Next steps in commercial space flight

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX is paying for Red Dragon itself using revenue it generated from its business, which includes NASA, DoD, and commercial missions. It is most certainly NOT being paid for by NASA. Dragon was developed using funding from both SpaceX and NASA (skin in the game), with the idea that there are other customers for the capability besides NASA. In this case, the other customer is SpaceX themselves.

It's a huge distortion to say that NASA paid for Red Dragon.

[Space Ghost 1962]

I think that we should temper this with the realization that these advances are decades overdue, and were held back, not only by the lack of technology, but both the political and corporate interests that stood to lose their substantial economic wind fall

They "held back" because they did not think that they could grow the market. Revenue loss and job cuts are usually not the things companies are very keen to do. To date there's no indication that the launch market will grow.

Musk isn't holding back. There's a "forcing function" applied to the market. Likely to increase.

Revenue loss and job cuts are happening. Look at ULA. Look at certain european "contractions".

Neither govt nor industry appears to be putting $1 into increasing payloads. In fact, when asked SSL/MDA's VP of Sales, he said they actually would shrink. Although SES says the opposite, that they are in and expecting significant growth. They can't wait to refly a first stage and accelerate a stream of comsats to fill the void.

The "forcing function" is satellite market disruption. If it continues, certain players of govt/military/telecom will drop to near zero payloads.

Destruction. Some might say "creative destruction" but I wouldn't.

Into this created void may come opportunists, who may supply whatever "need" appears present, but they won't do it like before, and they won't make as much per payload as before. These payloads will be "feeling out the market".

Traditional source/supply will occasionally pulse out a payload or two, through narrowly bid deals. That will be the true market size - a fraction of before. Which will shrink. Some of those payloads will be displaced by surviving opportunists.

The pressure on both traditional and opportunists alike to grow the market to survive will be where we find out (around 2021) it the market can even return to its former size. So it will under perform, but because of lower launch costs, entry spacecraft will be at a fraction of the cost and amount to 30-50% of market. The biggest discounts will be on potentially HSF entry LEO offerings.

Govt will need to support launch providers for own needs, but at the same time be compelled to traditional programs that will "rocket up" in cost. With the disparity between "need" and costing, ways to leverage entry SC/launch oversupply will be the means budgets are made to work. These will "migrate" "need" off traditional SC platforms, and traditional goes away.

Either payloads have greatly increased by this point, or the industry backwaters into consolidation finding a new norm for SC/launch pricing not altogether different than before. In the "no growth" case, operations cost may fall to 1/5-1/10th of before, but it will retain the advantage of being more nimble than before.

In the case it grows, the application portion of the SC (sensors, transponders, etc) will be where all the value is, while the bus and launch costs will be a mere fraction.

Those who are in bus and launch have the hardest row to hoe. And those are the ones most bitter about this progression. They think they lose in any outcome that changes the norm. Perhaps they are right.

[sanman]

So you just erased the Shuttle from the history books because it doesn't suit your agenda. Great.

To be fair, the US Space Shuttle seemed to require much more refurbishment than vehicles like F9R are supposed to.

[ncb1397]

SpaceX is paying for Red Dragon itself using revenue it generated from its business, which includes NASA, DoD, and commercial missions. It is most certainly NOT being paid for by NASA. Dragon was developed using funding from both SpaceX and NASA (skin in the game), with the idea that there are other customers for the capability besides NASA. In this case, the other customer is SpaceX themselves.

It's a huge distortion to say that NASA paid for Red Dragon.

There is no requirement in CCtCap milestones for cost sharing on development milestones. If they go over their bid costs, they pay some of the development cost. If they go under, there is no cost sharing unless cost sharing was part of their bid, but there is no information that that is the case. Basically, that would mean that SpaceX bid for CCtCap at below cost even though there was no requirement for them to do so.

and straight from NASA:

Question: Since commercial companies are required to contribute financially to develop and operate their own systems transportation system, how much are commercial partners expected to contribute in cost sharing with NASA?

Answer: NASA is not going to dictate the amount of industry investment that should be provided. Each proposal will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/cc_forum_questions.html

The only money that I can see and that is documented is the money going from NASA to SpaceX. SpaceX's internal contributions to the cost of Dragon V2 development is not documented but is presumed by some to be there.

[The Amazing Catstronaut]

To be fair, the US Space Shuttle seemed to require much more refurbishment than vehicles like F9R are supposed to.

* Seem to, if the refiring data is to be believed. We're likely to get a stage reuse this year too.

[JasonAW3]

We've KNOWN reusable space craft were possible as far back as the X-15 space plane, yet this was a technology never pursued.

So you just erased the Shuttle from the history books because it doesn't suit your agenda. Great.

Nope; But it didn't come into play until long after the X-15.  And as a reusable craft, it seems that it may have actually cost MORE per launch than conventional space craft.

     The compromises that were needed just to get it flying, within both the budget, and time frame required, meant that later upgrades to compensate or eliminate some of the more costly and mission critical failure items, like the tiles and the carbon leading edges, could not be retrofitted in any meaningful or economic way.

[Robotbeat]

SpaceX is paying for Red Dragon itself using revenue it generated from its business, which includes NASA, DoD, and commercial missions. It is most certainly NOT being paid for by NASA. Dragon was developed using funding from both SpaceX and NASA (skin in the game), with the idea that there are other customers for the capability besides NASA. In this case, the other customer is SpaceX themselves.

It's a huge distortion to say that NASA paid for Red Dragon.

There is no requirement in CCtCap milestones for cost sharing on development milestones. If they go over their bid costs, they pay some of the development cost. If they go under, there is no cost sharing unless cost sharing was part of their bid, but there is no information that that is the case. Basically, that would mean that SpaceX bid for CCtCap at below cost even though there was no requirement for them to do so.

and straight from NASA:

Question: Since commercial companies are required to contribute financially to develop and operate their own systems transportation system, how much are commercial partners expected to contribute in cost sharing with NASA?

Answer: NASA is not going to dictate the amount of industry investment that should be provided. Each proposal will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/cc_forum_questions.html

The only money that I can see and that is documented is the money going from NASA to SpaceX. SpaceX's internal contributions to the cost of Dragon V2 development is not documented but is presumed by some to be there.

I specifically said Dragon. You inexplicably think I said "CCtCap," which I did not. For earlier parts of its development (such as COTS), there most certainly were explicit "skin in the game" requirements, now they're more implicit (i.e. You may be judged better if you contribute more to the development cost).

Again, you are distorting the truth to say NASA paid for Red Dragon. That's straight up false.

[savuporo]

But in what scenarios would you want to use SkyCrane instead of Red Dragon?

When you need a straightforward way of dealing with egress - or more precisely, not deal with it. Package delivered without the packaging.

[ncb1397]

SpaceX is paying for Red Dragon itself using revenue it generated from its business, which includes NASA, DoD, and commercial missions. It is most certainly NOT being paid for by NASA. Dragon was developed using funding from both SpaceX and NASA (skin in the game), with the idea that there are other customers for the capability besides NASA. In this case, the other customer is SpaceX themselves.

It's a huge distortion to say that NASA paid for Red Dragon.

There is no requirement in CCtCap milestones for cost sharing on development milestones. If they go over their bid costs, they pay some of the development cost. If they go under, there is no cost sharing unless cost sharing was part of their bid, but there is no information that that is the case. Basically, that would mean that SpaceX bid for CCtCap at below cost even though there was no requirement for them to do so.

and straight from NASA:

Question: Since commercial companies are required to contribute financially to develop and operate their own systems transportation system, how much are commercial partners expected to contribute in cost sharing with NASA?

Answer: NASA is not going to dictate the amount of industry investment that should be provided. Each proposal will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/cc_forum_questions.html

The only money that I can see and that is documented is the money going from NASA to SpaceX. SpaceX's internal contributions to the cost of Dragon V2 development is not documented but is presumed by some to be there.

I specifically said Dragon. You inexplicably think I said "CCtCap," which I did not. For earlier parts of its development (such as COTS), there most certainly were explicit "skin in the game" requirements, now they're more implicit (i.e. You may be judged better if you contribute more to the development cost).

Again, you are distorting the truth to say NASA paid for Red Dragon. That's straight up false.

If we are going to go back to COTS, why not go farther and talk about the development of PICA. Most of the money for space development, including Dragon, has come from government funding. I think the numbers for private space investment is clearing 1 or 2 billion plus per annum but that is a recent phenomenon. Those recent numbers dwarf previous years and it is still dwarfed by government investment.

[Coastal Ron]

I specifically said Dragon. You inexplicably think I said "CCtCap," which I did not. For earlier parts of its development (such as COTS), there most certainly were explicit "skin in the game" requirements, now they're more implicit (i.e. You may be judged better if you contribute more to the development cost).

Again, you are distorting the truth to say NASA paid for Red Dragon. That's straight up false.

If we are going to go back to COTS, why not go farther and talk about the development of PICA. Most of the money for space development, including Dragon, has come from government funding.

Making generalizations of an entire industry segment does not prove your specific point, since obviously there is a mix of government and private sector spending going on.

For instance, NASA did not tell SpaceX they had to use PICA as the basis for their heat shield, SpaceX chose it themselves and then paid for the improvements that turned it into "PICA-X".  So your generalizations would miss such private sector contributions.

The way I look at this whole "who paid for what", is that unless you can find a purchase order or contract from the government authorizing payment to SpaceX for a product or service, then SpaceX funded that product or service themselves.  End of discussion.

[ncb1397]

The way I look at this whole "who paid for what", is that unless you can find a purchase order or contract from the government authorizing payment to SpaceX for a product or service, then SpaceX funded that product or service themselves.  End of discussion.

Which contract do you want me to point to? CCtCAP, CCiCAP, CCDEV2, COTS phase 1, COTS phase 2? I believe COTS phase 1 was the only round that Dragon was involved with that required cost sharing.

[Space Ghost 1962]

A common rhetorical move is to sully an argument by inventing a dichotomy where there was none.

As to PICA, which I know about personally and from the team that originally did it, AFAIK it was developed, built, used and abandoned long before Musk did anything with it. To my knowledge no NASA efforts to take PICA forward at the time, or now.

SX went looking for a TPS, back tracked to PICA along the way, and involved human assets that knew about it. From the same people they came up with PICA-X, and good for them, that's how its supposed to work.

Otherwise it would be a loss for NASA and SX. Which would be dumb.

But assuming that SX intentionally "stole" a budgeted, developed technology is ... wrong. Nor is SX taking government developed budget for their own - again false, along with other rhetoric of the same.

Now, if SX does put effort into enhancing own tech derived from NASA ... how is that a negative?

NASA isn't necessarily a paid IPR source all the time. Nor is it "open source" per se. Some things don't have a definite developmental future, a huge number of them are space related. Lots of tech in the boneyard.

So after the fact making a reassessment of value, after someone has discovered value in something abandoned and then making such an argument, is very disingenuous at the least.

The counter argument is that SX made NASA's judgement of doing PICA originally valid by PICA-X, thus NASA's TPS developments may have been under appreciated by congressional apportions/appropriations staff, e.g. it was important to have been done in 20/20 hindsight.

[Coastal Ron]

The way I look at this whole "who paid for what", is that unless you can find a purchase order or contract from the government authorizing payment to SpaceX for a product or service, then SpaceX funded that product or service themselves.  End of discussion.

Which contract do you want me to point to?

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, other than both SpaceX and NASA have common goals and both have been spending their own money in a joint effort to meet those goals.  That is not a standard contractor relationship, so we should all be cheering.  However you seem to think there is something negative going on.

I believe COTS phase 1 was the only round that Dragon was involved with that required cost sharing.

Let's go back to your original supposition, which was that:

"The majority of the cost of Red Dragon is being footed by the government on Commercial Crew development milestones."

And of course the answer is "NO".  SpaceX is spending it's own money to use it's own assets (Falcon Heavy and Dragon 2) to perform the Red Dragon mission.

Your argument is, if I understand it correctly, that NASA paid for some part of the development of the Dragon 2 vehicle.  Which if so, then my response would be "So what?"  SpaceX finding a new use for something they own does not mean that NASA gets to lay claim to what they are doing.

It would be like me claiming I own the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier because my tax money obviously was used to build it.

The Commercial Cargo & Crew development contracts specifically say that NASA has a non-exclusive right, not an exclusive one.  To me that pretty much settles it.

[joek]

There is no requirement in CCtCap milestones for cost sharing on development milestones.

Nor can there be.  NB: "Each proposal will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis".  This is a FAR 12 firm-fixed price contract.  However, part of NASA's evaluation--or more precisely desire--was significant industry investment (i.e., cost sharing).  We don't know the details, but you can find clues in the NASA selection statements.

If they go over their bid costs, they pay some of the development cost.

They pay all the costs of any over-run.  It's a FAR 12 firm-fixed-price contract.  You committed to deliver X rolls of toilet paper for $Y; your loss if it costs you more; your gain if it costs you less.

If they go under, there is no cost sharing unless cost sharing was part of their bid, but there is no information that that is the case.

There is no "cost sharing" under the terms of a FAR 12 firm-fixed-price contract.  If you want that, then consider a cost+incentive contract.

Basically, that would mean that SpaceX bid for CCtCap at below cost even though there was no requirement for them to do so.

The requirement was that SpaceX (and everyone else) bid a firm-fixed-price.  No more and no less.  They will either: (a) eat any cost over-run; or (b) pocket any cost under-run.

[groundbound]

It would be like me claiming I own the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier because my tax money obviously was used to build it.

Or that I owe someone or another thousands of dollars for my Chrysler vehicle because the government once paid Chrysler tons of money to build army tanks.

[savuporo]

As to PICA, which I know about personally and from the team that originally did it, AFAIK it was developed, built, used and abandoned long before Musk did anything with it. To my knowledge no NASA efforts to take PICA forward at the time, or now.

Um no, that is wrong. PICA has been under continuous evaluation and development by NASA since it was launched on Stardust on 1999 and returned to a desert in Utah in 2006. You can find related contracts with Boeing, FMI etc going back through the last decade, under CEV or Orion ADP names.

EDIT: even more specifically. At least one Boeing/FMI contract ran let in 2006-2009, there was plenty of other downselection work invested in as well. PICA got other reasearch ( carbon nanotube thingamajig because that was hip ) under NASA funding during that time.

To say that 'NASA abandoned' it is just wrong. Quite the opposite, they set out with an explicit goal of revitalizing ablative TPS industrial base.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/pr530.pdf

EDIT2: And for reference, here is the SpaceX pica story:

http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=ablation

[joek]

Which contract do you want me to point to? CCtCAP, CCiCAP, CCDEV2, COTS phase 1, COTS phase 2? I believe COTS phase 1 was the only round that Dragon was involved with that required cost sharing.

There never were requirements for cost sharing for funded SAA's until relatively recent Congressional mandate (which prohibits NASA "exceeding the total amount provided by other parties", HR810 10-Feb-2015), which occurred after all of the CTP-related SAA's had been executed.  Until then, the degree of cost-sharing, and the evaluation of such in awarding SAA"s, was solely at NASA's discretion.

[Carl G]

Thread title given something descriptive.

[Space Ghost 1962]

As to PICA, which I know about personally and from the team that originally did it, AFAIK it was developed, built, used and abandoned long before Musk did anything with it. To my knowledge no NASA efforts to take PICA forward at the time, or now.

Um no, that is wrong. PICA has been under continuous evaluation and development by NASA since it was launched on Stardust on 1999 and returned to a desert in Utah in 2006. You can find related contracts with Boeing, FMI etc going back through the last decade, under CEV or Orion ADP names.

EDIT: even more specifically. At least one Boeing/FMI contract ran let in 2006-2009, there was plenty of other downselection work invested in as well. PICA got other reasearch ( carbon nanotube thingamajig because that was hip ) under NASA funding during that time.

When you evaluate for TPS you look at all candidates, mostly ones that will be "downselected" for various reasons for a particular application/vehicle. Focus on that. So the intent to use PICA for Orion or other recent HSF vehicles was not present as a specific candidate going forward. As you know that was Avcoat.

The others you list were unsuccessful derivates in different directions away from PICA, and not intended for active use in a HSF vehicle. For the purposes of my post, they're not PICA.

To say that 'NASA abandoned' it is just wrong. Quite the opposite, they set out with an explicit goal of revitalizing ablative TPS industrial base.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/pr530.pdf

EDIT2: And for reference, here is the SpaceX pica story:

http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1029&context=ablation

NASA has (and will continue to do) TPS research in the broad sense, and always has encouraged industry. My post had nothing  to say apart from that. Nor the other applications of TPS used in aerospace and other industries.

NASA has not driven research to develop PICA as a TPS for its HSF vehicles, but instead relied on industry for direction.

SX chose to take PICA further into PICA-X as its choice of industry direction. Which has been dove by others before.

So the argument being picked here is over the generalization of PICA as a research topic/direction for non specific vehicle research verses specific vehicle application by a vendor for a purpose. They all want own "secret sauce".

SX's version is just closer in heritage to NASA's invention.

You can fault my post for not being specific enough, but this is going far  afield of the refutation pertinent to the topic at hand.
 
NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL ISSUE

Which was the rhetorical nonsense of trying to besmirch a vendor ... with an untrue claim.

In the process, no one was impugning the developers of PICA. The point was SX wasn't gaining unfair advantage of a NASA technology. They were quite fair about it.

Now, as to  "goal of revitalizing ablative TPS industrial base"  there is some truth of that, as well as some inside baseball for the vendors. Vendors want to have a hold on an industry advantage they can charge for. This turns the above canard used on SX in a different direction.

It is not in the interests of industry to see PICA compete with, say, Avcoat.

And that is what the "tempest in a post" is likely about.  Have we done this well enough yet?

[savuporo]

NASA has not driven research to develop PICA as a TPS for its HSF vehicles, but instead relied on industry for direction.

This is wrong, NASA did drive it, even if they switched later.  And what does HSF have to do with any of this ? Just a random deflection, because Curiosity flew with PICA, thanks to the HSF related investment by NASA ? MSL was originally supposed to fly SLA-561V, but that didn't scale up and thanks to early investment by NASA for CEV TPS selection, they had the option to switch to PICA. And it'll fly again in 2020.

NASA is further investing in PICA with experiments like MEDLI and MEDLI2. Its not standing still, and neither is SpaceX version - they have switched their fabrication formula at least once.

It is not in the interests of industry to see PICA compete with, say, Avcoat.

Of course it is. The more varied solutions at high maturity level for different engineering constraints you have available, the better. NASA has had problems with Avcoat precisely because it had been long unused, requiring basically recreating the entire process and toolset from scratch.

You can fault my post for not being specific enough ... And that is what the "tempest in a post" is likely about.  Have we done this well enough yet?

Here is your specific, false claim:

As to PICA, which I know about personally and from the team that originally did it, AFAIK it was developed, built, used and abandoned long before Musk did anything with it. To my knowledge no NASA efforts to take PICA forward at the time, or now
...
Otherwise it would be a loss for NASA and SX. Which would be dumb.
...
So after the fact making a reassessment of value, after someone has discovered value in something abandoned and then making such an argument, is very disingenuous at the least.

They have been and keep taking it forward, it was never abandoned. There are even conformable and flexible versions in development.
SpaceX went and did their own innovation, which apparently is mostly in fabrication process,  which is all good.

Your portrayal of this as something that NASA tossed aside is wrong. And yes,  clearly in this case SpaceX got a significant boost from a technology that NASA was investing in shortly before and in parallel with their development - and IMO there is nothing wrong with that.