I think NASA should move as fast as possible towards getting US crew access to ISS.
Most of payload delivered to ISS is not crew, and it is the cargo which should have most
competition, and cargo is the path that competition for crew transport originates. So SpaceX
with it’s new version of Falcon should fly two more cargo flights and then should do crew.
If there is launch failure in next two cargo, then one has a problem. But since there has not been
a launch failure- and the engine out, yet manage to complete primary mission seems more reassuring
rather than problematic. Though if get another launch with engine failure that still manages to complete
mission in next 2 cargo, then it’s more problematic.
Or because SpaceX has been successful, the direction should be towards getting SpaceX delivering crew faster than the current planned schedule. And likewise, any failure delays it further than current planned schedule.
So crew access should from launcher which has proven to be safe by demonstrating it can successfully deliver cargo to ISS, one should strive to make cargo delivery competitive by having as many launch companies as is possible [don’t have enough at this point].
So once SpaceX is delivering crew, it seems NASA should favor other launch companies for delivering cargo. And once there is two or more US launch companies delivering crew, these launch delivering crew can then revert back delivering both crew and cargo.
In addition having another nation delivering crew to ISS, seems like it’s in NASA and US interest.
So one would have Russia, and 2 US companies, and another 1 or 2 other nations providing crew access to ISS. So 4 or more launch providers for crew seems like it’s very robust and competitive, plus one have 2 or 3 launches which are either strictly focused on cargo or getting to point of doing crew.
1.8 billion – Boeing
1.6 billion – SpaceX
.6 billion – Sierra Nevada
Could those numbers keep everyone in the game?
Probably, but that’s @4 billion. Even if CCDev gets $800 million a year for the three years the program has remaining – and it has never gotten anywhere near that much in past years, nor is it going to this coming year = that’s only about $2.4 billion, at most, left in the kitty. Where do you see the rest coming from?
I think NASA should move as fast as possible towards getting US crew access to ISS.
Most of payload delivered to ISS is not crew, and it is the cargo which should have most
competition, and cargo is the path that competition for crew transport originates. So SpaceX
with it’s new version of Falcon should fly two more cargo flights and then should do crew.
If there is launch failure in next two cargo, then one has a problem. But since there has not been
a launch failure- and the engine out, yet manage to complete primary mission seems more reassuring
rather than problematic. Though if get another launch with engine failure that still manages to complete
mission in next 2 cargo, then it’s more problematic.
Or because SpaceX has been successful, the direction should be towards getting SpaceX delivering crew faster than the current planned schedule. And likewise, any failure delays it further than current planned schedule.
So crew access should from launcher which has proven to be safe by demonstrating it can successfully deliver cargo to ISS, one should strive to make cargo delivery competitive by having as many launch companies as is possible [don’t have enough at this point].
So once SpaceX is delivering crew, it seems NASA should favor other launch companies for delivering cargo. And once there is two or more US launch companies delivering crew, these launch delivering crew can then revert back delivering both crew and cargo.
In addition having another nation delivering crew to ISS, seems like it’s in NASA and US interest.
So one would have Russia, and 2 US companies, and another 1 or 2 other nations providing crew access to ISS. So 4 or more launch providers for crew seems like it’s very robust and competitive, plus one have 2 or 3 launches which are either strictly focused on cargo or getting to point of doing crew.
1.8 billion – Boeing
1.6 billion – SpaceX
.6 billion – Sierra Nevada
Could those numbers keep everyone in the game?
Probably, but that’s @4 billion. Even if CCDev gets $800 million a year for the three years the program has remaining – and it has never gotten anywhere near that much in past years, nor is it going to this coming year = that’s only about $2.4 billion, at most, left in the kitty. Where do you see the rest coming from?
So he might support 3 winners then?