Commercial Crew: The Perception Problem

One thing that's come up on SpacePolitics.com is the opposition to
commercial crew for ISS support. There is quite a bit of opposition to that
in Congress, though the passed Senate bill provides funding to at least get
that started, and a new House bill comes close to the Senate, but as an
article on The Space Review hints, there is a big perception gap on The
Hill. It goes like this: "If you support commercial space, you're against
NASA's Human exploration mission plans." Even though NASA would be leasing
spacecraft (the astronaut corps' preference) from commercial providers, with
NASA oversight on safety and mission control, and freeing up NASA's own
resources for exploration, there's a big perception gap. Boeing did the
Commercial sector a very big favor by briefing congressional staff on the
benefits of commercial to LEO, and about $1.5 Billion was included in the
House bill, (about $1.6 Billion in the Senate) for that purpose, But as long
as the perception is there, the politics is going to be against commercial
crew for a while-until they demonstrate with a crewed test flight-their
potential. Any comments or thoughts?

In article ,
says...

One thing that's come up on SpacePolitics.com is the opposition to
commercial crew for ISS support. There is quite a bit of opposition to that
in Congress, though the passed Senate bill provides funding to at least get
that started, and a new House bill comes close to the Senate, but as an
article on The Space Review hints, there is a big perception gap on The
Hill. It goes like this: "If you support commercial space, you're against
NASA's Human exploration mission plans." Even though NASA would be leasing
spacecraft (the astronaut corps' preference) from commercial providers, with
NASA oversight on safety and mission control, and freeing up NASA's own
resources for exploration, there's a big perception gap. Boeing did the
Commercial sector a very big favor by briefing congressional staff on the
benefits of commercial to LEO, and about $1.5 Billion was included in the
House bill, (about $1.6 Billion in the Senate) for that purpose, But as long
as the perception is there, the politics is going to be against commercial
crew for a while-until they demonstrate with a crewed test flight-their
potential. Any comments or thoughts?

I think the reality is that anyone who supports commercial manned space
is against the current manned space (pork) program. Many of the jobs at
JSC, KSC, and other NASA centers go away if a commercial capsule is
flown on a commercial launch vehicle.

Just look at the billions spent on Ares and Orion over the past few
years. That's all pork.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?

Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
One thing that's come up on SpacePolitics.com is the opposition to
commercial crew for ISS support. [rest snipped for brevity...]

I think the reality is that anyone who supports commercial manned space
is against the current manned space (pork) program. Many of the jobs at
JSC, KSC, and other NASA centers go away if a commercial capsule is
flown on a commercial launch vehicle.

Just look at the billions spent on Ares and Orion over the past few
years. That's all pork.


I agree with Jeff. This is a huge perception problem right now.
Charlie and Lori need to get out in front on this one. It's not the end
of the crewed program, but it *is* heading it to making it routinely
affordable. These are the words that sell politically, 'routine' and
'affordable'....

Also NASA needs to learn how to share the sandbox. It wouldn't hurt them to
start talking to folks now about leasing out time in the water tank in Houston
etc. Especially with the Chinese, but also the Russians and the ESA, but also
Bigelow, SpaceX, Boeing, Lockmart, etc....

Dave

On 9/27/2010 7:36 AM, David Spain wrote:

Also NASA needs to learn how to share the sandbox. It wouldn't hurt them
to start talking to folks now about leasing out time in the water tank
in Houston etc. Especially with the Chinese, but also the Russians and
the ESA, but also
Bigelow, SpaceX, Boeing, Lockmart, etc....

I still like how Boeing suddenly jumped on the Space Tourism bandwagon;
I don't think that shows any relization of an emerging market on their
part, but downright desperation regarding what their future in manned
spaceflight is liable to be like if NASA keeps running things the way
they are now.

Pat

Val Kraut wrote:
Put more bluntly - Right now there's two real manned programs - LEO
transport which LM has the edge with NASA Orion, and the ISS which is
already built. So the only hope for Boeing is to out flank NASA/LM with a
commercial effort for LEO tranfer.

Would parallels between that situation and then (before known success)
what led to the 747 be apropriate? IIRC some of the 747 can be
attributed to Boeing losing-out to Lockheed on what became the C-5
yes?

rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

"
I still like how Boeing suddenly jumped on the Space Tourism bandwagon; I
don't think that shows any relization of an emerging market on their part,
but downright desperation regarding what their future in manned
spaceflight is liable to be like if NASA keeps running things the way they
are now.

Put more bluntly - Right now there's two real manned programs - LEO
transport which LM has the edge with NASA Orion, and the ISS which is
already built. So the only hope for Boeing is to out flank NASA/LM with a
commercial effort for LEO tranfer.

Dreams of flying by Mars or an Asteroid after 2025 is a joke to keep the
manned space advocates happy. So there's really no hope of a program there.
An even if there is LM has already indicated two Orions and a habitat could
do the job.

The Amazing thing is how Lori Garver can give speaches on the wonderful
(Manned) Rovers being developed by NASA centers at a time when Obama has
bought into "No deep potential well visits" recommendation of the Augustine
committee. You can't drive a rover on the average asteroid, not to mention
on a LaGrange point.


Val Kraut

On 9/27/2010 1:39 PM, Rick Jones wrote:

Would parallels between that situation and then (before known success)
what led to the 747 be apropriate? IIRC some of the 747 can be
attributed to Boeing losing-out to Lockheed on what became the C-5
yes?

In retrospect, Boeing losing the C-5 contract to Lockheed was one of the
luckiest things that ever happened to the company. All having to build
their C-5 version would have done is taken away valuable floor space and
work crew from 747 production. And 747 production numbers were obviously
going to dwarf any military orders right from day one But they were
still given the contract to design their variant, and rolled all the
structural studies for that right into the 747's design.
One 747 feature in particular that was a hold-over from the Boeing
CX-HLS design has having the cockpit on a upper level rather than in the
nose; that was originally so that the nose could be opened to load cargo
in the military version (Boeing later used that same feature on the 747
cargo versions:
http://log.ae/wp-content/uploads/200...hter-cargo.jpg ). The
wings were moved to the fuselage bottom on the 747, which greatly eased
engine maintenance and replacement.
Here's what the CX-HLS Boeing design looked like:
http://www.airliners.net/ufview.file...7245K1Z5Is.jpg
As I pointed out in a earlier post, that wasn't the first time they did
something along these lines either.
The 707 got government funding for its development because the Air Force
needed the KC-135 variant of the design as a refueling plane for SAC's
B-47/B-52 fleet.
Later, Boeing got to charge the government to upgrade its computers to
allow it to do complete CAD aircraft designs when it got the contract to
build the outer wing sections for the B-2 Stealth Bomber. That
technology got turned around to allow it to design the 777 entirely via CAD.

Pat

On Sep 27, 2:40*pm, "Val Kraut" wrote:
"

I still like how Boeing suddenly jumped on the Space Tourism bandwagon; I
don't think that shows any relization of an emerging market on their part,
but downright desperation regarding what their future in manned
spaceflight is liable to be like if NASA keeps running things the way they
are now.

Put more bluntly - Right now there's two real manned programs - LEO
transport which LM has the edge with NASA Orion, and the ISS which is
already built. So the only hope for Boeing is to out flank NASA/LM with a
commercial effort for LEO tranfer.

Dreams of flying by Mars or an Asteroid after 2025 is a joke to keep the
manned space advocates happy. So there's really no hope of a program there.
An even if there is LM has already indicated two Orions and a habitat could
do the job.

The Amazing thing is how Lori Garver can give speaches on the wonderful
(Manned) Rovers being developed by NASA centers at a time when Obama has
bought into "No deep potential well visits" *recommendation of the Augustine
committee. You can't drive a rover on the average asteroid, not to mention
on a LaGrange point.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Val Kraut

With luck, a successor administration in 2013 will reverse that
decision.

On 9/28/2010 9:13 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:


With luck, a successor administration in 2013 will reverse that
decision.

And then his succesor will reverse that one.

Pat

On Sep 28, 11:55*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 9/28/2010 9:13 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:

With luck, a successor administration in 2013 will reverse that
decision.

And then his succesor will reverse that one.

Pat

yeah only quick projects can ever get accomplished in the future.

its part of the INSTANT GENERATION, that wants everything NOW.

and this helped lead to the economic collapse of our
country...............