Commercial Crew Schedule Analysis

[guckyfan]

So they may not be comparable in many ways, but the funding level is.

While that is technically correct, CCrew is building two complete systems (and part of a third, with the DreamChaser work now benefiting CRS-2) for that funding level.  I know there are those who disagree with that decision and would have preferred to do a downselect to one provider.  I'm not going to argue that here.  However, that isn't what happened, and that's actually a really significant difference.

Not to forget that the price tag includes a minium of 6 operational launches, 3 launches each provider.

[savuporo]

So they may not be comparable in many ways, but the funding level is.

While that is technically correct, CCrew is building two complete systems (and part of a third, with the DreamChaser work now benefiting CRS-2) for that funding level.  I know there are those who disagree with that decision and would have preferred to do a downselect to one provider.  I'm not going to argue that here.  However, that isn't what happened, and that's actually a really significant difference.

Well .. its also about 55 years now since Gemini got started. That ought to buy you at least something, no ?

[shooter6947]

There was one thing they had back then that we don't have today and it really set the pace - will.

That and 5% of the federal budget.

[mkent]

Not to forget that the price tag includes a minium of 6 operational launches, 3 launches each provider.

Actually, the price tag for CCtCap includes four orbital test missions and 12 operational missions.

[DigitalMan]

The Gemini costs would likely be substantially higher if it had to meet today's human rating standards

[Lar]

Ahem, we need a bit more playing the ball and a bit less playing the man. Also a bit less snark.

[QuantumG]

There was one thing they had back then that we don't have today and it really set the pace - will.

That and 5% of the federal budget.

Again, are you trying to say that Commercial Crew needs 5% of the federal budget?

Because I believe you.

[abaddon]

Again, are you trying to say that Commercial Crew needs 5% of the federal budget?

Because I believe you.

NASA gets roughly 1% of the federal budget.  Commercial Crew gets roughly 1/19th or ~5% of NASA's budget.  So Commercial Crew gets around 0.05% of the federal budget.  Put another way, 5% of the federal budget would be 100 times what Commercial Crew gets.

It's very hard to take statements like the one above seriously.  There's basically no valid point of comparison between Gemini and Commercial Crew.

[Kansan52]

Plus, Gemini never consumed 5% of the Federal budget. Even back then not all of NASA'a budget went to spaceflight or human spaceflight.

[QuantumG]

NASA gets roughly 1% of the federal budget.  Commercial Crew gets roughly 1/19th or ~5% of NASA's budget.  So Commercial Crew gets around 0.05% of the federal budget.  Put another way, 5% of the federal budget would be 100 times what Commercial Crew gets.

It's very hard to take statements like the one above seriously.  There's basically no valid point of comparison between Gemini and Commercial Crew.

I can't tell if you're deliberately missing the point or you're just incapable of understanding it.

We are six years into this program. SpaceX had a massive head start. Boeing has decades of experience. Nothing has flown. The idea that somehow funding is the issue is inadequate. Historically more has been done for less. The opportunity that Commercial Crew will be the fast and cheap alternative to a government led program has been thrown away.

[abaddon]

The funding was inadequate.  Your comparisons are poor ones.  This isn't the 1960s.

Yeah, that about sums it up.

Don't think this is going anywhere productive as we're just repeating ourselves.  So, I'll bow out now.

[QuantumG]

The funding was inadequate.

Other than Bolden's say so, what do you base that on? Every program says their funding is inadequate. They said the funding for Gemini was inadequate too. It was funded less than Commercial Crew and it achieved more after a similar amount of time while inventing the technology. Other than outright bias, I don't understand how you can not see it.

[erioladastra]

None of that has happened.

Source?  Certainly agreements must have been amended.  The milestone dates in the CCtCap contract are defunct, and the quoted funding is long gone--even accounting for the last published amendments (late 2014).  Unfortunately I can find no public record of subsequent amendments since.

Based on what we do know, there hasn't been any funding shortfall for any of the milestones. It's usually been the opposite, the milestones have moved to the right for technical, non-financial reasons. Part of the reason that there hasn't been a shortfall in funding is that NASA waited to make awards until it had a better idea of it's budget. Prior to CCtCap, NASA also used optional milestones in order to adjust the amount of the awards to its budget.

I love when people say "certainly' when they don't have data.  Seriously though...  Not to drag this debate on further I did want to point out some real data.  The delay in funding and then deciding CCtCAP, followed by the protest, did delay the project for both partners.  Milestones were not really adjusted at that time until there was some run time.  But there were impacts - from not being able to buy hardware to interface documents not being written (on the NASA side).  So the funding of commercial crew did, and is still rippling.  Now, funding should not be a major driver much further.  Requirement change and NASA way of doing things are now a big source of change and change on these tight schedules means delay.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

Other than Bolden's say so, what do you base that on? Every program says their funding is inadequate. They said the funding for Gemini was inadequate too. It was funded less than Commercial Crew and it achieved more after a similar amount of time while inventing the technology. Other than outright bias, I don't understand how you can not see it.

Charles Bolden is the director of NASA, and a former astronaut and test pilot (he's been around a good few aerospace development programs), and you are an enthusiast with a hefty case of "outright bias" yourself if you think you're a more trustworthy source of information on the development status of flight vehicles.  It's fine that you have your opinion, but you can't expect others to prioritise it over the agency official line.

[QuantumG]

Haha. Here's another comparison for you. So far less has been allocated to Orion than has been allocated to Commercial Crew. It's going to be embarrassing if Orion flies before SpaceX or Boeing... it'll be really embarrassing if they do it for cheaper.

[raketa]

How could be achieved that? There is now rocket booster close in cost to 60 milion that Spacex  Falcon 9 cost?

[QuantumG]

Development costs.

[RonM]

Everyone, could we up the quality of the discussion. How about numbers to back up opinions?

[savuporo]

Haha. Here's another comparison for you. So far less has been allocated to Orion than has been allocated to Commercial Crew. It's going to be embarrassing if Orion flies before SpaceX or Boeing... it'll be really embarrassing if they do it for cheaper.

Does not compute. As of Sept 2015

The agency spent $5.8 billion on Orion during the Constellation program and another $4.7 billion through October of this year.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nasas-orion-exploration-ship-faces-likely-delays/
Not sure how accurate but sounds about right. Constellation was at 9 billion at the time of cancellation.

[Steven Pietrobon]

In 1963, project Mercury was finishing and project Gemini was in development. NASA's budget was roughly 2.3% of GDP.

NASA's budget in 1963 was $2,552M. US GDP was $650B, making NASA's budget only 0.39%, quite a bit less then your 2.3% value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp/table/by-year

I think it's safe to assume that much of that budget went to the manned space program, and therefore quite a lot went to Gemini. I tried to find exact numbers, but my Google-foo came to a dead end.

Detailed Gemini funding by year can be found at

http://claudelafleur.qc.ca/Programcosts.html

Peak Gemini funding was $419.2M in 1964, which is $3,235M in 2016.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

US GDP in 2015 was approx $18 trillion ($18,000 billion). In 2015, $805 million was budgeted for commercial crew, which equates to 0.0045% of GDP.

Even if we assume that only 1% of GDP was allocated to Gemini in 1963, that's still more than 200 times greater than CCtCap is getting now.

GDP in 1964 was $700B, so Gemini was only 0.06% of its funding at its peak, quite a bit less than your estimate. Peak commercial crew funding is next year at $1,184.8M. GDP for 2016 is $18,220B which is 0.0065%, so Gemini was 9.2 times greater. In relative dollar amounts, Gemini was 2.7 times greater than Commercial Crew.