A down select to one commercial vehicle supplier is inevitable for one reason - budget constraints. Orion would be the backup. (yes - Orion is overkill for LEO missions - but it's NASA's future for deep space and would be justification to keeping the Orion alive)
A down select to one commercial vehicle supplier is inevitable for one reason - budget constraints. Orion would be the backup.
Quote from: Pollagee on 06/10/2015 12:05 pmA down select to one commercial vehicle supplier is inevitable for one reason - budget constraints. Orion would be the backup.Orion (which uses the SLS) is even more expensive than keeping two Commercial Crew providers going, plus on it's current schedule it would not be certified for use by humans until 2022 or so - just two short years before the end of the currently planned ISS mission extension. That's no help at all.NASA will just slow down/push out the CCtCap schedule and have to rely on Soyuz more - 2017 becomes 2018.Good job Congress!
better review those comments, as the administration went before congress early this year and told them NASA was going to buy seats on Soyuz. This was with the 2016 budget as given. Go look up the videos if you don't believe me.
I thought plan was to operate both vehicles. Down selecting to CST100 would make NASA dependent on Russian engines for a few years. Something Congress is opposed to especially for DOD missions.
The other alternative is to skip the in-flight abort for SpaceX and just fly already.
Another idea use Blue Origin's rocket or a variant of Grasshopper for the in flight abort test like little Joe II on Apollo.It just needs to reach max Q to get the needed data.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 06/10/2015 02:42 pmQuote from: Pollagee on 06/10/2015 12:05 pmA down select to one commercial vehicle supplier is inevitable for one reason - budget constraints. Orion would be the backup.Orion (which uses the SLS) is even more expensive than keeping two Commercial Crew providers going, plus on it's current schedule it would not be certified for use by humans until 2022 or so - just two short years before the end of the currently planned ISS mission extension. That's no help at all.NASA will just slow down/push out the CCtCap schedule and have to rely on Soyuz more - 2017 becomes 2018.Good job Congress!NASA cannot support three vehicles. According to last September's NASA press release regarding the CCtCap down selection to Boeing and Space X... "Once each company’s test program has been completed successfully and its system achieves NASA certification, each contractor will conduct at least two, and as many as six, crewed missions to the space station."... This would bring us to around 2024 if 6 flights each are fulfilled (assuming two flights per year). Then one of the providers will be cut. Orion will be on call as a backup only (using a less expensive commercial man rated rocket and not the SLS which is for BEO missions). Assuming of course the ISS is still funded at that time.
Another question - How many man rated launchers are there that can support the Orion?
Quote from: kevinof on 06/11/2015 01:06 pmAnother question - How many man rated launchers are there that can support the Orion?Falcon Heavy could do it for LEO.
NASA cannot support three vehicles. According to last September's NASA press release regarding the CCtCap down selection to Boeing and Space X... "Once each company’s test program has been completed successfully and its system achieves NASA certification, each contractor will conduct at least two, and as many as six, crewed missions to the space station."... This would bring us to around 2024 if 6 flights each are fulfilled (assuming two flights per year). Then one of the providers will be cut. Orion will be on call as a backup only (using a less expensive commercial man rated rocket and not the SLS which is for BEO missions). Assuming of course the ISS is still funded at that time.
Quote from: Pollagee on 06/11/2015 12:55 pmNASA cannot support three vehicles. According to last September's NASA press release regarding the CCtCap down selection to Boeing and Space X... "Once each company’s test program has been completed successfully and its system achieves NASA certification, each contractor will conduct at least two, and as many as six, crewed missions to the space station."... This would bring us to around 2024 if 6 flights each are fulfilled (assuming two flights per year). Then one of the providers will be cut. Orion will be on call as a backup only (using a less expensive commercial man rated rocket and not the SLS which is for BEO missions). Assuming of course the ISS is still funded at that time.Actually they could afford three providers if CCtCap was kept fully funded or if SNC and Blue Origin were kept instead of Boeing as they submitted much lower bids.BO was far behind but they did have a rocket in the works and SNC wasn't that far behind Boeing and their bid was much lower.The only wise thing the committee did was keep Spacex as they have been testing real hardware and have a rocket with domestically produced engines.Quote from: kevinof on 06/11/2015 01:06 pmAnother question - How many man rated launchers are there that can support the Orion?As already mentioned Falcon Heavy can easily lift it as well as Delta IV Heavy.Other vehicles that might be able to Ariane 5 and the heavier versions of Vulcan.Interestingly Orion on a Falcon Heavy may not not have a lifetime cost much higher then the CST-100.Still it won't be cheap as every mission will require a Falcon Heavy ,an Orion SM and an abort tower.
Far as I know d4 is not man rated and there are no plans to do so, so eliminate that launcher. Same with Ariane. What's left?
Quote from: guckyfan on 06/11/2015 02:26 pmQuote from: kevinof on 06/11/2015 01:06 pmAnother question - How many man rated launchers are there that can support the Orion?Falcon Heavy could do it for LEO.Is it man rated?
Quote from: kevinof on 06/11/2015 03:17 pmFar as I know d4 is not man rated and there are no plans to do so, so eliminate that launcher. Same with Ariane. What's left?The only reason to put an Orion in LEO is for ISS rescue and to launch an unmanned Orion to the ISS man-rating isn't relevant.
Regarding Orion as a backup to Commercial Crew service for ISS, somewhere I thought I read that the rendezvous and docking systems of Orion had been descoped, or at least deferred to a later phase, to save money. Is that true? When would an Orion capsule first be available which could actually rendezvous and dock with ISS?
Quote from: billh on 06/13/2015 07:13 pmRegarding Orion as a backup to Commercial Crew service for ISS, somewhere I thought I read that the rendezvous and docking systems of Orion had been descoped, or at least deferred to a later phase, to save money. Is that true? When would an Orion capsule first be available which could actually rendezvous and dock with ISS?With CC and Soyuz there is no need for Orion to dock with ISS. Also, the first manned flight of Orion will be 2021, assuming no delays. ISS will be decommissioned after 2024. Orion as backup is an old idea pushed by Congress that isn't going to happen.
Quote from: RonM on 06/13/2015 07:22 pmQuote from: billh on 06/13/2015 07:13 pmRegarding Orion as a backup to Commercial Crew service for ISS, somewhere I thought I read that the rendezvous and docking systems of Orion had been descoped, or at least deferred to a later phase, to save money. Is that true? When would an Orion capsule first be available which could actually rendezvous and dock with ISS?With CC and Soyuz there is no need for Orion to dock with ISS. Also, the first manned flight of Orion will be 2021, assuming no delays. ISS will be decommissioned after 2024. Orion as backup is an old idea pushed by Congress that isn't going to happen.Yes, but you didn't answer the question. Others here had raised the possibility of Orion as backup, and I was thinking there was an additional problem with the idea: no docking hardware. Do you know when, or if, Orion is supposed to have rendezvous and docking capability under the current plan?