NASA Commercial Crew Space Transportation Services: RFI for Round 2

[abaddon]

I presume you mean Cygnus. It has no LAS so big job to develop and test one plus the booster would also have to be crew rated and probably have to fly without a fairing. Don't see it ever being turned into a crew vehicle and maybe cheaper to start from scratch.

...
Antares has been carrying cargo to the ISS for years.  Is there a reason it cannot be crew qualified?
Having  systems that can fly on multiple launch vehicles is a good thing.

I think he meant Antares, as an alternative LV.  That's a stretch.  But it's way less of a stretch than Cygnus, which destructively burns up on re-entry and would in no way shape or form be the basis of a crewed vehicle.

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
Antares has been carrying cargo to the ISS for years.  Is there a reason it cannot be crew qualified?
<snip>

The Antares booster core could be consider for human spaceflight. However the Castor solid upper stage that Orbital Science choose initially make that impossible. The same solid upper stage seems to have curtail any customers from considering the Antares for their payload, IMO. Northrop Grumman need a non solid upper stage to enticed new customers.

[TrevorMonty]

<snip>
Antares has been carrying cargo to the ISS for years.  Is there a reason it cannot be crew qualified?
<snip>

The Antares booster core could be consider for human spaceflight. However the Castor solid upper stage that Orbital Science choose initially make that impossible. The same solid upper stage seems to have curtail any customers from considering the Antares for their payload, IMO. Northrop Grumman need a non solid upper stage to enticed new customers.

Adding liquid US is high risk as it will mean competiting directly with F9 and Vulcan for commercial and civil missions. By time a new US is flying the likes of Beta, Neutron and Terran R will also be competiting for same missions.


Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[Comga]

The recent announcement of Blue Origin's Orbital Reef space station, using Starliner for crew transport, seems to imply that Boeing is committed to continuing to fly Starliner missions after flying out their Atlas boosters.  So I fully expect Boeing to bid for additional NASA missions. 

The question is who will be funding the human-rating of Vulcan - Blue Origin?  Or will Blue want to launch Starliner on New Glen? 

No it doesn’t
It’s just part of an aspirational PowerPoint.
Your question is absolutely key: who will pay?

Posters here have gone around and around a point made in my early post.
If, before it’s critically needed for planning Crew 8, (or for Crew 7 if Starliner is still not certified when it needs to be planned,) NASA orders additional flights from SpaceX, of the same number that will have been flown, then they could keep relying exclusively on SpaceX until such time as Starliner IS certified. After that they can alternate until the ISS is decommissioned (or a third provider gets certified thru some other arrangement.)

Boeing’s performance to date is certainly NOT bedazzaling NASA into giving up their quest for “disparate redundancy” in crew transport providers.

It’s hard to imagine NASA telling SpaceX to store their Crew Dragons for years while Boeing “catches up”.

So it seems likely that NASA would find a way to keep any certified transport in rotation as long as they are needed, and this could be that way.

[yg1968]

If, before it’s critically needed for planning Crew 8, (or for Crew 7 if Starliner is still not certified when it needs to be planned,) NASA orders additional flights from SpaceX, of the same number that will have been flown, then they could keep relying exclusively on SpaceX until such time as Starliner IS certified. After that they can alternate until the ISS is decommissioned (or a third provider gets certified thru some other arrangement.)

I get the impression that the best way for a new provider to get certified would be through CCSTS. Given that there is no minimum amount of missions, a provider could possibly be certified and be awarded no post-certification missions.  The advantage of being certified without any post-certification missions is that you would be eligible to transport crew to a CLD habitat. But like others have said, things will become clearer once the RFP comes out.

[abaddon]

I get the impression that the best way for a new provider to get certified would be through CCSTS. Given that there is no minimum amount of missions, a provider could possibly be certified and be awarded no post-certification missions.

The post-certification missions are the guarantee of payout that makes the investment to create and certify the vehicle worthwhile.  Even with development funded we're not talking about a profitable enterprise without that.  Nobody is going to self-fund the massive amount of money to create and certify a crewed transport vehicle without it, based on a speculative market that may or may not emerge, and will be already crowded with two certified providers.

[yg1968]

I get the impression that the best way for a new provider to get certified would be through CCSTS. Given that there is no minimum amount of missions, a provider could possibly be certified and be awarded no post-certification missions.

The post-certification missions are the guarantee of payout that makes the investment to create and certify the vehicle worthwhile.  Even with development funded we're not talking about a profitable enterprise without that.  Nobody is going to self-fund the massive amount of money to create and certify a crewed transport vehicle without it, based on a speculative market that may or may not emerge, and will be already crowded with two certified providers.

We will see what the RFP says but it seems that NASA is considering funding certification activities. It is possible that a crewed demo flight and perhaps an option for an uncrewed demo flight would be part of these certification activities. The more that a provider asks for certification activities, the less likely it is that it will be chosen for CCSTS.

NASA has to ensure that certification doesn't cost a fortune. Perhaps, all certification activities should be possible through an uncrewed and a crewed demo flight.

My hope is that Blue Origin and Sierra Space (Dream Chaser) will team up to make a CCSTS bid.

I am guessing that Boeing will stay with ULA (Vulcan).

It is hard to say what SpaceX will do but it might be possible for SpaceX to offer both crew Dragon and Starship as crew transportation systems. That would mean getting Starship certified.

[yg1968]

At 23 minutes of the video below, Michael Sheetz asked about NASA's plans for commercial crew after SpaceX's Crew 6. Steve Stich talked about the fact that NASA had started the process with the CCSTS RFI but didn't say much more about it other than NASA's waiting for responses on November 19th. Surprisingly enough, he said that NASA is committed to flying commercial crew with SpaceX and Boeing until 2030 (technically, they are not guaranteed to win; even though it is incredibly likely).

His answer confirms (once more) what I suspected that CCtCap will not be extended and that NASA will instead proceed with CCSTS. 

[Robotical]

It is hard to say what SpaceX will do but it might be possible for SpaceX to offer both crew Dragon and Starship as crew transportation systems. That would mean getting Starship certified.

SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

[DanClemmensen]

It is hard to say what SpaceX will do but it might be possible for SpaceX to offer both crew Dragon and Starship as crew transportation systems. That would mean getting Starship certified.

SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

I'm an outsider, so I don't know how this works. I think Starship has about the same crew abort capabilities as Shuttle did, and Shuttle flew 135 times. Has something changed?

[Rebel44]

It is hard to say what SpaceX will do but it might be possible for SpaceX to offer both crew Dragon and Starship as crew transportation systems. That would mean getting Starship certified.

SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

I'm an outsider, so I don't know how this works. I think Starship has about the same crew abort capabilities as Shuttle did, and Shuttle flew 135 times. Has something changed?

Yes, what has changed is that Shuttle-level of safety is no longer considered sufficient for crewed launches.

[Cherokee43v6]

It is hard to say what SpaceX will do but it might be possible for SpaceX to offer both crew Dragon and Starship as crew transportation systems. That would mean getting Starship certified.

SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

NASA Human Flight Certification is only applicable to launch systems that fly NASA astronauts on them on NASA missions.

For any flights not involving NASA personnel, the ability to carry crew is governed by FAA rules... Some of which are very minimal at this time due to legislation put in place in the early 2000s to promote commercial space development.

Yes, if SpaceX bids Starship, it will have to go through NASA Human Flight certification.  But if SpaceX chooses not to bid it, but instead fly it separately, then it has a much lower legal bar for carrying people.

If they do choose to bid Starship, I would say that the lack of a crew escape system, while a negative, is not necessarily a deal-breaker.  The onus would be on SpaceX to prove that Starship is as safe, or safer, than the current required minimums without it.  Though, as we have seen in their development methods so far, they much prefer to do that sort of thing by the 'fly, learn, fix, fly, learn, fix, fly, learn, improve' method over the 'review my library of congress sized pile of paperwork' method.

I would also argue that the size might be considered an advantage.  Particularly when you consider the number of proposed stations involving inflatable modules and 'wet lab' proposals.  Starship provides the ability to fly up with both the crew and most, if not all, of the necessary equipment with which to fit out an inflatable or 'wet lab' without having to have multiple separate deliveries of equipment and also, in the case of the 'wet lab' proposals, providing a facility from which to do the work until the converted booster stage is capable of supporting a crew.  As Starship is comparable in size and mass to the Space Shuttle Orbiter, the size discrepancy is an already solved issue.

[dchenevert]

I have this factoid stuck in my head, from the late 70's:

"Shuttle should be xxx safer than the status quo. LOC 1:1000 (or maybe 1:1000's)"

I have no idea where (or, to be honest, 'if') I read this.

Does anyone else remember this?

[Alvian@IDN]

It is hard to say what SpaceX will do but it might be possible for SpaceX to offer both crew Dragon and Starship as crew transportation systems. That would mean getting Starship certified.

SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47778.msg2306762#msg2306762

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

SpaceX could build a few LEO crew taxi Starships with crew escape modules.


Of course crew escape modules will require ordnance or something similar to eject the modules. Plus some sort of propulsion system aboard the modules for zero zero ejection from the pad.


Crew escape modules will likely not be able to reenter the atmosphere from orbit to reduce cost and development time. Think of them as glorified ejection capsules like the ones in the B-58 Hustler bomber.

[clongton]

<snip>
SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

SpaceX could build a few LEO crew taxi Starships with crew escape modules.


Of course crew escape modules will require ordnance or something similar to eject the modules. Plus some sort of propulsion system aboard the modules for zero zero ejection from the pad.


Crew escape modules will likely not be able to reenter the atmosphere from orbit to reduce cost and development time. Think of them as glorified ejection capsules like the ones in the B-58 Hustler bomber.

Has no one considered that Starship actually **IS** the crew escape capability?
It is - in effect - the crewed spacecraft on top of the Super Heavy booster.

NASA designs:
... Mercury/Redstone - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Mercury/Atlas       - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Gemini/Titan        - no abort system. Crew had ejection seats
... Apollo/Saturn       - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Shuttle                - no abort system at all.
... Atlas-V/Starliner   - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Orion/SLS            - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.

SpaceX designs:
... Dragon/Falcon 9 - carries abort system all the way to orbit (Draco engines)
... Starship            - carries abort system all the way to orbit (Raptor engines)

Just because Starship is a bigger and self-propelled spacecraft does not negate its capability to abort its flight in any way, shape or form. It is correct to state that Starship's abort capability is different, but it is NOT correct to say that Starship does not have abort capability.

I submit that both of SpaceX's crewed spacecraft (Dragon and Starship) are safer than anything NASA has ever flown sense its inception in 1958 in terms of safely getting a crew away from a failing booster.

[clongton]

<snip>
SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

SpaceX could build a few LEO crew taxi Starships with crew escape modules.

Of course crew escape modules will require ordnance or something similar to eject the modules. Plus some sort of propulsion system aboard the modules for zero zero ejection from the pad.

Crew escape modules will likely not be able to reenter the atmosphere from orbit to reduce cost and development time. Think of them as glorified ejection capsules like the ones in the B-58 Hustler bomber.

Has no one even considered that Starship actually **IS** the crew escape capability?
It is, in effect, the crewed spacecraft on top of the booster.

NASA designs:
... Mercury/Redstone - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Mercury/Atlas - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Gemini/Titan - no abort system. Crew had ejection seats
... Apollo/Saturn - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Shuttle - no abort system
... Atlas-V/Starliner - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Orion/SLS - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.

SpaceX designs:
... Dragon/Falcon 9 - carries abort system all the way to orbit (Draco engines)
... Starship - carries abort system all the way to orbit (Raptor engines)

Just because Starship is a bigger and self-propelled spacecraft does not negate its capability to abort its flight in any way, shape or form. It is correct to state that Starship's abort capability is different, but it is NOT correct to say that Starship does not have abort capability.

I submit that both of SpaceX's crewed spacecraft (Dragon and Starship) are safer than anything NASA has ever flown sense its inception in 1958 in terms of safely getting a crew away from a failing booster.

[mn]

<snip>
SpaceX is going to have an uphill struggle getting Starship certified for manned launches. The lack of a crew abort makes it a no-go for NASA and, without NASA's seal of approval, others are unlikely to go for it. The other hurdle is its sheer size will make the companies with serious CLD proposals leery of allowing it to dock, making it difficult for SpaceX to find outside funds to certify it. Dragon is likely to be SpaceX's go-to human launch system for the foreseeable future.

SpaceX could build a few LEO crew taxi Starships with crew escape modules.


Of course crew escape modules will require ordnance or something similar to eject the modules. Plus some sort of propulsion system aboard the modules for zero zero ejection from the pad.


Crew escape modules will likely not be able to reenter the atmosphere from orbit to reduce cost and development time. Think of them as glorified ejection capsules like the ones in the B-58 Hustler bomber.

Has no one considered that Starship actually **IS** the crew escape capability?
It is - in effect - the crewed spacecraft on top of the Super Heavy booster.

NASA designs:
... Mercury/Redstone - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Mercury/Atlas       - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Gemini/Titan        - no abort system. Crew had ejection seats
... Apollo/Saturn       - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Shuttle                - no abort system at all.
... Atlas-V/Starliner   - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.
... Orion/SLS            - abort tower jettisoned after booster burnout. No abort possible after that.

SpaceX designs:
... Dragon/Falcon 9 - carries abort system all the way to orbit (Draco engines)
... Starship            - carries abort system all the way to orbit (Raptor engines)

Just because Starship is a bigger and self-propelled spacecraft does not negate its capability to abort its flight in any way, shape or form. It is correct to state that Starship's abort capability is different, but it is NOT correct to say that Starship does not have abort capability.

I submit that both of SpaceX's crewed spacecraft (Dragon and Starship) are safer than anything NASA has ever flown sense its inception in 1958 in terms of safely getting a crew away from a failing booster.

In terms of potential risk ISTM that Starship has essentially the same propulsion system and hence the same risk potential as the booster. a LAS helps because it is a system designed specifically for that purpose, does nothing else, and is therefore hopefully extremely simple and reliable should you ever need it and being a completely separate system, can be expected to be still functional even when other things are having a bad day.

Also: Even after flying numerous times it doesn't necessarily negate the need for a LAS. (just ask the passengers on Soyuz MS-10)

Edit: fix typo

[lykos]

Reacts the Starship"abort system" quickly enough to bring the ship into safety, even when the Booster explodes?

[abaddon]

a LAS helps because it is a system designed specifically for that purpose, does nothing else, and is therefore hopefully extremely simple and reliable should you ever need it and being a completely separate system, can be expected to be still functional even when other things are having a bad day.

Counterpoint: LAS systems are exercised only during development and one time (twice for Dragon) in a live test.  After that point they're never tested again.  Starship engines are tested routinely and tested before flight specifically.  Starship will also have engine redundancy.  It will have many flights before a human is put onboard and likely thousands of hours of flight time on the engines and other systems.

Starship will probably be able to fly away from the booster in some regimes, but certainly not all e.g. on the launch pad.  Certification of Starship for human flight will be closer to a jumbo jet than current systems.

I don't really think SpaceX is going to propose Starship for CCSTS2, as all of this is too far in the future for that to make sense, but I guess until we see the receipts we won't know for sure.