Hearing on NASA's Commercial Crew Acquisition Strategy
Hearing Charter
“NASA cannot exercise the same level of insight it normally has in other technology development efforts. NASA has not been able to credibly estimate the expected total cost to certify the companies’ designs, or the cost to buy launch services.”
Ralph Hall, statement
“If our nation is going to ask crews to explore space, it is our responsibility to do everything possible to ensure that those astronauts return to Earth safely. I’m not convinced this approach is the right one but I’m willing to listen.”
Witnesses Say NASA Must Have Expanded Role in Ensuring Astronaut Safety as Commercial Spaceflight Capabilities Develop, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
“Vice Admiral Joseph W. Dyer, USN (Ret.), Chairman of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, expressed significant concerns with NASA’s proposed plans. Since the U.S. government will not own the vehicles, the designs, or the intellectual property, NASA cannot exercise the same level of insight it normally has in other technology development efforts. Admiral Dyer told Committee Members that NASA’s, “current acquisition approach–commercial transportation system development that is funded under a space act agreement concurrent with certification that is funded under a federal acquisition regulation-based contract–is complex and unique. In our opinion, this approach is a workaround for the requirements and communications challenges implicit to the space act agreements.”
Committee Democrats Raise Concerns about NASA’s Commercial Crew Program
“In response to Mr. Gerstenmaier’s comments that NASA is “hoping” to get the funding level ($525 million) in the Senate appropriations bill for fiscal year 2013, as well as get the President’s request level of about $830 million per year in fiscal year 2014 and beyond, Ms. Edwards said, “I strongly suggest, especially in this [current funding] environment, to pin an estimate of completion of an activity based on a ‘hope’ [for full funding], will be a real challenge, I think, for the agency.”
– William Gerstenmaier, statement
– Joseph Dyer statement
What NASA is going to do on certifying is to actually be able to tell the CCCAP companies that they will not accept what they are doing.Under SAA they can’t tell them yes or no.I read in a report that NASA listened to SpaceX about their rocket landing system.All they could do is listen.I posted here that I would never support that system.Apollo 11 came close to running out of fuel.What if DragonRider did run out of fuel,even 100′ up?If they had ejection seat backup,that would work.I am glad to say in CCCAP they have changed that to read to use the rockets to soften the landing.
Still talk of not enough money maybe.I hope NASA is forced to build there on launcher and spacecraft since they can do it for the cost of material.I also hope that Florida will be so close that Pres. Obama and Sen. Nelson will have to do something.It would sure impress Floridans.Everybody loves NASA.Got to be plenty of votes.Nobody likes contractors.Check out anything where you can buy the parts and DIY.The people you hire to do the work is where the cost is.They would just keep using Soyuz probably.
I finally found a cutaway for Titan II.It did use standard aircraft construction of skin,stringer and rings.Even though installing the stingers would take a lot of time I like it the best.While I was gone a video of plate construction was put up here.Plate construction uses something like a 3’x4′ by 3” aluminum plate.It is machined out to form stringers,then bent to form part of the diameter and welded in place.Seems like a lot of waste and not very green.
NASA could have used the 46 Titan II that were in silos.Like new because the silos were climate controlled.Not even sold as surplus,they were all destroyed in 2006.What is the only rocket to use three different types of fuel at different times?Titan II.Kerosene,hydrogen and hypergolic.
Saturn13, you don’t seem to understand how CCiCap, COTS, and related program work. Each of these programs has a series of milestones for each company. Some of these milestones are technical reviews by NASA personnel of the companies’ programs. NASA sends dozens of experts to these reviews, and each of those NASA experts can raise any questions or concerns they have about any aspect of the design. The companies must answer all questions and concerns to the satisfaction of NASA before they get paid for that milestone.
So, even though NASA isn’t making the design decisions, the companies that make the design decisions must satisfy NASA that the design decisions are sound. Otherwise, they get paid nothing.
“I hope NASA is forced to build there on launcher and spacecraft since they can do it for the cost of material.”
Because you believe that NASA doesn’t have to hire anyone to do the work? NASA just buys the materials and they magically self-assemble?
All available evidence indicates that having NASA do the work in-house or through a traditional cost-plus contract leads to costs that are several times what they’ve been getting through COTS/CCiCap fixed-price, pay-for-performance contracts.
I guess that Gerst. was joking when he said that the companies look at body language and winks and nods to know they are on the right track.The milestones as written has to be done to get paid.I do remember something about on the agendas at meetings to answer any NASA questions from previous meetings.Maybe NASA never had any questions.They may also just ask for more information on a subject.This is extreme privatization.The companies get to the end and NASA says we can’t fly with you.This fixes the problem.NASA calls it a hybrid system.
Forgot or missed my theory of several months back,that took me a month to step by step work out?NASA pays their workers no matter what they do.I think what they are doing now could be delayed to build launchers and crewed spacecraft.TDY.Have the work spread out to all the centers.Assemble at KSC.Have some TDY for launch and control.Some control functions could be done remotely.Not have to go KSC.The material cost for a Titan II class is $140,000.NASA could have at least a 100x saving.That would mess up their budget.What could they do with the saved millions?
Thanks for replying.I get to tell my theory again.It will make Steve mad though.He told me to stop writing about it.You know Canadians though.
Saturn13,
Look at it from the logical side; if it was really so much cheaper, as you predict, certainly others would know this too, like NASA themselves and OMB and OSTP, etc., and they would have started doing it long ago, as soon as the money started disappearing, right after Apollo. The fact that NASA hasn’t done this, and that none of the other “space-using” agencies do it, and the fact that none of the government overseers and committees have suggested that they do it, would seem to indicate that the cost savings which you propose would actually not, for whatever reasons, result. Like I said before, if it were that simple, they’d be doing it.
Respectfully,
Steve
I think Saturn13 is saying that a lot of direct NASA employees, and the centres and facilities, are not being utilised at even close to full capacity. They just can’t be fired/closed without Congressional authorisation. And that ain’t happening.
If you threw them at purely in-house projects, you’d only really add the material costs. They’ve been paid for.
Technically, the documented “project cost” (by including staff and facilities costs) would be high, perhaps higher than the supposed cost of outsourcing the same work, but the actual impact on NASA’s budget would be only the cost of material, everything else is the same.
How much does it cost you to make something in your own back shed? Just the materials. Your “labour” and workshop is already paid for.
I suspect the real reason it won’t happen is that it would require the managers to really, openly, admit how much is redundant, (and/or completely the wrong people for the task.) You’d first need to cleave off the excess staff/facilities into a common pool for the Special Projects. That exercise alone sets you up to have them all RIFed the next budget crunch.
You need an environment that is much less “threatening” before you could make the attempt. Where NASA managers and staff all trust that the purpose of the change is to help them, to save costs, not cut costs. And that ain’t happening.
[Since there’s virtually no cost, there’s no cost of failure. Which allows the engineers to experiment much more. I would expect many NASA people to love the idea… right up until anyone higher-up actually suggests it officially…]
[[To repeat my comment above, I really would like to know how the cost compares with cost-plus external contracts. It might turn out that the two best ways to run programs are entirely in-house, and off-the-shelf on-delivery purchase for everything you can. With cost-plus a very very distant last.]]
Paul,
I’ve expressed my opinion on this before, at least twice, so there’s no point in me doing so again; it would only be boring and redundant for regulars NW readers.
I will add one comment in passing. The costs are not just the people and the materials, not unless your only goal is to produce drawings of untested designs. The manufacturing being proposed requires specialized, very expensive machinery and tooling, which NASA doesn’t have and which requires very experienced operators. In a game that is almost as much art as it is science you usually do a lot of prototyping/testing instead of jumping straight from an engineering drawing to finished article. Who will do this, NASA or an outside designer? If NASA, then we’re looking at a lot of additional in-house parts inventory. That raises the whole question of designs and design upgrades. If we bring in Saturn13’s proposal for using Titan II, for example, the missile design belongs to one company and the revisions that were done to make into a LV belong to several other companies, so these would have to be bought or licensed. Also consider that, by today’s standards, the Titan II would probably not be acceptable as a HSF LV. Quite aside from the much more rigid safety consciousness that exists today, the Titan II was a very rough ride. The POGO was excessive, the vibrations were extreme, and in simply lifting a two-man Gemini capsule the Titan II LV hit over 8 G’s, as compared to the mild 3 G’s of a Shuttle. Everything considered, the Titan II is never again going to be used for a NASA LV, so the numbers he came up with are not an indicator of true costing.
So, what would anyone propose to build instead? Personally, I can’t imagine it being an old design, like reusing the Titan II, especially when it was a matter of build a missile and then modify it, instead going straight to the LV (for which there were no drawings). I know some people hold up the Soyuz as an example of reuse and older is good enough, but that’s because they conveniently overlook the fact that the name has renamed the same (with different suffixes) but the design has been updated constantly.
Also consider the skill sets required as opposed to those which currently exist within NASA. How long will it take, and how much will it cost, to turn the current personnel into the necessary manufacturing experts that will be needed? They’d need people like aircraft certified TIG welders, for example, that it take years to become, but they’d need them right away. And you can’t just arbitrarily take people from one profession and assign them to work in a a different one, even if you’re willing to train them. So, like I have said before, you either have to shut down totally for years and massively retrain everybody (major cost, zero revenue), or else fire most people and try to hire the ones you need instead, if they are even available. Either way, it’s not going to happen. Everything considered, it is still my opinion that NASA is not going to become a manufacturing entity.
A horse is not a cow, and NASA is not a manufacturing facility, and you can’t force it to be one any more than you can force the horse to give you milk. That’s my opinion. Sorry.
Steve
Saw an interview with Elon Musk recently, he did something very similar to Saturn13’s calculation when he looked at batteries for Tesla. Presumably he did the same thing with Falcon’s components vs the cost of existing launchers. He claims it as an underlying philosophy, bringing everything back to “fundamental first principles”.
http://www.youtube.com/watc…
The example is from 24m25s. But watch from a few minutes earlier to get the context. (Or watch the whole thing.)
I have no idea how old the interview is, but I thought it an interesting coincidence that I’d run across it so soon after this subject came up again.
In my opinion, the opposite is the thinking that kept the a $1b/launch prototype shuttle flying for 30 years. “If the existing system is expensive, then changing it must be more expensive.” Musk shows that this isn’t the case.
“A horse is not a cow,”
But if what you want is a cow, why are you feeding so many damn horses.
“All available evidence indicates that having NASA do the work in-house or through a traditional cost-plus contract…”
How do those two compare, though? Are there examples of stand-alone in-house NASA programs, that can be compared to cost-plus contracts to external providers? It can be hard to compare, because you’ve got admin costs with both, but once you drill past that to compare actual work-costs, how does in-house compare with cost-plus external?
Thanks Paul451, first good thinking reply.I covered what you are saying by using Ares 1X as an example.Different centers built the 2nd stage and capsule.They also did the software and launched the rocket.This was done under Pres. Bush.So it is bi-partisan.At the time everyone writing in said it was done just to spread work out to different Congress people.Maybe Pres. Bush was doing what all Presidents say they will do,stop waste ,fraud,abuse.NASA also builds some spacecraft and instruments themselves.No launchers or crewed spacecraft.Maybe we can check by comparing the cost of the Mars Malin cameras with the ones built by NASA.
Steve you may be right,but why has not anyone ever mentioned it before?Does the space writers don’t know or don’t care or don’t have them means to check?Maybe because there was no one to champion it.I am trying.I still do not have anyone to openly join me.I have written the House Science committee just before a hearing.My imagination was probably wrong,but they looked shocked.Also somebody yelled in the background that NASA was going make rockets at a lower cost,way lower!Maybe just to ridicule my idea,maybe not.I also wrote the White House.I mentioned how it was not becoming of Democrats to use private workers when NASA government workers are just as good.They go to the same schools.It sounds to me Pres. Obama is saying NASA workers are just not good enough or had not thought of the idea.NASA said they did a study for SLS to use a Saturn V type and there was no saving.Did they tell all the leaders what it would cost if NASA did all the work themselves?If not how can anyone make a decision?I had not written to Sen. Nelson,since I had written to him with suggestions to close the gap and nothing happened.But he sent me a letter with an easy e-mail to tell him what I was worried about.So he has been notified.Nobody has come out with any figures yet that my theory is wrong.I think it is all politics.Thanks Keith for posting.
Saturn13,
I applaud your attitude towards the worth of NASA employees, but I must stress, again, that “workers,” wherever they happen to work, are not interchangeable in the way you imply. Every quarter in your pocket has exactly the same functions, capabilities and major characteristics as every other quarter in your pocket, or in the entire country. This is simply not the case with people, particularly highly-trained professionals. The work that you’re proposing to assign to NASA is not like assembly work at the Ford plant, where a person has a fixed routine to perform repeatedly and for which they can be trained in a half hour. Building launch vehicles, spacecraft, and custom test equipment simply can not be done that way. Each and every step is high-performance work requiring considerable specialized experience. And when you’re building things in small numbers (less than 100’s per year), no one has a full-time workload, unlike Ford, and therefore every person has many different tasks he/she has to be capable of doing, often with no similar prior experiences or anyone to “train” them. It might be months, years or never before someone has to repeat a previously done task. It is not assembly line work. It does involve a lot of craftsmanship. I’m sorry, but I have to reiterate, if it was a viable move then I think that certainly others would have proposed it and pushed for it long before now.
Steve
Does anyone really believe that SpaceX will fly vehicles using their retrorocket landing system without parachute backup? I certainly don’t. I expect the design to be something like Soyuz uses, though with a lot more Delta V, and far more flexibility as regards landing.
That’s an aspect of the propulsive landing that I’ve been hoping to see more detail about, but I imagine that won’t come out until they’re getting ready to actually do drop tests. But given that the SuperDracos are arranged in pairs, I suspect they’re planning to be able to survive losing a couple of them. Unless they were to lose a combined pair, at which point attitude control would probably become substantially more difficult.
And then there’s Mars. If Musk is serious about going to Mars with a Dragon, then yeah, he’ll have to be prepared to rely on it without a backup. No parachute system is going to make an appreciable difference for landing a five ton capsule in that atmosphere.
From what I understand for MSL they considered eliminating the parachute, however apparently there was a concern about stability problems when using descent thrusters at hypersonic speeds due to plume impingement, and it’s really hard to computer model this. Rather than risk it they used the supersonic parachute to bring the speed down to under 300 mph before starting powered descent.
Presumably these issues would also exist for a Dragon spacecraft landing on Mars. Although maybe after a few Mars reentries they would have enough data to decide if they can eliminate the parachute.
The presumption by House Repub’s bent on protecting arsenal space pork in home districts, by forcing arsenal space HSF policy on commercial space, attempts to halt the necessary reform of arsenal space “cost plus” overuse that allowed Constellation to suck $9B out of the taxpayer with little/no results.
What COTS demonstrated is that reform for the benefit of the taxpayer is possible – that we got a usable system BETTER FASTER CHEAPER than arsenal space, who predicted, “fear mongered” disaster instead.
They are back. “There he goes again”.
The protection of the HSF integrity lies with NASA oversight, not NASA micromanagement as FAR/Dyer/Hall would desire.
They are clearly anti-innovation, as they have been before. They don’t believe in America’s entrepreneurial spirit, but in old “K” street lobbyist paid for pork handouts. Which we can’t afford.
This is a lead in to limiting Commercial to one vendor so it doesn’t drop prices, and is an exact repeat of the mistake with EELV that damaged American competitiveness in launch vehicles worldwide, and lead to price spirals for the taxpayer.
Again, House Republicans talk out of both sides of their pie holes. Pious budgetary nonsense while predictably backing the biggest, proven wasters of government pork, which they decry while they divvy up rather than use limited but proven competitive pricing to reduce taxpayer outlay and long term program risk.
Here’s what they fear – successful multiple commercial providers establish a successful, broadening domestic and international capability that undercuts sole source contacts (ala Constellation and SLS) that forces reform on the arsenal system, the means that space and defense contract waste, that feeds back into political contributions to Congress, goes down.
That’s what the battle is about. Reelection contibutions ala “free speech” of govt funds to public companies. Like the bank payoffs years back. Again.
An approach only a Dem could admire. “Wolfe in sheep’s clothing?”
add:
Oh yeah, almost forgot. What would be the effect outside of America if you have “commercial crew provider” overcapacity?
Will the Russians / Chinese drop prices to Europe? Nope – because they’d put at risk American “future business” possibilities where they could make top dollar in a stand down.
Which means American Commercial providers will undercut Russia/China on HSF, and may become the “low price leaders”. Hard to fund a 2-10x indigenous capability in that environment.
So its likely that the second “customer” for “commercial space” will be European, but only if two or more have America as an “anchor customer”. Does America wish to beleive in itself to gain such prestige?
No one is stopping the “Commercial Providers” from developing the vehicles on their own dime and selling the service to NASA. But because NASA is paying them to develop a “Commercial” spacecraft NASA for some odd reason feels it needs to certify the vehicles.
Sounds great. Lets tell Lockheed, Boeing, ATK, General Dynamics, and all the rest they have to develop all systems for the government at own cost – no “cost plus”, no front money, no GFE, fully burdened. Just that if they build it, govt might buy it. FOR ALL CONTACTS/PURCHASES, ALL SUPPLIERS/VENDORS, BAR NONE.
Let me know when you get that working genius.
Yeah, how about a new fighter plane? Now all of you defense contractors make some great new planes, and we’ll pick one. VTOL, tons of payload, and some stealth would be great. Wait, nobody is going to make one?
Market acceptance risk.
That would be a good policy if there already were multiple competing crew transportation systems, such as is the case with launch vehicles. Do you support it for launch vehicles? If so, you must oppose SLS, and depend on ATK, Rocketdyne, Boeing and LM to develop it on their own dime. If you don’t, you’re just a hypocrite who wants to send money to Old Space and wants to prevent money going to New Space, using whatever sophistries come to mind.
“No one is stopping the “Commercial Providers” from developing the vehicles on their own dime and selling the service to NASA.”
Tell that to ATK.
Are you aware of someone or some organization who actually is stopping ATK from developing their vehicle? I’m not. Furthermore, other companies are developing spacecraft independently and have indeed sold their services to NASA. Virgin Galactic, for example, has sold some research flights to NASA. If they can do it, then ATK obviously has that option as well.
Even if they aren’t part of CCiCap, and almost certainly won’t be part of the transportation contracts that follow it, that doesn’t permanently rule out future NASA business if they were to develop a spacecraft anyway.
Of course, that said, Liberty was a horrible concept that needed to die. If they did develop it, I suspect the market wouldn’t support anyway it when Dragon, CST, and DreamChaser are available.
“Are you aware of someone or some organization who actually is stopping ATK from developing their vehicle? I’m not.”
Errr, that’s actually what I meant. I was attacking ATK, not defending them.
Since I apparently need to spell it out…
ATK claimed Liberty would have a lower launch cost (per kg) and larger payload than Falcon 9. If so, they’d have the cheapest launcher in the world, beating SpaceX, the Russians, ESA, China… Now have a look at SpaceX’s commercial order book. If ATK were cheaper, they’d own the commercial launch market. And since they’d be vastly cheaper than ULA, with a higher capacity than Falcon, they’d be able to compete hard for DoD satellites. Then they could use that income to developed their capsule independently, then they’d own the Commercial Crew market too.
What company wouldn’t follow through on that?
If they were telling the truth.
The fact that they dropped it immediately on losing CCiCap, even though they are already getting money from SLS for the booster, proved to me that they were lying. Completely and utterly lying. And NASA and DoD program managers should know that, and ATK should be ostracised from any further government work. Why would anyone do business with a company that shows you so openly that they are just trying to scam you?
I had no problem with ATK attempting to become a genuine “commercial crew” provider – however skeptical I might have been about their approach. Any aerospace firm should be allowed to propose such.
The problem was it wasn’t genuine at all. Like many past ATK attempts, it was an attempt to get a contract on a false basis, and incrementally turn it into a “cost plus” to complete (like Kistler, “we’re 70 percent complete, so just pay off us weasels and you’ll get what we said we’d do”. A really bad, cynical deal for the taxpayer.
It’s called “bait and switch”. Real conservatives used to despise liberals that fell for these. But we don’t have conservatives — we have reactionaries in conservative clothing. And their tools.
I have heard this nonsense for the last 30 years. Nothing stopping them?
In what year did the FAA create all the rules and regulations for commercial private space transportation?
In what year did the Dept of Transportation create all the rules and regulations for commercial private space transportation?
In what year did the Congress create all the rules and regulations for commercial private space transportation?
In what year did the Executive branch create all the rules and regulations for commercial private space transportation?
In what year did the Military sign off on the private sector having rockets and launching people on them?
Loons that say nothing has stopped the private sector do not have a clue about the subject.
The federal government has NEVER EVER been comfortable .. for the last 50 years, with the private sector building a rocket in their backyard to launch people.
Only nutcases say that because there have been porkonauts in congress who have been almost cultic in their desire to keep the 50 pork train extravaganza going.
no one of consequence: I agree with your comments but House Democrats are just as bad. Read Johnson and Edwards opening statements. They are protecting pork just as much as the Republicans.
I know … but they aren’t the ones calling the shots, just cowering behind.
One must kick the rump of the elephants in front.
… and it occurs to me with your comment that there is a misunderstanding of the political basis on the funding of HSF and the nature of House verses Senate. In a nutshell the senate “thinks strategically” and the house “thinks tactically”.
The tactical issues with HSF include whether commercial space undercuts the funding for HSF HLV. This is the origin of all resistance for “commercial space” – that even a single dollar going to a Elon Musk might be enough to starve the HLV out of existence.
You will never convince them, both Dems and Repubs, that:
* there will not be a follow on massive HSF project beyond Shuttle
* that more demand for money for it doesn’t translate into “better”
* that such doesn’t impact the “national security” of the US
* that the US has to deliver on a “biggest system” eventually
* that the US has to fly HSF soonest in coordination with it
* that holding off in congressional budget allocations for it does anything but destabilize surrounding community/industry
What they are resistant to but slowly coming to terms with:
* that success in HSF doesn’t require “cost plus” and “arsenal space”
* that the “biggest system” doesn’t have to be an abstract weapons delivery platform
* that the “biggest system” doesn’t have to itself fly humans “all up”
* that dollars to “commercial space” doesn’t kill HLV/etc
* that “commercial space” is not limited to LEO
* that the “biggest system” doesn’t necessarily have to be a HLV
* that “commercial space” is the necessary reform to allow doing any kind of “biggest system” with “arsenal space”
The current battle to “one provider” is on the theory that two budgetarily disables HSF HLV – they won’t speak it for fear of causing it.
And the Dems don’t want to be held to that as well in the House. The Senate is more philosophical on this point.
So the consensus coming from the three illuminati posting before me, is that the taxpayers should just hand over money to the three “Commercial” Companies and trust that they will develop a safe vehicle and leave them alone. Who needs NASA looking over their shoulder and being an obstacle to “Innovation”. Because these companies are comprised of,…. well… good people that know how to do this stuff we call human space flight.
Nope, none of those posters said anything like that.
The posters you were referring to were supporting COTS/CCiCap-style programs, where contractors make design decisions and then NASA does very detailed technical reviews of those designs. The companies don’t get paid until NASA is satisfied the designs are sound.
That’s the mechanism that led to the successful docking of a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft at the ISS earlier this year.
The difference between this very successful program and what some in Congress want to impose is that in COTS NASA said, “you figure out the solutions to the problems, and then convince us your solutions work.” The congressional supporters of the old guard want to change this to, “we’ll tell you what solutions you must use.” Those are very, very different things, even though in both cases NASA ultimately has oversight and must sign off on everything.
One minor difference between the two. COTS carries cargo, CCICAP will carry US Astronauts.
And another difference .. the Dept of Transportation regulates transportation … NOT NASA…
And commercial travelers, eventually, for which no NASA certification will be needed, in all likelihood.
Handing money over to SNC, SpX, and Boeing under an SAA makes a hell of a lot more sense than ANYTHING that has been achieved with NASA and the FAR in the last 30 years…
Who are you kidding?
No. The quality inspectors will be invited to the design meetings but not the bureaucrats.
Nothing like a bunch of wannabe engineers in the peanut gallery fixing the problem. Very entertaining.
Better than someone who just wants to protect their own overpriced, overrated job at the cost of everyone else.
Does NASA get to determine if a bicycle is safe for an astronaut to pedal? Which car to buy? Which airline and plane to ride? Which boat or ship to ride? Which train or subway to ride?
You premise is … well …. insane.
NASA does not determine if ANY American transportation system is safe, do you know why that is?
Because NASA is NOT a regulatory agency. That is what the Dept. of Transportation and the FAA is for.
Going to space .. in case you don’t know this, is a
T R A N S P O R T A T I O N issue… NOT a NASA issue.
As soon as NASA’s mandate is legally changed giving them regulartory powers over ALL transportation systems an astronaut will EVER travel in, THEN and only then does NASA have a say in this.
If NASA believes domestic commercial transportation systems are to dangerous for heros to ride in … they can keep paying russia.
I like your provocative examples like the bicycle, airlines, boats trains and automobiles. I would be happy to apply the same approach to commercial crew, that is let them develop the capability like all your brilliant examples did and then NASA just buys it off the shelf just like it buys those in your enlightened examples.
I would like that too. NASA should be buying “turn key” systems, like the WhiteKnight2 and SS2.
But I would not like to see America turn away from what we have did with every form of transportation the Nation has ever used. This includes the horse.
Prime the pump. For me, that is the chief function of the Federal government when getting involved with the markets. The Nation has led the planet in economic activity because we have never under estimated or underfunded transportation infrastructure.
The last couple decades we have pulled back to a point we now see major bridge failures, like what was witnessed in Minn.
All NASA has to do is act as an anchor tenant in space infrastructure.
They do not have to design, develop fuel stations, all they have to so is say they will buy X tons of fuel for the fleet of Nautilus – X’s
They do not have to design and develop the Nautilus – X’s just do it as a lease agreement, fixed price-turn key system, or a per seat cost and have them commerically run. (my choice – NASA just pays a fixed per seat cost for transporation)
That sounds like a fantastic majical end state.
SAAs have shown themselves to be highly efficient and cost effective, and the procurement model does not exclude NASA involvement. In fact there has been much cooperation between NASA and vendors under SAAs so far. The primary difference is that SAAs limit the level of micromanagement and reporting involved, saving a lot of time and money.
Much also is saved because SAAs are COD; the company performs in order to get paid. Without the deliverables, there is no payment. With a cost-plus contract the vendor can faceplant and still get paid.The idea that “commercial space” vehicles would, by definition, be unsafe is not proven, and so far, it appears that the reverse may even be true.
Fred,
Instead of simply being cynical about this, for whatever reasons, why not spend some time reading up on how new businesses and new companies are supported by government, because the government realizes that this, done properly, is an investment in the nation’s economy. It also stimulates the development of new processes and products which are more effective and more cost effective than the older technology ones that they replace. If you go one step further and look at the history of investments and contracts of the “established” aerospace companies who are still, for the most part, doing it the old way, you’ll find that the government supported, invested in, and sometimes subsidized these companies as well in the past. The major difference is that the new contracting approach, SAAs for example, give a much more predictable return on government (taxpayer) money spent for a much smaller overall expenditure. I can’t understand why anyone would object to that, except, of course, for those politicians who now find it much harder to deliver on the pork. One indication that there is nothing fundamentally “unfair” about this is the simple fact that Boeing, instead of increasing their lobbying, is playing both sides of the game with new space and old space contracts. Obviously Boeing management can see the writing on the wall and has accepted the changes that are obviously happening. And I say good for Boeing; anyone who can’t recognize or handle change in industry ends up extinct. What NASA (and the taxpayer) gets from a SpaceX SAA and a LM cost-plus program are exactly the same in nature; the only difference is the reduced cost and time frame doing things the new way. The one catch is that those who allocate the funding to NASA are still willing to spend a lot more money on programs done the the old way than the new way. This, I feel confident, will change once the true facts become harder to hide from the public and the political opposition. Read up on it; think about it; you may see things differently.
Steve
I hereby grant you, Steve Whitfield, honorary citizenship in the United States of America.
Thank you, Mike. I am honored. Truly a mixed blessing with the election so close at hand. I guess I will have to chose my words more carefully from now on when expressing my opinions.
One thing is for sure, though, I’ll keep my Ontario health coverage. If you guys knew how good our (provincial) government health care is and how little in taxes we pay for it, you’d all be looking to move up here. If you could get offered the same thing in the States for the same price then the election would be a landslide.Our political and social systems here are much like in the US with one subtle difference — which responsibilities are federal and which belong to each state/province. One reason your health care is so expensive (and controversial) is because it’s controlled (and paid for, if I understand correctly) by federal government taxes. The phrase “every American,” as used by many Presidents, is inspiring, but its also expensive. In Canada, health care is separate in each province (with policies about visiting other provinces), so coverage is not identical across the country, but what you get and what it costs is an economic/social decision made separately in each province, giving voters more control and providing an incentive for skilled people and companies to move/invest into one province or another. But in addition. we get “transfer payments” between federal and provincial governments (in both directions) every year, so that federal and provincial taxes collected can be more effectively distributed across costs, for everything from hospitals to repaving the roads. Something similar may be being discussed in the US, but I haven’t really looked into it. It’s something to consider that decentralized and distributed responsibility for government-controlled, tax-funded issues is both less expensive and easier to control (and harder to defraud/abuse). Maybe US voters would be better off thinking less in terms of which party to support and more in terms of benefits to their family and state. In theory, we’re all supposed to vote for a party’s platform and policies. We seem to have moved too far away from that these days. It appears to me that a great many people in the US vote for a given party because that’s the party that they’ve always voted for, often because that’s the party that their parents voted for. That does not make for either efficient government or elected “representatives.” End of rambling.
Steve
The last time NASA designed a crew vehicle, they forgot to include the possibility of launch escape. I don’t know how to add that point to the discussion without it sounding snippy, but there it is.
“Vice Admiral Joseph W. Dyer, USN (Ret.), Chairman of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, expressed significant concerns with NASA’s proposed plans. Since the U.S. government will not own the vehicles, the designs, or the intellectual property, NASA cannot exercise the same level of insight it normally has in other technology development efforts.”The US government didn’t own the vehicles, designs, or IP of the DC-3, DC-4, et al, but in WW II it bought thousands, and got heroic dependable use out of them. The Admiral needs to rethink micromanagement; it usually fails to work on some level and almost always drives up costs.
“Since the U.S. government will not own the vehicles, the designs, or the intellectual property, NASA cannot exercise the same level of insight it normally has in other technology development efforts.”
Didn’t this come up recently with the Mars InSight proposal? That NASA can only award a design based on the MPL/Phoenix bus to LM because NASA doesn’t own the IP on the lander and LM won’t licence it out. Cost-plus doesn’t require a transfer of IP to NASA.