This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Is Commercial Crew Program The Fastest Way to Regain Access to Space?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 6, 2012
Filed under , ,

Viewpoint: Commercial Space Will Renew NASA, Michael Lopez-Alegria, Aviation Week
“Decisions by Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama to retire NASA’s space shuttle and cancel the Constellation program were both received with much–and varied–emotion among my fellow astronauts, the NASA family and others nationwide. … As of Atlantis’s final flight last July, our nation has no means to launch humans into Earth orbit from U.S. soil. Period. Whether considered from a geopolitical, economic or technological perspective, recovering that capability should be a national strategic priority. NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP) represents the fastest and most cost-effective path to that end.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

73 responses to “Is Commercial Crew Program The Fastest Way to Regain Access to Space?”

  1. gogosian2061 says:
    0
    0

    JUST A ‘GUESS’ here, Keith in response to your rhetorical question in headline:  (a) Since Sir Richard Branson’s VIRGIN GALACTIC maiden sub-orbital space tourism flight has been announced as “before Christmas, 2012” – this year; (b) then a yet to be revealed “TIER THREE” [likely orbital] Scaled Composites “SpaceShipTHREE” [maybe?] mated to a “WhiteKnightTWO” mother ship is a potential reality; (c) then Bigelow Aerospace [North Las Vegas, NV] has teamed with Boeing Aerospace for an Atlas [manned-rated] launch vehicle & capsule intended for human return from space [‘lifeboat(?) from “Sundancer” multiple-inflatable technology space stations] — two commercial human habitats in Earth orbit are planned for 2014 and 2016 operations dates; and finally (d) the Mojave Air and Spaceport-based commercial space corporation X-COR AEROSPACE chief test pilot for prototype and beyond is DICK RUTAN — It’s safe to say “the big mo” [momentum] is with the US commercial space sector.  ** Add to that the UN-reported stories – except for aerospace insider periodicals – on proliferation of ICAO (international) and FAA (domestic) licensed commercial “SPACEPORTs” and a lots going on, folks — And it’s not at NASA, except for great news from a Thursday – April 5th NASA Jet Propulsion Lab “News Release” re: on-orbit mission extensions for three space-based telescopes — linked to searches for life forms and exo-planetary systems
     [which may explain the ‘stretch-out of the eventual Webb Telescope to Lagrange Point on a future mission date to be announced later].  WOW! It’s starting ‘to get exciting’ once more, IMHO! -30-

    • LPHartswick says:
      0
      0

      I’m still waiting with bated breath for all this to happen.  Talk to me after the next flight fulfills all of its objectives.

      • chriswilson68 says:
        0
        0

        The objective of tests is to learn what works and what doesn’t.  Even if some things don’t work, that doesn’t mean the test didn’t fulfill its objectives.  If the whole thing blows up on the pad, an important problem would have been discovered, making the test fulfill it’s most important objective.

        And if you weren’t convinced by previous test flights, why would you suddenly be convinced by this one?  The upcoming Dragon flight is simply one of many steps along the road.  To make a radical change in your opinion either way based on a single test flight attempt doesn’t seem logical to me.

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          To make a radical change in your opinion either way based on a single test flight attempt doesn’t seem logical to me.
          Cowardly space is all about fears becoming manifest or receding.

          Radical changes of opinion occur in response to good news or bad. Such changes attempt to “get ahead” of where things are heading, so as to either provoke a weak competitor to fail (like yelling “jump” to someone on the outside of a building) or to get onboard a bandwagon of success.

          To always be on the winning side.

  2. Jerry_Browner says:
    0
    0

    NASA’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP) represents the fastest and most cost-effective path to that end.”Amen!
    We know.
    A lot of money being wasted elsewhere.

  3. no one of consequence says:
    0
    0

    Yes.

  4. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    Sane commentary from a guy who’s been there. And as to the safety issue:
    “NASA did write such specifications into Space Act agreements under COTS. More significantly, last year NASA published standards by which commercial crew competitors will be judged, regardless of acquisition strategy. NASA will not select a system that does not meet its safety requirements, and each of the competing teams is keenly aware that the degree to which they meet them will directly affect whether they win NASA’s business. Furthermore, some of NASA’s best and brightest—former astronauts and mission-operations and launch personnel—have joined these companies in program management and safety roles. My former colleagues are among the nation’s premier space operators. Safety is their highest priority, and I would trust my life to them now, just as I did before.”

  5. DTARS says:
    0
    0

    The commercial program meets this objective sooner than any other approach, cost-effectively while keeping safety paramount. Congress should join the administration in leaning forward to ensure the U.S. preserves its human-spaceflight leadership.

    Couldn’t have said it better myself lolol

    Spacex (commercial cots) is the critical path to Mars

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

       Congress should join the administration in leaning forward to ensure the U.S. preserves its human-spaceflight leadership.

      Actually, they have to do an about face pretty soon. If they let Musk get too much an advantage, it becomes too dangerous for cowardly space – many downsides for them. They need 2-3 players, if for no other reason than to compete with Musk so they have viable options that don’t require him. Betting on failure is not enough.

      Simply put, should he get COTS 2/3 successfully, he gets too great an advantage over certain others.

      The CCDEV budget starvation game played was meant to force the only company to be selected as Boeing, to protect the flank of arsenal system space – that is what the budget game is about currently. Arsenal space wants a way to survive defense budget shrinkages, and they can’t with new players dominating, because the size of the pie would be too small, and they’d not be able to whine to Congress to make it larger as with “cost plus”.

      So even while SpaceX is behind schedule, Boeing is not where it needs to be to allow the intended lockout to proceed.

      To avoid embarrassment,  a “fall back position” must be preserved.

      Now the question becomes … how will that be politically engineered?

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

         I recall Mr. Musk saying we will launch when we are ready!!! Who can blame him for that with stakes so high.

        Smart man!
        Maybe even intelligent lol

  6. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    The tide is turning. Every NASA program that tries to do practical technology and good science is getting crushed to feed the insatiable maw of Constellation. Just who are the “stakeholders” who still support it? As Lopez-Alegria points out, the Administration has a solution and it does not include SLS/Orion. It’s time for Congress to get out of the way.

    • John Moscato says:
      0
      0

       The administration’s solution…hmmm…. close down NASA entirely… that’s what all my students tell me anyway… form the President who wants to encourage kids to take the tough STEM courses…

  7. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    If the Delta 4 can lift the Orion on a LEO mission, it would likely beat a commercial vehicle. SpaceX is not likely to be carrying people to orbit until 2017 to 2020.

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

       In a horse race, you judge the contenders by what they have at the moment.
      * Dragon – on orbit tested including recovery includes SM function
      * Other – nothing

      By the time that “other” … has same … what will Dragon have?

      Likely:
      * Multiple, regular CRS flights
      * Occasional “DragonLab”
      * LAS and ECLSS

      By the time of EFT-1, Orion won’t have these. It won’t even have a SM – will make do attached to a EELV upper stage attached until minutes before reentry. EFT-1 is also likely to slip schedule, just like Dragon COTS 2/3 has.

      At this point, I’m giving 3:1 odds on Dragon over Orion. And 4:1 odds on CST 100 beating Orion, given that Congress doesn’t injure CCDEV.

      • chriswilson68 says:
        0
        0

        I agree with your odds.

        And imagine if Congress actually gave Dragon and CST 100 the same funding as Orion!  The odds would be at least 20:1 against Orion coming out ahead if the others got the same funding.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        I’m smart enough not to bet against the house Mr. bookie lol

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Ironic that the Exploration Systems Architecture Study made the bald claim that the Delta could not carry the Orion because, among other things, it would cost too much to modify LC-39 to accommodate it. The Delta is not a bad rocket, but ULA has seriously overpriced it.

      However more to the point, Orion is very poorly designed for LEO logistics. It is much heavier than Dragon but carries fewer people and much less cargo. The huge amounts of money that are being spent on SLS/Orion (about ten times more than commercial crew) is being wasted. LEO or BEO. We need to decide. We can’t afford both.

      • chriswilson68 says:
        0
        0

        I agree with everything you said except the part about not being able to afford both LEO and BEO.  I think we could afford both if we spent all of the SLS/Orion money of COTS-style fixed-price, pay-for-milestones acquisitions.  Let CRS continue and be given enough money to support at least two LEO providers all the way to operational systems and then open up BEO development to the same kind of open competition.  I’ll bet you’d see at least SpaceX and Boeing come up with affordable exploration architectures.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          You would have to start by stopping NASA expenditures on SLS/Orion. That means you would have to fight with the people in Congress who are getting payoffs from its contractors, who are in turn getting the money from your taxes.

          • chriswilson68 says:
            0
            0

            Yes, you’d have to do that.  We can’t afford both LEO and BEO unless we can stop the flow of pork.

          • Steve Harrington says:
            0
            0

             Given that SLS has no mission, it seems that the standard procurement process has been corrupted. The government should come up with a budget and a set of priorities, and then develop a plan, which leads to specifications and an rfp. Instead, the mission is to maintain jobs in various areas.  One solution would be to find something better for the MSFC and the SLS/Orion contractors to do. For example, they can design systems for a moon base or for a Mars sample return or manned landing.  They can develop and fly mission to deliver things that we know we will need, like solar panels, rocket fuel and oxygen, These can be pre-deployed without having the details of the mission finalized. Also a successful mission will help build voter support for the budget needed to do something inspiring.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      John,

      I’m not trying to pick nits, but if we’re going to communicate effectively, we all need to use the same dictionary. When you say “commercial vehicle,” do you mean a COTS or CCDev sponsored vehicle? The Delta 4 is a commercial vehicle — an ELV built by ULA using rockets designed by Boeing, two commercial companies.

      Steve

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

         Actually all the programs from Constellation to SpaceX involve NASA contracts with commercial fabricators, so the term “NASA vs commercial” is a misnomer. The primary difference is between spacecraft designed for access to LEO (i.e. ISS) and spacecraft designed for BLEO missions (i.e. human lunar flight). Orion is unsuitable for ISS logistics. A second difference is management style; NASA requirements imposed on contractors are much more detailed for SLS/Orion than for Falcon/Dragon or Atlas/CST.

  8. Todd Austin says:
    0
    0

    If you accept the perspective that SLS is a complete waste of money, one that is dragging good programs down with it, then how do we go about actually terminating it?

    • chriswilson68 says:
      0
      0

      Write and call your senator, representative, and the White House and tell them what you think.  The more people they hear from, the more likely they are to stand up against Shelby and his friends.

      The president doesn’t like SLS.  The vast majority of senators and representatives don’t like SLS.  The problem is they simply don’t care much one way or the other.  SLS exists only because a handful of people in congress — those representing districts getting billions of dollars from SLS — care one way or another about it.

      • Todd Austin says:
        0
        0

         Except, if the vast majority of those in Congress oppose SLS, why did they vote for it?  I agree that lighting a fire under our members and senators is the way to get it killed.  I disagree that writing individual letters is the way to get it done.

        This is the age of social media.  I see a public campaign to axe SLS in favor of support for commercial space and the Mars program having strong bipartisan support among voters.  Those on the right would be on board for the pro-business anti-pork elements, those on the left because it’s the most logical way to spend our space budget and it happens to stick a few Republican members of Congress who benefit from the pork.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          This is the age of social media.

          Todd,

          This may indeed be the age of social media, but that doesn’t mean that everybody communicates that way. For any communication to be effective, both the message and (equally important) the means of communication must be appropriate to your intended audience. Generally speaking, 75- and 80-year-old Senators and other Reps probably don’t put a lot of stock in texting and tweeting. Any social media communications sent to their offices by people they don’t know personally are most likely handled by an aide who simply rolls their essence into an aggregate report of anonymous social media messages received over a time period. A well-crafted, properly-written letter, on the other hand, marked “personal and confidential” on the envelope, makes a much better and more professional impact.

          Consider also that the time taken to write a 1 or 2 page letter, as opposed to a message with 140 characters maximum, both allows the sender to create a message long enough to be meaningful and illustrates a willingness to spend the time necessary to write that letter, whereas a brief tweet or text message can be knocked off by any 8-year-old in 30 seconds. It says something about the sender. To expect any recipient to be willing to make a meaningful effort in response to your communication, you have to show that you’ve been willing to make an effort yourself. I firmly believe that this is a situation where the tried and true old ways are still the better ways.

          If you look closely at the track records over the last year or so, I think you’ll find that there is no differentiating between left and right, or between Democrat and Republican, on the space issues. If there are any “sides” to the plans and means of space matters any more, it’s those who have vested interests (a minority) and those who are completely indifferent (the majority). Often those in the second group will horse trade by voting a certain way in exchange for either future interests or continued support an another, non-space issue, and I suspect that there are many more of these than people who vote for space issues because they believe in them.

          Steve

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Steve I agree with you about writing letters, I also feel there has to be a better way to make noise. I’m not sure what that is.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      Create a Super-PAC to match or exceed the money spent lobbying members of Congress in favour of the SLS primes, particularly senior ranking Senators.

      Select a hit-list of politicians who oppose commercial crew and are facing difficult re-elections, campaign against them with enough force and venom to threaten their re-election chances. And make sure they, and especially their colleagues, know why you’re doing it.

      Recruit former astronauts and public-figures to produce a continuous consistent media-friendly message. Use them to seduce not just reporters, but senior editors and producers. You win over someone like Roger Ailes who runs Fox, you win over the whole network. Free publicity via “News” is worth more than direct advertising, because it’s more persuasive.

      Find politicians who are close enough to your agenda to get on-side, use your Super-PAC to become a major player in their campaigns. Use your PR team to wine and dine them and make them think your ideas about space were theirs all along. They will be necessary for the next step…

      Hire companies like ALEC to write legislation for your pet politicians to introduce into Congress, and use your media connections to change the message and attack rivals; to end SLS and expand commercial crew into full commercial-LEO and even BEO HSF programs. (As well as other reforms necessary to move NASA out of its rut, such as exemptions from FAR for DARPA-like CCDev projects, closing under-utilised or under-performing centres, reducing a large percentage of existing ageing operations staff, while hiring a new generation of young engineers and scientists to refresh the whole agency, with appropriate in-house research and engineering projects for them to cut their teeth on and learn The Craft.)

      And because you’re starting from so far behind, expect it to take at least a decade before you expect to see any results.

      This is what groups like Norquist’s Americans For Tax Reform, and the Koch brothers’ Americans For Prosperity have been doing. Norquist and Ailes started during the Reagan Administration.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      I’m hoping if Oboma gets re elected he will pull the pork plug on SLS and orion. Any chance of that if dragons fly this year??

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        The Obama administration attempted to cancel Constellation/SLS/Orion more than once but were prevented from doing so by several powerful members of Congress, including Hutchinson, Shelby, Nelson, etc.

        • chriswilson68 says:
          0
          0

          It’s not so much that they were prevented as they weren’t willing to expend the political capital it would have taken to push past Shelby and friends.

          Sadly, I don’t see much reason to believe either a second Obama term or a first Romney term would change that.  Neither of them seems to care enough to seriously fight Shelby.

  9. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    The only thing slowing down commercial crew is the budget cuts imposed by Congress to those very same programs. Maybe push will could come to shove and companies like Spacex will get fed up and take their toys ‘off shore’  (ITAR or no ITAR). Private investors might be more incouraged to take a chance with these companies without ‘big brother’ waiting in the wings to snatch control because of ‘national security’. Any other national government would love to have a space program at the costs Spacex can deliver.

    A little birdie tells me that the Canadian government is looking for a new launch vehical…

    tinker

    • Dan says:
      0
      0

      Ok quit taking the money and get to work Get the pvt investor and see where you can go

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        Musk has hinted he might do just this … but not to ISS.

        Now, what would happen … if he did. How could the US continue to buy Soyuz … given Dragon carrying once a year a handful of millionaire tourists to orbit and back?

        Hmm. A smart businessman would then “value price” Dragon to Congress, just beyond Soyuz hyper inflation prices. By law, Congress would have to pay it, Just one “sale” would recover … all development “costs plus” after the fact.

        This is a viable “plan B” for dealing with cowardly space.

        Thank you for the inspiration, Dan!

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          So Spacex turns into another prime that rips us off 🙁

          Space x must keep their prices low!!! not jack us around like the rest.

          Elon must stay to to his goal or prices will never drop

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

            Cowardly space wants to “prove” Musk is no threat by daring him to f- them over badly.

            The theory behind this is, they think he’ll screw up on COTS 2/3, and then they can ridicule him out of existence, and never have to fear him anymore. Touchingly naive.

            So they want him to fall for their favorite own brand of failure – that of over reach.

            What this is, however, is cowardly space’s desperation. They are terrifically scared that Musk will be the blind squirrel that not only got an acorn on the first try (COTS 1), but got the whole tree of acorns (COTS 2/3) on the next try.

            So the best way this could play out is that Musk positions for the prior mentioned “plan B” … like with a viable Texas launch site … then pulls off ‘plan A” too.

            Now his rivals are screwed doubly – he can continue to sell to government with cargo / crew without being screwed with by cowardly space, or … if they insist … hold off by developing “plan B” more. That is how he can f- them over … exactly like they fear .. rendering them impotent.

            Either way, he’s got the initiative … while they’ve got … nothing.

            I’d think you’d actually like that.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Mr. C thanks for explaining that 🙂 I just love watching little cheap Spacex kick their porky fat ______  lololol

            Got my cracker jacks ready for April 30 12:20 🙂

            Hey Clem! You want to watch something more fun than football? lol

        • Dan says:
          0
          0

          Then let him do it please he is already over cost and behind schedule

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

             If you look at schedule/cost for deliverables, he’s better than contemporaries. Remember, Orbital’s plan of record … doesn’t have a recoverable RV. He’s already recovered one.

            And I think he’s moving to do just what you asked. You got your wish.

  10. newpapyrus says:
    0
    0

    Extending the life of the $3 billion a year  ISS program as a make-work program  for Commercial Crew development certainly won’t save the tax payers any money and it will only deprive NASA of billions of dollars of desperately needed funds  for manned beyond LEO pioneering and development. And there’s not even enough potential traffic to the the ISS from the US side to sustain more than perhaps one or two companies.

    If Congress really wants to help to create a sustainable environment for the  Commercial Crew industry while also investing a lot more funds into  beyond LEO development, they should end the ISS program by 2016. This would still give NASA more than three years of tremendously valuable science (if you believe the propaganda) aboard the space station. The Europeans, Russians, and Japanese could always extend the ISS program beyond 2016 if they’re willing to use their own bucks:-)

    The $3 billion in savings could allow NASA to use just $1 billion a year to subsidize  a National Space Lotto system, guaranteeing that– at least– 40 private American citizens ($25 million each) will get a chance to travel aboard a private American commercial space craft to a private commercial American space station every year. The American tax payers have spent more than $300 billion in today’s dollars on our manned space program. So why should only   government astronauts working for NASA and the wealthy be the only ones able to travel into space!

    The other $2 billion a year could be used to significantly increase manned  beyond LEO funding for NASA for the development of such things as artificial gravity space stations and interplanetary transhabs and single stage reusable Extraterrestrial Landing Vehicles (ETLV) capable of landing manned and unmanned payloads on the Moon, the moons of Mars, Ceres, Vesta, Callisto, etc. and maybe even on the surface of Mars (if a ballute, hypercone, and heat shield are added).

    Marcel F. Williams

    • chriswilson68 says:
      0
      0

      Now that assembly of ISS is complete, there’s no way it needs to cost $3 billion a year.  If it’s being serviced by Dragon, both for crew and for supplies, it should cost less than $1 billion a year.  Of course, that assumes NASA cuts the bloated bureaucracy on the ground out of the ISS program.  There’s simply no reason 6 people in LEO need a huge army of people on the ground to support them.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      If we cannot afford to keep people in LEO we certainly cannot afford to keep them on the moons of Jupiter. Conversely, if we can develop practical means of flight to LEO, we can build an infrastructure there and farther away. At current costs both LEO and BLEO human spaceflight are nonsustainable.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        If we cannot afford to keep people in LEO we certainly cannot afford to keep them on the moons of Jupiter.

        DS3,

        Well said. Whatever the actual cost of operating the ISS, I think that the best possible use that can be made of that money, and of the ISS itself, is learning how to reduce that very same cost. I believe we should have been using the ISS all along to develop ways to live off Earth in cost-effective, sustainable ways. There are basic, essential activities that must be done, every day, no matter where people live and work, but doing those things off Earth can not be done in the same ways as while living on Earth. And further, the way we would do some of these things off Earth would, again, be different, depending on how many people are involved and the basic characteristics of the environment; the needs and the methods for a six-person temporary scientific lunar base would be different than for a 50-person colony with aspirations for growth and permanence, among the asteroids, on a Jovian moon, or in free fall at an Earth-Moon Lagrange point. Even a change in the duration of a stay, whether the site was to be revisited (once or continually), and the time between visits would change the ways in which we would live at any location.

        I’m talking about things like providing food (as a balanced diet) and eating it; laundry; transportation (short- and long-range, overland and flying); medical care; communications; an Internet system and large-scale data storage, and all of the many other day-to-day existence things that we pretty much take for granted on Earth. Dragging everything we need for basic survival from Earth to elsewhere, to be used at an extreme distance, or worse, used once and then tossed away, is both the most expensive and the most vulnerable aspect of living off Earth, whether for two days or two years.

        Only after we’ve learned and tested what is required to effectively live off Earth can we begin to consider all of the many plans that have been proposed for so long – importing resources, free fall manufacturing, solar energy collection and delivery systems, etc. “Closing the business case” can not be properly considered until we have mastered all of the survival aspects involved. We can’t specify, let alone build, the necessary infrastructures until we understand precisely the details of the requirements for living and working in a sustainable manner at the off Earth location(s) involved. Every day that passes without us learning how to live effectively and sustainably off Earth is another day wasted between now and the inevitable day when we will no longer have the means to do so and we’re stuck permanently on this one old overused planet until we fade away.

        The first and second tasks on our to-do list are: 1) learn how to recycle everything that can be recycled, and make sure it is done without fail; and 2) bring nothing from Earth to your destination that can be “made” on site or replaced by an on-site substitution. From there, the to-do list grows by learning the truth about essentials for which we, so far, have only speculation and science fiction (i.e., replace the guesses with hard-won hard facts). We have a long, long way to go, and, apparently, no one (in an official capacity) has seen fit to start tackling the process by creating, peer reviewing and publishing the necessary to-do list. Progress begins by having a goal, and with no plan there can be no success.

        Many people have attributed the high cost of operating ISS largely to the support people on the ground (Mission Control, etc.), but seem to overlook the costs associated with the supplies sent to the ISS (food, new clothes every day, etc.). Agreed, the costs of these items themselves are enormous, but the costs of the people employed to ship them to NASA facilitators, store them in inventory, make them into payload packages, etc. are probably much higher than the physical item costs. So, a major cost reduction can probably be realized by transferring (or eliminating) these activities/costs to the off Earth location. i.e., if you grow food on site, you don’t pay for the food and getting it to your off Earth location. Every activity that you move from Earth to your off Earth location(s) is going to 1) greatly reduce your on Earth costs, and 2) make mankind more capable of living off Earth, we just have to invest in the effort of learning (and proving) how to do so.

        At least, that’s how I see it.

        Steve

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          I would say the cost of transport from earth is the critical factor. Without cheap transportation no one will go there in the first place. But no serious study was done to identify the reasons for the serious errors in estimating Shuttle operational cost. In fact, hardly anyone in the space program even knows the cost of rocket fuel.

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      “Extending the life of the $3 billion a year  ISS program as a make-work program  for Commercial Crew development certainly won’t save the tax payers any money”

      Do you have this spiel saved to a keyboard macro? 🙂

      “The $3 billion in savings…”

      What savings? The ISS cost $3b while it was being built. It costs $3b once it was complete. It costs $3b even though NASA doesn’t fly any crew or even cargo missions. (COTS being separately funded.)

      What makes you think that the $3b being billed to the ISS budget actually is the real cost of running ISS? Therefore, what makes you think that $3b is actually available to spend elsewhere? And what makes you think it would cost any less than $3b for NASA to use alternative infrastructure, like commercial space-stations?

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Paul,

        I really don’t understand why so many people overlook the fact that the costs for one phase of a program (in this case ISS) are unrelated to the costs for other phases. Building ISS involved a lot of money going to contractors who designed and built the various modules and support infrastructure, which NASA had to deliver (or pay to have delivered) to LEO. Using the ISS (after, in theory, it is finished being built) goes to different people for other, different activities, such as designing and building the equipment for the experiments, all of the experiment support activities, the Russian Taxi Service, food and clothing, cargo transportation, etc… Building is not using; the cost of one is unrelated to the other. Whether or not the money reportedly being spent to operate the ISS is justified is the question of the day, but the cost to build it is irrelevant to that question.

        Steve

        • Paul451 says:
          0
          0

          “I really don’t understand why so many people overlook the fact that the costs for one phase of a program (in this case ISS) are unrelated to the costs for other phases.[…] Building is not using; the cost of one is unrelated to the other.”

          And yet the numbers are the same, regardless of which phase it’s in. Which implies that the numbers aren’t actually related to the real cost of design/building/operations/etc, but are fixed costs not really connected to the ISS program itself. Hence, cutting ISS to channel funds to my or Marcel’s favourite alternative won’t actually free up $3b. Not even a fraction of $3b. Because every alternative program will carry the fixed costs that are currently billed to ISS.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            No wonder I question ALLL pubic rocket programs and beg to get to commercial where real costs determine what happens and who gets the job. I think a major reason people are no longer interested in Space is because they FEEL not know the facts that this (space program)has be and still is a RIPOFF. Hopefuly when dragons fly and Elon starts building BEO hardware for his Noble Goal of making us a multi planet species people will get fired up again.

            Mr. C suggested Spacex bill US high prices like the primes 🙁 that would be a fatal mistake to his cause our cause! He needs to remain the low ball HERO!  So he Spacex get 60 minute type ads which reach the american people.

            Good guys can win when they have the best price too!!!!!!!

          • chriswilson68 says:
            0
            0

            “And yet the numbers are the same, regardless of which phase it’s in.
            Which implies that the numbers aren’t actually related to the real cost
            of design/building/operations/etc, but are fixed costs not really
            connected to the ISS program itself.”

            Well said!

  11. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    CC is the best and will get there first of the current programs.Competition will lower costs?There is no way that anyone can compete with SpaceX at their prices.So no competition.The prices are set at the lowest price that they can make a profit.NASA says 70million a seat.SpaceX has said 20 million.Just because you like Boeing do you pay extra?SpaceX is charging 130 million a flight for CRS.How can they charge 80 million for 4 crew?I still think NASA may be forced,because of lack of funds,to build their on system.It would be faster better,cheaper.Better because it is faster and cheaper.NASA better watch out, they may be caught like GSA if they hire private companies at a great waste of tax payers money,when they could do it themselves at the cost of material.6 months to build a launcher,with others right behind for testing.NASA has other reasons to do things beside the most efficient use of taxpayers money it seems,however.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      SpaceX is controlling costs but ULA could be competitive if it was  motivated to do so.

    • chriswilson68 says:
      0
      0

      SpaceX isn’t charging $80 million for 4 crew.  The crew capacity of Dragon is 7.  So $20 million a seat is $140 million for one flight of crewed Dragon.

      If NASA decides to only send 4, or 3, crew per flight, the cost per crew member goes up.  The $20 million per crew member only applies when you buy a package of seven seats on the same mission.

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

         Chris:

        A Dragon with a crew of three could take quite a lot of cargo up as well. That would offset the cost some.

        tinker

        • DTARS says:
          0
          0

          Tinker !!!
          NASA would never allow cargo to go up with crew!! Thats not safe!! Didn’t they all but outlaw that when they canceled crew and satellites on shuttle! and besides that would be to cheap and reasonable and may make someone look bad.

          lololol remember we are talking public rockets programs lol

        • chriswilson68 says:
          0
          0

          That’s a very good point.  Since Dragon is the cheapest way to get cargo to the station, and Crew Dragon doesn’t seem to cost much more than Cargo Dragon, there’s no reason not to mix crew and cargo, at least not in terms of mass.  Depending on the seating arrangement and where the controls are, it might be a little tricky to fit standard size racks around the seats even if you remove the unused seats.

          • John Gardi says:
            0
            0

             Chris:

            I’m sure that the Dragon, being ‘fly by network’, Spacex can have the controls anywhere they want. The ‘lower deck’ of Dragon can hold three crew. That’s where the cargo can go. The ‘upper deck’ can hold three or four crew and have clear access to the upper and side hatches for any escape scenario. Crew Dragon would dock at the Shuttles port so no full sized station racks. Lots of logistics could go up with the crew though… like their clothes, food and laptops for instance. Better logistics that way.

            tinker

    • chriswilson68 says:
      0
      0

      “I still think NASA may be forced,because of lack of funds,to build their on system.”

      No, NASA will be forced by lack of funds to buy crew services from others instead of building their own system.  NASA’s costs to build a system internally are close to an order of magnitude higher than their costs to buy the same capabilities through a COTS-style open procurement model.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      If NASA and/or Congress is relying on multiple vendors competing for NASA LEO work to drive down prices, they are going to be disappointed. There really isn’t enough launch business for that kind of competition to be a factor yet. NASA doesn’t plan sending enough personnel or freight to the ISS for such competition to take place. In the foreseeable future, too little to support more than one or two companies in the commercial-crew market. 
      If people are serious about this cost-control theory, they must expect more future LEO business than is currently visible. To reach a point where price competition will take place, other commercial firms (Bigelow, for example) will have to fly a lot of people and habitats into LEO, to enlarge the market and trigger price competition.For now, the key to low cost is the business model(s) of the vendor(s), and currently, only SpaceX is *known* to have a business model that might permit them to offer services inexpensively and still make a profit. 
      Blue Origin might have such a business model, but they are playing their cards so close to the vest it’s hard to tell. Orbital tends more toward the Old Space model. Boeing ditto.
      So, if the goal is cheap seats to LEO, the ‘competition,’ such as it is, will be more about the kind of company you are dealing with than market size, at least for the next decade or so. I suspect this is why Old Space seems worried.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Saturn 
       In house nasa is not effient and never will be. You are saying those that can’t do it the best should be given the job because they are fixed costs now. Your case makes me want to say get NASA out of the rocket business all together.

  12. bhspace says:
    0
    0

    Commercial space transportation is all we have left.    Maybe it is time to part of the solution  than to just complain about how others are doing.  

  13. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    Given the continual attacks on commercial crew by Congress, K Street, and hired guns like the Lexington Institute, I wonder how frustrated Musk is.
    If the money and local personnel were made available, and he could sidestep ITAR, it wouldn’t surprise me to see him eventually moving some operations to another, saner country. Brazil would certainly be supportive. It has more of an aerospace industry than most Americans realize, and perhaps more ambition. If I opened the paper to see that SpaceX was going to build in Brazil and launch from Alcântara, I might smile into my coffee, but I wouldn’t be shocked.
    Someone also should mention to Congress and NASA that the longer SpaceX’s private manifest gets, the less Musk needs NASA as an “anchor tenant.” The commercial trend is positive so far, and I can imagine SpaceX eventually walking away from NASA, Congress, and all that foolishness, maybe sooner, maybe later, depending on the private side of the business. If so, it wouldn’t be the first time US business and/or government had driven away an innovator.
    Come to think of it, I wouldn’t be surprised if all the ankle biting in DC hasn’t also irritated Bob Bigelow, a man who doesn’t seem willing to tolerate frustration for extended periods.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      China will make a deal with ESA to provide ISS human access with the Shenzou, via the Soyuz docking system, bypassing the US segment.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      oldscientist,

      I agree with your assessment.  If the US government were to lose the services of SpaceX because SpaceX signed on (instead) with another country, it would bloody well serve them right.  And it wouldn’t be a black mark against SpaceX as far as I’m concerned — they are, after all, a company, which means that their primary goal/requirement is to make money.  However, I don’t think NASA should be included under the government umbrella.  NASA, for the most part, has done what it can to promote and support new space alternatives.  It has been Congress (persuaded by old space money) that has worked against this, obstructing NASA and cutting COTS and CCDev funding.  Unless one has deliberately put the blinders on, this is a case where transparency in government has certainly been achieved.

      Steve

    • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
      0
      0

       Mr Musk comes from South Africa.  South from South Africa goes over the Antarctic.    North East takes you over the Indian Ocean to Indonesia.

    • chriswilson68 says:
      0
      0

      As long as SpaceX designs its rockets in the U.S., they’re subject to arms control regulations.  To move to Brazil, Musk would have to start over from scratch.  SpaceX was able to happen in the U.S. because the U.S. already had a very experienced base of aerospace engineers that SpaceX could hire and the same cultural factors that allowed for so many successful Silicon Valley start-ups.

      People have tried to replicate the success of Silicon Valley in Brazil and other places for many years.  So far, Silicon Valley continues to dominate in innovation.  I suspect it would be similar with an attempt to set up a SpaceX in Brazil.

      There’s a reason Musk moved to the U.S. from South Africa before he became successful.

      As much as we hear about the decline of the U.S., there are still many factors, not all easy to see, that give us an enormous edge over the rest of the world in many areas.

  14. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    NASA is cutting costs on SLS by doing the Max Q abort themselves.They will reuse the ’14 test Orion and use a USAF supplied rocket,surplus maybe.All very good ideas.With saving money like that,I think SLS will make it.I have not read what the make up of crewed flights will be.Only one US crew goes up with each Soyuz.Will all the others stay with Soyuz?They say they may add another crew on ISS.Yes seven seats are possible,but all I see cargo.They could send our crew and share of cargo on 2 flights a year.Don’t forget that only Dragon has external cargo.Space is boring.Whats to do compared to what I can do here on Earth?I love my gardening.My walks.Hobbies.What do they do in space?Look out the window and take 1 million pictures.I just like the technical stuff. Besides China don’t forget India.They are going to make Soyuz capsules.They might have a cheap ride.I just saw a neat USAF fly back launcher.Big fuel tank with a booster on the side.Tank and one engine glides back with wings.Side booster goes into orbit.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      USAF is investing substantially in reusable launch systems. Maybe NASA should take the hint.

  15. Nassau Goi says:
    0
    0

    Michael is right on point, although the PC language and not attacking any congressmen specifically is not going to do much. This opinion is going to be drowned out by the over-emotional politically charged statements X congressmen will make about jobs and other superficial patriotic nonsense. Many people specialize in manipulating public opinion and several people are working this cause for spaceflight.

    There is a serious culture problem at the agency than manifests itself in century old stupid views. Given that, It’s amazing how we collaborated with the USSR at all. As someone noted, Brazil may offer SpaceX and Elon Musk more support..and they should if we don’t.

  16. tutiger87 says:
    0
    0

    Hey Mike El-A…

    They aren’t hiring us. Sure they are hiring guys like John Curry and Mike Moses, and guys who were in CB like Sox and Garrett. But as far as operators go, they aren’t hiring us. Now, to their credit, the folks at Boeing and Sierra Nevada have intimated that once CCDEV3 comes around, that they’ll be looking for folks like us. SpaceX, on the other hand, doesn’t want us. Hell, I got a letter from them telling me I wasn’t qualified to do GN&C work, something I did for FIFTEEN YEARS for Shuttle, on a vehicle a magnitude more complicated to fly than spam in a can.

    As a true believer, I know that the future is in commercial spaceflight. But the transition was botched. When SpaceX starts flying more than a wheel of cheese, maybe they’ll understand that you don’t just pick up a book and become an operator.

    And, where’s the business case? People like comparing commercial space to the US mail in the 20’s. That’s apples and oranges. It’ll take more than 3 ISS flights and billionaires looking for a ride to keep this going.