Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 2

[Chris Bergin]

New thread for discussion of the Commercial Crew vehicles.

Thread 1:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35717.0

Resources:

Commercial Crew News:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/dragon+2/
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/starliner/

L2 SpaceX - Covering Dragon:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=60.0

L2 Commercial Crew and Cargo - Covering Starliner:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=54.0


Discussion thread, but remember to be civil, respectful and on topic.

[Rondaz]

NASA’s Commercial Crew, DoD Teams Conduct Crew Rescue Exercise

Linda Herridge Posted on April 17, 2019

NASA and the Department of Defense Human Space Flight Support (HSFS) Office Rescue Division are conducting a search and rescue training exercise over the next several days at the Army Warf on Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and in the Atlantic Ocean. This is the first at-sea exercise with the Boeing CST-100 Starliner training capsule, known as Boiler Plate 3, ahead of the commercial crew flight test with astronauts targeted for later this year.

The HSFS teams have supported all NASA human spaceflight programs and will be on standby for both NASA’s Commercial Crew Program and Orion launches and landings. The team is responsible for quickly and safely rescuing astronauts in the unlikely event of an emergency during ascent, free flight or landing. This multi-day exercise consists of ground- and water- based training to prepare the DoD pararescue team for an emergency situation on ascent. The HSFS teams will rehearse locating the Starliner spacecraft, sending out rescue teams to extract DoD team members, acting as astronauts, from the capsule and providing immediate medical treatment.  The HSFS team will arrange for pickup, transport and follow-on medical care.

At the conclusion of this exercise, HSFS will complete a full mission profile to validate best practices for configuring and air-dropping U.S. Air Force Pararescue team members from a C-17 aircraft with their associated watercraft, specialized rescue equipment and advanced medical capabilities. HSFS conducted a similar exercise with SpaceX’s Crew Dragon spacecraft in early December 2018.

This simulation is another example of how safety is being built into systems, processes and procedures for commercial crew missions. It is standard practice to conduct these exercises, and was regularly done during the Space Shuttle Program.

During normal return scenarios, Boeing’s Starliner will land on land in a safe zone of about 15 square miles in the Western United States. Throughout the commercial crew development phases with NASA, Boeing has performed dozens of qualification tests on its parachute and airbag systems simulating conditions on land and in the water.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/04/17/nasas-commercial-crew-dod-teams-conduct-crew-rescue-exercise/

[Joffan]

I thought I'd move an aspect of the SpaceX 20 April test failure implication over to this thread, to discuss what our perceptions of the relative state of readiness and likely mission times are.

I didn't (and still don't) see Boeing's Starliner being ready this year for crew flight, and I'm not certain about their uncrewed flight either - that might perhaps be achieved in 2019 but I don't expect it before Q4, due to poorly-explained delays in dates so far. Following that flight I would guess at a 4-6 month gap to the crew flight. Whether the ISS schedule continues to push this towards being a long mission is beyond my guessing.

Before SpaceX's test failure, my expectation was to see the first crew carried to ISS (on DM-2) in Q3 of this year. It's obviously really hard to know how much that will change but I would see everything pushed back by at least one Crew Dragon production cycle, about 3-4 months. Possibly more, but I would expect the delay to be 8-9 months maximum. Less than a year, so first half of 2020.  Perhaps the delay will turn this one into a full-length mission too.

So right now the coin is definitely in the air for which provider is most likely to make the first crew flight to ISS. My bet is still slightly on SpaceX first.

[Steve G]

The SpaceX schedule is contingent on a lot of things. If they are going to continue with an in-flight abort, and based on the anomaly prepping for the IFA, I assume so. They would have to get a vehicle for it. Whether it is the flight vehicle planned for the first manned demo, or another prototype, should they have one good enough, remains to be seen.

The next issue, is whether NASA will insist on another unmanned demo before putting a crew on board. Then a post flight evaluation, then the first manned flight. This could potentially put this until 2020 Q3. This would also put Space X a costly two spacecraft, possibly three, before commercial revenue starts flowing.

All this speculation is based on no tangible facts, of course.

[speedevil]

The next issue, is whether NASA will insist on another unmanned demo before putting a crew on board. Then a post flight evaluation, then the first manned flight. This could potentially put this until 2020 Q3. This would also put Space X a costly two spacecraft, possibly three, before commercial revenue starts flowing.

Is it plausible to fly D1 cargo on D2?
This would somewhat help with revenue, at least by whatever the launch cost of D1 is.

[yg1968]

The next issue, is whether NASA will insist on another unmanned demo before putting a crew on board. Then a post flight evaluation, then the first manned flight. This could potentially put this until 2020 Q3. This would also put Space X a costly two spacecraft, possibly three, before commercial revenue starts flowing.

Is it plausible to fly D1 cargo on D2?
This would somewhat help with revenue, at least by whatever the launch cost of D1 is.

It is possible since SpaceX's CRS2 contract will be using (cargo) Dragons 2 capsules.

[Roy_H]

I don't see any rational for NASA to want a repeat of DM1. It was successful. This explosion is a mystery and if unresolved could bring the whole Crew Dragon program to a permanent halt. But assuming it is resolved the fix could be proven on the IFA, if a flight is required at all to prove the fix.

[gongora]

The next issue, is whether NASA will insist on another unmanned demo before putting a crew on board. Then a post flight evaluation, then the first manned flight. This could potentially put this until 2020 Q3. This would also put Space X a costly two spacecraft, possibly three, before commercial revenue starts flowing.

I don't think it's plausible to require a reflight of DM-1, and the revenue starts flowing long before the flight actually happens.  The providers are starting to get money for the third post-certification missions, which are several years from now.

[erioladastra]

I thought I'd move an aspect of the SpaceX 20 April test failure implication over to this thread, to discuss what our perceptions of the relative state of readiness and likely mission times are.

I didn't (and still don't) see Boeing's Starliner being ready this year for crew flight, and I'm not certain about their uncrewed flight either - that might perhaps be achieved in 2019 but I don't expect it before Q4, due to poorly-explained delays in dates so far. Following that flight I would guess at a 4-6 month gap to the crew flight. Whether the ISS schedule continues to push this towards being a long mission is beyond my guessing.

Before SpaceX's test failure, my expectation was to see the first crew carried to ISS (on DM-2) in Q3 of this year. It's obviously really hard to know how much that will change but I would see everything pushed back by at least one Crew Dragon production cycle, about 3-4 months. Possibly more, but I would expect the delay to be 8-9 months maximum. Less than a year, so first half of 2020.  Perhaps the delay will turn this one into a full-length mission too.

So right now the coin is definitely in the air for which provider is most likely to make the first crew flight to ISS. My bet is still slightly on SpaceX first.

Boeing's OFT will definitely fly this year barring a major issue - possible but low risk.  DM-2 was unlikely to have been able to make it this year before the anomaly.  But now paperwork, training etc will likely be able to catch up - cause of the anomaly and recovery will be the key factors.   They still can't even get to the hardware yet.  But definitely still a coin flip.

[Rondaz]

Crew Safety A Top Priority

Stephanie Martin Posted on May 15, 2019

For our commercial crew flights, we plan for any scenario that may arise, including unlikely emergencies, such as a spacecraft abort and subsequent splashdown in the Atlantic Ocean. Recently, two NASA astronauts as well as a team from the Department of Defense Human Space Flight Support Office Rescue Division practiced what they will do in that very scenario. The DoD team is responsible for quickly and safely rescuing astronauts in the unlikely event of an emergency during ascent, free flight or landing. To learn more about both team’s practices, check out our crew rescue feature.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/05/15/crew-safety-a-top-priority/

[Steven Pietrobon]

The video in that link.

[whitelancer64]

Mass numbers available online for the various capsules seem to be quite approximate, I'm more interested in mass during descent under parachute after a nominal mission. The numbers I've found seem to be more aligned with wet mass at launch. Naturally that would be less after a mission, with onboard fuel burned for the thrusters, and so on. IIRC Starliner also jettisons its heat shield and forward bay cover prior to parachute descent. If anyone knows more accurate mass numbers I'd appreciate that info.

Starliner capsule mass ~18,000 lb (8,100 kg), diameter 4.56 meters

Orion capsule mass ~19,000 lb (8,600 kg), diameter 5.02 meters

Dragon v2 capsule mass ~30,000 lb (14,000 kg), diameter 4 meters

Dragon is so much heavier because it has integrated its SM and LAS into the body of the capsule, and it also carries the weight of all its LAS fuel. I mentioned diameter because aerodynamics plays a part too, with the Dragon producing less drag because it's smaller. This is basically why Dragon has a 4th parachute.

It's worth noting that all three spacecraft use parachutes of the same diameter (116 ft / 35.3 m), though with differing designs. Also, AFAIK all three use the same parachute system supplier, Airborne Systems.

*edit* Side note: The crew part of the Soyuz weighs a lot less than the American capsules. As a side benefit of disposing of both the orbital module and the service module, it is only about 3,000 kg (2.17 m in diameter). It uses a single main parachute, also of 117 ft / 35.5 m diameter.

[DigitalMan]

Mass numbers available online for the various capsules seem to be quite approximate, I'm more interested in mass during descent under parachute after a nominal mission. The numbers I've found seem to be more aligned with wet mass at launch. Naturally that would be less after a mission, with onboard fuel burned for the thrusters, and so on. IIRC Starliner also jettisons its heat shield and forward bay cover prior to parachute descent. If anyone knows more accurate mass numbers I'd appreciate that info.

Starliner capsule mass ~18,000 lb (8,100 kg), diameter 4.56 meters

Orion capsule mass ~19,000 lb (8,600 kg), diameter 5.02 meters

Dragon v2 capsule mass ~30,000 lb (14,000 kg), diameter 4 meters

Dragon is so much heavier because it has integrated its SM and LAS into the body of the capsule, and it also carries the weight of all its LAS fuel. I mentioned diameter because aerodynamics plays a part too, with the Dragon producing less drag because it's smaller. This is basically why Dragon has a 4th parachute.

It's worth noting that all three spacecraft use parachutes of the same diameter (116 ft / 35.3 m), though with differing designs. Also, AFAIK all three use the same parachute system supplier, Airborne Systems.

*edit* Side note: The crew part of the Soyuz weighs a lot less than the American capsules. As a side benefit of disposing of both the orbital module and the service module, it is only about 3,000 kg (2.17 m in diameter). It uses a single main parachute, also of 117 ft / 35.5 m diameter.

according to this: https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/fs-2014-08-004-jsc-orion_quickfacts-web.pdf

Orion landing mass is 20,500 lbs.  From the looks of that page I expect it is mass without crew.

[DigitalMan]

Mass numbers available online for the various capsules seem to be quite approximate, I'm more interested in mass during descent under parachute after a nominal mission. The numbers I've found seem to be more aligned with wet mass at launch. Naturally that would be less after a mission, with onboard fuel burned for the thrusters, and so on. IIRC Starliner also jettisons its heat shield and forward bay cover prior to parachute descent. If anyone knows more accurate mass numbers I'd appreciate that info.

Starliner capsule mass ~18,000 lb (8,100 kg), diameter 4.56 meters

Orion capsule mass ~19,000 lb (8,600 kg), diameter 5.02 meters

Dragon v2 capsule mass ~30,000 lb (14,000 kg), diameter 4 meters

Dragon is so much heavier because it has integrated its SM and LAS into the body of the capsule, and it also carries the weight of all its LAS fuel. I mentioned diameter because aerodynamics plays a part too, with the Dragon producing less drag because it's smaller. This is basically why Dragon has a 4th parachute.

It's worth noting that all three spacecraft use parachutes of the same diameter (116 ft / 35.3 m), though with differing designs. Also, AFAIK all three use the same parachute system supplier, Airborne Systems.

*edit* Side note: The crew part of the Soyuz weighs a lot less than the American capsules. As a side benefit of disposing of both the orbital module and the service module, it is only about 3,000 kg (2.17 m in diameter). It uses a single main parachute, also of 117 ft / 35.5 m diameter.

The only number I could find for Dragon is 26,577 mass of DM-1 (probably at docking, but could be launch mass).  Landed mass will be quite different since trunk will detach and excluding weight of return cargo.

[hkultala]

Orion capsule mass ~19,000 lb (8,600 kg), diameter 5.02 meters

Wrong, it's about 11 tonnes. More than Dragon v2 empty.

Dragon v2 capsule mass ~30,000 lb (14,000 kg), diameter 4 meters

Wrong. Much less.

From the pad abort test:

"The overall weight of the stack will be in excess of 21,000 pounds (9,525 kg), plus around 3,500 pounds (1,590 kg) of propellant.

Dragon is so much heavier because it has integrated its SM and LAS into the body of the capsule, and it also carries the weight of all its LAS fuel. I mentioned diameter because aerodynamics plays a part too, with the Dragon producing less drag because it's smaller. This is basically why Dragon has a 4th parachute.

Fuel is only 1.6 tonnes.

And the superdracoes don't weight very much, they are very simple engines with very small nozzles.

[whitelancer64]

Orion capsule mass ~19,000 lb (8,600 kg), diameter 5.02 meters

Wrong, it's about 11 tonnes. More than Dragon v2 empty.

Dragon v2 capsule mass ~30,000 lb (14,000 kg), diameter 4 meters

Wrong. Much less.

From the pad abort test:

"The overall weight of the stack will be in excess of 21,000 pounds (9,525 kg), plus around 3,500 pounds (1,590 kg) of propellant.

Dragon is so much heavier because it has integrated its SM and LAS into the body of the capsule, and it also carries the weight of all its LAS fuel. I mentioned diameter because aerodynamics plays a part too, with the Dragon producing less drag because it's smaller. This is basically why Dragon has a 4th parachute.

Fuel is only 1.6 tonnes.

And the superdracoes don't weight very much, they are very simple engines with very small nozzles.

Yay, more numbers!

Part of the confusion is that mass numbers are often not clarified as to whether it is the total, the capsule alone, or with SM / trunk, or dry / wet. And they are often rounded. There are conflicting numbers as it is, and really, I'm looking for something else altogether :p It's probably a fool's errand.

[gongora]

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1141346182867890176

[SWGlassPit]

GAO report is out: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-504

EDIT: My take having breezed through it really quickly: nothing really earth shaking in this one -- nothing not really already well-known in this community.

[Comga]

[cynicism]
This report was composed by THE Masters of the Bleeding Obvious
Boeing and SpaceX are behind schedule because they have delayed it many times
NASA has a hard time reviewing all the reports but they’re working real hard
After SpaceX destroyed a capsule they had to get another to take its place.
Stuff the Starliner sheds can recontact it and do damage
Flying DM-1 retired risk much faster than continued studies and subsystem tests.
Despite years of safely loading sub-cooled propellants in the hour or so before static fire and launch, only two of these loading “count” and GAO remains worried.
SpaceX thought they would have 30% of their reports to complete after the uncrewed test but will have 50%. Boeing thought 40% but will have 70% to do.
Despite almost a thousand engine flights since the last in-flight engine failure, which did not preclude mission success, NASA wants a new process which SpaceX didn’t think was necessary.
On ISS crew sufficiency, GAO reserves the right to say “I told you so!”
[/cynicism]
If only it was that easy to turn off
But all this was known

[gongora]

But all this was known

It's a periodic audit of a development program that's been going on for years.  Most of its contents should be known already.