Author Topic: The Commercial Crew Program: Challenges and Opportunities (Feb. 27 2015 9 am)  (Read 35160 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
From Reisman's written statement:

Quote from: Reisman, page 6
This design also allows the first stage to survive reentry and return to Earth post-launch, with the eventual goal of refurbishing and reflying the stage. Though this capability may appear to be tangential to the crew program, since our CCtCap contract calls for brand-new vehicles for every crew mission, in order to survive the harsher environments of reentry, the first stage has been designed to be far more structurally robust than an ascent-only stage for the primary and critical ascent portion of the mission. This results in a safer and more robust launch vehicle for astronaut carriage.

Quote from: Reisman, page 9
Since submitting the CCtCap proposal in January 2014, SpaceX has continued to enhance the Crew Dragon design to improve safety, operational flexibility, and reliability. These improvements include: the ability to perform precision propulsive land landing with full fault tolerance; increased propellant tank capacity for improved mission performance and to support propulsive landing; a movable ballast system to allow for high precision landings; life support system components moved from the trunk into the capsule service section to increase reliability; and consolidated avionics components to decrease complexity. The near doubling of the propellant tank capacity significantly increases the available impulse of the LAS allowing the capsule to travel further away from a failing launch vehicle. Additionally, the migration of life support consumables into the capsule allows the capsule to maintain pressure during the entire descent phase assuming a worst-case leak. Active center of gravity control allows for lift vector modulation for precise landings that ultimately enable fast access to the returning crew either on land or in the water.

Quote from: Reisman, page 9
Precision propulsive land landing will be certified in parallel with parachute to water landing for Crew Dragon. This will allow the teams to stay on schedule and ensure U.S. crew transportation safely and reliably in 2017. Land landing will become the baseline for the early post-certification missions; in the meantime, precision water landing under parachutes has been proposed as the baseline return and recovery approach for the first few flights of Crew Dragon. Parachute to water landing leverages SpaceX’s excellent water recovery heritage, providing safe, fast, and reliable access to the crew. Per contract requirements, access to the crew will be provided within one hour of landing in the water and access to cargo within two hours of landing. Contingency plans involving multiple recovery vessels and locations will be fully implemented.

Quote from: Reisman, page 12
SpaceX acknowledges that certification of precision propulsive land landing is expected to take additional time; therefore, it will be done in parallel with precision water landing thus preventing this capability from delaying NASA’s goal of completing certification in 2017.

Quote from: Reisman
SpaceX is investing over $60 million in LC-39A to modernize the complex for Crew Dragon, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. Construction on the hangar has begun and will be completed later this year.

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY16-WState-GReisman-20150227.pdf
« Last Edit: 02/28/2015 01:49 am by yg1968 »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Which is why their was two bidders, to keep prices reasonable.
Number of bidders does not mean the price from any of the bidders is reasonable.  Competitive bidding may keep the price reasonable assuming: (a) a commodity product or service; and (b) when factors other than price are not involved (e.g., schedule risk); and (c) when there is not significant RDT&E involved (e.g., price/schedule risk).  CCtCap arguably meets none of those criteria.

Those are not the correct criteria.

The correct criteria are lack of barriers to entry among the competitors (a level playing field) and lack of collusion among the bidders.  Those are the criteria that are needed for market forces to give you the best price.  Being a commodity is not necessary.  Having no other factors than price is not necessary.  Not having a lot of RDT&E is not necessary.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
The correct criteria are lack of barriers to entry among the competitors (a level playing field) and lack of collusion among the bidders.  Those are the criteria that are needed for market forces to give you the best price.  Being a commodity is not necessary.  Having no other factors than price is not necessary.  Not having a lot of RDT&E is not necessary.
Right.  But this is not discussing competition and market forces in general, but those specific to CCtCap.  Multiple bidders in this case do not in any way or form represent anything like a normal competitive field.  Significant RDT&E is as an example of one factor which can contribute to warping the selection and which has no direct bearing on bid price; no more and no less.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
NASA is only forced to buy 2 missions from each provider. If the prices are not reasonable, NASA could stop at two missions.

NASA is committed to seeing it through to that point, including certification and everything that comes with it.  All of that entered into the CCtCap selection, and the price for those two missions includes certification and everything that comes with it.

Regardless of whether NASA is forced to buy a given number of missions, is the price for the package reasonable?  That is the question the committee is asking.

I don't know the answer to that question. But it is certainly not as simple as "We can stop at X missions [after having shelled out $$$$]" or "There were multiple bidders, therefore the price must be reasonable [and should not be subject to scrutiny]".

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Press release by the Democrats:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/press-release/subcommittee-emphasizes-need-safety-and-transparency-commercial-crew-program

Maybe you can define why this is becoming more "political"?
Missed the video, will need to watch it now ::)

I am not sure that I understand your question. I didn't make a comment about commercial crew becoming more political. Some Congressmen and Congresswomen from both parties have always been against commercial crew (Edwards is a Democrat and Palazzo is a Republican). That continues to be the case. I think that the opponents of commercial crew will continue to fight it and find excuses not to fund it. The Senate is a lot more pro-commercial crew (both Nelson and Cruz are in favour of maintaining competition for commercial crew).

Just wanted to get your opinion as you seem to follow this very close, that's all.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
From Reisman's written statement:


Quote from: Reisman
SpaceX is investing over $60 million in LC-39A to modernize the complex for Crew Dragon, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. Construction on the hangar has begun and will be completed later this year.

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY16-WState-GReisman-20150227.pdf

Chris there is your answer as why FH was brought into the questions.   SpaceX brought it in.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
NASA is only forced to buy 2 missions from each provider. If the prices are not reasonable, NASA could stop at two missions.

NASA is committed to seeing it through to that point, including certification and everything that comes with it.  All of that entered into the CCtCap selection, and the price for those two missions includes certification and everything that comes with it.

Regardless of whether NASA is forced to buy a given number of missions, is the price for the package reasonable?  That is the question the committee is asking.

I don't know the answer to that question. But it is certainly not as simple as "We can stop at X missions [after having shelled out $$$$]" or "There were multiple bidders, therefore the price must be reasonable [and should not be subject to scrutiny]".

That's not what they are trying to do. Palazzo has never liked commercial crew. So his point is that if you factor in development cost, commercial crew isn't that cheap. His suggestion is to downselect to one commercial crew provider and have Orion on a Delta IV Heavy as a backup. If he was really concerned about cost, he wouldn't be suggesting Orion on a Delta IV Heavy as a means to get to the ISS.  In any event, I don't think that Russia is making NASA pay for the development cost of the Soyuz.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
From Reisman's written statement:


Quote from: Reisman
SpaceX is investing over $60 million in LC-39A to modernize the complex for Crew Dragon, Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy. Construction on the hangar has begun and will be completed later this year.

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY16-WState-GReisman-20150227.pdf

Chris there is your answer as why FH was brought into the questions.   SpaceX brought it in.

The $60 million that SpaceX is spending on LC-39A includes upgrades for FH but that doesn't mean that FH is involved in commercial crew. 
« Last Edit: 02/28/2015 02:00 am by yg1968 »

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4869
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1096
That's not what they are trying to do. Palazzo has never liked commercial crew. So his point is that if you factor in development cost, commercial crew isn't that cheap. His suggestion is to downselect to one commercial crew provider and have Orion on a Delta IV Heavy as a backup. If he was really concerned about cost, he wouldn't be suggesting Orion on a Delta IV Heavy as a means to get to the ISS.  In any event, I don't think that Russia is making NASA pay for the development cost of the Soyuz.

I did not state what or what they were not trying to do or ascribe motivations, other than that some question the cost of CCtCap--for which the facile answers "it was competitive, therefore it is a good price" or "NASA can stop at X missions" is not an answer.  If you want to discuss committee members' motivations or competence, feel free.  But please do not conflate my comments with that discussion.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
That's not what they are trying to do. Palazzo has never liked commercial crew. So his point is that if you factor in development cost, commercial crew isn't that cheap. His suggestion is to downselect to one commercial crew provider and have Orion on a Delta IV Heavy as a backup. If he was really concerned about cost, he wouldn't be suggesting Orion on a Delta IV Heavy as a means to get to the ISS.  In any event, I don't think that Russia is making NASA pay for the development cost of the Soyuz.

I did not state what or what they were not trying to do or ascribe motivations, other than that some question the cost of CCtCap--for which the facile answers "it was competitive, therefore it is a good price" or "NASA can stop at X missions" is not an answer.  If you want to discuss committee members' motivations or competence, feel free.  But please do not conflate my comments with that discussion.

I was assuming that your comments related to what was discussed at the hearing given that this thread is dedicated to the hearing. In any event, going back to the hearing, as Gerst said, NASA had the choice between three providers and choose the two that it considered to be the best value to the government. Palazzo felt that NASA should have choosen just one provider and used Orion on a Delta IV Heavy as a backup. His questionning of the price per seat for commercial was suspect and had a motive. At every hearing, Palazzo wants more money for SLS and Orion and less for commercial crew. If you watch the hearing, you will see what I mean about Palazzo. But I understand that you don't necessarily agree with his comments. So I am not conflating your comments with his.

As far as the importance of competition, I think that having two providers is important. I suspect that NASA will be buying services from commercial crew providers after CCtCap. If NASA had selected only one provider, I am pretty sure that it would have been Boeing and they would have been free to increase their price for the next round (which is exactly what Russia has been doing).
« Last Edit: 02/28/2015 03:12 am by yg1968 »

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
I really don't know why I brought FH in. 

I actually had no idea what the config for Commercial Crew is prior to this hearing.  I don't pay attention to this very much because I've already assumed Soyuz is the only way to get to the ISS for a long time.

During the hearing, it sounded like there was some uncertainty from Boeing as to which vehicle they would launch on in a scenario where RD-180s are no longer available.  When Boeing dropped the idea of using CST with a Falcon launch vehicle, I may have misinterpreted that they implied a FH...

You probably thought that because you think of of an Altas V as a large launch vehicle.
But Altas V is a family of launch vehicles which includes Altas V heavy.
"Other than the addition of the Emergency Detection System, no major changes are expected to the Atlas V rocket, but ground infrastructure modifications are planned. The most likely candidate for the human-rating is the 402 configuration, with dual RL10 engines on the Centaur upper stage and no solid rocket boosters"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V#Atlas_V_CTS_.28Crew_Transportation_System.29

And Altas V 402 configuration is about same size as Falcon-9:
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/atlas5.html

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Mr. Scott: Actually, F9 v1.1 can launch CST-100, Dream Chaser, and Dragon.

Falcon Heavy is another thing that SpaceX is doing that has really nothing to do with commercial crew.

If you aren't familiar with the configurations of commercial crew, why are you pontificating so much about it?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
You probably thought that because you think of of an Altas V as a large launch vehicle.
But Altas V is a family of launch vehicles which includes Altas V heavy.

Incorrect. Atlas V Heavy is nothing more than a concept on paper.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Mr. Scott: Actually, F9 v1.1 can launch CST-100, Dream Chaser, and Dragon.

Falcon Heavy is another thing that SpaceX is doing that has really nothing to do with commercial crew.

If you aren't familiar with the configurations of commercial crew, why are you pontificating so much about it?
Pontification is my speciality.

Really, I was just surprised that Boeing's config with CST-100 was so loose. They were implying at the hearing that they could launch with any launch vehicle (and with no additional cost analyses needed by NASA).  What took away was implied was that this could include FH too.

So if you have ultimate flexibility with a commercial crew config... this obviously comes at a higher price (which Boeing has forwarded and won with) vs. SpaceX.  It isn't clear that Dragon v2 is flexible to work with any launch vehicle.  Again, I'm just catching up with all of this.

Flexibility vs 'efficiency'?

Boeing was just saying that as an answer to those in Congress that are concerned about the use of the RD-180 on the Atlas V. It's unlikely that the CST-100 will ever be launched on anything but an Atlas V. The only way that the CST-100 will launch on a Falcon 9 is if the Atlas V is unexpectedly suddenly cancelled.
« Last Edit: 02/28/2015 05:07 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
There's a decent chance CST-100 will launch on ULA's Blue Atlas or whatever it will be called.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
You probably thought that because you think of of an Altas V as a large launch vehicle.
But Altas V is a family of launch vehicles which includes Altas V heavy.

Incorrect. Atlas V Heavy is nothing more than a concept on paper.

I believe you are thinking of the original three-core Atlas Heavy concept. Nowadays models like the 1-core 5-SRB  (551/552) are sometimes informally called "heavy", with a LEO payload of slightly over 20 metric tons, vs 29 for the three-core concept. For the CST, Boeing has selected the 512 version with one (assymetric) SRB.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/human-spaceflight-announcement--united.aspx
« Last Edit: 02/28/2015 09:23 pm by vulture4 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
You probably thought that because you think of of an Altas V as a large launch vehicle.
But Altas V is a family of launch vehicles which includes Altas V heavy.

Incorrect. Atlas V Heavy is nothing more than a concept on paper.

I believe you are thinking of the original three-core Atlas Heavy concept. Nowadays models like the 1-core 5-SRB  (551/552) are sometimes informally called "heavy", with a LEO payload of slightly over 20 metric tons, vs 29 for the three-core concept. For the CST, Boeing has selected the 512 version with one (assymetric) SRB.

http://www.ulalaunch.com/human-spaceflight-announcement--united.aspx
I believe they changed it to a 422 now.

(Either way, Falcon 9 v1.1 could easily put CST-100 to LEO.)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
There's a decent chance CST-100 will launch on ULA's Blue Atlas or whatever it will be called.

You think Boeing will be swapping a LV mid contract for commercial crew?
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2892
There's a decent chance CST-100 will launch on ULA's Blue Atlas or whatever it will be called.

You think Boeing will be swapping a LV mid contract for commercial crew?

Yes, of course.

Offline vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1099
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 92
AIUI ULA can use the Russian RD-180 for NASA "commercial" manned launches as long as they want, and will do so for the present. It's only the DOD that cannot use them. Getting a completely new Blue Origin methane engine up to operational status for human launch would likely take somewhere between 5 and 10 years.
« Last Edit: 03/01/2015 03:08 pm by vulture4 »

Tags:
 

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