Commercial Crew Problems

[fredinno]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/boeings-cst-100-progress-commercial-crew-funding-uncertainties/

Apparently, Congress has decided to cut CCtCap this year, from the requested $1.243 billion to $900 million, while buying more seats from Russia to the tune of $490 million. Doing so is likely to "...result in NASA’s inability to fund several planned CCtCap milestones in FY 2016 and would likely result in funds running out for both contractors during the spring/summer of FY 2016." This decision is not sound budget-wise, as it is costing $147 million more to cut buy Russian seats; god knows if Congress actually realizes this stupidity.

Either way, some forum members over at NASASpaceflight.com have recommended that NASA should down-select to Boeing's CST-100 to save the program. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38187.80)

This would mean that NASA would probably be able to fully fund CCtCap, as it would significantly reduce costs (and Congress would approve of it more, and be less likely to cut funding even more.) Dragon V2 would probably also survive, because Elon; and CCtCap would also be on schedule due to being fully funded.

However, this would mean that if Boeing had its CCtCap flights grounded for whatever reason, NASA would be forced to either

1. Use the SLS and Orion (Delta IV Heavy cannot be used, as it would not be human-rated) -Bad idea, SLS is OP.

2. Buy more Russian flights -Violates the entire point of CCtCap in the first place.

This is a discussion thread by the way. I also put a poll up, 'cause why not?

[Nibb31]

It's a totally stupid situation brought down by totally stupid politicians. They want their SLS so bad that they are ready to sacrifice even Commercial Crew to get it. They really want to use Orion for ISS ops, which reaches another level of stupid. I hope the upcoming elections give them a kick in the head and that the new POTUS, whoever it is, finally gives a real direction to NASA.

For the poll, I have no doubt that the fanbois here will massively want to downselect to SpaceX and cut CST-100 for the sole reason that it looks so old-school. The reason the downselect would be in Boeing's favor is because it will be ready sooner and carries less risk.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Nibb31

[fredinno]

It's a totally stupid situation brought down by totally stupid politicians. They want their SLS so bad that they are ready to sacrifice even Commercial Crew to get it. They really want to use Orion for ISS ops, which reaches another level of stupid. I hope the upcoming elections give them a kick in the head and that the new POTUS, whoever it is, finally gives a real direction to NASA.

Nah, doubt it. If they wanted to do that, they would have demanded Orion be put on Ares I or Delta IV Heavy, which has not happened- SLS is too OP for ISS, and it's plain obvious (unless you were building a station, which is an entirely different story.) If Congress wanted SLS so bad, they would also be funding SLS more, and demand that the program be accelerated by at least a year. Neither is occurring.

One theory put upon by those in NASASpaceflight is that Congress wanted Boeing to have 100% of the flights for CCtCap, so that they can be put in their favor. SpaceX doesn't donate to politicians, for one thing.

For the poll, I have no doubt that the fanbois here will massively want to downselect to SpaceX and cut CST-100 for the sole reason that it looks so old-school. The reason the downselect would be in Boeing's favor is because it will be ready sooner and carries less risk.

CST-100 and Dragon V2 would actually be available in the same month- CST-100 probably wins in risk, but loses (heavily) in cost.

[Frybert]

Nah, doubt it. If they wanted to do that, they would have demanded Orion be put on Ares I or Delta IV Heavy

The politicians don't know anything more about these programs than what companies are in their districts.

[PB666]

It's a totally stupid situation brought down by totally stupid politicians. k.

. That is pretty much th jist, The economic multiplyer effect with a completely funded US program is un questionable, Russia is cheaper but also less reliable and a crew accident will happen sooner or later and then we will be asking why we used their system. Shuttle was shut prematurely, we cant even upgrade or repair hubble anymore. At least we should have had an operational system running. Dont think its going to get better, the conservs are out for blood, things have not been going their way lately and they want to prove they not just cheep talk.

[Kryten]

The reason many politicians are leery about the commercial crew programme is simply that they don't see the point of it. It's a multi-billion programme to produce a domestic crew vehicle for an outpost that will be up there until at most 2028, which makes economic arguments such as the one in the OP pretty wrong-headed: it would make far more economic sense to scrap the entire programme and buy Russian seats for the remaining period than it would be to fund even one of the CCTCAP providers. The cuts are just a compromise between those that agree with the above and those that want to continue the programme.

Russia is cheaper but also less reliable and a crew accident will happen sooner or later and then we will be asking why we used their system.

The Soyuz spacecraft hasn't had a crew loss in forty years, and the Soyuz-FG LV has had a zero percent failure rate in over forty launches. How is a brand-new US vehicle supposed to be more reliable than that?

Edited August 15, 2015 by Kryten

[okan170]

It should be remembered that the spending bills have not yet become law, so theres a TON more fighting to go over this issue. And things get weirder if congress throws another tantrum and we have to use a continuing resolution to cover next year. I believe NASA has a little legal recourse where they can ask for special dispensation, but I'm not sure how that would work out if it had to be tried.

For what its' worth, NASA has been very adamant recently that they would, in an underfunding situation, be extending the timeline for commercial crew to 2018 or 2019 rather than doing a down-select per the article in the OP.

Edited August 17, 2015 by okan170

[Duxwing]

outpost that will be up there until at most 2028

But what if it stays longer? Tight congressional and presidential (or parliamentary and prime-ministerial) elections will happen before then, tempting candidates with the votes of millions of scientists, who would not relish seeing their last station fall burning from the sky. Moreover, the looming advents of reusable launch vehicles and advanced 3D-printing may so cheapen visitation and maintenance as to render the once-doomed station viable. Therefore, while these events and their effects are uncertain, betting wholeheartedly against the station seems unreasonable.

The Soyuz spacecraft hasn't had a crew loss in forty years, and the Soyuz-FG LV has had a zero percent failure rate in over forty launches. How is a brand-new US vehicle supposed to be more reliable than that?

I agree: we should instead make our own Soyuz. It would be dirt-cheap, rugged, and politics-free.

-Duxwing

[Mitchz95]

But what if it stays longer? Tight congressional and presidential (or parliamentary and prime-ministerial) elections will happen before then, tempting candidates with the votes of millions of scientists, who would not relish seeing their last station fall burning from the sky. Moreover, the looming advents of reusable launch vehicles and advanced 3D-printing may so cheapen visitation and maintenance as to render the once-doomed station viable. Therefore, while these events and their effects are uncertain, betting wholeheartedly against the station seems unreasonable.

The ISS will be well over 30 years old at that point. Keeping it running past then would be not only dangerous to the astronauts and cosmonauts that live aboard, but a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere.

[AngelLestat]

uh, I vote "yes" because I dint understand the question

I still dont know what downselect means.

But well, any decision to delay the crew program would be really bad. If they can do both, good, if dont.. they should choose one "spacex is the obvius choice" and try to reduce the time frame to avoid keep wasting money in soyuz launches.

[Nibb31]

uh, I vote "yes" because I dint understand the question

I still dont know what downselect means.

It means going from funding 2 providers (SpaceX and Boeing) to 1 (Boeing).

But well, any decision to delay the crew program would be really bad. If they can do both, good, if dont.. they should choose one "spacex is the obvius choice" and try to reduce the time frame to avoid keep wasting money in soyuz launches.

SpaceX actually isn't the "obvious choice". For NASA, Congress, and the administration, Boeing is. SpaceX is an outsider.

Delaying commercial crew is indeed the worse choice because it's already a ridiculously low volume with only a dozen flights over a couple of years before the ISS is retired. That's 6 flights for each vehicle, less than Gemini or even Vostok. It already doesn't really make much sense to fund two vehicles for that. It makes even less sense if you reduce the number of flights.

[Streetwind]

There is no reason to downselect here. There is no need to "save" anything, either. There are no problems with the Commercial Crew program; the program is in fact running remarkably on budget and on schedule for a government program.

Of course, the program is far from making its original scheduled goal of 2015, and in fact is almost guaranteed to be slipping into 2018-2019 now. However that is not due to the contractors' inability to execute, but rather NASA's inability to fund the milestones it is contractually obliged to fund. This, in turn, is because for every single year it has existed, the program has been severely underfunded. The contractors are literally required to slow down development - there are sections in the contracts that explicitly forbid completing unfunded milestones.

Government programs often have problems. Nearly all of them run over budget and well beyond schedule, without producing results. Commercial Crew is quite different - it has produced tangible results (in vehicle tests and launch tower construction) despite being well below budget. There is not one single cause to believe that either Boeing or SpaceX are squandering the money they are being paid for development, or that they are wasting time.

Also, there's the parallel to the CRS contract. NASA selected two suppliers against the violent gnashing of teeth of critics who believed such a thing wasteful. And what happened? We've had three ISS resupply vehicles from three unrelated providers (Cygnus, Progress, Dragon) fail over the course of barely 8 months, and right after Europe discontinued its ATV, too. It's an absurd series; nothing like that has happened in spaceflight in a long time. This is Murphy's Law in its most pure form right there. And yet, the ISS continues to be just fine. This is because the ISS program has had that redundancy of having two suppliers in the CRS program. That redundancy went as far as ensuring that even now that both CRS contractors are grounded at the same time, there were enough flights prior to the last two incidents to ensure that operations can continue under support of international partners until operations resume.

And that's precisely why downselecting is folly. The picture book example of why you really want to have two providers is right there in front of everyone's eyes, jumping up and down and screaming, and some people are still calling to downselect? Seriously? Are these people actively trying to sabotage the program, or is their attention span just that low?

My opinion is that it is the best result for everyone involved if we see both CST-100 and Dragon V2 fully developed and flying. My opinion is that every single "problem" that people make out to see in the CC program is fabricated inhouse by Congress. My opinion is that the need to pay Russia* another half a billion dollars is fabricated inhouse by Congress.

(* I am neither American nor Russian, by the way. I don't care that much about this transaction. But it seems to be a big deal for the US people, so might as well include it.)

[Nibb31]

My opinion is that every single "problem" that people make out to see in the CC program is fabricated inhouse by Congress. My opinion is that the need to pay Russia* another half a billion dollars is fabricated inhouse by Congress.

You are absolutely right. If the the program is in trouble, it is because of the shortsightedness of Congress. But that doesn't change the fact that it's in trouble.

Of course, the program is far from making its original scheduled goal of 2015, and in fact is almost guaranteed to be slipping into 2018-2019 now.

The current end of the ISS program is 2024 (possibly 2028). From 2018 to 2024, that is 6 years and basically 12 flights shared between 2 vehicles, or one flight per year for each vehicle. The commercial crew program pays for 6 Dragons and 6 CST-100s, and that's it. That is a whole lot of overhead and infrastructure to set up for such a small number of launches. It's obvious that it would be much cheaper to have a single supplier. And for only 12 flights, it would probably be cheaper to just pay the Russians and be done with it.

Of course, that reasoning ignores the real point of the program, which is to provide government subsidies to the aerospace industry in order to maintain America's technological capability of manned spaceflight. Whether that money goes to Boeing or SpaceX is irrelevant as long as it stays in the country. Giving it to Boeing actually probably funds more jobs than SpaceX, and Boeing has a stronger influence in Washington because it funds more political campaigns.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Nibb31

[fredinno]

Unfortunately, with the lack of money, and the end of the ISS looming (meaning that delay will easily make CCDev pointless) , tough situations call for tough choices...

- - - Updated - - -

Mir was kept 10 years past it's original lifespan.

[AngelLestat]

It means going from funding 2 providers (SpaceX and Boeing) to 1 (Boeing).

ahh.. thanks.

SpaceX actually isn't the "obvious choice". For NASA, Congress, and the administration, Boeing is. SpaceX is an outsider.

Delaying commercial crew is indeed the worse choice because it's already a ridiculously low volume with only a dozen flights over a couple of years before the ISS is retired. That's 6 flights for each vehicle, less than Gemini or even Vostok. It already doesn't really make much sense to fund two vehicles for that. It makes even less sense if you reduce the number of flights.

That is the hiden cost of projects delays, if you have long developement time it means not only that you need to pay all the employess, instalations and extras way longer. But you are also reducing its operational time, earnings and benefics.

That is why projects as SLS, Orion, James Webb skyrocket in cost with minimun predicted benefics and operation due how faster that technology will become obsolete in relation to all the time waste in its development.

So its always convenient detail your goals and invest all you can to finish as soon you can (trying to avoid bureaucracies or unnecessary controls).

But well, even if spacex is left out, they will continue developing dragonv2 until receive certification, the end of the ISS would not matter much, different space station will be build. I hope for an efficient design this time.

[Duxwing]

The ISS will be well over 30 years old at that point. Keeping it running past then would be not only dangerous to the astronauts and cosmonauts that live aboard, but a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere.

I meant that we might we repair it, finding its mission useful.

-Duxwing

[Kibble]

Actually if there isn't going to be a US orbital laboratory to succeed Space Station very soon, cutting funding to (or even cancelling!) Commercial Crew seems like...the right choice T~T

To salvage the effort and preserve the capability of launching humans onto low Earthling orbit (without wasting an SLS) until a successor laboratory can be funded, what about launching Commercial Crew vehicles as a dual payload with (relatively) cheap mini-lab for configurable (modular?) science experiments? 500 series Atlas and Vulcan could handle smaller missions, and the bigger missions might flesh out the flight manifest for Falcon Heavy.

[sgt_flyer]

there's an additionnal bonus for nasa for having created this commercial crew program - given the number of passengers Dragon V2 and the CST-100 would open up space tourism much more than what was feasible with only soyuz (With 3 seats and the need to rotate crews on ISS, it was an exception to bring tourists up there)

The private sector would end up (if space tourisms kicks in) making launches beyond ISS decommision (even if it's on'y for a few orbits / or even bigelow's space hotel) - which means US companies will still retain LEO crew launch capabilities even after the commercial crew contract ends. (So, if a new research space station is built - they'll only have to book some flights from those companies which retained those capabilities)

[_Augustus_]

They should fund either both or SpaceX and keep the ISS going until 2026 or so, and in 2026 launch a tug to push the ISS into a a high enough orbit that it won't deorbit for hundreds of years.

Edited August 19, 2015 by _Augustus_

[Kryten]

They should fund either both or SpaceX and keep the ISS going until 2026 or so, then launch a tug to push the ISS into a a high enough orbit that it won't deorbit for hundreds of years.

That would be difficult, pretty much pointless, and wouldn't exactly help the orbital debris situation.

[_Augustus_]

That would be difficult, pretty much pointless, and wouldn't exactly help the orbital debris situation.

Yes, but the ISS would be preserved.

In a few decades or a century someone will probably attach some modern modules to allow docking, and turn the interior into a museum.

[fredinno]

Actually if there isn't going to be a US orbital laboratory to succeed Space Station very soon, cutting funding to (or even cancelling!) Commercial Crew seems like...the right choice T~T

To salvage the effort and preserve the capability of launching humans onto low Earthling orbit (without wasting an SLS) until a successor laboratory can be funded, what about launching Commercial Crew vehicles as a dual payload with (relatively) cheap mini-lab for configurable (modular?) science experiments? 500 series Atlas and Vulcan could handle smaller missions, and the bigger missions might flesh out the flight manifest for Falcon Heavy.

Or you could launch a SLS Block IB with a Commercial Crew Vehicle (it's Block IB man-rated anyways) with 2 Skylab IIs attached to each other on a ISS-derived Node as a 6-Man space station, as an Interim space station, while a larger, more useful 7-man ISS successor is funded. The Crew vehicle would board the "Dry workshop" space station, and it would become the 1st crew to board it. Another, smaller rocket launch would supply the station for it's first mission.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab_II

It would fill out the SLS, and CCrew launch manifest, and would make more use of the crew vehicle's launch capabilities of 7 people per launch (SLS is probably in more need of missions than Falcon Heavy, anyways:P) You could do the same thing on a Falcon Heavy, only you can only launch 1 Skylab II in a single launch, with a Node, but no crew or cargo.

Either way, I'm surprised so many people rejected the idea of down-selecting CCrew. I guess most people would rather have an anemic number of launches (which is already low, with 6 launches for each vehicle) with a delayed schedule, rather than having one do 12 missions. Or do people here hate the idea of SpaceX losing their contract so much? (Dragon V2 is probably going to survive either way, just for Commercial Cargo, and for Space tourism...)

[Nibb31]

Yes, but the ISS would be preserved.

In a few decades or a century someone will probably attach some modern modules to allow docking, and turn the interior into a museum.

When the ISS reaches its end of life, it's because it will no longer be safe. They won't shut it down for fun. They shut it down because parts get worn out, seals start leaking, filters get clogged up, solar panels lose power, batteries die, fluids degrade and run low, lubricants wear out, materials degrade, etc...

If it's powered-up, it requires maintenance, station-keeping, atmospheric pressure, monitoring, and repairs. If it's powered-down, vented, and abandoned, it can't be restarted and it will eventually leak, break up, and become a hazard as a source of debris.

- - - Updated - - -

there's an additionnal bonus for nasa for having created this commercial crew program - given the number of passengers Dragon V2 and the CST-100 would open up space tourism much more than what was feasible with only soyuz (With 3 seats and the need to rotate crews on ISS, it was an exception to bring tourists up there)

The private sector would end up (if space tourisms kicks in) making launches beyond ISS decommision (even if it's on'y for a few orbits / or even bigelow's space hotel) - which means US companies will still retain LEO crew launch capabilities even after the commercial crew contract ends. (So, if a new research space station is built - they'll only have to book some flights from those companies which retained those capabilities)

As long as the space tourism market is big enough to keep those multiple providers alive. With 7 people per launch, at the cost of the current vehicles, even heavily subsidized by NASA, I can't see that happening.

[Albert VDS]

If you look at the CCtCap as a 1 off deal with the ISS being it's only goal and there will be nothing passed that, then it's a reasonable thing to think it's a good idea to cancel it.

But the application of it is beyond the ISS alone. Future space stations and other manned endeavors all profit from this.

Down selecting is the worst thing you could do for this program, it defeats the whole stimulation part and thus creates one "good enough" transportation system.

[Kryten]

Yes, but the ISS would be preserved.

Until it disintegrated, which likely wouldn't take too long.