Northrop and Boeing quick to jump on the CEV money-train!

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />Oct. 20, 2005: "CEV SELECTION DELAYED"... (to summer 2006) www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/10/cev_selection_d.html <br /><br />that news can be read in two different ways... (but may be both...) <br /><br />a) "first doubts" about "capsule", CEV and lunar architecture... can "real" CEV be a "capsule"... or spaceplane? <br /><br />b) "first delay" (of many) in the CEV development timeline... so, 2012 will be 2013... 2015 will be 2016... etc. <br /><br />all "plans" may have (and will have) delays (expecially complex plans...) <br /><br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />I think that, "select" a vehicle, can't need so much money to wait the extra-funds arrival<br />

 

[dobbins]

Typically they also pay the loser a fee for the time they spent on design work.<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The delay is due to the budget short fall.</font>/i><br /><br />Is this shortfall from reduced revenue (i.e., rumors of OMB budget cuts), increased costs in other areas (i.e., rumors of the extra $5B for STS), or something else?</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">your answer:_______________</font>/i><br /><br />November 2006 for the first payload in proper orbit.<br /><br />I predict the first launch of SpaceX will fail for some reason (look how many Russia has lost in the last few months), but that the source of the problem will be tracked down relatively quickly.<br /><br />Since the company doesn't get paid when there are no launches (e.g., as opposed to U.S.A.), there will be more pressure to launch sooner than later. Since the company is burning through cash everyday, waiting too long for a launch can kill the company just as easily as launching and failing can.</i>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />"...time they spent on design work..."<br /><br /><br />the news appearing related to "selection" not "payment"<br /><br />but if it depends of funds... 8+ months of delay are too much... start the work + time spent should be a fraction of costs of the entire project... and NASA has its annual budget...<br /><br />probably was due to next Shuttle launch costs... but if each Shuttle launch will cause an 8+ month delay, when the new vehicles (capsule or not) will fly?<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />"...November 2006 for the first payload in proper orbit..."<br /><br />manned?<br /><br />my question was about 1st manned "private" orbital flight<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">my question was about 1st manned "private" orbital flight</font>/i><br /><br />Oops <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /><br /><br />I would put that around 2012.</i>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />"...2012..."<br /><br />but the main problem for private is not technological... I don't think that a little company will never take a so great risk (for astronaut's and company's life) without a giant NASA or ESA logo on the manned vehicle<br />

 

[j05h]

>but the main problem for private is not technological... I don't think that a little company will never take a so great risk (for astronaut's and company's life) without a giant NASA or ESA logo on the manned vehicle <br /><br /><br />My friend, you are in for a pleasant surprise...<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">but the main problem for private is not technological... I don't think that a little company will never take a so great risk (for astronaut's and company's life) without a giant NASA or ESA logo on the manned vehicle</font>/i><br /><br />I think a solid commitment by NASA to buy commercial services (e.g., cargo, crew, experiments, etc.) when they become available would <i>really</i> help. However, NASA has resisted such efforts before -- the most recent example being NASA's refusal to use commercial services for supplies to ISS (they only agreed after Congress rejected NASA's argument that it cannot be done).<br /><br />As another potential example, if Bigelow does succeed in getting an orbital platform up that can provide similar services to ISS, will NASA redirect funding his way or keep it in-house with ISS?<br /><br />I think what is needed is an Act of Congress stating that NASA will give preferential treatment to privately developed services over NASA's or NASA sponsored solutions, and an independent board would be established to make sure NASA doesn't use artificial obstacles to avoid using such services.<br /><br />By essential guaranteeing a minimum market, companies could probably attract investment dollars.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">but the main problem for private is not technological... I don't think that a little company will never take a so great risk (for astronaut's and company's life) without a giant NASA or ESA logo on the manned vehicle</font>/i><br /><br />I don't expect a company to go straight to manned orbital flight. There are probably two paths. The first path is establishing a firm sub-orbital flight business with a combination of tourists and commercial zero-G experiments (I believe the market for this latter category is estimated at well over $100 million a year). Using the experience gained and the dollars acquired from this first market, the company would eventually move into orbital market. This is the Virgin Galactic model.<br /><br />The second path is to provide unmanned orbital services (satellite, cargo/supplies to ISS). If revenue and capability are sufficient, then the payload becomes a manned vehicle of some type. This is the SpaceX model.<br /><br />Implicit in these assumptions is that there will be a market for humans beyond sub-orbital flight. Will ISS open up for non-government or non-government-sponsored personnel? Will NASA or any other government buy manned access for their people on a commercial service? Will Bigelow's orbital facilities succeed?<br /><br />If dollars show up, someone will figure a way to take it. The key is to take small steps, with each new step building the knowledge, technology, and revenues gained from previous steps.<br /><br />I believe President Reagan first announced that NASA would build a space station the same month that Apple announced the first Macintosh -- with a single floppy, no hard drive, 128K of memory, 8 KHz processor, small black and white screen. Today, for about the same price as that original Mac, you can get a Mac with four 2.5 GHz CPU cores, 1 Gig of memory, 250 GB hard disk, and a 30" color monitor. These systems <b><i>far</i></b> exceed the Cray supercomputers of 1984.</i>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...Each step was incremental..."<br /><br />I agree<br /><br />private projects need time and step-by-step work, and, some day, private will have a regular space-ferry from earth to mars colonies... but times go in the range of 30+ years...<br /><br />the "private" plans that may be of interest to day (with the Shuttle that goes to its end, the half-ISS for three and low supply, the "most advanced" spaceflights based on Soyuz and Shenzhou, the CEV planned for 2012 up...) are two:<br /><br />1. heavy cargo launcher<br /><br />2. manned orbital vehicle<br /><br />about 1st... private try (now) to be the NASA of '60s<br /><br />about 2nd....... it's too far in the future... that is almost useless talking about it...<br /><br />to-day only BIG private, with government contracts make sense (and produce visible results)<br /><br />I've read some predictions about sub-orbital commercial flights, Virgin space, etc... but I think are TOO optimistic!<br /><br />each (realistic) "step" to hit the taget is of YEARS... sum each (realistic) step + some delays + problems + reliability for multiple (multipassengers) flight ++++ ...the day for regular suborbital flights will be 2015 up!<br /><br />NO... to-day (and next 10-15 years) only NASA can do similar things<br /> <br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

instead of waiting for private to become "big" like NASA and go to space, mars, etc...<br /><br />why don't sell NASA to private investors?<br /><br />U.S. taxpayers will RECEIVE money instead of GIVE them... and the "private NASA" will make great projects without losing time and money with useless plans, transforming the "money's black hole" in a profitable and efficient space-company!<br /><br />or... split NASA in two parts:<br /><br />- one scientific "non-profit" government agency devoted to space exploration's probes, flight research, etc.<br /><br />- one "commercial" company sold to private devoted to manned and business flight to LEO, moon and beyond<br /> <br />

 

[dobbins]

It's incorrect projected cost estimates. They were expecting lower costs for the Shuttle in FY 2009 and FY 2010 at the time the projections were made than they are now.<br />