Commercial LEO Destinations Development

[Danderman]

I didn’t pay much attention to Northrop Grumman in this competition, and am surprised they won. But, it does make sense.

The big surprise is that Sierra Nevada lost.

[AstroWare]

I didn’t pay much attention to Northrop Grumman in this competition, and am surprised they won. But, it does make sense.

The big surprise is that Sierra Nevada lost.

They didn't. They are part of the Orbital Reef team...?

Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

[yg1968]

McAlister said (at 15-16 minutes of the briefing) that the providers combined contribution is over 60% (so NASA's contribution is less than 40%). He said at 16-17 minutes that both Axiom and the other providers announced today are part of commercial LEO destinations' efforts. Axiom's award is the Commercial Destinations-ISS (or CDISS); the awards of today are the Commercial Destinations Free Flyer (CDFF).

Angela Hart said that NASA wants at least one provider for the next phase (the services phase).

NG said that its initial capability is for 4 astronauts but that it could be extended to 8 astronauts if the market is there.

At 50-51 minutes, McAlister said that for Phase 1, NASA assumed that the Commercial LEO destination providers would be responsible for transportation of crew and cargo but that they haven't decided if that is what they will do for Phase 2 of the program (Phase 2 is the services phase). But he added that either way, NASA will require the transportation of crew to be a certified system and therefore the commercial crew program has a long life ahead of them. He added that by the time that these free flyers are ready, maybe there will be new certified systems (in addition to the ones from Boeing and SpaceX).

At 52 minutes, Nanoracks and NG said that they haven't yet decided who will be their crew transportation partners, they have talked to both companies but no decision has been made.

At 59 minutes, Robin Givens said that every agency agreed to extend the ISS to 2030 in September but that they have to go through their respective governments to approve it for it to be official. They are kind of waiting for the US to go first (i.e., getting approval). Starting to talk to the international partners as to how it's going to work for the commercial LEO destinations habitats. The companies said that they are talking to the space agencies but that the specifics will depend on how NASA wants to do it.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53450.msg2316777#msg2316777

[Danderman]

Correct.

I should not post before drinking coffee.

[yg1968]

Three Winners for Commercial LEO Destinations Awards:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/three-winners-for-commercial-leo-destinations-awards/

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1466641704971296772

[TrevorMonty]

Nanoracks press release:

https://nanoracks.com/nanoracks-voyager-space-and-lockheed-martin-awarded-nasa-contract/

Assuming SpaceX didn't tender a proposal, it looks like they're content to provide crew servicing (which makes sense when you have the only currently operational crewed vehicle). Sierra Nevada now has a use case for crewed Dreamchaser too!

Except they did, but tbf didn't expect to win
...
Will SpaceX still have a chance like SNC did in ComCrew, when the phase 2 will arrive?

While additional money for Starship would have been nice for them, they'll be able to get any data they'd have gotten from a dedicated station by performing crew servicing anyway.

Given most of costs involved in operating these stations is crew and cargo transport. SpaceX will profit from Dragon missions regardless of who wins.

Sent from my SM-G570Y using Tapatalk

[DanClemmensen]

Nanoracks press release:

https://nanoracks.com/nanoracks-voyager-space-and-lockheed-martin-awarded-nasa-contract/

Assuming SpaceX didn't tender a proposal, it looks like they're content to provide crew servicing (which makes sense when you have the only currently operational crewed vehicle). Sierra Nevada now has a use case for crewed Dreamchaser too!

Except they did, but tbf didn't expect to win
...
Will SpaceX still have a chance like SNC did in ComCrew, when the phase 2 will arrive?

While additional money for Starship would have been nice for them, they'll be able to get any data they'd have gotten from a dedicated station by performing crew servicing anyway.

Given most of costs involved in operating these stations is crew and cargo transport. SpaceX will profit from Dragon missions regardless of who wins.

Crew Dragon is currently the only crew-rated US space vehicle, but by the time these stations are operational there will be more. Boeing Starliner is contracted to NASA to be operational "real soon now" (maybe 2023), and Starship is in active development and intends to be crew-rated by 2024 or earlier. I think any others, including Dream Chaser, are longer term.

Nothing precludes SpaceX from self-funding a station based on Starship except the desire to do so. Elon has recently stated a reluctance to accept government subsidies in a very different context (Tesla's German battery factory). A contract for for a station is quite different, so this reluctance might not extend to the station.
This is different than the HLS contract, which is payment for performance.

There is precedent for not bidding during the initial round. SpaceX did not participate in the first round (initial studies) of the Commercial Crew Program (CCP), but they did participate in the second round (development) and their Crew Dragon was one of the three winners for the third round and one of the two winners for actual operations contracts. I have no idea if this is relevant.

[Yggdrasill]

One can expect that if there is money in commercial space stations, SpaceX will do it. But it's understandable if they feel their plate is pretty full for now. Just doing free flying Starship crew missions can probably cover much of the use cases.

Like with tourism - just put 10-20 people on a Mars Starship and do a LEO flight for say three months. It might not technically be a space station, but semantics don't matter too much to the commercial viability.

[su27k]

NASA sets sail into a promising but perilous future of private space stations

But NASA funding will only cover a fraction of the development costs. During Thursday's call, none of the awardees would answer a question about the total costs to design, build, and launch their space stations. However, based on private interviews, a rough estimate may put the Nanoracks and Axiom space station concepts at a few billion dollars on the lower end, with Blue Origin's concept likely closer to $10 billion on the higher end. Northrop Grumman is probably somewhere in the middle. Even as they're proving their technical chops to NASA, the private companies must work to raise private funding to complete their projects.

[yg1968]

McAlister said (at 15-16 minutes of the briefing) that the providers combined contribution is over 60% (so NASA's contribution is less than 40%). He said at 16-17 minutes that both Axiom and the other providers announced today are part of commercial LEO destinations' efforts. Axiom's award is the Commercial Destinations-ISS (or CDISS); the awards of today are the Commercial Destinations Free Flyer (CDFF).

Angela Hart said that NASA wants at least one provider for the next phase (the services phase).

NG said that its initial capability is for 4 astronauts but that it could be extended to 8 astronauts if the market is there.

At 50-51 minutes, McAlister said that for Phase 1, NASA assumed that the Commercial LEO destination providers would be responsible for transportation of crew and cargo but that they haven't decided if that is what they will do for Phase 2 of the program (Phase 2 is the services phase). But he added that either way, NASA will require the transportation of crew to be a certified system and therefore the commercial crew program has a long life ahead of them. He added that by the time that these free flyers are ready, maybe there will be new certified systems (in addition to the ones from Boeing and SpaceX).

At 52 minutes, Nanoracks and NG said that they haven't yet decided who will be their crew transportation partners, they have talked to both companies but no decision has been made.

At 59 minutes, Robin Givens said that every agency agreed to extend the ISS to 2030 in September but that they have to go through their respective governments to approve it for it to be official. They are kind of waiting for the US to go first (i.e., getting approval). Starting to talk to the international partners as to how it's going to work for the commercial LEO destinations habitats. The companies said that they are talking to the space agencies but that the specifics will depend on how NASA wants to do it.

Concerning what was said at that press conference, it got me thinking that NASA might be considering bringing its own commercial crew system (bring your own crew - BYOC...) to the commercial habitats. The advantage of doing that is that it ensures that SpaceX doesn't become the only commercial crew provider.

A second thing is that NASA said previously that it needs 2 astronauts full-time in LEO for these commercial habitats. If each stay on the commercial habitats is for a period of 6 months that means 4 astronauts per year. Presumably that means two commercial crew flights per year (as it is now). The other two non-NASA astronauts on these commercial crew missions could be internationals.

[DanClemmensen]

McAlister said (at 15-16 minutes of the briefing) that the providers combined contribution is over 60% (so NASA's contribution is less than 40%). He said at 16-17 minutes that both Axiom and the other providers announced today are part of commercial LEO destinations' efforts. Axiom's award is the Commercial Destinations-ISS (or CDISS); the awards of today are the Commercial Destinations Free Flyer (CDFF).

Angela Hart said that NASA wants at least one provider for the next phase (the services phase).

NG said that its initial capability is for 4 astronauts but that it could be extended to 8 astronauts if the market is there.

At 50-51 minutes, McAlister said that for Phase 1, NASA assumed that the Commercial LEO destination providers would be responsible for transportation of crew and cargo but that they haven't decided if that is what they will do for Phase 2 of the program (Phase 2 is the services phase). But he added that either way, NASA will require the transportation of crew to be a certified system and therefore the commercial crew program has a long life ahead of them. He added that by the time that these free flyers are ready, maybe there will be new certified systems (in addition to the ones from Boeing and SpaceX).

At 52 minutes, Nanoracks and NG said that they haven't yet decided who will be their crew transportation partners, they have talked to both companies but no decision has been made.

At 59 minutes, Robin Givens said that every agency agreed to extend the ISS to 2030 in September but that they have to go through their respective governments to approve it for it to be official. They are kind of waiting for the US to go first (i.e., getting approval). Starting to talk to the international partners as to how it's going to work for the commercial LEO destinations habitats. The companies said that they are talking to the space agencies but that the specifics will depend on how NASA wants to do it.

Concerning what was said at that press conference, it got me thinking that NASA might be considering if it shouldn't bring its own commercial crew system (byoccs...) to the commercial habitats. The advantage of doing that is that it ensures that SpaceX doesn't become the only commercial crew provider.

A second thing is that NASA said previously that it needs 2 astronauts full-time in LEO for these commercial habitats. If each stay on the commercial habitats is for a period of 6 months that means 4 astronauts per year. Presumably that means two commercial crew flights per year (as it is now). The other two non-NASA astronauts on these commercial crew missions could be internationals.

The five Crew Dragons are designed for five flights each: 25 total flights of which six have been used. The two Starliners are designed for ten flights each, of which three will have been used for qualification. This leaves a total of 19+17=36 operational flights. NASA has contracted for six from Starliner and six more for Crew Dragon, so 24 flights remain.  My personal uneducated opinion is that SpaceX will not manufacture additional Crew Dragons because a Starship flight  will be a lot cheaper than a Crew Dragon flight. My guess is that Starship will be crew-rated before the first habitat is operational.  If these "commercial" habitats are actually in free-market competition, the ones that permit Starship access will be successful and the ones that do not will fail.

[yg1968]

It seems to me that most of these commercial habitats will only have room for 4 astronauts, Starship might be overkill for 4 astronauts.

[DanClemmensen]

It seems to me that most of these commercial habitats will only have room for 4 astronauts, Starship might be overkill for 4 astronauts.

There is no such thing as "overkill". If Starship costs $10 million for a mission and a CCTS (Crew Dragon, Starliner, Dream Chaser, whatever) cost $100 million, which one do you choose?

For a 6-month mission the costs are somewhat different, because you must "rent" the Starship or CCTS for the duration. I think the costs favor the Starship even more in this case, but you need a someone other than me to compute them.

The other advantage is that if you use Starship, you don't need a separate cargo launch, so the real comparison is one Starship launch or  two separate launches, one each for crew and cargo.

Caveats:
   *SpaceX or a third party reseller must be interested in this business
   *Starship must actually be developed and certified by the about same date as the habitat.
   *SpaceX or the reseller must develop and equip a Starship variant for this purpose (e.g., solar panels and whatever requirements the habitat imposes on a crew transport).
   *the decision will be made on economics and not other factors
   *someone actually wants to use a habitat instead of just staying in Starship for the duration.

[yg1968]

I am not sure that Starship meets the requirements to be a commercial crew transportation system, namely this requirement on page 47 of the CCT-REQ-1130 requirements.

3.3.1.5 Ascent Abort Reliability

The CTS shall provide a pad and ascent abort system reliability of not less than 0.995 when an abort is initiated. [R.CTS.059]

Rationale: The intent of this requirement is to design and develop a very robust abort system with high reliability of effective operation (1 failure in 200) when the system is activated. This requirement drives the system design such that the system will activate and function when needed to separate the crewed spacecraft from the launch vehicle. The scope of this requirement includes failure of the abort system to ignite and separate the spacecraft from the launch vehicle, failure to provide required thrust during the boost phase, and failure to separate from the spacecraft following the abort, if required. It is one of the inputs into the assessment of crew survivability once an abort is executed, which is determined by an integrated calculation of LOC/LOM.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.msg1650808#msg1650808

[DanClemmensen]

I am not sure that Starship meets the requirements to be a commercial crew transportation system, namely this requirement on page 47 of the CCT-REQ-1130 requirements.

3.3.1.5 Ascent Abort Reliability

The CTS shall provide a pad and ascent abort system reliability of not less than 0.995 when an abort is initiated. [R.CTS.059]

Rationale: The intent of this requirement is to design and develop a very robust abort system with high reliability of effective operation (1 failure in 200) when the system is activated. This requirement drives the system design such that the system will activate and function when needed to separate the crewed spacecraft from the launch vehicle. The scope of this requirement includes failure of the abort system to ignite and separate the spacecraft from the launch vehicle, failure to provide required thrust during the boost phase, and failure to separate from the spacecraft following the abort, if required. It is one of the inputs into the assessment of crew survivability once an abort is executed, which is determined by an integrated calculation of LOC/LOM.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.msg1650808#msg1650808

I'm not sure either (in fact I have no clue). This has been raised several times in several threads in the last two months or so. My thought was that this requirement implicitly assumes a traditional capsule-type architecture. It would not accommodate the Space Shuttle. I think NASA must re-think the requirement, and SpaceX will need to fly enough non-crewed flights to show that Starship meets the underlying LOC/LOM goals. I don't know if SS could separate from SH for a pad abort or a launch abort, but if it can, it can also make a soft landing into the ocean. This does not save the crew if the SS itself is failing, but it does separate the crew from the booster.

[Coastal Ron]

I am not sure that Starship meets the requirements to be a commercial crew transportation system...

Today, no.

But that doesn't mean that Starship CAN'T be certified in the future, because as of today there is only ONE certified transportation provider for crew (SpaceX Dragon 2), but we know that there are other potential providers in various phases of development - including potentially the Starship.

[yg1968]

I am not sure that Starship meets the requirements to be a commercial crew transportation system...

Today, no.

But that doesn't mean that Starship CAN'T be certified in the future, because as of today there is only ONE certified transportation provider for crew (SpaceX Dragon 2), but we know that there are other potential providers in various phases of development - including potentially the Starship.

For the CCSTS round (the round after CCtCap), it is possible that NASA will change its certification requirements. I think that they should and hope that they do.

[JEF_300]

For the CCSTS round (the round after CCtCap), it is possible that NASA will change its certification requirements. I think that they should and hope that they do.

Even if they did (and I don't think they will or should), they still require a LOC of 1/500 or better during reentry. Starship has an entirely unique, unproven entry profile, and I seriously doubt even the most optimistic statisticians will give it those odds within the next 5 years.

[DigitalMan]

I expect SpaceX to try to do a lot of launches before putting humans on Starship, like Elon already mentioned. Perhaps looking to establish decent demonstrated reliability, rather than relying on estimates.

That will require a high flight rate, however. Another reason, I suppose, to be upset about Raptor production rate.

[yg1968]

For the CCSTS round (the round after CCtCap), it is possible that NASA will change its certification requirements. I think that they should and hope that they do.

Even if they did (and I don't think they will or should), they still require a LOC of 1/500 or better during reentry. Starship has an entirely unique, unproven entry profile, and I seriously doubt even the most optimistic statisticians will give it those odds within the next 5 years.

Yes I agree that ultimately what matters is LOC, not the fact that there is an abort system or not. But perhaps LOC should be the most important metric, not whether there is an abort system. Until Starship can get to that LOC for ascent and descent, I agree that it probably shouldn't be used for launching NASA astronauts from Earth. But the commercial habitats will be used after 2030, so it's worth getting Starship certified, not for ISS but for these future LEO habitats.