NASA’s Deputy Administrator to Discuss Future of Commercial Spaceflight with Industry Representatives
NASA Ponders Transporting Tourists to International Space Station, WS Journal (link probably won’t work)
“But for the first time, a senior National Aeronautics and Space Administration official on Thursday publicly talked about ways the U.S. eventually could offer the same service and reap similar benefits. The trips could begin later this decade, when a new generation of private, U.S.-built space taxis is expected to begin transporting American crews into orbit. “We are very, very open” to the possibility and intend to “work on details with the company or companies” that end up winning contracts to take American astronauts back and forth from the station, NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver told reporters during a teleconference.”
Keith’s note: To expand further on my question (described above), I noted that people have been able to fly to the ISS via commerial means for over a decade but their trips are explicitly considered as being via Russia’s participation. Use of any U.S. facilities is usually at extra expense to the customer. I asked if NASA was considering A. Allowing individuals to buy seats to visit the U.S. segment B. allowing commercial concerns to be able to send up their own astronauts for periods longer than just a brief visit and C. how would NASA seek to determine the charge(s) for these visits. Lori Garver answered as noted above. I then asked how such trips might be arranged – i.e. if they’d be done via CASIS (which is supposed to me managing commerical research in the ISS National Lab) or some new TBD arrangement. Garver replied “No – I haven’t heard any discussion about this and CASIS.” She also noted that NASA has “come a long way since Dennis Tito when NASA wasn’t even certain if they’d open the hatch.”

Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member...

28 replies on “NASA Commercial Crew Telecon”

  1. Folks:

    It’s good that NASA officially supports ‘vigorous’ competition for commercial crew and some commercial use of the ISS. It seems obvious to me that funding for all viable commercial space ventures could create an American space industry second to none. Not so obvious to those who want to ‘down-select’ with cost-plus contracts. If development of commercial launch vehicles and spacecraft were properly subsidized during the development phase (with NASA’s help, of course), it would lead to a highly skilled industry that couldn’t be exported or out-priced by anyone else. Slow this process down and others will surely get there before you.

    Also, I notice that there are lots of potential crewed spacecraft in varying stages of development; Dragon, Dream Chaser, Blue Origins’ mystery cone, CTS-100, Orion (or whatever it’s called this quarter), the ‘Carbon Orion’ from ATK… have I missed one? Fund them all… on the same milestone based system that Spacex and Orbital used to achieve COTS.

    So far, though, there are only two launch vehicles flying that are indigenous to America; Falcon 9 and Delta IV. Atlas V and Orbital’s Antares use foreign rocket engines, ATK’s ‘Liberty’ (choke, choke, gag) uses a whole rocket stage from off-shore. Too few eggs in that basket. This needs to change.

    I guess folks still have a bad taste in their mouths from the EELV program. So bad that when they do see real potential right before their eyes… the boy has cried wolf too often, the sky hasn’t fallen and we hear folks saying “Fool me once…”.

    Shame on who?

    tinker

    1. “Down select” is too much like the old model where the contractor was essentially an agent for the government.

      NASA should continue providing development funds for anyone who has credible plan and with certain requirements. For example (just speculating here):

          * Matching funds. For every dollar NASA puts up, the company must find matching funds from somewhere else (e.g., $2 of external funds for every $1 of NASA funds). NASA shouldn’t fund development, it should only help subsidize it.

          * No cost-plus model. Funding is fixed price and payments are made only when pre-determined milestones are met.

      The “down select” will then occur naturally as investors will look at the market and determine when there is already too much competition likely to succeed and choose to spend invest their money elsewhere.

      1. Yes. However, realize that a) matching funds works post initial flights (which is what COTS/CCDEV is about) otherwise there is to much risk as has been done for 40 years with weapons systems as well. Look at financial models to see why – well understood.

        And b)no cost plus because it’s been over used – agreed. But it is a useful tool to use … selectively. Question is then when/how to bring it back. And for what reasons.

        It fell into misuse because policy makers used it to pay to alter reality to suit their whim/will/demands. How do you keep them from misbehaving?

        When you see Congress doing absurd things, realize they think that when no one is looking, they can make reality be whatever they want. This is how things go bad.

      2. NASA should continue providing development funds for anyone who has credible plan and with certain requirements.

        That depends on what you think the proper role for NASA is. Is it to stimulate commercial manned spaceflight, or is it to do exploration and to seek the maximum synergy between that and commercial spaceflight? If the latter, then a direct subsidy isn’t justified. NASA should then be paying (in whatever form) for development of crew transport capability, since it needs it for its own purposes. Competitive procurement of services rather than downselect and procurement of a vehicle would then be an appropriate course. And to get to the point where they can simply procure launch services, they have to help establish the capability (mainly by funding), since it does not currently exist.

    2.  This is all a battle over special interests, and not letting a few new faces horn in around the trough for govt pork. Certain piggies fear not being fed … enough.

      Once you break the cost-plus hold the arsenal system has on large space contracts, price point for launch services and systems development will fall. Hits weapons systems too … at a time of defense draw down. The game is more than just space here.

      2.  noofcq:

        Lockheed Martin does make almost all it’s profits from government contracts. Hmm… no wonder they dropped out of civil aviation products. Here’s a rule that might work; No company can make more than, say, forty percent of their profits from government sources. So, LockMart would have to stay in civil aviation… and be good at it if they want to sell warplanes too. Better for government, better for the businesses too. It’s one way from stopping government from being an easy mark as a customer.

        I know, I know, the arsenal system won’t go down without a (hopefully legal, non-violent) fight. I just can’t help thinking of all that ‘defense’ money, a mere fraction of which would provide a serious offensive on mastering the Solar System. Oh, and if someone else gets there first, none of that arsenal hardware would defend anybody. Not when the owners of the ‘high ground’ could just throw rocks at 10kps. No contest. So, go for it and take the high ground or learn to be very, very nice.

        tinker 

        1. “or learn to be very, very nice”

          Tinker,

          Everything would flow more smoothly if everybody would “learn to be very, very nice” regardless of what ground they occupy.  In the end, friends cost less to maintain than enemies and provide a much better return on investment.

          Steve

          1.  Steve:

            Amen to that!  like I said about diverting (a small portion of) ‘defense’ spending to space infrastructure…

            I’d rather see a Falcon launching twice daily doing missions then see overpriced, useless F-35s sitting on the ground waiting for a mission… or a mission being created for them just to justify their existence.

            tinker

      3. Agreed. The battle may be taking place on our ground, but there is far more at stake in other fields.

      4. Consequence 

        Your point here lol????

        Let me put it more simply lol. If Elon shows that anyone can build a rocket for a fraction the price, it will show that not only have we been ripped off by our public science rocket program. But it will show that we have and ARE STILL being RiPPED-OFF by our military program too, and ALL PRICES SHOULD BE MUCH CHEAPER!!!!! LOL

        Mr. C 

        I am reminded of way back when I was Doesn’t take a rocket scientistt and you and Papa and I were discussing the bidding process, and I said that when I went to a little town to build a building that I would get prices that were ALL WAY out of line but ALL similar! And then I suggested to you and papa that the WHOLE ROCKET industry was a rip-off. 

        Well Papa who said he had let many contracts told me to keep my simplistic so and so ideas to myself. And you were trying to point out to me that it was congress that was mainly to blame.

        What’s my point here??

        My point is that our Whole SYSTEM as been/is GAMED!

        And largely  through the tool of cost plus contracts and the system/myth of this is rocket science, it’s hard, it’s expensive, we can charge what we want, that there was no way for papa to know that every comparative price he ever saw was a RIP-OFF

        Whether or not ELONS rocket ever flies, which of course it will, he has clearly showed to me that our country can do much much better than we have let our government do and we should find a way to change it.

        We have let our government rip us off!!!! 
        We are to blame if we don’t stop it!!!!!!

        That uncomfortable tone from the NASA management to  Spacex lol FEAR of being exposed lol

        That falcon 9 on that pad means a lot more than cheaper rockets and possible space settlement.
         
        It stands for HOPE for us all!!!!! 

        I wonder how many people realize that or not?

        Thanks for helping me see Mr. C

        It does take rocket scientists and teachers

  2. The telecon didn’t seem to have a lot that was new or substantive. They seemed intent mainly on wishing SpaceX good luck with Saturday’s planned launch.

  3. So now the Obama administration wants NASA to help the ISS compete for tourist dollars against private space station companies like Bigelow???

    If this $3 billion a year (the US contribution) science lab is so wonderful, why would you want to take up any space aboard the ISS by non-scientist? Apparently, the administration will do anything to justify the existence of this hyper expensive LEO on steroids project.

    Marcel F. Williams

    1. If NASA only needs 4 of the available 7 seats for any particular launch they will still have to pay for them. By having a commercial visitor’s center the over flow of seats can be sold.

    2. I think ISS should be transformed into A settlement boot strapper, don’t deorbit it. Reform the way it functions to get that money into commercials hands.

    3. Marcel,

      When your marketplace is changing around you during weak economic times, diversification can be essential to survival, especially when you’re employing the same existing resources to diversify rather than investing in new resources when times are lean.  I think it’s a logical move at this time, whereas it was neither logical, practical nor necessary before now.  One man’s opinion.

      Steve

    4. Because the cost of the flight into space can be spread out
      amount more people. The russians allowed tourist to both ISS and MIR and
      probably would still be doing it if the US hadn’t bought all the flights.  

       

      You do know a BEO flight could be staged from the ISS with
      the right spacecraft.  In that case
      either the BEO flight would pay(One way or another) to transport it’s crew to
      its assmebled stack in orbit OR it could lower it’s costs by say carying
      passengers or crew to the ISS(or other station in LEO).

       

       Let’s say a ccrew
      trip costs about 300 million per launch. 
      If NASA only carries 4 people(to the ISS or a commercial station or even
      a lunar/mars stack in LEO) it must come up with 75 million per astronuat. If
      however the extra 3 seats are sold to someone else the price drops to 42
      million for the same flight.

      1. “You do know a BEO flight could be staged from the ISS with
        the right spacecraft.”

        Launching into ISS’s orbital inclination reduces payload mass. Plus you need to get approval from every partner, and even within NASA you risk never being funded because someone exaggerates issues like contamination of the ISS environment.

        You’re better off building a stand-alone construction shack and putting it in a payload-friendly orbit. (Either a Bigelow, or Boeing might bid for a couple of cheap copies of ISS modules.)

        This would also be a good way of doing a low cost mutli-vendor COTS/CCDev-style program for module development. Which then gains you a bunch of potential modules for a BEO ship; habitat, service/power, docking, etc. Allowing you to build a modular ship, a la Nautilus-X, from off-then-shelf modules.

        2. Staging out the ISS has its plusses and minus. In terms of
          payload reduction it is pretty small for most rockets (the shuttle being unable
          to jettison a faring had larger losses). Most countries can launch into the ISS
          orbit making it a good spot of international cooperation.  There are already standards for visting
          spacecraft so no worry about contamination. The only problem is
          docking/berthing space and other issues. I rather doubt that any partner would disagree
          (too much upside for them also).

  4. Doesn’t every NASA Lab/Center have a commercial visitor’s center?

    NASA should have Bigelow add a BA 330 to the ISS as a visitor’s center. Provide  6 bunks and a bathroom and a cafeteria.

    Astronauts would just use food chits and Bigelow could handle the food cargo, it would probably be cheaper than what NASA does it for.

    That way SpaceX/Boeing could sell any extra seats that NASA isn’t using to tourists/independant researchers. That would lower the cost for NASA as they would not have to pay for the entire rocket of empty seats.

    1. Don,

      Good thinking, in my opinion.  I see only one snag — since it is such a straight-forward, sensible suggestion, Congress will spend years debating the legislation, and the other partner countries will calmly swim past while the US keeps treading water.

      Steve

    2. I think a tourist center is a great idea!!! Then follow that with an agriculture project hab to help feed them plus get people interested in sustained space settlement.

  5. Stayed up for the launch attempt. High pressure in one. Of the engine chambers caused abort.

    Outtttt

  6. ATK would also need the Shuttle VAB, mobile launcher platforms, crawlers, and SRB assembly facilities, all of which are expensive to maintain and would make the Liberty non-competitive with the Falcon or Atlas when the SLS is finally cancelled – of course ATK will lobby for a generous subsidy to maintain all the Shuttle facilities for a single commercial user. Not to mention dealing with the frustratingly non-mitigatable hazards of large solid fuel rockets.

  7. Consequence 
    ” This is all a battle over special interests, and not letting a few new faces horn in around the trough for govt pork. Certain piggies fear not being fed … enough.

    Once you break the cost-plus hold the arsenal system has on large space contracts, price point for launch services and systems development will fall. Hits weapons systems too … at a time of defense draw down. The game is more than just space here.”

    Your point here lol????

    Let me put it more simply lol. If Elon shows that anyone can build a rocket for a fraction the price, it will show that not only have we been ripped off by our public science rocket program. But it will show that we have and ARE STILL being RiPPED-OFF by our military program too, and ALL PRICES SHOULD BE MUCH CHEAPER!!!!! LOL

    Mr. C 

    I am reminded of way back when I was Doesn’t take a rocket scientistt and you and Papa and I were discussing the bidding process, and I said that when I went to a little town to build a building that I would get prices that were ALL WAY out of line but ALL similar! And then I suggested to you and papa that the WHOLE ROCKET industry was a rip-off. 

    Well Papa who said he had let many contracts told me to keep my simplistic so and so ideas to myself. And you were trying to point out to me that it was congress that was mainly to blame.

    What’s my point here??

    My point is that our Whole SYSTEM as been/is GAMED!

    And largely  through the tool of cost plus contracts and the system/myth of this is rocket science, it’s hard, it’s expensive, we can charge what we want, that there was no way for papa to know that every comparative price he ever saw was a RIP-OFF

    Whether or not ELONS rocket ever flies, which of course it will, he has clearly showed to me that our country can do much much better than we have let our government do and we should find a way to change it.

    We have let our government rip us off!!!! 
    We are to blame if we don’t stop it!!!!!!

    That uncomfortable tone from the NASA management to  Spacex lol FEAR of being exposed lol

    That falcon 9 on that pad means a lot more than cheaper rockets and possible space settlement.
     
    It stands for HOPE for us all!!!!! 

    I wonder how many people realize that or not?

    Thanks for helping me see Mr. C

    It does take rocket scientists and teachers

    For there to be a future in space don’t we all need to become teachers??

Comments are closed.