Author Topic: NASA Selects Commercial Firms to Begin Development of Crew Transportation  (Read 145338 times)

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Although you almost have to assume that NASA will choose at least 2 rockets for commercial crew in case one fails to deliver. I would guess ULA and SpaceX.

A little chat with ESA about man-rating Ariane 5 (at ESA's own expense obviously) wouldn't hurt either. ESA would no doubt prefer having their own capsule, but while they're working on it it would still be nice to be able to launch astronauts on their own launch vehicle. Bigelow might not mind a European launcher either. Maybe some barter arrangement could be set up under which Bigelow provides a hab and a subcontracted crew vehicle in exchange for launches of both crew and supplies. ESA money would then still be spent inside Europe while both parties would benefit.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Here is the source selection statement, which is public information.

What I find interesting is that apparently the Blue Origin proposal involves a pusher abort system as well.

Wow, thanks!

For future reference, I've typed up the ratings from that doc below. Ratings are Blue (very high level of confidence), Green, White, Yellow, and Red (very low level of confidence). First color is for the evaluation of the Commercial Crew Capability Maturation Plan, while the second color is for the Company Information Evaluation. If there's values in parentheses, it's what the final evaluation was after due diligence by the company.

Same info, just put it in a nice table.



Nice table. After due diligence, everybody that got blue-green got chosen. Plus one green-green (Blue Origin).
« Last Edit: 02/02/2010 04:08 am by yg1968 »

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 6
Although you almost have to assume that NASA will choose at least 2 rockets for commercial crew in case one fails to deliver. I would guess ULA and SpaceX.

And ULA has two rockets coincidentally.  :)

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
I have some questions about the ULA rockets, the Atlas V in particular, and launching crews aboard them. I hope this isn't off topic. I was reading over the Dream Chaser proposal and it mentioned that it was to fly on an Atlas V 431 configuration. Are the three solid rocket boosters considered a low safety risk? Also one unflown configuration for the Atlas V is a two engined Centaur which boost payload to lower orbits. For flying crews to LEO is this being considered? Would this in addition to increased payload give a limited engine out capability?

Offline tamarack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Boeing had issued this press release about its proposal last September. I am assuming this is the one that got chosen:
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=849
It sound like an Orion lite (for lack of a better name).

$20 mil to Sierra Nevada for DreamChaser, but you'd assume $18mil to Boeing for an 'Orion Lite'? Pretty pricey for a can-o'-Spam. Considering the cost, the $7mil to refine Atlas, $4mil for Blue Origin to push something off a rocket, and I'd propose another possibility...

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/091022-x37b-testlaunch.html
"...the U.S. Air Force has the X-37B manifested for an April 2010 liftoff. ...
'NASA has a long history of involvement with the X-37 program. We continue to monitor and share information on technology developments,' said Gary Wentz, chief engineer Science and Missions Systems Office at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. 'We are looking forward to a successful first flight and to receiving data from some advanced technologies of interest to us, such as thermal protection systems, guidance, navigation and control, and materials for autonomous re-entry and landing.' ...
Just last month (Sept '09), a U.S. Air Force fact sheet noted that the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO), located in Washington, D.C. 'is working on the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle to demonstrate a reliable, reusable, unmanned space test platform for the United States Air Force.' ...
Another mission question is, to what extent the X-37B might play into the recent announcement that NASA is partnering with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory to develope a technology roadmap for the commercial reusable launch, or RLV, industry. ..."

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
1.  Are the three solid rocket boosters considered a low safety risk?
2. Also one unflown configuration for the Atlas V is a two engined Centaur which boost payload to lower orbits. For flying crews to LEO is this being considered? Would this in addition to increased payload give a limited engine out capability?

1.  Define "low".  It is an increase over no solids
2.  A two engine Centaur would not have engine out capability

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
I'd propose another possibility...

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/091022-x37b-testlaunch.html
"...the U.S. Air Force has the X-37B manifested for an April 2010 liftoff. ...
'NASA has a long history of involvement with the X-37 program. We continue to monitor and share information on technology developments,' said Gary Wentz, chief engineer Science and Missions Systems Office at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. 'We are looking forward to a successful first flight and to receiving data from some advanced technologies of interest to us, such as thermal protection systems, guidance, navigation and control, and materials for autonomous re-entry and landing.' ...


Not a possibility.  No one has proposed it.

Offline Bernie Roehl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
A little chat with ESA about man-rating Ariane 5 (at ESA's own expense obviously) wouldn't hurt either.

If I recall correctly, Ariane 5 is already human-rated.

Given the recent talk about loosening ITAR restrictions, I wonder if the chosen supplier would be free to sell their spacecraft to other countries?  Could ESA purchase one (or more) for their own use, and launch them on Ariane 5?

After all, Boeing already sells aircraft to the (often state-run) airlines in other countries.  Why not sell them spacecraft on the same basis?  More customers would mean a larger market, which would allow them to spread out their development costs and make more competitive bids.

Same would be true for Sierra Nevada or Blue Origin, of course -- I just chose Boeing as an example because they're already in the business of selling aircraft.


Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
If I recall correctly, Ariane 5 is already human-rated.

It was originally intended to be human-rated, but the Arianespace representative who gave a presentation for the Augustine commission said it should not be considered human-rated in its current form.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Although you almost have to assume that NASA will choose at least 2 rockets for commercial crew in case one fails to deliver. I would guess ULA and SpaceX.
Since ULA rockets are already demonstrated and they deliver, it's more likely any failure on that part will be related to actual spacecraft.

With SpaceX of course, it's still in the open. Falcon 9 does look like a done deal now and any problems at this point would likely affect primarily its performance numbers as a function of the amount of rework/kludging needed if/when potential problems are identified.

Offline Bernie Roehl

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
If I recall correctly, Ariane 5 is already human-rated.

It was originally intended to be human-rated, but the Arianespace representative who gave a presentation for the Augustine commission said it should not be considered human-rated in its current form.

I have to admit, the entire area of "human rating" has always seemed a bit murky to me, and a bit of a moving target as well.

I don't know if ESA's human-rating specifications are similar to NASA's, and for private commercial spaceflight I suspect it's up to whoever is paying for the launch.


Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Maybe it's just about needing an EDS and a LAS, but there have been upgrades to Ariane since its original design, so there might be issues with factors of safety too. Does anyone here know the details?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Although you almost have to assume that NASA will choose at least 2 rockets for commercial crew in case one fails to deliver. I would guess ULA and SpaceX.
Since ULA rockets are already demonstrated and they deliver, it's more likely any failure on that part will be related to actual spacecraft.

With SpaceX of course, it's still in the open. Falcon 9 does look like a done deal now and any problems at this point would likely affect primarily its performance numbers as a function of the amount of rework/kludging needed if/when potential problems are identified.

By the time the FY 2011 Budget comes into force, the Falcon 9 and the Cargo Dragon will have already flown. Besides, ULA is getting money to man-rate their rocket, so even ULA doesn't think that their rockets are safe for carrying crew at this point. In any event, the higher risks are related to the rocket. The spacecraft should have much fewer risks.   

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Maybe it's just about needing an EDS and a LAS, but there have been upgrades to Ariane since its original design, so there might be issues with factors of safety too. Does anyone here know the details?

There is some discussion of this in this thread:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20067.0

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
By the time the FY 2011 Budget comes into force, the Falcon 9 and the Cargo Dragon will have already flown.

And they might realistically fail. Even a successful first flight doesn't completely prove a design. Case in point - Saturn V.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Besides, ULA is getting money to man-rate their rocket, so even ULA doesn't think that their rockets are safe for carrying crew at this point.

No, they are getting money for a common EDS.

They might offer their vehicles as is but with an EDS.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2010 02:37 pm by Jim »

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Did anybody catch the Tuesday press conference with Charles Bolden announcing the commercial crew transportation selections?

http://www.spaceref.com/calendar/calendar.html?pid=5805

I woke up a little late, so I'm just catching the end of Q&A. Anything interesting announced or answered in Q&A? The last two questions I caught were a question from a Russian reporter about the US-Russia partnership (response mentioned desire to not just have single way to get to orbit), and reporter from Houston asking about job creation.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Did anybody catch the Tuesday press conference with Charles Bolden announcing the commercial crew transportation selections?

http://www.spaceref.com/calendar/calendar.html?pid=5805

I woke up a little late, so I'm just catching the end of Q&A. Anything interesting announced or answered in Q&A? The last two questions I caught were a question from a Russian reporter about the US-Russia partnership (response mentioned desire to not just have single way to get to orbit), and reporter from Houston asking about job creation.

Yes I just watched it.

The Boeing capsule is for 7 astronauts and teams up with Bigelow.

The Dream Chaser is also for 7 astronauts and would fly on an Atlas V 402.

The Paragon proposal is for an air revitalization system turn key system (which would work for many capsules).

ULA is for an emergency detection system.

Blue origin is for a pusher escape system (a motor at the bottom of the capsule). (The Blue Origin representative also spoke of their work on the use of composites in a capule but it wasn't clear if that was part of the award or not).   

SpaceX and Orbital were also there because of their cargo contract but they didn't say anything new.
« Last Edit: 02/02/2010 04:28 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Besides, ULA is getting money to man-rate their rocket, so even ULA doesn't think that their rockets are safe for carrying crew at this point.

No, they are getting money for a common EDS.

They might offer their vehicles as is but with an EDS.

You know a lot more than I do on this but isn't an EDS and a LAS part of man-rating a rocket?

P.S. I am linking this article for ease of reference on this issue:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ula-claim-gap-reducing-solution-via-eelv-exploration-master-plan/
« Last Edit: 02/02/2010 03:34 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Chris Bergin

NASA Selects United Launch Alliance for Commercial Crew Development Program

Denver, Colo., (Feb. 2, 2010) – NASA announced today it selected United Launch Alliance to participate in its new Commercial Crew Development (“CCDev”) Program.  NASA created the ambitious CCDev Program to develop system concepts, key technologies, and capabilities that will ultimately be used in commercial crew space transportation systems.  ULA was awarded $6.7 million to develop an Emergency Detection System (EDS), which is the final significant element necessary for a safe and highly reliable human rated launch vehicle.

“ULA is excited to participate with NASA on the CCDev Program.” said Michael Gass, ULA President and Chief Executive Officer. “We look forward to supporting NASA as they embark on a bold and innovative initiative that emphasizes safe, reliable, and commercial access to space.  We are confident that our flight-proven Atlas V and Delta IV launch vehicles can help NASA achieve its goals.”

           The EDS monitors critical launch vehicle and spacecraft systems and issues status, warning and abort commands to the crew during their mission to Low Earth Orbit.  ULA studies show that the EDS development is the final technical risk to address prior to the launch of humans on its Atlas V and Delta IV launch vehicles. 

The innovative CCDev Program will allow ULA to build upon its on-going company investments in Commercial Human Space Flight.  ULA will work closely with NASA to identify critical failure modes of the flight-proven Atlas V and Delta IV launch vehicles.  ULA will then develop the hardware components and software processes that will detect these modes allowing for rigorous and exhaustive testing on a prototype EDS before the first crewed flight.

NASA and ULA’s mutual goal is to develop a system that builds on the demonstrated reliability of both the Atlas V and Delta IV launch vehicle systems to maximize safety for a Commercial Crew Program. 

With ULA’s unparalleled experience in expendable launch vehicle development and operation, ULA is uniquely qualified and ready to work with NASA to develop and demonstrate the EDS for a Commercial Crew Program. 

ULA program management, engineering, test and mission support functions are headquartered in Denver, Colo. Manufacturing, assembly and integration operations are located at Decatur, Ala., Harlingen, Texas, and San Diego, Calif.  Launch operations are located at CCAFS, Fla., and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

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