benefit becomes zero at ~$385M/seat.

Note that the annual benefit is most sensitive to usable crew time, not seat cost.  That also provides a basis for determining total benefit over the life of the program and, depending on what DDT&E costs are attributed to CC, the  CC payoff period.

However, again, this says nothing about whether CC is a better deal than Soyuz for achieving a USOS crew of four.

[BobCarver]

Don't forget the money multiplier effect here. As I wrote over two years ago after discussing this with Chairman Lamar Smith:

Money we spend in Russia does not circulate within the US. If the government spent the same amount of money within the USA, it would be multiplied through the money multiplier effect. In effect, the $424 million is spent in Russia, while the same amount of money spent in the USA may have a total economic effect of several times, perhaps more than a billion dollars in total.

When you consider that money spent in the USA is subject to income tax, some of that money the government spends in the USA will come back to the government in terms of tax revenue, further reducing the overall cost.

Bottom line: Spending the same amount in the USA could end up greatly reducing the amount of government money spent for the same services we are paying the Russians for. Economically, it just makes sense.

It's nice when a politician is actually working for the proper course forward.

[Patchouli]

Don't forget the money multiplier effect here. As I wrote over two years ago after discussing this with Chairman Lamar Smith:

Money we spend in Russia does not circulate within the US. If the government spent the same amount of money within the USA, it would be multiplied through the money multiplier effect. In effect, the $424 million is spent in Russia, while the same amount of money spent in the USA may have a total economic effect of several times, perhaps more than a billion dollars in total.

When you consider that money spent in the USA is subject to income tax, some of that money the government spends in the USA will come back to the government in terms of tax revenue, further reducing the overall cost.

Bottom line: Spending the same amount in the USA could end up greatly reducing the amount of government money spent for the same services we are paying the Russians for. Economically, it just makes sense.

It's nice when a politician is actually working for the proper course forward.

True a good example would be  engineers and technicians working in the US will in turn buy houses and cars which keeps carpenters and factory workers employed.
Those workers will in turn buy goods as well.
The government gets a cut on each transaction in taxes.

Money sent overseas on the other hand is pretty much money thrown away from a return stand point.

[joek]

Don't forget the money multiplier effect here. ...

While I appreciate the sentiment, credible numbers are hard to find.  And at the risk of veering into Space Politics territory... Why should USG industrial policy (which is what we're really talking about here) favor government investment in this endeavor vs. others?  The competition is not USG funds for Commercial Crew vs. Soyuz, it is Commercial Crew vs. every other USG program clamoring for funds, many of which would claim an equal or greater "money multiplier" effect.

[Rocket Science]

Don't forget the money multiplier effect here. ...

While I appreciate the sentiment, credible numbers are hard to find.  And at the risk of veering into Space Politics territory... Why should USG industrial policy (which is what we're really talking about here) favor government investment in this endeavor vs. others?  The competition is not USG funds for Commercial Crew vs. Soyuz, it is Commercial Crew vs. every other USG program clamoring for funds, many of which would claim an equal or greater "money multiplier" effect.

They seem to have no problem investing U.S. government funds in the Russian commercial crew program...

[QuantumG]

They seem to have no problem investing U.S. government funds in the Russian commercial crew program...

They do actually, that's the point. The expansion of Soyuz production was denied. Paying for seats is not "investing", even in the government version of the word. Soyuz seats would be a lot cheaper than they are now - and astronauts wouldn't have to go to Russia to train - if the US was willing to "invest" in it. The fundamental thing that people don't seem to get here is that the ISS is has an expiration date. Remember the pushback from Russia when NASA announced they don't see a problem with extending that date to 2029?

[Rocket Science]

They seem to have no problem investing U.S. government funds in the Russian commercial crew program...

They do actually, that's the point. The expansion of Soyuz production was denied. Paying for seats is not "investing", even in the government version of the word. Soyuz seats would be a lot cheaper than they are now - and astronauts wouldn't have to go to Russia to train - if the US was willing to "invest" in it. The fundamental thing that people don't seem to get here is that the ISS is has an expiration date. Remember the pushback from Russia when NASA announced they don't see a problem with extending that date to 2029?

Semantics...

[joek]

They seem to have no problem investing U.S. government funds in the Russian commercial crew program...

Well, there are "they" who believe that investing available USG funds in other US industries provides a better return; and some "they" even have data on which their analysis and recommendations are based.

What exactly you are disagreeing with is unclear, as so far all I see is hand waving.

[Rocket Science]

They seem to have no problem investing U.S. government funds in the Russian commercial crew program...

Well, there are "they" who believe that investing available USG funds in other US industries provides a better return; and some "they" even have data on which their analysis and recommendations are based.

What exactly you are disagreeing with is unclear, as so far all I see is hand waving.

I prefer spending money domestically which I call investment on whatever industry. The general average number of jobs lost to the local economy is about 7-1. Just ask the folks around Canaveral...Clear enough?

[QuantumG]

I prefer spending money domestically which I call investment on whatever industry. The general average number of jobs lost to the local economy is about 7-1. Just ask the folks around Canaveral...Clear enough?

Which is a great thing.. it means people will move away from a swamp and get jobs that actually contribute to the economy, instead of being a net loss. The people who made sandwiches for Shuttle pad workers now make sandwiches for sail boat builders or moved to Bone Valley to make sandwiches for Phosphate miners or moved to Georgia to make sandwiches for workers at the Kia Motors plant or one of the many textiles manufacturers. The increased availability of labor in those local economies is a plus, not a negative, and their quality of life is improved.

In fact, every dollar the government sends to Russia instead of spending in the US has a net improvement on the local economies of areas that aren't supported by government funding. That has a multiplier effect on the products that are produced in those industries which has a widespread positive effect everywhere those products are sold.

[Rocket Science]

I prefer spending money domestically which I call investment on whatever industry. The general average number of jobs lost to the local economy is about 7-1. Just ask the folks around Canaveral...Clear enough?

Which is a great thing.. it means people will move away from a swamp and get jobs that actually contribute to the economy, instead of being a net loss. The people who made sandwiches for Shuttle pad workers now make sandwiches for sail boat builders or moved to Bone Valley to make sandwiches for Phosphate miners or moved to Georgia to make sandwiches for workers at the Kia Motors plant or one of the many textiles manufacturers. The increased availability of labor in those local economies is a plus, not a negative, and their quality of life is improved.

In fact, every dollar the government sends to Russia instead of spending in the US has a net improvement on the local economies of areas that aren't supported by government funding. That has a multiplier effect on the products that are produced in those industries which has a widespread positive effect everywhere those products are sold.

The jobs lost in America were not all on the low end of the economic scale, many were highly trained subcontractors that had to take lower paid jobs.  This trend impacts on the entire nation and affects the standard of living. The mismanagement (giving it away)of commercial launch industry has been going on for close to three decades and the time has come to take it back. I’m just not interested in creating jobs in Russia, that’s Putin’s problem... We should stop before they change another thread to policy again.

[manboy]

Defining Operational Space Suit Requirements for Commercial Orbital Spaceflight (July 2015)

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150013807.pdf

[kdhilliard]

I've transcribed the August 31, 2015 "Commercial Crew's Path to Flight" panel discussion from AIAA Space 2015, with NASA's Kathryn Lueders, SpaceX's Hans Koenigsmann, and Boeing's John Mulholland, and once again Trent has been kind enough to host it despite its lack of Elon.
  http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/commercial-crews-path-to-flight-2015-08-31
There is an outline at the top of the transcript allowing you to identify sections of interest.

Not much new was revealed during this panel.  For me, the most interesting point was:

06:17  Kathryn Lueders:  So we've already ordered one post-certification mission from Boeing.  We're in the process of ordering the first [post-?]certification missions from SpaceX.  And because of the lead-time that Boeing has, we'll be in the process of looking at the second missions for both Boeing, and then, following because of the lead-times, the second missions for SpaceX.

31:15 John Mulholland:  And then 2017, we'll transition from the qualification of hardware and system buildup to that flight validation.  So we'll have our pad abort test, uncrewed flight test, crewed flight test, and then the first crewed services flight all in 2017.

  From Boeing slide: 2017: Pad Abort / First Uncrewed Flight / First Crewed Flight / Certification

I know NASA ordered the post-certification Boeing mission back in May, but at the time they said that "Determination of which company will fly its mission to the station first will be made at a later time."  Unless Mulholland mispoke when he said that they expected "... and the first crewed services flight all in 2017", it sounds as if Boeing tentatively has the first mission.  Has NASA made such a statement?

~Kirk

[woods170]

I've transcribed the August 31, 2015 "Commercial Crew's Path to Flight" panel discussion from AIAA Space 2015, with NASA's Kathryn Lueders, SpaceX's Hans Koenigsmann, and Boeing's John Mulholland, and once again Trent has been kind enough to host it despite its lack of Elon.
  http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/commercial-crews-path-to-flight-2015-08-31
There is an outline at the top of the transcript allowing you to identify sections of interest.

Not much new was revealed during this panel.  For me, the most interesting point was:

06:17  Kathryn Lueders:  So we've already ordered one post-certification mission from Boeing.  We're in the process of ordering the first [post-?]certification missions from SpaceX.  And because of the lead-time that Boeing has, we'll be in the process of looking at the second missions for both Boeing, and then, following because of the lead-times, the second missions for SpaceX.

31:15 John Mulholland:  And then 2017, we'll transition from the qualification of hardware and system buildup to that flight validation.  So we'll have our pad abort test, uncrewed flight test, crewed flight test, and then the first crewed services flight all in 2017.

  From Boeing slide: 2017: Pad Abort / First Uncrewed Flight / First Crewed Flight / Certification

I know NASA ordered the post-certification Boeing mission back in May, but at the time they said that "Determination of which company will fly its mission to the station first will be made at a later time."  Unless Mulholland mispoke when he said that they expected "... and the first crewed services flight all in 2017", it sounds as if Boeing tentatively has the first mission.  Has NASA made such a statement?

~Kirk

No, it has not.

[yg1968]

I've transcribed the August 31, 2015 "Commercial Crew's Path to Flight" panel discussion from AIAA Space 2015, with NASA's Kathryn Lueders, SpaceX's Hans Koenigsmann, and Boeing's John Mulholland, and once again Trent has been kind enough to host it despite its lack of Elon.
  http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/commercial-crews-path-to-flight-2015-08-31
There is an outline at the top of the transcript allowing you to identify sections of interest.

Not much new was revealed during this panel.  For me, the most interesting point was:

06:17  Kathryn Lueders:  So we've already ordered one post-certification mission from Boeing.  We're in the process of ordering the first [post-?]certification missions from SpaceX.  And because of the lead-time that Boeing has, we'll be in the process of looking at the second missions for both Boeing, and then, following because of the lead-times, the second missions for SpaceX.

31:15 John Mulholland:  And then 2017, we'll transition from the qualification of hardware and system buildup to that flight validation.  So we'll have our pad abort test, uncrewed flight test, crewed flight test, and then the first crewed services flight all in 2017.

  From Boeing slide: 2017: Pad Abort / First Uncrewed Flight / First Crewed Flight / Certification

I know NASA ordered the post-certification Boeing mission back in May, but at the time they said that "Determination of which company will fly its mission to the station first will be made at a later time."  Unless Mulholland mispoke when he said that they expected "... and the first crewed services flight all in 2017", it sounds as if Boeing tentatively has the first mission.  Has NASA made such a statement?

~Kirk

Here is what Hans said (from your transcript):

We have a demo flight to the ISS without crew coming up in the end of '16ish, we have an in-flight abort test after that, and then we have a demo flight 2 to the ISS, this time with crew, after those two first flights. Overall goal, restore the U.S. crew carrying capability by 2017.

P.S. Thanks for the transcript.

[kdhilliard]

Interesting.  I had interpreted Mulholland's "So we'll have our pad abort test, uncrewed flight test, crewed flight test, and then the first crewed services flight all in 2017." as meaning that the "first crewed services flight" was "ours" (Boeing's) as well, but he doesn't explicitly say that.  I suppose his words could be interpreted as "... our pad abort test, [our] uncrewed flight test, [our] crewed flight test, and then the first crewed services flight [which may or may not be ours] all in 2017."  Good point.

~Kirk