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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: brovane on 02/27/2015 09:50 pmWhich 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.
Which is why their was two bidders, to keep prices reasonable.
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.
NASA is only forced to buy 2 missions from each provider. If the prices are not reasonable, NASA could stop at two missions.
Quote from: Prober on 02/27/2015 08:15 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 02/27/2015 05:35 pmPress release by the Democrats:http://democrats.science.house.gov/press-release/subcommittee-emphasizes-need-safety-and-transparency-commercial-crew-programMaybe 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).
Quote from: yg1968 on 02/27/2015 05:35 pmPress release by the Democrats:http://democrats.science.house.gov/press-release/subcommittee-emphasizes-need-safety-and-transparency-commercial-crew-programMaybe you can define why this is becoming more "political"?Missed the video, will need to watch it now
Press release by the Democrats:http://democrats.science.house.gov/press-release/subcommittee-emphasizes-need-safety-and-transparency-commercial-crew-program
From Reisman's written statement:Quote from: ReismanSpaceX 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
Quote from: yg1968 on 02/27/2015 11:00 pmNASA 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]".
Quote from: yg1968 on 02/27/2015 11:55 pmFrom Reisman's written statement:Quote from: ReismanSpaceX 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.pdfChris there is your answer as why FH was brought into the questions. SpaceX brought it in.
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.
Quote from: yg1968 on 02/28/2015 01:33 amThat'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 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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/28/2015 12:55 pmMr. 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'?
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?
Quote from: gbaikie on 02/28/2015 05:22 amYou 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.
Quote from: TomH on 02/28/2015 04:24 pmQuote from: gbaikie on 02/28/2015 05:22 amYou 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
There's a decent chance CST-100 will launch on ULA's Blue Atlas or whatever it will be called.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 02/28/2015 07:48 pmThere'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?