Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 07:07 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 10/05/2014 06:46 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 03:04 pmI will say one thing: since both designs chosen were capsules, they are both relevant for any future BLEO missions and should be considered for inclusion by mission planners.None of these vehicles will be evolved for BLEO - they are too small. Be glad to talk on another thread about it if you want...Nonsense, they're both the same size (or a little bigger) as the only other BLEO capsule ever: the Apollo Command Module.And both are also MUCH larger than Soyuz/Zond which was the only other thing to get close to becoming BLEO. If you want to go further than the Moon, you're going to need more volume than Orion anyway and so will need an extra module, and it's far more efficient for that volume to be separated before reentry anyway. Orion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew.Orion's size is an unhappy medium. Too small for anything beyond the Moon and too big for the 3-4 astronauts that would be using it.CST-100 is a better fit.Chris is absolutely correct, Ron. CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS (assuming SLS ought to fly at all). It's bigger than Apollo CM and perfectly adequate for lunar missions. Orion is too heavy for its parachutes and too small for beyond lunar missions, which will require a habitat. Orion (even the current downsized model) is too massive and should never have been developed. CST-100 would be a perfectly sized and massed CM for a BEO program.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/05/2014 06:46 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 03:04 pmI will say one thing: since both designs chosen were capsules, they are both relevant for any future BLEO missions and should be considered for inclusion by mission planners.None of these vehicles will be evolved for BLEO - they are too small. Be glad to talk on another thread about it if you want...Nonsense, they're both the same size (or a little bigger) as the only other BLEO capsule ever: the Apollo Command Module.And both are also MUCH larger than Soyuz/Zond which was the only other thing to get close to becoming BLEO. If you want to go further than the Moon, you're going to need more volume than Orion anyway and so will need an extra module, and it's far more efficient for that volume to be separated before reentry anyway. Orion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew.Orion's size is an unhappy medium. Too small for anything beyond the Moon and too big for the 3-4 astronauts that would be using it.CST-100 is a better fit.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 03:04 pmI will say one thing: since both designs chosen were capsules, they are both relevant for any future BLEO missions and should be considered for inclusion by mission planners.None of these vehicles will be evolved for BLEO - they are too small. Be glad to talk on another thread about it if you want...
I will say one thing: since both designs chosen were capsules, they are both relevant for any future BLEO missions and should be considered for inclusion by mission planners.
Orion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew. CST-100 is a better fit.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 07:07 pmOrion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew. CST-100 is a better fit.Chris, CST-100 could not do a direct-entry from Mars. It couldn't even survive re-entry at lunar speeds for the same reason. It's heat shield is designed for LEO re-entry only. Only Dragon can do the Mars re-entry.
Quote from: clongton on 10/05/2014 08:41 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 07:07 pmOrion's size doesn't really make any sense (IMO) except perhaps in the olden days when there was thought of using it for short-duration during direct-entry from Mars with 6 crew, but both CST-100 and Dragon could still do that, since they can do 7 crew. CST-100 is a better fit.Chris, CST-100 could not do a direct-entry from Mars. It couldn't even survive re-entry at lunar speeds for the same reason. It's heat shield is designed for LEO re-entry only. Only Dragon can do the Mars re-entry.And the heat shield can be comfortably resized. And the SM is very modular. CST-100 is LEO only, and so is Dragon v2, just not because of the heat shield. But both are not that far from LEO that they can't be adapter cheaply (when compared to starting from scratch).But having BEO rated avionics, heat transfer through heat plates, high distance comm system, long term ECLSS, BEO astrogation capabilities, limited radiation protection for crew, etc. those thing are the hard part.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/05/2014 04:46 amQuote from: joek on 10/05/2014 12:48 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 10/04/2014 05:10 amAs to milestones during CCiCap, again despite Boeing's seeming advantages both financially and technically, they were not doing any full up hardware testing like SNC and SpaceX, and with what appeared to be the most basic design they still cost $1.6B more than SpaceX for CCtCap.Yes, Boeing's CCiCap goals were more conservative. Yes, they got more money. However, Boeing's CCiCap execution was near faultless...Since CCiCap is a milestone program, by definition the participants would only get paid for a milestone when it has been done in a "faultless" manner. Anything less and they would not get paid. So this metric means nothing.Quote...with an arguable delay of a couple months (give or take): 22-25 months actual vs. 22-25 month original plan (depending on what and how you count). In the end Boeing did what they said they were going to do, and as importantly did it when they said they were going to do it. The same cannot be said of SpaceX or SNC, altho I'm sure both will eventually make good on their CCiCap milestones.Two points:1. We already agree that Boeing had the most conservative design, and I would argue that they also had the most conservative milestone schedule too. No tests with vehicles like Sierra Nevada and SpaceX. They pushed off that type of work into CCtCap, which depending on your point of view actually increases the risk potential that they could fail, since they weren't able to validate their designs earlier in the Commercial Crew program.2. I've been responsible for scheduling one-off government products all the way up to consumer product factories, and not all dates are the same. For NASA, the date that matters is 2017, and it is my understanding that the milestone dates were goals, not contractual obligations (an important distinction). And since the milestones that have not been completed are for activities that Boeing won't get to until well after Sierra Nevada and SpaceX complete theirs, I don't see why NASA would have much concern about the date slips.Folks here are definitely losing objectivity and missing some key folks. The points of CCDev 1, 2 and iCAP were to mature their designs and reduce risk. By reduce risk, the companies were to identify their riskier areas and then conduct milestones to mitigate those risks. For DC it mean developing and flight test model and performing a drop test, among others since that was one of the bigger, newer things for it. For Boeing, for example, developing their abort engines, Atlas abort system and air bag systems were significant risks. So that was their major milestones. Their approach has been to leverage heavily off of Apollo and more significantly Orion (modern analysis etc to rely on). So folks criticize Boeing for picking a boring capsule - but that is why they did it. Then people criticize them for not doing more hardware tests - but there was no need to. Also, the paid milestones are not all the work the companies have been doing.Not sure what you are trying to say by your second point. Boeing has tCAP milestones that would be before SpaceX and SNC iCAP milestones. So yes, NASA is concerned about the impact tot he dates. There is a good chance that funding won't support 2 companies to be ready by 2014. NASA likely can't support via resources two companies. If you also slow down those two companies - I am sure SpaceX is also impacted though depending on various factors, maybe not so much - you will indeed be risking 2017. I am fairly confident we won't have a commercial crew flight by 2017.Fortunately, I think legal wranglings will get the process rolling here again soon while the GAO conducts its review.
Quote from: joek on 10/05/2014 12:48 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 10/04/2014 05:10 amAs to milestones during CCiCap, again despite Boeing's seeming advantages both financially and technically, they were not doing any full up hardware testing like SNC and SpaceX, and with what appeared to be the most basic design they still cost $1.6B more than SpaceX for CCtCap.Yes, Boeing's CCiCap goals were more conservative. Yes, they got more money. However, Boeing's CCiCap execution was near faultless...Since CCiCap is a milestone program, by definition the participants would only get paid for a milestone when it has been done in a "faultless" manner. Anything less and they would not get paid. So this metric means nothing.Quote...with an arguable delay of a couple months (give or take): 22-25 months actual vs. 22-25 month original plan (depending on what and how you count). In the end Boeing did what they said they were going to do, and as importantly did it when they said they were going to do it. The same cannot be said of SpaceX or SNC, altho I'm sure both will eventually make good on their CCiCap milestones.Two points:1. We already agree that Boeing had the most conservative design, and I would argue that they also had the most conservative milestone schedule too. No tests with vehicles like Sierra Nevada and SpaceX. They pushed off that type of work into CCtCap, which depending on your point of view actually increases the risk potential that they could fail, since they weren't able to validate their designs earlier in the Commercial Crew program.2. I've been responsible for scheduling one-off government products all the way up to consumer product factories, and not all dates are the same. For NASA, the date that matters is 2017, and it is my understanding that the milestone dates were goals, not contractual obligations (an important distinction). And since the milestones that have not been completed are for activities that Boeing won't get to until well after Sierra Nevada and SpaceX complete theirs, I don't see why NASA would have much concern about the date slips.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/04/2014 05:10 amAs to milestones during CCiCap, again despite Boeing's seeming advantages both financially and technically, they were not doing any full up hardware testing like SNC and SpaceX, and with what appeared to be the most basic design they still cost $1.6B more than SpaceX for CCtCap.Yes, Boeing's CCiCap goals were more conservative. Yes, they got more money. However, Boeing's CCiCap execution was near faultless...
As to milestones during CCiCap, again despite Boeing's seeming advantages both financially and technically, they were not doing any full up hardware testing like SNC and SpaceX, and with what appeared to be the most basic design they still cost $1.6B more than SpaceX for CCtCap.
...with an arguable delay of a couple months (give or take): 22-25 months actual vs. 22-25 month original plan (depending on what and how you count). In the end Boeing did what they said they were going to do, and as importantly did it when they said they were going to do it. The same cannot be said of SpaceX or SNC, altho I'm sure both will eventually make good on their CCiCap milestones.
Chris is absolutely correct, Ron. CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS (assuming SLS ought to fly at all). It's bigger than Apollo CM and perfectly adequate for lunar missions. Orion is too heavy for its parachutes and too small for beyond lunar missions, which will require a habitat. Orion (even the current downsized model) is too massive and should never have been developed. CST-100 would be a perfectly sized and massed CM for a BEO program.
Quote from: TomH on 10/05/2014 07:34 pm...CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS........Commercial Crew did not begin until 2010. Orion began in 2006....
...CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS....
The alternative that Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo were developed simultaneously back then is a non-starter. It is taking people until now to warm up to new space, back then, not a shot.
Quote from: newpylong on 10/06/2014 01:13 pmQuote from: TomH on 10/05/2014 07:34 pm...CST-100 is what should be riding on SLS........Commercial Crew did not begin until 2010. Orion began in 2006....CST-100 actually started out at the same time as Orion, as a comeptitor for the CxP program. Orion was selected in lieu of what became CST-100 with not all that much modification.
And just in general, isn't this an exciting time to be a space enthusiast! So much going on with the commercial side of things that the NASA threads have become pretty quiet recently.
I think it would also be fair to say that Old Space is learning a lot too. Sure you could have used a dart board to pick a mega-corp aerospace company to build a safe crew vehicle back in 2008, but the costs would have been really high (just look at the $8B the Orion will end up costing us). New Space in general is showing that there is still room for reducing costs for accessing space, and like it or not the mega-corp aerospace companies are having to adjust. This is a good thing.And just in general, isn't this an exciting time to be a space enthusiast! So much going on with the commercial side of things that the NASA threads have become pretty quiet recently.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/06/2014 09:51 pmI think it would also be fair to say that Old Space is learning a lot too. Sure you could have used a dart board to pick a mega-corp aerospace company to build a safe crew vehicle back in 2008, but the costs would have been really high (just look at the $8B the Orion will end up costing us). New Space in general is showing that there is still room for reducing costs for accessing space, and like it or not the mega-corp aerospace companies are having to adjust. This is a good thing.And just in general, isn't this an exciting time to be a space enthusiast! So much going on with the commercial side of things that the NASA threads have become pretty quiet recently.Not true. OSP was going be an IDIQ contract, at much lower costs
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/06/2014 09:51 pm...New Space in general is showing that there is still room for reducing costs for accessing space, and like it or not the mega-corp aerospace companies are having to adjust. This is a good thing.Not true. OSP was going be an IDIQ contract, at much lower costs
...New Space in general is showing that there is still room for reducing costs for accessing space, and like it or not the mega-corp aerospace companies are having to adjust. This is a good thing.
Quote from: Herb Schaltegger on 10/05/2014 03:26 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 02:25 pmPressurized ISS was built in Italy, was it not? Cygnus uses the same manufacturer. Also, ISS was designed in the 80s, 30 years ago. The senior engineers involved with that are certainly mostly retired by now.Um, no. So much wrong here (uncharacteristic of you, Chris). The pressurized element for the U.S. Lab was built at MSFC in good, old Huntsville, Alabama, as was the first node. The rest of Node modules, the Cupola and PLMs were all designed and test articles fabricated similarly at MSFC, but various production responsibilities were traded away to Italy as part of the morphing process into ISS. Alenia most certainly did NOT start from a clean slate; they used the completed plans, production test results and lessons learned from building the STA's to fabricate the flight units. The international Nodes are indeed stretched to hold more equipment than the original SSF version, but again, it's just a variation, not a clean-sheet design.And SSF was conceptualized in the mid-80's, went through Phase A and B studies in the late 80's, and entered the preliminary design phase in late '89. It passed PDR around '92 as I recall, and was heading toward CDR just fine until budget pressures from a grumpy Congress (sound familiar?) pushed NASA into ANOTHER re-scoping that resulted - eventually - in today's ISS. First element launch was, as you well know, was in 1998. So sure, senior managers may very well have retired but I know for a fact there are people who've been on the program from at least the PDR/CDR phases who are still working sustaining engineering and operations, and plenty more scattered around the company in other roles and working other programs.I know Thales Alenia did not start from a clean slate, but I tend to put fabrication on a higher pedestal than others, so I guess my bias is showing.https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/thales-alenia-spaceQuoteOrbital infrastructure and space transport. Thales Alenia Space has supplied fully half of the pressurized volume of the International Space Station, including Nodes 2 and 3, the Multipurpose Pressurized Logistics Modules (MPLM), the Cupola and the structure for the Columbus laboratory, as well as the Integrated Cargo Carriers (ICC) for the ATV spacecraft that ferry supplies to the Space Station. Thales Alenia Space also makes the Pressurized Cargo Modules (PCM) for the Cygnus resupply vessel, in partnership with Orbital Sciences, and is gearing up for future programs as prime contractor for ESA’s IXV and Expert reentry demonstrators....after decades of unending analysis, design reviews, conceptual reviews, etc, I'm tired of paper milestones. I prefer metal being bent (or carbon fiber being laid up, if you will).
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/05/2014 02:25 pmPressurized ISS was built in Italy, was it not? Cygnus uses the same manufacturer. Also, ISS was designed in the 80s, 30 years ago. The senior engineers involved with that are certainly mostly retired by now.Um, no. So much wrong here (uncharacteristic of you, Chris). The pressurized element for the U.S. Lab was built at MSFC in good, old Huntsville, Alabama, as was the first node. The rest of Node modules, the Cupola and PLMs were all designed and test articles fabricated similarly at MSFC, but various production responsibilities were traded away to Italy as part of the morphing process into ISS. Alenia most certainly did NOT start from a clean slate; they used the completed plans, production test results and lessons learned from building the STA's to fabricate the flight units. The international Nodes are indeed stretched to hold more equipment than the original SSF version, but again, it's just a variation, not a clean-sheet design.And SSF was conceptualized in the mid-80's, went through Phase A and B studies in the late 80's, and entered the preliminary design phase in late '89. It passed PDR around '92 as I recall, and was heading toward CDR just fine until budget pressures from a grumpy Congress (sound familiar?) pushed NASA into ANOTHER re-scoping that resulted - eventually - in today's ISS. First element launch was, as you well know, was in 1998. So sure, senior managers may very well have retired but I know for a fact there are people who've been on the program from at least the PDR/CDR phases who are still working sustaining engineering and operations, and plenty more scattered around the company in other roles and working other programs.
Pressurized ISS was built in Italy, was it not? Cygnus uses the same manufacturer. Also, ISS was designed in the 80s, 30 years ago. The senior engineers involved with that are certainly mostly retired by now.
Orbital infrastructure and space transport. Thales Alenia Space has supplied fully half of the pressurized volume of the International Space Station, including Nodes 2 and 3, the Multipurpose Pressurized Logistics Modules (MPLM), the Cupola and the structure for the Columbus laboratory, as well as the Integrated Cargo Carriers (ICC) for the ATV spacecraft that ferry supplies to the Space Station. Thales Alenia Space also makes the Pressurized Cargo Modules (PCM) for the Cygnus resupply vessel, in partnership with Orbital Sciences, and is gearing up for future programs as prime contractor for ESA’s IXV and Expert reentry demonstrators.