Author Topic: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1  (Read 640855 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #500 on: 10/29/2014 08:50 pm »

1.  I wonder how hard that would have been to tame and how cost effective it would have been?

2.  I also wonder will the OSC incident cause a reevaluation of the commercial crew?

3.  The full size DC can do much of Cygnus's or Dragon's cargo duties if one gets grounded since it has a similar capacity.
While the CST-100 has a much smaller cargo capacity then either vehicle.


Wrong take away.

1.  It is a cluster

2.  No,

3.  Wrong.  CST-100 can carry as much.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2014 08:51 pm by Jim »

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 845
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 142
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #501 on: 10/29/2014 09:11 pm »
To expand on Jim's reply -- DC and CST both use docking tunnels, which can't accommodate the large, bulky cargo that the CBM allows. 

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #502 on: 10/29/2014 10:16 pm »
Plus, no CCiCap competitor offered more than 16m³ of volume. Enhanced Cygnus (the 3-segment pressurized module version that would fly from CRS-4 onwards), is 26m³, and the proposed "SuperCygnus" version (with 4 segment pressurized module) would have 33.5m³. Of course either Atlas V 501, Delta IV M+(5,2) or even Falcon 9 v1.1 could fit within existing fairing and with a lot of mass margin. They could take up to 4 tonnes of cargo per trip with that configuration. With that they could cover their CRS1 contract in just five launches. The nice thing of flying Cygnus on Atlas V is that ISS would be fully redundant on crew and cargo but still get a nice level of orders for each system. I guess it would require 3 Cargo Dragon, 1 Crew Dragon, 2 Cygnus and 1 CST-100. That's 4 x Falcon 9 per year and 3 x Atlas V. They could get a nice discount on that. Specially since its contracted through commercial means and thus SpaceX, Orbital and Boeing will fight for the best price.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #503 on: 10/29/2014 10:24 pm »
To expand on Jim's reply -- DC and CST both use docking tunnels, which can't accommodate the large, bulky cargo that the CBM allows. 

Most of the CRS cargo can fit through docking tunnels

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #504 on: 10/29/2014 10:42 pm »

3.  Wrong.  CST-100 can carry as much.

It took some searching but the only cargo mass number I can find for the CST-100 is 2000kg and another that was even less at 2800lbs this is less then the upgraded Cyngus,much less then Dragon, and less then Dream Chaser.
In fact by mass this is even less then Progress which carries up to 2350kg.

The biggest issue by far is it is more volume limited then the other vehicles so it's unlikely all that mass will ever be utilized.
The Apollo OML is not exactly an efficient shape for cargo.
Of course Boeing could replace the capsule with a cargo carrier like on Cygnus and eliminate this limitation but I find this unlikely without extra $$$$$ on NASA's part.

DreamChaser has 16 cubic meters of volume that is mostly cylindrical so in this respect it not only beats the CST-100 it even beats Dragon though the enhanced Cygnus still can carry a lot more.
« Last Edit: 10/29/2014 10:53 pm by Patchouli »

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #505 on: 10/30/2014 12:15 am »
It was a little late in the game for a propulsion change.  Pretty remarkable how DC went from hybrid-palooza to no hybrids at all!




 I also wonder will the OSC incident cause a reevaluation of the commercial crew?

The full size DC can do much of Cygnus's or Dragon's cargo duties if one gets grounded since it has a similar capacity.
While the CST-100 has a much smaller cargo capacity then either vehicle.



Absolutely it will.  I anticipate both Boeing and SpaceX will be pushed harder on many areas.  And not just because of whatever the investigation shows (e.g., maybe cost cutting profit making companies do cut corners, or NASA oversight was as good as now it should be [not saying either is true, but these are the reactions people will have]) but also because people will be extra paranoid they are missing something.  At a min it will probably slow things down because the CCP will be trying all the harder to not let the same thing happen. 

As to DC - I would only caution you to be careful quoting numbers from a system that didn't make it as mature as CDR.

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #506 on: 10/30/2014 12:17 am »
Plus, no CCiCap competitor offered more than 16m³ of volume. Enhanced Cygnus (the 3-segment pressurized module version that would fly from CRS-4 onwards), is 26m³, and the proposed "SuperCygnus" version (with 4 segment pressurized module) would have 33.5m³. Of course either Atlas V 501, Delta IV M+(5,2) or even Falcon 9 v1.1 could fit within existing fairing and with a lot of mass margin. They could take up to 4 tonnes of cargo per trip with that configuration. With that they could cover their CRS1 contract in just five launches. The nice thing of flying Cygnus on Atlas V is that ISS would be fully redundant on crew and cargo but still get a nice level of orders for each system. I guess it would require 3 Cargo Dragon, 1 Crew Dragon, 2 Cygnus and 1 CST-100. That's 4 x Falcon 9 per year and 3 x Atlas V. They could get a nice discount on that. Specially since its contracted through commercial means and thus SpaceX, Orbital and Boeing will fight for the best price.

it is totally invalid to compare iCAp proposals - designed and optimized for humans - to what these companies may be proposing for CRS2, and especially something for something that is evolving itself (CRS-4).

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #507 on: 10/30/2014 01:17 am »

1.  It took some searching but the only cargo mass number I can find for the CST-100 is 2000kg and another that was even less at 2800lbs this is less then the upgraded Cyngus,much less then Dragon, and less then Dream Chaser.
In fact by mass this is even less then Progress which carries up to 2350kg.

2.  The biggest issue by far is it is more volume limited then the other vehicles so it's unlikely all that mass will ever be utilized.
The Apollo OML is not exactly an efficient shape for cargo.
Of course Boeing could replace the capsule with a cargo carrier like on Cygnus and eliminate this limitation but I find this unlikely without extra $$$$$ on NASA's part.

3. vDreamChaser has 16 cubic meters of volume that is mostly cylindrical so in this respect it not only beats the CST-100 it even beats Dragon though the enhanced Cygnus still can carry a lot more.

1.  I find 2800kg
2.  Where are the volume numbers to back up the claim? OML is meaningless.  The CST-100 is wider than dragon.   I see 16-18 for CST-100
3.  Most not useable for cargo in the Dc

Another offhanded claim debunked.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #508 on: 10/30/2014 01:46 am »

1.  It took some searching but the only cargo mass number I can find for the CST-100 is 2000kg and another that was even less at 2800lbs this is less then the upgraded Cyngus,much less then Dragon, and less then Dream Chaser.
In fact by mass this is even less then Progress which carries up to 2350kg.

2.  The biggest issue by far is it is more volume limited then the other vehicles so it's unlikely all that mass will ever be utilized.
The Apollo OML is not exactly an efficient shape for cargo.
Of course Boeing could replace the capsule with a cargo carrier like on Cygnus and eliminate this limitation but I find this unlikely without extra $$$$$ on NASA's part.

3. vDreamChaser has 16 cubic meters of volume that is mostly cylindrical so in this respect it not only beats the CST-100 it even beats Dragon though the enhanced Cygnus still can carry a lot more.

1.  I find 2800kg
2.  Where are the volume numbers to back up the claim? OML is meaningless.  The CST-100 is wider than dragon.   I see 16-18 for CST-100
3.  Most not useable for cargo in the Dc

Another offhanded claim debunked.

1. 2800kg for CST? The number I found was less than 1200kg, but it wasn't clear if that was in a cargo optimized configuration or an unmanned crewed capsule.

2. My very rough "calculation" for CST-100 usable volume is 12.75m3, and that's probably generous. http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1246468#msg1246468

3. Same place that had the 1200kg number for CST had something around 1300kg for DC. No clue on volume and don't care enough about DC to try and figure it out.

source on mass numbers: http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40903iss-cargo-shippers-face-competition-from-space-taxis
« Last Edit: 10/30/2014 01:57 am by arachnitect »

Offline gongora

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10205
  • US
  • Liked: 13885
  • Likes Given: 5933
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #509 on: 10/30/2014 01:55 am »
Couldn't you make vast changes in the CST-100 upmass by changing the configuration of the Atlas 5 it's launching on?  They don't need to use the commercial crew configuration for cargo.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #510 on: 10/30/2014 01:59 am »

1. 2800kg for CST? The number I found was less than 1200kg, but it wasn't clear if that was in a cargo optimized configuration or an unmanned crewed capsule.


http://www.airspacemag.com/space/taxi-to-the-space-station-261647/?no-ist

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #511 on: 10/30/2014 02:06 am »

1. 2800kg for CST? The number I found was less than 1200kg, but it wasn't clear if that was in a cargo optimized configuration or an unmanned crewed capsule.


http://www.airspacemag.com/space/taxi-to-the-space-station-261647/?no-ist

They're using the cursed imperial system. 2800lbs = ~1270kg.

Couldn't you make vast changes in the CST-100 upmass by changing the configuration of the Atlas 5 it's launching on?  They don't need to use the commercial crew configuration for cargo.

They're already at a 422 which is pretty capable. They can probably fly more efficient trajectory without people on board. No LAS maybe? Can add another solid motor, but beyond that they start getting into the Centaur structural limits.
« Last Edit: 10/30/2014 02:10 am by arachnitect »

Offline Planetaryduality

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Vancouver
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #512 on: 10/30/2014 04:25 am »

1. 2800kg for CST? The number I found was less than 1200kg, but it wasn't clear if that was in a cargo optimized configuration or an unmanned crewed capsule.


http://www.airspacemag.com/space/taxi-to-the-space-station-261647/?no-ist

They're using the cursed imperial system. 2800lbs = ~1270kg.

Couldn't you make vast changes in the CST-100 upmass by changing the configuration of the Atlas 5 it's launching on?  They don't need to use the commercial crew configuration for cargo.

They're already at a 422 which is pretty capable. They can probably fly more efficient trajectory without people on board. No LAS maybe? Can add another solid motor, but beyond that they start getting into the Centaur structural limits.

Would it not be possible to encapsulate the CST-100 cargo variant within the 5m fairing? CST at 4.56m should just barely fit.
-Kyle

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12094
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18196
  • Likes Given: 12153
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #513 on: 10/30/2014 08:42 am »

1. 2800kg for CST? The number I found was less than 1200kg, but it wasn't clear if that was in a cargo optimized configuration or an unmanned crewed capsule.


http://www.airspacemag.com/space/taxi-to-the-space-station-261647/?no-ist

Not kg but pounds Jim.
Quote from: Graig Mellow Air and Space Magazine
Its intended payload capacity is a mere 2,800 pounds,


Another offhanded claim debunked.
While not having your facts straight?  ::)
« Last Edit: 10/30/2014 08:51 am by woods170 »

Offline Jarnis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1313
  • Liked: 830
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #514 on: 10/30/2014 09:52 am »
Must take screenshots. Jim may have been wrong about something.  :o

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #515 on: 10/30/2014 05:08 pm »

1. 2800kg for CST? The number I found was less than 1200kg, but it wasn't clear if that was in a cargo optimized configuration or an unmanned crewed capsule.


http://www.airspacemag.com/space/taxi-to-the-space-station-261647/?no-ist

They're using the cursed imperial system. 2800lbs = ~1270kg.

Couldn't you make vast changes in the CST-100 upmass by changing the configuration of the Atlas 5 it's launching on?  They don't need to use the commercial crew configuration for cargo.

They're already at a 422 which is pretty capable. They can probably fly more efficient trajectory without people on board. No LAS maybe? Can add another solid motor, but beyond that they start getting into the Centaur structural limits.

Would it not be possible to encapsulate the CST-100 cargo variant within the 5m fairing? CST at 4.56m should just barely fit.

I think the thruster doghouses would interfere. The vehicle adapter vs. Centaur Forward Load Reactor would need to be figured out. At a certain point you're better off just starting from scratch. Or flying Cygnus on Atlas.

Point is, none of the crew vehicles can do what Cygnus does.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #516 on: 10/30/2014 05:23 pm »
Or flying Cygnus on Atlas.

Point is, none of the crew vehicles can do what Cygnus does.

Boeing will offer a cargo version of its CST-100 on an Atlas V for CRS2. Orbital will offer its Cygnus on its new Antares rocket. No one will offer Cygnus on an Atlas V as an option.
« Last Edit: 10/30/2014 05:24 pm by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #517 on: 10/31/2014 11:33 pm »
From the SpaceNews article by Dan Leone:
Quote
Gerstenmaier also disagreed with the members of the source evaluation board about the importance of some planned Dream Chaser features. For example, Gerstenmaier gave less weight to Dream Chaser’s ability to land on runways than did the evaluation board, and was more troubled than the board over some of the remaining technical hurdles in SNC’s proposal.
This hints at the possibility the evaluation board might have come to a preliminary conclusion with recommendations of awards, which might then have been over-ridden by Gerstenmaier. That's speculation, but if it did play out that way the over-ride would look ugly in the court of public opinion, regardless of Gerstenmaier's actual reasons for it.

The Source Evaluation Board (SEB) evaluates; the Source Selection Authority (SSA) decides.  The SEB does not make comparative judgements or recommend awards.  The substantive overlap between the SEB and the SSA are those discimnators which the SEB feels are important, for which it is left to the SSA to decide.  The importance or weight of those discrimators as articulated by the SEB are intentionally left to the judgement of the SSA; specifically (emphasis added):
Quote from: NASA Source Selection Guide
Source selection decisions (SSD) made by the Source Selection Authority must be a comparative assessment of proposals based upon the evaluation criteria in the solicitation and represent the independent judgment of the SSA. The SEB helps the SSA make the selection by identifying significant discriminators in each of the proposals resulting from its evaluation and explaining the significance of those discriminators. The SEB performs its duties without comparing proposals. It is the responsibility of the SSA to compare proposals using the findings made by the SEB. The SSA exercises independent judgment when determining how these discriminators factor into the selection decision. Since the findings of the SEB are part of the record, the SSA should return the evaluation to the SEB for its further consideration if the SSA believes the SEB’s findings are flawed.

If the SSA (Gerst) felt the SEB's evaluation was incomplete or flawed, then he would have (or should have) returned to the SEB for clarification or reconsideration--and that would be part of the record.  If the SSA made a decision based on information other than that provided by the SEB, then that would be grounds for a challenge.  That the SSA weighed the discriminators differently than the SEB is not, in and of itself, sufficient grounds for a challenge.

In any case, the GAO protest override issued by NASA has little or no relationship to the award decision.
« Last Edit: 10/31/2014 11:48 pm by joek »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #518 on: 11/01/2014 12:38 am »
Most of the CRS cargo can fit through docking tunnels
That does not mean sufficient, which is the operative question.  Specifically, is it sufficient to meet NASA's requirements, as expressed in the CRS2 RFP?  If it does not meet those requirements, then the fact that it can "fit most" is of dubious relevance.

As to DC - I would only caution you to be careful quoting numbers from a system that didn't make it as mature as CDR.
Not to mention that DC cannot meet NASA's minimum requirements for cargo, unless one assumes a disposable DC or module attached to DC for pressurized or unpressurized disposal.

In any case, before we go more off-topic here, there is a thread specifically for these CRS2-related discussions at ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) thread.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #519 on: 11/01/2014 01:59 am »
If the SSA (Gerst) felt the SEB's evaluation was incomplete or flawed, then he would have (or should have) returned to the SEB for clarification or reconsideration--and that would be part of the record.

Thanks for this, and for your other clarifying remarks.

When you suggest this "would be part of the record" had it occurred, do you mean it would currently be public knowledge?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1