Link to the original thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26825.0)Thanks. Looking forward to July/August.
The April 17th update is out.
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/document_library.html
It appears that the Atlas 5 has made another solid launch, completing payload orbit at 12:56 EDT. That's 30 in a row!
Not sure if this is the best thread, but ongoing telecon in case anyone interested wasn't already aware:Audio is attached; however, I missed the introductions at the beginning.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/may/HQ_M12-085_Garver_Comm_Spaceflight_Telecon.html
Thanks.Not sure if this is the best thread, but ongoing telecon in case anyone interested wasn't already aware:Audio is attached; however, I missed the introductions at the beginning.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/may/HQ_M12-085_Garver_Comm_Spaceflight_Telecon.html
Volume level is a little high...
Not sure if this is the best thread, but ongoing telecon in case anyone interested wasn't already aware:Audio is attached; however, I missed the introductions at the beginning.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/may/HQ_M12-085_Garver_Comm_Spaceflight_Telecon.html
Volume level is a little high...
During the NASA C2+ pre-launch press briefing held today Ms Shotwell stated that with current envisioned funding (specifically mentioned the funding level that Congress is proposing for 2013) the first manned flight of DragonRider would be ~mid 2015. That is if they get the contract for CCiCAP and the follow-on contract as well, a total of 3 years from now.An interesting comment Gwynne made was 2015 is not the most optimistic date, can be achieved even if failures happen along the way.
NASA representative reiterated their NET 2017 expected date. I believe the 2017 date is NASA being conservative about it over the fact that SpaceX may not be on NASA contract and that other providers have more technical hurdles to accomplish to get to a manned launch. Also slips happen for various reasons and even SpaceX’s date of mid 2015 is seen as optimistic.
The question is has SpaceX improved their capability to predict the schedule or are they still (all evidence currently points at them being very optimistic) picking the earliest possible and not the earliest probable? And has NASA access to the full range of SpaceX prediction data that they then use to derive a conservative date?
Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but is there anything legally preventing Lockheed from submitting it's own CCP proposal?
Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but is there anything legally preventing Lockheed from submitting it's own CCP proposal?
Other than the fact that the deadline past, nothing. it is likely they are involved in some of the submitted proposals if not all by themselves.
Has there been any comment from the revelant Congress people regarding SpaceX's recent successful berthing of Dragon at the ISS? I found the crew's comments regarding manned Dragon interesting in light of the current issues with CCDev.Other than trying to take credit when previously been trying to kill of CCDev, not really.
ISTR that LM was prohibited from bidding as a prime in CC due to being prime contractor for Orion.
403(b)(6) [...] If one or more contractors involved with
9 development of the multi-purpose crew vehicle seek
10 to compete in development of a commercial crew
11 service with crew rescue capability, separate legisla12
tive authority must be enacted to enable the Admin13
istrator to provide funding for any modifications of
14 the multi-purpose crew vehicle necessary to fulfill
15 the ISS crew rescue function.
The NASA Advisory Council's Commercial Space Committee recently held a meeting (May 1, 2012) to get updates from various NASA Centers on their commercial space activities. [...]
The NASA Advisory Council's Commercial Space Committee recently held a meeting (May 1, 2012) to get updates from various NASA Centers on their commercial space activities. [...]
Minutes of this meeting have just been posted:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/658655main_NAC CSC 5 1 12 FACA _FINAL_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/658655main_NAC CSC 5 1 12 FACA _FINAL_508.pdf)
The section titled Commercial Crew Program Certification Status Briefing on pages 18 - 21 may be of most interest.
Ms. Smith: Assuming there will not be 3 partners in CCiCap, if you down-select from 2 to 1 partner, then what?
Mr. Mango: We need competition. The cost for 1 is greater than for 2 or 3. Optional milestones give a better return than expected. Instead of putting in the X, they put in X + Y because they saw that there was potential for the future. Competition yields a better price and a more innovative product.
Ms. Smith asked about the criteria for down-selection.
Mr. Mango had no specific criteria for that; they have the goals and how many are selected is left to the selection authorities. We know we want more than 1, but we are not committed to a particular number.
Ms. Smith raised the issue of having a finite amount of money.
Mr. Mango: In CCDev2, awards were given for varying amounts, so they already started to make some conscious decisions about what they could afford. But no algorithm for that has been devised.
Mr. Oswald feared they might be sacrificing life-cycle costs.
Mr. Mango: That would mean total costs would go up. A restricted budget means we have to look at how we incentivize competition within whatever profile Congress gives us. We are still very much in the proposal evaluation period on CCiCAP.
The section titled Commercial Crew Program Certification Status Briefing on pages 18 - 21 may be of most interest.
A couple of questions of interest from the minutes...
Always wondered about the net effect of early down-select to 1 and subsequent non-compete (e.g., early move from SAA to FAR); "The cost for 1 is greater than for 2 or 3." is going to get some attention. Wish there was a bit more context.
The section titled Commercial Crew Program Certification Status Briefing on pages 18 - 21 may be of most interest.
Thanks; very interesting.A couple of questions of interest from the minutes...
Always wondered about the net effect of early down-select to 1 and subsequent non-compete (e.g., early move from SAA to FAR); "The cost for 1 is greater than for 2 or 3." is going to get some attention. Wish there was a bit more context.
See this chart which is released at the same time as the 60 day report:ETA Captive Carry Flight Test
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/639717main_CCDev2_Public_20120417_508.pdf
Although for some reason it has a composite structure and uses a pusher escape system.Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but is there anything legally preventing Lockheed from submitting it's own CCP proposal?
Other than the fact that the deadline past, nothing. it is likely they are involved in some of the submitted proposals if not all by themselves.
Lockheed Martin is heavily involved in the ATK/Astrium Liberty proposal. The Liberty spacecraft appears, essentially, to be "Orion Lite", outfitted by Lockheed Martin, with final assembly at KSC alongside Orion.
- Ed Kyle
MLAS is not a pusher LAS.Only because of the load path. I'm betting most in this field still consider it a pusher.
No, I'd say the location of the center of thrust relative to the center of mass determines it.
If the center of thrust is is aft of the center of mass, it's a pusher. Otherwise, it's a tractor. Just the same as for any aircraft.
No, I'd say the location of the center of thrust relative to the center of mass determines it.
If the center of thrust is is aft of the center of mass, it's a pusher. Otherwise, it's a tractor. Just the same as for any aircraft.
Q: When will CCiCAP selection be announced?
Bolden: We fully expect to announce those selected by mid-July or so. That’s our hope. [...]
Q: How will CciCap work?
Bolden: NASA will fund three companies this summer. Two companies will get full funding and the third company will receive half funding. That will go through 21 months. NASA will then put out a request for contracts to provide services under FAR. Any company will be able to bid on it.
NASA would prefer that Congress fully fund the President’s request for commercial crew at $830 million but Congress may come in at less. NASA will ask for significant greater amounts in future years to keep to a 2017 schedule for commercial crew flights.
How many companies selected in CC down select (Bolden said earlier announcement in mid-July)? Two and a half, per recent agreement with Congress. Take them through 21-month process, full funders all the way, half funded as best they could. Following that, an RFP under the FAR under which any company can bid.
Seventh 60-day report on Commercial Spaceflight has just been posted (June 2012):Thanks, a good picture of CST-100 and Blue origin's vehicle.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf)
CCDev 2 Milestone Schedule (June 13, 2012):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf)
Seventh 60-day report on Commercial Spaceflight has just been posted (June 2012):For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf)
CCDev 2 Milestone Schedule (June 13, 2012):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf)
Here's a larger version.Seventh 60-day report on Commercial Spaceflight has just been posted (June 2012):Thanks, a good picture of CST-100 and Blue origin's vehicle.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660802main_June_2012_60_Day_Report_508.pdf)
CCDev 2 Milestone Schedule (June 13, 2012):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf)
thanks for the larger picture.
For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).
Isn't it bad that the contracting mechanism switched to FAR? I seem to recall Elon Musk and others stating that they would consider opting out of Comercial Crew if FAR was used over space act agreements as the contracting mechanism is much more expensive and not productive?
Isn't it bad that the contracting mechanism switched to FAR?
I seem to recall Elon Musk and others stating that they would consider opting out of Comercial Crew if FAR was used over space act agreements as the contracting mechanism is much more expensive and not productive?
It was reported they had already completed the second trial.thanks for the larger picture.
For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).
I'm not sure what your question is regarding the second in-situ crew trial - it's scheduled for q3 2012. The pictures we have seen are the first in-situ crew trials as far as I know.
Presumably they'll make some changes from the input they received in the first trial, then try again in the second trial.
It was reported they had already completed the second trial.thanks for the larger picture.
For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).
I'm not sure what your question is regarding the second in-situ crew trial - it's scheduled for q3 2012. The pictures we have seen are the first in-situ crew trials as far as I know.
Presumably they'll make some changes from the input they received in the first trial, then try again in the second trial.
It was reported they had already completed the second trial.thanks for the larger picture.
For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).
I'm not sure what your question is regarding the second in-situ crew trial - it's scheduled for q3 2012. The pictures we have seen are the first in-situ crew trials as far as I know.
Presumably they'll make some changes from the input they received in the first trial, then try again in the second trial.
Interesting. NASA indeed refers to this:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/dragon_accomm2.html (http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/dragon_accomm2.html)
but as you said, there's still a milestone on that CCDev for Q3 2012 - perhaps SpaceX split up the first milestone in 2 sessions? Or they decided they wanted to do another one?
Some miscommunication for sure. Anyone we could ask for more information about this?
LA Times article (front page of website for a while!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa-commercial-future-20120623,0,645125.story
The way the article quoted Mango suggests to me that SpaceX and Boeing will get full development contracts, Sierra Nevada partial.
LA Times article (front page of website for a while!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa-commercial-future-20120623,0,645125.story
The way the article quoted Mango suggests to me that SpaceX and Boeing will get full development contracts, Sierra Nevada partial.
Interesting. My take on Mango's answers is that Boeing and Sierra Nevada will get full contracts and SpaceX will get the partial. He stated that SpaceX is basically half way there.
LA Times article (front page of website for a while!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa-commercial-future-20120623,0,645125.story
The way the article quoted Mango suggests to me that SpaceX and Boeing will get full development contracts, Sierra Nevada partial.
Interesting. My take on Mango's answers is that Boeing and Sierra Nevada will get full contracts and SpaceX will get the partial. He stated that SpaceX is basically half way there.
Mango was just describing the progress of CCDev-2 participants. I wouldn't read anything into it. In any event, Phil McAlister is the person making the selection.
My reading is also SpaceX and Boeing for full contracts and Sierra Nevada for a partial.How does that work? I haven't yet seen any hardware, test or otherwise to suggest that Liberty is anything more than vapourware at this point.
At this point in "the gap" you want to go with those closest to going live. Dragon is obviously well along, and Boeing can catch up fastest.
Both also have BEO potential, which previously didn't seem to be a consideration but recent comments by NASA types seem to bring into the mix. IMO this may be an unmentioned fallback criteria for if Orion / SLS get cut or significantly delayed. Example - 2 years added to Orion's high altitude LAS test
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120622-orion-abort-test-delay.html
As much as I like it, DC is not yet as far along as SS2 is much less even a suborbital test flight. (not that SS2 is orbital, just an observation). I wouldn't even be surprised if it didn't make the cut, with Liberty taking #3.
LA Times article (front page of website for a while!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa-commercial-future-20120623,0,645125.story
The way the article quoted Mango suggests to me that SpaceX and Boeing will get full development contracts, Sierra Nevada partial.
Interesting. My take on Mango's answers is that Boeing and Sierra Nevada will get full contracts and SpaceX will get the partial. He stated that SpaceX is basically half way there.
Mango was just describing the progress of CCDev-2 participants. I wouldn't read anything into it. In any event, Phil McAlister is the person making the selection.
Gerstenmaier is the deciding offical, not McAlister.
LA Times article (front page of website for a while!)
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-nasa-commercial-future-20120623,0,645125.story
The way the article quoted Mango suggests to me that SpaceX and Boeing will get full development contracts, Sierra Nevada partial.
Interesting. My take on Mango's answers is that Boeing and Sierra Nevada will get full contracts and SpaceX will get the partial. He stated that SpaceX is basically half way there.
Mango was just describing the progress of CCDev-2 participants. I wouldn't read anything into it. In any event, Phil McAlister is the person making the selection.
Gerstenmaier is the deciding offical, not McAlister.
Are you sure? It was McAlister for CCDev-2.
Are you sure? It was McAlister for CCDev-2.
Dont forget that the companies bidding for contracts will also be the ones to request funding amounts. IF SpaceX is as far along as we have been led to believe it is entirely possible they could get the partial award due to the low amount of their bid rather than validation of the concept either way. This is similar to why Blue Origin was picked for CCDev2, not necessarily the strength of the concept but for the low amount they requested.
Congress also stated that they want commercial crew ready as soon as possible. So there is some logic to giving SpaceX full funding in order for them to be ready in 2015 or 2016 (instead of 2017).
I can almost guarantee you that all of the leading companies (except Blue Origin) asked for the maximum of $500M because none of the companies need less than $500M to complete their program. I am guessing that whomever gets partial funding will probably push more of its milestones to the optional phase. Although, you probably don't want to push too many milestones to the optional phase in order not to get too far behind the other ones when it comes time to downselect to two in 2014.
It was reported they had already completed the second trial.thanks for the larger picture.
For some reason the report says that SpaceX hasn't completed their second crew accommodations trial (self-funded).
I'm not sure what your question is regarding the second in-situ crew trial - it's scheduled for q3 2012. The pictures we have seen are the first in-situ crew trials as far as I know.
Presumably they'll make some changes from the input they received in the first trial, then try again in the second trial.
Interesting. NASA indeed refers to this:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/dragon_accomm2.html (http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/dragon_accomm2.html)
but as you said, there's still a milestone on that CCDev for Q3 2012 - perhaps SpaceX split up the first milestone in 2 sessions? Or they decided they wanted to do another one?
Some miscommunication for sure. Anyone we could ask for more information about this?
I can almost guarantee you that all of the leading companies (except Blue Origin) asked for the maximum of $500M because none of the companies need less than $500M to complete their program. I am guessing that whomever gets partial funding will probably push more of its milestones to the optional phase. Although, you probably don't want to push too many milestones to the optional phase in order not to get too far behind the other ones when it comes time to downselect to two in 2014.
Sorry must have missed that. Who was it that stated downselect to 2 in 2014?
I am not sure what you mean by 2 CTS competitors.
I am not sure what you mean by 2 CTS competitors.
Only saying that there must be at least two willing, able and viable contenders to make CTS competitive--regardless of what happens with CCiCap. Without that, tons of non-complete sole-source contract bureacracy and overhead would kick in. Hope that makes sense.
Yes I agree with that. But you seem to be implying that the 2 CTS competitors might eventually be reduced to one. My view is that whomever gets a contract for CTS in 2014 is likely to cross the finish line in 2017 unless they go bankrupt (which seems unlikely).I am not sure what you mean by 2 CTS competitors.Only saying that there must be at least at least two willing, able and viable contenders to make CTS competitive--regardless of what happens with CCiCap. Without that, tons of non-complete sole-source contract bureacracy and overhead would kick in. Hope that makes sense.
I think we're saying the same thing, with one small quibble: there are no "commercial crew providers" (or suppliers) until a CTS contract is awarded--and arguably not until they've show they can deliver, which may or may not happen by the time a CTS contract is awarded. Until then, there are only potential CTS competitors.
There was an update on commercial crew in this Bolden/FAA press conference:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/06/18/nasafaa-press-conference-on-commercial-crew-agreement/QuoteQ: When will CCiCAP selection be announced?
Bolden: We fully expect to announce those selected by mid-July or so. That’s our hope. [...]
Q: How will CciCap work?
Bolden: NASA will fund three companies this summer. Two companies will get full funding and the third company will receive half funding. That will go through 21 months. NASA will then put out a request for contracts to provide services under FAR. Any company will be able to bid on it.
NASA would prefer that Congress fully fund the President’s request for commercial crew at $830 million but Congress may come in at less. NASA will ask for significant greater amounts in future years to keep to a 2017 schedule for commercial crew flights.
See also:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=43025QuoteHow many companies selected in CC down select (Bolden said earlier announcement in mid-July)? Two and a half, per recent agreement with Congress. Take them through 21-month process, full funders all the way, half funded as best they could. Following that, an RFP under the FAR under which any company can bid.
And finally:
http://www.newspacejournal.com/2012/06/19/nasa-plans-to-announce-commercial-crew-awards-next-month/comment-page-1/#comment-626918
We never really know what negotiations are still going on behind the scene. Maybe our friend 51D might be privy to things he has seen or heard but cannot comment upon… ;)
We never really know what negotiations are still going on behind the scene. Maybe our friend 51D might be privy to things he has seen or heard but cannot comment upon… ;)
The pessimist in me says SNC will likely lose out, since they've got the coolest vehicle and Congress seems intent on downgrading us to capsules...
We never really know what negotiations are still going on behind the scene. Maybe our friend 51D might be privy to things he has seen or heard but cannot comment upon… ;)
The pessimist in me says SNC will likely lose out, since they've got the coolest vehicle and Congress seems intent on downgrading us to capsules...
It is my hope that Dream Chaser is funded.
The rest are all capsules so any one of them can be picked I don't think it really matters.
The only thing I really don't want to see is ATK/Boeing being the top 2.
The awards cover both developing spacecraft and man rating the launch vehicles. So there will have be two awards in one.
The awards cover both developing spacecraft and man rating the launch vehicles. So there will have be two awards in one.
Which system is chosen is not up to Congress. It is NASA that makes that call.We never really know what negotiations are still going on behind the scene. Maybe our friend 51D might be privy to things he has seen or heard but cannot comment upon… ;)
The pessimist in me says SNC will likely lose out, since they've got the coolest vehicle and Congress seems intent on downgrading us to capsules...
The awards cover both developing spacecraft and man rating the launch vehicles. So there will have be two awards in one.
No, the awards are for a crew service and there will be one award apiece. How the winner decides to allocate the money it is up to them. They can spend all the NASA money on the spacecraft and choose to fund launch vehicle work internally or have a subcontractor paid for it. Or the other way around.
The awards cover both developing spacecraft and man rating the launch vehicles. So there will have be two awards in one.
No, the awards are for a crew service and there will be one award apiece. How the winner decides to allocate the money it is up to them. They can spend all the NASA money on the spacecraft and choose to fund launch vehicle work internally or have a subcontractor paid for it. Or the other way around.
Any rough idea what the next level of milestones will be?
Which system is chosen is not up to Congress. It is NASA that makes that call.
I don’t know about that. In certain ways it might be the most dangerous vehicle, in that it has an exposed TPS in orbit. But, that aside, I think it has a lot of support for a variety of reasons.
1) It’s a reusable spaceplane that looks like a mini-space shuttle. Many who aren’t well educated on such things view that as “high-tech” and “futuristic” in that it looks like an airplane. Obviously the Shuttle taught us that perception isn’t necessarily reality. But regardless, a mini-shuttle landing on the SLF at KSC is a visual effect that I think many in NASA, and even Congress would like to see with the Shuttle retired.
2) It’s based on a NASA design, so NASA can always talk about how DC is the culmination of work that THEY did many years ago. It’s not quite as easy to say that about Dragon and CST-100, although in certain ways it could be said. At least some tech in those is based on previous NASA projects. DC would reflect well on NASA in the public’s eye I think, as well as Congress’s eye.
3) Although it probably wouldn’t take off at KSC, it would land there and be processed there, which helps validate NASA’s multi-use Spaceport concept.
Regarding your #3, why do you think DC wouldn't launch at KSC?
I don’t know about that. In certain ways it might be the most dangerous vehicle, in that it has an exposed TPS in orbit. But, that aside, I think it has a lot of support for a variety of reasons.
1) It’s a reusable spaceplane that looks like a mini-space shuttle. Many who aren’t well educated on such things view that as “high-tech” and “futuristic” in that it looks like an airplane. Obviously the Shuttle taught us that perception isn’t necessarily reality. But regardless, a mini-shuttle landing on the SLF at KSC is a visual effect that I think many in NASA, and even Congress would like to see with the Shuttle retired.
2) It’s based on a NASA design, so NASA can always talk about how DC is the culmination of work that THEY did many years ago. It’s not quite as easy to say that about Dragon and CST-100, although in certain ways it could be said. At least some tech in those is based on previous NASA projects. DC would reflect well on NASA in the public’s eye I think, as well as Congress’s eye.
3) Although it probably wouldn’t take off at KSC, it would land there and be processed there, which helps validate NASA’s multi-use Spaceport concept.
I think there are much better reasons for the evaluation team to choose DC.
1. Lower reentry accelerations so DC can play a lifeboat role in present and future NASA operations.
2. 1000-mile crossrange to give DC a greater landing flexibility, again for DC's lifeboat role. It can get down more quickly (many runway choices) and shave hours off the time it takes to get a crew member to a hospital.
3. Non-toxic propellants allow immediate crew egress at a public airport, again for a possible lifeboat role.
Reasons that don't officially get evaluated, but might enter the evaluator's mind:
A. Unmanned DC has a lot of potential. It's a flexible robotic vehicle that can stay on-orbit for long periods of time. Its non-toxic, storable propellant gives it some interesting mission capabilities. It might be a great vehicle down the line as NASA forays into satellite repair and refueling.
B. Manned DC has a lot of potential as well. Priced competitively, it's a more attractive option for a lot of commercial applications, and NASA is trying to seed that market.
C. Finally getting a lifting body into service would be a big technology risk reduction for future NASA-developed vehicles, assuming NASA ever again finds itself in the position of developing a lifting body vehicle. There's a realistic possibility that NASA may be out of that role.
Regarding your #3, why do you think DC wouldn't launch at KSC?
Don't be bad Jim! I can put some other as good reasons:...
A. Unmanned DC has a lot of potential. It's a flexible robotic vehicle that can stay on-orbit for long periods of time. Its non-toxic, storable propellant gives it some interesting mission capabilities. It might be a great vehicle down the line as NASA forays into satellite repair and refueling.
B. Manned DC has a lot of potential as well. Priced competitively, it's a more attractive option for a lot of commercial applications, and NASA is trying to seed that market.
C. Finally getting a lifting body into service would be a big technology risk reduction for future NASA-developed vehicles, assuming NASA ever again finds itself in the position of developing a lifting body vehicle. There's a realistic possibility that NASA may be out of that role.
None of those "reasons" matter. None of them are requirements, therefore have no bearing on the selection process
Prior to award anouncement the potential winners are in cofidential negotiations about milestone payment amounts and reporting details. This should take about a week. But it is also not a set length either other than it must finish before 1 Aug. Only until all negotiations with each of the potential award nominies (BTW during this period a potential award nominie can be droped or moved in priority based on dificulty of negotiations or failure to come to an agreement. But this is rare and is not likely to happen.)
All of this must happen before any releases because not only the exact award amount is stated but the milestone schedule is also published at that time (minus the payment amounts for each milestone only the total award is published). So NASA does not yet know when negotiations will end. Usually the release is made on the same date as the contracts are signed. Also usually not until all parties (the possible 3 different providers) have signed.
NASA must spend the cash before 1 Aug or FY012?
CCDev-2 ends July 31. NASA's schedule is to have no break. Plus any delay risks NASA loosing some of its CCP FY2012 funds because it can only be spent during FY2012, giving only 2 months of activity for CCiCap to complete milestones for the amount NASA expects to spend in FY2012.
Prior to award anouncement the potential winners are in cofidential negotiations about milestone payment amounts and reporting details. This should take about a week. But it is also not a set length either other than it must finish before 1 Aug. Only until all negotiations with each of the potential award nominies (BTW during this period a potential award nominie can be droped or moved in priority based on dificulty of negotiations or failure to come to an agreement. But this is rare and is not likely to happen.)
All of this must happen before any releases because not only the exact award amount is stated but the milestone schedule is also published at that time (minus the payment amounts for each milestone only the total award is published). So NASA does not yet know when negotiations will end. Usually the release is made on the same date as the contracts are signed. Also usually not until all parties (the possible 3 different providers) have signed.
Regarding your #3, why do you think DC wouldn't launch at KSC?
So far I haven't seen any indication that they intend to use a different pad for crewed Atlas V launches; it looks like they're just going to make whatever modifications they need at SLC-41. So, at the Cape: yes. At KSC: no.
It gets a little bit grey because I suspect that everyone will be using the crew quarters and medical facilities at KSC to prepare for flight, but that's a different topic.
I think there are much better reasons for the evaluation team to choose DC.
1. Lower reentry accelerations so DC can play a lifeboat role in present and future NASA operations.
2. 1000-mile crossrange to give DC a greater landing flexibility, again for DC's lifeboat role. It can get down more quickly (many runway choices) and shave hours off the time it takes to get a crew member to a hospital.
3. Non-toxic propellants allow immediate crew egress at a public airport, again for a possible lifeboat role.
Prior to award anouncement the potential winners are in cofidential negotiations about milestone payment amounts and reporting details. This should take about a week. But it is also not a set length either other than it must finish before 1 Aug. Only until all negotiations with each of the potential award nominies (BTW during this period a potential award nominie can be droped or moved in priority based on dificulty of negotiations or failure to come to an agreement. But this is rare and is not likely to happen.)
All of this must happen before any releases because not only the exact award amount is stated but the milestone schedule is also published at that time (minus the payment amounts for each milestone only the total award is published). So NASA does not yet know when negotiations will end. Usually the release is made on the same date as the contracts are signed. Also usually not until all parties (the possible 3 different providers) have signed.
NASA must spend the cash before 1 Aug or FY012?
CCDev-2 ends July 31. NASA's schedule is to have no break. Plus any delay risks NASA loosing some of its CCP FY2012 funds because it can only be spent during FY2012, giving only 2 months of activity for CCiCap to complete milestones for the amount NASA expects to spend in FY2012.
I am not sure that CCDev-2 has to end on July 31st; it goes into the third quarter of 2012 according to the milestones chart.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf
As far as funding is concerned, different budget rules apply for SAAs; the commercial crew funding for FY 2012 doesn't need to be spent in FY 2012 it gets carried over into the next fiscal year if it is not spent in FY2012.
Prior to award anouncement the potential winners are in cofidential negotiations about milestone payment amounts and reporting details. This should take about a week. But it is also not a set length either other than it must finish before 1 Aug. Only until all negotiations with each of the potential award nominies (BTW during this period a potential award nominie can be droped or moved in priority based on dificulty of negotiations or failure to come to an agreement. But this is rare and is not likely to happen.)
All of this must happen before any releases because not only the exact award amount is stated but the milestone schedule is also published at that time (minus the payment amounts for each milestone only the total award is published). So NASA does not yet know when negotiations will end. Usually the release is made on the same date as the contracts are signed. Also usually not until all parties (the possible 3 different providers) have signed.
NASA must spend the cash before 1 Aug or FY012?
CCDev-2 ends July 31. NASA's schedule is to have no break. Plus any delay risks NASA loosing some of its CCP FY2012 funds because it can only be spent during FY2012, giving only 2 months of activity for CCiCap to complete milestones for the amount NASA expects to spend in FY2012.
I am not sure that CCDev-2 has to end on July 31st; it goes into the third quarter of 2012 according to the milestones chart.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/660801main_CCDev2_Public_20120613_508.pdf
As far as funding is concerned, different budget rules apply for SAAs; the commercial crew funding for FY 2012 doesn't need to be spent in FY 2012 it gets carried over into the next fiscal year if it is not spent in FY2012.
CCDev2 officially ends April 2013 (24 months from award) or when all milestones are complete - whichever is earlier.
ARTICLE 15. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement becomes effective upon the date of the last signature below and shall remain in effect until the completion of all obligations of both Parties hereto, or two (2) years from the date of the last signature, whichever comes first.
Winged vehicles are boring. They are only for LEO.
PS. Trains are even more boring
Winged vehicles are boring. They are only for LEO.
PS. Trains are even more boring
Space trains.
PS. Trains are even more boring
My reading is also SpaceX and Boeing for full contracts and Sierra Nevada for a partial.
At this point in "the gap" you want to go with those closest to going live. Dragon is obviously well along, and Boeing can catch up fastest.
Both also have BEO potential, which previously didn't seem to be a consideration but recent comments by NASA types seem to bring into the mix. IMO this may be an unmentioned fallback criteria for if Orion / SLS get cut or significantly delayed. Example - 2 years added to Orion's high altitude LAS test
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120622-orion-abort-test-delay.html
As much as I like it, DC is not yet as far along as SS2 is much less even a suborbital test flight. (not that SS2 is orbital, just an observation). I wouldn't even be surprised if it didn't make the cut, with Liberty taking #3.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust
Rominger: Liberty would be part of ATK if get fully-funded CCiCap award. Otherwise, consider spinout & outside investment #newspace2012
All this is assumption. We really don't know what NASA is thinking on this. We'll just have to wait and see. I won't believe anything unless Chris posts it himself. Until then.........Yes, we’re down to the short ones now…. Might as well catch some Olympics and Auto Racing on the tube over the weekend to distract myself… I guess we can only estimate angels on a pinhead for so long… ;D
QuoteJeff Foust @jeff_foust
Rominger: Liberty would be part of ATK if get fully-funded CCiCap award. Otherwise, consider spinout & outside investment #newspace2012
39. The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
1) No new launch vehicles.
2) No new launch vehicles.
3) Whatever you do, don't decide to develop any new launch vehicles.
If Liberty wins, there will be real justification for accusations of favoritism. They've never developed a launch vehicle before, and picking them violates every principle of trying to get fast, domestic access to LEO.I've not seen ATK mentioning blackzones in quite awhile.
Akin's law:Quote39. The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
1) No new launch vehicles.
2) No new launch vehicles.
3) Whatever you do, don't decide to develop any new launch vehicles.
As far as everyone else, well, I think they have decent proposals (though it'd be weird if Excalibur wins).
EDIT:this has nothing to do with fanboy-ism. ATK continues to /lie/ about blackzones on the existing launch vehicles. They are a bad actor.
Or it could be Liberty, Dream Chaser, Boeing, since that would keep three new spacecraft in the running for the time being (while SpaceX kept flying Dragon in the mean time.)
This brings up a good question - what are the critical differences between the Dragon and dragon Rider - is SpaceX building a new spacecraft or modifying a cargo vehicle for manned spaceflight?Or it could be Liberty, Dream Chaser, Boeing, since that would keep three new spacecraft in the running for the time being (while SpaceX kept flying Dragon in the mean time.)
Cargo and crewed Dragon are not really the same spacecraft, so I question the validity of your assumption here.
New spacecraft which will then be used for Cargo once it enters service.This brings up a good question - what are the critical differences between the Dragon and dragon Rider - is SpaceX building a new spacecraft or modifying a cargo vehicle for manned spaceflight?Or it could be Liberty, Dream Chaser, Boeing, since that would keep three new spacecraft in the running for the time being (while SpaceX kept flying Dragon in the mean time.)
Cargo and crewed Dragon are not really the same spacecraft, so I question the validity of your assumption here.
Well, it featured quite prominently among their claims in the public unveiling of the Liberty spacecraft and Liberty launch vehicle just a couple months ago. They should've apologized, not just repeated the long-discredited blackzone lie. They publicly lied about a supposedly big safety issue, and they should have a just-as-public apology. Fear-mongering like that has no excuse.If Liberty wins, there will be real justification for accusations of favoritism. They've never developed a launch vehicle before, and picking them violates every principle of trying to get fast, domestic access to LEO.I've not seen ATK mentioning blackzones in quite awhile.
Akin's law:Quote39. The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
1) No new launch vehicles.
2) No new launch vehicles.
3) Whatever you do, don't decide to develop any new launch vehicles.
As far as everyone else, well, I think they have decent proposals (though it'd be weird if Excalibur wins).
EDIT:this has nothing to do with fanboy-ism. ATK continues to /lie/ about blackzones on the existing launch vehicles. They are a bad actor.
If they'd kept it up, I would be with you. But they dropped it. It may have been carried forward from Ares I spreadsheets and some marketing guy thought it looked good.Well, it featured quite prominently among their claims in the public unveiling of the Liberty spacecraft and Liberty launch vehicle just a couple months ago. They should've apologized, not just repeated the long-discredited blackzone lie. They publicly lied about a supposedly big safety issue, and they should have a just-as-public apology. Fear-mongering like that has no excuse.If Liberty wins, there will be real justification for accusations of favoritism. They've never developed a launch vehicle before, and picking them violates every principle of trying to get fast, domestic access to LEO.I've not seen ATK mentioning blackzones in quite awhile.
Akin's law:Quote39. The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
1) No new launch vehicles.
2) No new launch vehicles.
3) Whatever you do, don't decide to develop any new launch vehicles.
As far as everyone else, well, I think they have decent proposals (though it'd be weird if Excalibur wins).
EDIT:this has nothing to do with fanboy-ism. ATK continues to /lie/ about blackzones on the existing launch vehicles. They are a bad actor.
Dropped it? They haven't really had a big public marketing release since then.If they'd kept it up, I would be with you. But they dropped it. It may have been carried forward from Ares I spreadsheets and some marketing guy thought it looked good.Well, it featured quite prominently among their claims in the public unveiling of the Liberty spacecraft and Liberty launch vehicle just a couple months ago. They should've apologized, not just repeated the long-discredited blackzone lie. They publicly lied about a supposedly big safety issue, and they should have a just-as-public apology. Fear-mongering like that has no excuse.If Liberty wins, there will be real justification for accusations of favoritism. They've never developed a launch vehicle before, and picking them violates every principle of trying to get fast, domestic access to LEO.I've not seen ATK mentioning blackzones in quite awhile.
Akin's law:Quote39. The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
1) No new launch vehicles.
2) No new launch vehicles.
3) Whatever you do, don't decide to develop any new launch vehicles.
As far as everyone else, well, I think they have decent proposals (though it'd be weird if Excalibur wins).
EDIT:this has nothing to do with fanboy-ism. ATK continues to /lie/ about blackzones on the existing launch vehicles. They are a bad actor.
The person is strong in this one. No mention at all of CST-100 or DreamChaser, with just a passing reference to Atlas. It seemed like he was trying to paint the completion as one soley between SpaceX and ATK.
Here's (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48390277/ns/technology_and_science-space/) an excellent article covering some of the down select.
The person is strong in this one. No mention at all of CST-100 or DreamChaser, with just a passing reference to Atlas. It seemed like he was trying to paint the completion as one soley between SpaceX and ATK.
The person is strong in this one. No mention at all of CST-100 or DreamChaser, with just a passing reference to Atlas. It seemed like he was trying to paint the completion as one soley between SpaceX and ATK.
What did you expect from someone who wrote that commentary as a "response to a series by NBC News' Jay Barbree" and is working on a book about SpaceX?
The person is strong in this one. No mention at all of CST-100 or DreamChaser, with just a passing reference to Atlas. It seemed like he was trying to paint the completion as one soley between SpaceX and ATK.
What did you expect from someone who wrote that commentary as a "response to a series by NBC News' Jay Barbree" and is working on a book about SpaceX?
He could have at least mentioned the other competitors.
Here's (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48390277/ns/technology_and_science-space/) an excellent article covering some of the down select.
The article is remarkably non-objective and has a very clear bias towards a vendor (SpaceX) with a obvious agenda. While it is clear that SpaceX has done outstanding work - technical and otherwise, IMO the article is not even journalism, its sales - for a book? i don't know but it is of limited value.
On the other hand a history of COTS and CCDEV could be invaluable in helping to understand how our govt. works and what can be done to improve government acquisition.
Although the article is very much one sided, it's hard to disagree with anything that he says.
If Liberty wins, there will be real justification for accusations of favoritism. They've never developed a launch vehicle before, and picking them violates every principle of trying to get fast, domestic access to LEO.
Akin's law:Quote39. The three keys to keeping a new manned space program affordable and on schedule:http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
1) No new launch vehicles.
2) No new launch vehicles.
3) Whatever you do, don't decide to develop any new launch vehicles.
As far as everyone else, well, I think they have decent proposals (though it'd be weird if Excalibur wins).
EDIT:this has nothing to do with fanboy-ism. ATK continues to /lie/ about blackzones on the existing launch vehicles. They are a bad actor.
Also, on the CCDev / CCP front, I wrote this story that I hope is a just-the-facts guide to what's happened so far, plus what will happen:
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/20/12840538-follow-the-money-in-the-commercial-space-race
Also, on the CCDev / CCP front, I wrote this story that I hope is a just-the-facts guide to what's happened so far, plus what will happen:
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/20/12840538-follow-the-money-in-the-commercial-space-race
What did you expect from someone who wrote that commentary as a "response to a series by NBC News' Jay Barbree" and is working on a book about SpaceX?
Also, on the CCDev / CCP front, I wrote this story that I hope is a just-the-facts guide to what's happened so far, plus what will happen:
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/20/12840538-follow-the-money-in-the-commercial-space-race
What did you expect from someone who wrote that commentary as a "response to a series by NBC News' Jay Barbree" and is working on a book about SpaceX?
Wow, just read through that op-ed myself. It is a shame, as the argument can be made for SpaceX, and so easily, but for them to take on THE most seasoned space flight journalist with that fluffy, almost sickly, love story of an op-ed is not going to wash with the doubters.
What did you expect from someone who wrote that commentary as a "response to a series by NBC News' Jay Barbree" and is working on a book about SpaceX?
Wow, just read through that op-ed myself. It is a shame, as the argument can be made for SpaceX, and so easily, but for them to take on THE most seasoned space flight journalist with that fluffy, almost sickly, love story of an op-ed is not going to wash with the doubters.
Chris, I guess I'm more shocked that this piece warrants such a reaction from you, when the original piece by Mr. Barbree apparently did not. (Unless I missed it) Please don't stare yourself blind on the "THE most seasoned space flight journalist" label. Appeal to authority only goes so far.
Was this a great opinion piece? No, it certainly could have been more even-handed. (and this is coming from a SpaceX 'fan') But it was an understandable reaction. At least a contrasting view was aired on the same platform.
Speaking of CCiCAP, has there been any word on when the awards are going to be announced? I thought it would happen last week, but I was clearly wrong...
July is slipping away with no NASA awards for CCiCap. Rumor says 30 or 31, but NASA likes Fridays so I'm betting on 8/3. But I'm an optimist
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/07/31/commercial-crew-announcement-this-week/#more-41471Ha, I liked this article… It relates to my thread on the “Sons of Constellation”… ;)
Nice speculation here about the awards:
"Charles Lurio of The Lurio Report has emailed me saying that he has heard from a very reliable source that NASA will announce the next round of commercial crew funding on Thursday or Friday."
"I had heard from a source during the NewSpace 2012 Conference that NASA’s announcement had been delayed from July because White House officials are not happy with one of the awards. It’s not clear precisely what that means, but speculation has focused on the possibility of ATK receiving an award for its Ares I-derived Liberty system."
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/07/31/commercial-crew-announcement-this-week/#more-41471
Nice speculation here about the awards:
"Charles Lurio of The Lurio Report has emailed me saying that he has heard from a very reliable source that NASA will announce the next round of commercial crew funding on Thursday or Friday."
"I had heard from a source during the NewSpace 2012 Conference that NASA’s announcement had been delayed from July because White House officials are not happy with one of the awards. It’s not clear precisely what that means, but speculation has focused on the possibility of ATK receiving an award for its Ares I-derived Liberty system."
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/07/31/commercial-crew-announcement-this-week/#more-41471
Nice speculation here about the awards:
"Charles Lurio of The Lurio Report has emailed me saying that he has heard from a very reliable source that NASA will announce the next round of commercial crew funding on Thursday or Friday."
"I had heard from a source during the NewSpace 2012 Conference that NASA’s announcement had been delayed from July because White House officials are not happy with one of the awards. It’s not clear precisely what that means, but speculation has focused on the possibility of ATK receiving an award for its Ares I-derived Liberty system."
wouldn't the white house have been notified of what nasa was thinking before actually going to the companies? if they didn't want ATK they would have said no then. something like that coming at this late of a stage would be really surprising to me.
on a side note, do you ever think someone will write a book on the story inside the obama's executive branch and NASA? probably just be an ebook but still would be a very interesting read.
Gerst is the selecting officer. If he decides that ATK gets full funding, it gets full funding. The White House (or even Bolden for that matter) cannot undo his selections. The only thing that the White House can do about it is delay the announcement or perhaps renegotiate the deal with Wolf to have four providers instead of three.
If NASA has actually chosen ATK, I hope that it is not for political reasons or because it is launching from KSC or because it has commonality with SLS/MPCV. But given NASA's past history, I am not too confident that Gerst decisions will be based solely on business and technical merits as it should be. If that is the case, I can understand the White House being unhappy about one of Gerst's selections. Gerst must have know how the White House would react ahead of time. The White House doesn't think of the commercial crew program as an SLS/MPCV supplement program.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/07/31/commercial-crew-announcement-this-week/#more-41471
Nice speculation here about the awards: ...
"I had heard from a source during the NewSpace 2012 Conference that NASA’s announcement had been delayed from July because White House officials are not happy with one of the awards. It’s not clear precisely what that means, but speculation has focused on the possibility of ATK receiving an award for its Ares I-derived Liberty system."
Hope I'm not the source for Lurio . . . I'm just guessing.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/07/31/commercial-crew-announcement-this-week/#more-41471
Nice speculation here about the awards: ...
"I had heard from a source during the NewSpace 2012 Conference that NASA’s announcement had been delayed from July because White House officials are not happy with one of the awards. It’s not clear precisely what that means, but speculation has focused on the possibility of ATK receiving an award for its Ares I-derived Liberty system."
Emphasis on speculation.
If any of this rumor (the White House meddling part) is true, than whoever loses has grounds for all manner of appeal, not to mention political haymaking during an election year.
That's why I don't believe this rumor.
- Ed Kyle
Gerst is the selecting officer. If he decides that ATK gets full funding, it gets full funding. The White House (or even Bolden for that matter) cannot undo his selections. The only thing that the White House can do about it is delay the announcement or perhaps renegotiate the deal with Wolf to have four providers instead of three.
If NASA has actually chosen ATK, I hope that it is not for political reasons or because it is launching from KSC or because it has commonality with SLS/MPCV. But given NASA's past history, I am not too confident that Gerst decisions will be based solely on business and technical merits as it should be. If that is the case, I can understand the White House being unhappy about one of Gerst's selections. Gerst must have know how the White House would react ahead of time. The White House doesn't think of the commercial crew program as an SLS/MPCV supplement program.
I have heard only good things spoken about Gerstenmeier. Any decisions made purely on business and technical merit will probably - over time, at least - be accepted.
Gerst is accountable for his decisions. If he made his decisions based on business and technical merits, he has nothing to worry about.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2012/07/31/commercial-crew-announcement-this-week/#more-41471
Nice speculation here about the awards: ...
"I had heard from a source during the NewSpace 2012 Conference that NASA’s announcement had been delayed from July because White House officials are not happy with one of the awards. It’s not clear precisely what that means, but speculation has focused on the possibility of ATK receiving an award for its Ares I-derived Liberty system."
Emphasis on speculation.
If any of this rumor (the White House meddling part) is true, than whoever loses has grounds for all manner of appeal, not to mention political haymaking during an election year.
That's why I don't believe this rumor.
- Ed Kyle
I’ll second that… Gerst works tirelessly and has had difficult decisions to make on his watch. Government rockets have to serve many masters…Gerst is the selecting officer. If he decides that ATK gets full funding, it gets full funding. The White House (or even Bolden for that matter) cannot undo his selections. The only thing that the White House can do about it is delay the announcement or perhaps renegotiate the deal with Wolf to have four providers instead of three.
If NASA has actually chosen ATK, I hope that it is not for political reasons or because it is launching from KSC or because it has commonality with SLS/MPCV. But given NASA's past history, I am not too confident that Gerst decisions will be based solely on business and technical merits as it should be. If that is the case, I can understand the White House being unhappy about one of Gerst's selections. Gerst must have know how the White House would react ahead of time. The White House doesn't think of the commercial crew program as an SLS/MPCV supplement program.
I have heard only good things spoken about Gerstenmeier. Any decisions made purely on business and technical merit will probably - over time, at least - be accepted.
Let’s all try and be kind to him. Have a feeling some will throw the mud all over regarding this civil servant.
I am not too confident that Gerst decisions will be based solely on business and technical merits as it should be. [...] I always thought of Gerst as a common sense kind of guy.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2012/release-20120801.html
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2012/release-20120801.html
It looks like your friday prediction was a good one, Wayne. :)
way to go RDALE!!!
way to go RDALE!!!
Nice call. I think ATK's Liberty and SpaceX will get full funding! Not sure about partial...
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2012/release-20120801.html
It looks like your friday prediction was a good one, Wayne. :)
surprise surprise, Wayne was right, what it must be like to be right more than not :D
I just hope Dream Chaser doesn't miss out.Those of us with a sense of style agree.
I just hope Dream Chaser doesn't miss out.Those of us with a sense of style agree.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2012/release-20120801.html
It looks like your friday prediction was a good one, Wayne. :)
surprise surprise, Wayne was right, what it must be like to be right more than not :D
And those speculating (e.g. in L2) about ties to stock markets and political wheelings....
And those speculating (e.g. in L2) about ties to stock markets and political wheelings....
I just hope Dream Chaser doesn't miss out.Those of us with a sense of style agree.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2012/release-20120801.html
It looks like your friday prediction was a good one, Wayne. :)
Having DC and a capsule would make more strategic sense for an agency looking to get the most diverse set of features/capabilities out of its limited budget.
I just hope Dream Chaser doesn't miss out.Those of us with a sense of style agree.
Fingers crossed - DreamChaser is certainly the one I'm rooting for!
And even from a more objective standpoint, how many different versions of a capsule design does the cash-strapped agency need? Having DC and a capsule would make more strategic sense for an agency looking to get the most diverse set of features/capabilities out of its limited budget.
Is diversity part of the selection criteria?
I just hope Dream Chaser doesn't miss out.Those of us with a sense of style agree.
Fingers crossed - DreamChaser is certainly the one I'm rooting for!
And even from a more objective standpoint, how many different versions of a capsule design does the cash-strapped agency need? Having DC and a capsule would make more strategic sense for an agency looking to get the most diverse set of features/capabilities out of its limited budget.
Is diversity part of the selection criteria?
If the 'boss' is adamant in opposition to your (preliminary) decision, you have three choices - change your boss's mind (good luck), sign your retirement papers, or change your decision.Sounds as though it's not really Gerst's decision.
I just hope Dream Chaser doesn't miss out.
How about we just start a poll thread of the choices. It won't let me for some reason but here are the options I would allow
Full - DC, Dragon; Half - CST
Full - DC, Dragon; Half - Liberty
Full - CST, Dragon; Half - DC
Full - CST, Dragon; Half - Liberty
Full - Liberty, Dragon; Half - CST
Full - Liberty, Dragon; Half - DC
Full - CST, DC; Half - Dragon
Full - CST, DC; Half - Liberty
Full - CST, Liberty; Half - Dragon
Full - CST, Liberty; Half - DC
Full - DC, Liberty; Half - Dragon
Full - DC, Liberty; Half - CST
Other (please post)
How about we just start a poll thread of the choices. It won't let me for some reason but here are the options I would allowDon't forget blue origin
Full - DC, Dragon; Half - CST
Full - DC, Dragon; Half - Liberty
Full - CST, Dragon; Half - DC
Full - CST, Dragon; Half - Liberty
Full - Liberty, Dragon; Half - CST
Full - Liberty, Dragon; Half - DC
Full - CST, DC; Half - Dragon
Full - CST, DC; Half - Liberty
Full - CST, Liberty; Half - Dragon
Full - CST, Liberty; Half - DC
Full - DC, Liberty; Half - Dragon
Full - DC, Liberty; Half - CST
Other (please post)
How about we just start a poll thread of the choices. It won't let me for some reason but here are the options I would allowDon't forget blue origin
Full - DC, Dragon; Half - CST
Full - DC, Dragon; Half - Liberty
Full - CST, Dragon; Half - DC
Full - CST, Dragon; Half - Liberty
Full - Liberty, Dragon; Half - CST
Full - Liberty, Dragon; Half - DC
Full - CST, DC; Half - Dragon
Full - CST, DC; Half - Liberty
Full - CST, Liberty; Half - Dragon
Full - CST, Liberty; Half - DC
Full - DC, Liberty; Half - Dragon
Full - DC, Liberty; Half - CST
Other (please post)
I just hope Dream Chaser doesn't miss out.
What I'd like to see; Full Awards: SpaceX, Dream Chaser, Partial Award Blue Origin (diversity triumphant)
What I hope to see; Full Awards: SpaceX, Dream Chaser, Partial Award CST-100
What I expect to see; Full Awards: CST-100, SpaceX, Partial Award Dream Chaser
What I fear to see; Full Awards: CST-100, Liberty, Partial Award SpaceX (old boy network triumphant)
{snip}
Other (please post)
I have a lot of respect for Gerstenmaier, and I'm sure that respect will continue irregardless to who he chooses.Gerst is the selecting officer. If he decides that ATK gets full funding, it gets full funding. The White House (or even Bolden for that matter) cannot undo his selections. The only thing that the White House can do about it is delay the announcement or perhaps renegotiate the deal with Wolf to have four providers instead of three.
If NASA has actually chosen ATK, I hope that it is not for political reasons or because it is launching from KSC or because it has commonality with SLS/MPCV. But given NASA's past history, I am not too confident that Gerst decisions will be based solely on business and technical merits as it should be. If that is the case, I can understand the White House being unhappy about one of Gerst's selections. Gerst must have know how the White House would react ahead of time. The White House doesn't think of the commercial crew program as an SLS/MPCV supplement program.
I have heard only good things spoken about Gerstenmeier. Any decisions made purely on business and technical merit will probably - over time, at least - be accepted.
Let’s all try and be kind to him. Have a feeling some will throw the mud all over regarding this civil servant.
{snip}
Other (please post)
At this stage of the game it can also be
Full - man-rate Atlas V, man-rate Falcon 9; Half - DC.
Full - man-rate Atlas V, man-rate Falcon 9; Half - DC.
Full - man-rate Atlas V, man-rate Falcon 9; Half - DC.
Lost for words that I can post without being moderated.
That is not what is being competed. NASA is looking total crew to orbit package, which the spacecraft is the major part and launch vehicle is done by a supplier or subtier element of the proposer.
Full - man-rate Atlas V, man-rate Falcon 9; Half - DC.
Lost for words that I can post without being moderated.
That is not what is being competed. NASA is looking total crew to orbit package, which the spacecraft is the major part and launch vehicle is done by a supplier or subtier element of the proposer.
This must be the tenth time Jim has had to post that message for the same person.
1. Which means the spacecraft companies have to pay for man rating the launch vehicles.
2. Those costs will be charged back to NASA.
It helps that Boeing make the CST-100 and are a major shareholder in ULA. So the practical difference is which salesman gets the commission on the sale.
I have a lot of respect for Gerstenmaier, and I'm sure that respect will continue irregardless to who he chooses.Gerst is the selecting officer. If he decides that ATK gets full funding, it gets full funding. The White House (or even Bolden for that matter) cannot undo his selections. The only thing that the White House can do about it is delay the announcement or perhaps renegotiate the deal with Wolf to have four providers instead of three.
If NASA has actually chosen ATK, I hope that it is not for political reasons or because it is launching from KSC or because it has commonality with SLS/MPCV. But given NASA's past history, I am not too confident that Gerst decisions will be based solely on business and technical merits as it should be. If that is the case, I can understand the White House being unhappy about one of Gerst's selections. Gerst must have know how the White House would react ahead of time. The White House doesn't think of the commercial crew program as an SLS/MPCV supplement program.
I have heard only good things spoken about Gerstenmeier. Any decisions made purely on business and technical merit will probably - over time, at least - be accepted.
Let’s all try and be kind to him. Have a feeling some will throw the mud all over regarding this civil servant.
EDIT: Although I am hoping SpaceX gets a full, with Dream Chaser and CST-100 getting the other two awards.
What I'd like to see; Full Awards: SpaceX, Dream Chaser, Partial Award Blue Origin (diversity triumphant)
What I hope to see; Full Awards: SpaceX, Dream Chaser, Partial Award CST-100
What I expect to see; Full Awards: CST-100, SpaceX, Partial Award Dream Chaser
What I fear to see; Full Awards: CST-100, Liberty, Partial Award SpaceX (old boy network triumphant)
It helps that Boeing make the CST-100 and are a major shareholder in ULA. So the practical difference is which salesman gets the commission on the sale.
huh? Another meaningless point. Then, how is it any different than Spacex, who both builds the Dragon and Falcon?
NASA may have bids that will pay twice for man rating the Atlas V.
There is some information on the price of the CCiCap optional milestones in the Hearing Charter:QuoteIn addition to the funds shown above, the three companies selected for CCiCap submitted optional milestones, that include such big ticket items as launch and landing simulations, spacecraft qualification testing, crew escape system pad abort tests, purchasing launch vehicles necessary for demonstration flights, and crewed orbital test flights. The optional milestones have aggregate total cost estimates in the range of $4.5 Billion, more than four times greater than the costs assumed for the CCiCap base period (2012-2014).
See page 4:
http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/images/HHRG-112-%20SY-20120914-SD001.pdf
That's an average of 1.5B per company. If you assume that each Atlas V launch would cost something like 200M, plus the capsule. And you had two flights, that's 600M just on direct costs. You have to add the ground infrastructure (crew access tower, probably a new MLP for the Atlas V, etc. Plus certification, development and such under a FAR contract. I still remember that Orbital stated that their Prometheus development plus Atlas V upgrades was something like 3.5B to 4B project. It doesn't seems that high a number from that POV.
Didn't know where to put this question but wanted to find the details of it; and implications toward Commercial Crew from the people that work with NASA and understand this.
NASA-STD-5012
??
That's an average of 1.5B per company. If you assume that each Atlas V launch would cost something like 200M, plus the capsule. And you had two flights, that's 600M just on direct costs. You have to add the ground infrastructure (crew access tower, probably a new MLP for the Atlas V, etc. Plus certification, development and such under a FAR contract. I still remember that Orbital stated that their Prometheus development plus Atlas V upgrades was something like 3.5B to 4B project. It doesn't seems that high a number from that POV.
Yeah. That's a good point about the cost of crew access tower, etc. For the Atlas V, these amounts are likely counted in double since Boeing can't assume that DC will share the payment of these costs and vis-versa (in other words, each company must assume that the other one will have been downselected in 2014).
Didn't know where to put this question but wanted to find the details of it; and implications toward Commercial Crew from the people that work with NASA and understand this.
NASA-STD-5012
??
it doesn't mean anything unless it is in the contract
Didn't know where to put this question but wanted to find the details of it; and implications toward Commercial Crew from the people that work with NASA and understand this.
NASA-STD-5012
??
it doesn't mean anything unless it is in the contract
confused, your saying NASA might relax its standards?
To date, the SuperDraco engines have undergone 58 hot-fire tests for a total run time of about 117 seconds. According to SpaceX Project Manager Garrett Reisman, “The SuperDraco development and test effort is indicating that this newly designed engine will surpass our original requirements."
› The latest Commercial Crew overview briefing for public awareness, December, 12, 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/713715main_CCP_Overview_20121203.pdf)
Contract Objective - Begin early, critical certification work to meet NASA Crew Transportation System (CTS) requirements
Procurement summary
– Multiple firm fixed price contract awards
– Individual awards capped at a maximum of $10M each
– Phase 1 Period of Performance: 15 months, awarded Dec 2012
Limited Scope
– Submittal and discussion of specific early lifecycle certification products
– Alternate Standards
– Hazard Analyses/Reports
– Verification & Validation Plan
– Certification Plan
– Begin the process of ISS visiting vehicle integration
– No design/development work funded through CPC
› The latest Commercial Crew overview briefing for public awareness, December, 12, 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/713715main_CCP_Overview_20121203.pdf)
Thanks. This was the first time I'd become aware of "Certification Products Contracts (CPC)" which I read to be in addition to the CCiCap contracts already signed.
[...]
Thinking about it, will be fascinating to see if SNC gets an award for Dream Chaser.
CPC contractors are:
-- The Boeing Company, Houston, $9,993,000
-- Sierra Nevada Corporation Space System, Louisville, Colo., $10,000,000
-- Space Exploration technologies Corp., Hawthorne, Calif., $9,589,525
› The latest Commercial Crew overview briefing for public awareness, December, 12, 2012 (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/713715main_CCP_Overview_20121203.pdf)
Thanks. This was the first time I'd become aware of "Certification Products Contracts (CPC)" which I read to be in addition to the CCiCap contracts already signed.
[...]
Thinking about it, will be fascinating to see if SNC gets an award for Dream Chaser.
Awards for the "Certification Products Contract" were recently announced (December 10) - we even have a thread for it:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30583.0CPC contractors are:
-- The Boeing Company, Houston, $9,993,000
-- Sierra Nevada Corporation Space System, Louisville, Colo., $10,000,000
-- Space Exploration technologies Corp., Hawthorne, Calif., $9,589,525
"NASA will not fly people to orbit under a Space Act Agreement," said Joe Dyer, the panel’s chair, reading from a NASA statement.
There will be no test flights under the CCiCap optional milestones period according to a NASA statement sent to ASAP:Quote"NASA will not fly people to orbit under a Space Act Agreement," said Joe Dyer, the panel’s chair, reading from a NASA statement.
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130125/SPACE/130125025/Safety-panel-discusses-NASA-concerns-KSC-meeting
Why does the press act like the ASAP has any influence over the NASA administration or in any way represents them?
NASA regularly ignores ASAP and their "recommendations".
The statement is from NASA not from ASAP.
Make no mistake about it - SLS/Orion got spared because they have political support in Congress and as they say, excrement rolls down Capitol Hill.
I would like to see manned Dragon cancelled.
Keep 1.5 providers.
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/02/space_launch_system_orion_woul.htmlSo once gain CCP gets half the requested amount. It's very frustrating to see small programs that have a relatively high probability of success get cut when larger programs with abysmal futures (one flight every two years, no concrete destinations or objectives) are spared.
"NASA has decided to spare its Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule from any direct consequences of budget sequestration this year, according to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden Jr. Taking the cuts instead in the "exploration" part of NASA's budget would be commercial space companies trying to build spaceships to get American astronauts to the International Space Station. The Space Launch System (SLS) is NASA's name for a new booster being developed at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville for deep space missions and the Orion capsule that will ride on top of it."
and from "Aerospace Defense 02/14/13"
NASA’s topline budget for FY13 will be reduced by $726.7 million compared to its budget request if sequestration takes effect. Commercial Space Flight would be reduced by $441.6 million below the FY13 request. NASA would not be able to make Q4 milestone payments to the industry teams working on the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) including SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada.
What I do know is that Atlas V does work and it works well today.But with a much heftier price tag.
"Brainless" is pretty good way to describe Congress.Make no mistake about it - SLS/Orion got spared because they have political support in Congress and as they say, excrement rolls down Capitol Hill.
It is pretty brainless of congress to be under funding commercial crew.
CCDev is probably one of the most important programs NASA has had in the past ten years.
I think it's ridiculous that commercial crew has to compete with exploration since having the first operational will free up money for the latter.
"Brainless" is pretty good way to describe Congress.
The last I heard, some aides in the House had added up the number of flights left until ISS end of life, divided the amount of money being spent on commercial crew by that count and gotten a number much bigger than the price per seat of just continuing to fly on Soyuz. The House asked someone about it - probably Bill Gerstenmaier, I forget - and got the response that commercial crew is more about seeding a new industry than it is about not being dependent on the Russians, or saving money. This resulted in the blowup with Rep Wolf and the letter to Bolden. His response was the 2.5 competitors compromise and the assurance that NASA's only interest in commercial crew is for servicing ISS.All I can say that is the most broken logic I've ever seen.
As such, "much of the purpose of CCDev" was defeated months ago.
The last I heard, some aides in the House had added up the number of flights left until ISS end of life, divided the amount of money being spent on commercial crew by that count and gotten a number much bigger than the price per seat of just continuing to fly on Soyuz. The House asked someone about it - probably Bill Gerstenmaier, I forget - and got the response that commercial crew is more about seeding a new industry than it is about not being dependent on the Russians, or saving money. This resulted in the blowup with Rep Wolf and the letter to Bolden. His response was the 2.5 competitors compromise and the assurance that NASA's only interest in commercial crew is for servicing ISS.Doesn't Wolf keep on insisting that the ISS program will end in 2020?
As such, "much of the purpose of CCDev" was defeated months ago.
Doesn't Wolf keep on insisting that the ISS program will end in 2020?
Dumb da dumb dumb.
For the federal govt, it makes far more sense to use a domestic solution since a large portion of the money stays in the country and is recovered via taxes. Plus, even the IMF acknowledges that during a recession like this, there is a multiplier greater than one. And that is money that won't have to be used for unemPloyment, food stamps, or Extra prison for the greater domestic unemployed. The cost differential has to be enormous for the Russian solution to be rationally attractive.
And that is ignoring the fact that the chances for ISS to be abandoned in ISS are vanishingly small. And the fact that subsidizing the aerospace/military sector of a geopolitical rival is counter-productive. And the fact that NASA could get a lot of use out of commercial crew (and cargo) for exploration missions. And even the possibility that encouraging the orbital tourism market will help the US in the future. Etc, etc, etc.
The last I heard, some aides in the House had added up the number of flights left until ISS end of life, divided the amount of money being spent on commercial crew by that count and gotten a number much bigger than the price per seat of just continuing to fly on Soyuz. The House asked someone about it - probably Bill Gerstenmaier, I forget - and got the response that commercial crew is more about seeding a new industry than it is about not being dependent on the Russians, or saving money. This resulted in the blowup with Rep Wolf and the letter to Bolden. His response was the 2.5 competitors compromise and the assurance that NASA's only interest in commercial crew is for servicing ISS.
As such, "much of the purpose of CCDev" was defeated months ago.
Though in this case it'll prevent some young engineers from becoming more OWS protesters and IT experts from becoming black hat hackers.
Regardless, unemployment breeds unrest and vice. (and, of course, this applies to much more than just Commercial crew, so this is off-topic... but this isn't necessarily an issue if you already have better than full employment and a roaring economy... cutting spending is a very, very good idea then to keep the economy from over-heating... but Florida definitely doesn't have anywhere near this problem right now)Though in this case it'll prevent some young engineers from becoming more OWS protesters and IT experts from becoming black hat hackers.
...most of those weren't engineering majors.
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2013/02/space_launch_system_orion_woul.html
"NASA has decided to spare its Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule from any direct consequences of budget sequestration this year, according to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden Jr. Taking the cuts instead in the "exploration" part of NASA's budget would be commercial space companies trying to build spaceships to get American astronauts to the International Space Station. The Space Launch System (SLS) is NASA's name for a new booster being developed at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville for deep space missions and the Orion capsule that will ride on top of it."
and from "Aerospace Defense 02/14/13"
NASAs topline budget for FY13 will be reduced by $726.7 million compared to its budget request if sequestration takes effect. Commercial Space Flight would be reduced by $441.6 million below the FY13 request. NASA would not be able to make Q4 milestone payments to the industry teams working on the Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) including SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada.
That's $442M out of $1,112M or 40% (Boeing with $460m, SpaceX: $440M, SNC: $212.5M.
So much for Bolden being a supporter of commercial crew...
Already being discussed here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31117.0
The $442M number is exaggerated because it's compared to the FY13 PBR instead of the FY13 CR. The PBR requested $830M for commercial crew, the CR appropriated $406M, and the sequester would cut that to around $388M.
Also, you shouldn't be using the CCiCAP number as the basis because much of those milestones are FY14, not FY13.
I would like to see manned Dragon cancelled.
Keep 1.5 providers.
Atlas V > Falcon 9 v1.1
Just too much launcher risk for my liking. This is only my armchair rocket scientist opinion though, it could be the most reliable launcher ever.
What I do know is that Atlas V does work and it works well today.
The $442M number is exaggerated because it's compared to the FY13 PBR instead of the FY13 CR. The PBR requested $830M for commercial crew, the CR appropriated $406M, and the sequester would cut that to around $388M.So you are saying that CCiCap will suffer a proportional 4.4% reduction [ (406-388)/406 ], and NOT be used as a cash source to make SLS and Orion "whole"?
Also, you shouldn't be using the CCiCAP number as the basis because much of those milestones are FY14, not FY13.
Given that at least one of the three particiapants is almost sure to miss 5% of the year's milestones, how likely is it that CCiCap will even spend this much?
(snip)
Odd. In response to a $17.9M budget cut, NASA is claiming that $80.2M worth of milestones will be delayed from 4Q13.
I have no conclusions to draw from that. Make of it what you will.
Quote(Much of the rest of the responses are headed OT.)
I agree. I am self-reporting my reply after I post it; the mods can figure out what to do with it.
How about I lay out for you the raw information I'm using, share my conclusions, and let you draw your own?
The following, as the lawyers would say, are "facts not in dispute" ...
QuoteNASA would not be able to fund milestones planned to be allocated in the fourth quarter of FY 2013 for Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) such as the SpaceX Inflight Abort Test Review, the Boeing Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control Engine Development Test, and the Sierra Nevada Corporation Integrated System Safety Analysis Review #2.
The values of these milestones are listed in the respective Space Act Agreements between NASA and the three companies:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=632
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=633
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=634
SpaceX Inflight Abort Test Review - $10M
Boeing Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control Engine Development Test - $50.2M
Sierra Nevada Corporation Integrated System Safety Analysis Review #2 - $20M
Odd. In response to a $17.9M budget cut, NASA is claiming that $80.2M worth of milestones will be delayed from 4Q13.
All I can say that is the most broken logic I've ever seen.
Personally I'd rather see money be spent on a domestic solution then be spent on buying seats on Soyuz.
Yes commercial crew is not just about rides to ISS it's about developing a new industry and the tools for future exploration.
I describe the present congress's take on space and science and general as penny wise and dollar dumb.
They make decisions that may save a few cents in the short term but end up costing us dearly in the long term.
A bunch of trained apes could make wiser financial decisions then the present congress.
It seems to me that the iss is now the number one enemy of Orion and sls. wolf and spaceporkers like him would love noting more than to kill the iss and divert its funds to the big boondoggle's also if you kill iss you kill COTS too. Two birds whit one stone.The last I heard, some aides in the House had added up the number of flights left until ISS end of life, divided the amount of money being spent on commercial crew by that count and gotten a number much bigger than the price per seat of just continuing to fly on Soyuz. The House asked someone about it - probably Bill Gerstenmaier, I forget - and got the response that commercial crew is more about seeding a new industry than it is about not being dependent on the Russians, or saving money. This resulted in the blowup with Rep Wolf and the letter to Bolden. His response was the 2.5 competitors compromise and the assurance that NASA's only interest in commercial crew is for servicing ISS.Doesn't Wolf keep on insisting that the ISS program will end in 2020?
As such, "much of the purpose of CCDev" was defeated months ago.
It seems to me that the iss is now the number one enemy of Orion and sls. wolf and spaceporkers like him would love noting more than to kill the iss and divert its funds to the big boondoggle's also if you kill iss you kill COTS too. Two birds whit one stone.The last I heard, some aides in the House had added up the number of flights left until ISS end of life, divided the amount of money being spent on commercial crew by that count and gotten a number much bigger than the price per seat of just continuing to fly on Soyuz. The House asked someone about it - probably Bill Gerstenmaier, I forget - and got the response that commercial crew is more about seeding a new industry than it is about not being dependent on the Russians, or saving money. This resulted in the blowup with Rep Wolf and the letter to Bolden. His response was the 2.5 competitors compromise and the assurance that NASA's only interest in commercial crew is for servicing ISS.Doesn't Wolf keep on insisting that the ISS program will end in 2020?
As such, "much of the purpose of CCDev" was defeated months ago.
Thanks again for the food for thought. Some fear mongering to be sure, but attempting to parse that, I beleive it might have been better phrased as "NASA would not be able to fund all milestones planned to be allocated in the fourth quarter of FY 2013 ...". Given:
1. ~$17.9M cut off the top.
2. CPC ~$30M is non-negotiable?
3. CCiCap milestones must be paid in full on completion.
4. Then we are short $47.9M; and ...
NASA, not willing to play favorites among the CCiCap contenders and state whose milestones wouldn't get funded in public, punted and used ambiguous language?
Which appears to imply that one or more of the CCiCap contenders will not get all of their milestones funded in FY2013 under sequestration, and thus will likely be out of the running sooner rather than later? (While some may consider that a threat, others in Congress may consider it a promise.)
So who of the CCiCap contenders is at greatest risk? Seems Boeing might be... putting out a plan with a single $50.2M milestone in FY2013 seems rather crass and obtuse on Boeing's part? Might they amend the SAA to split it into smaller parts? OTOH, if anyone can swim with these sharks and ensure adequate CCiCap funding, it's probably Boeing.
But, that ship has sailed...we have what we have. However I do think we should downselect to just one provider, whomever that might be, and proceed with just that with all due haste.
I would keep more providers too with two systems that have as little in common as possible. That way astronauts wont be grounded again for months (or years) if something happens with one of the systems (which is not completely unlikely given that they are all new).But, that ship has sailed...we have what we have. However I do think we should downselect to just one provider, whomever that might be, and proceed with just that with all due haste.
I was with you till that last para, could you elaborate on why you think we should downselect now? Personally I'd like to see two providers get business, just like with commercial cargo.
It would be better to kill the SLS and use the funds to extent ISS and accelerate commercial crew with 3 providers instead of two. Then do a follow up for a heavy lifter some time down the road, when commercial crew has "paid for itself".That's the problem. It's simply not an option. :(
Unfortunately that is impossible to get through politcially. Too many politicians with vested interests in the SLS.
Hold it. "milestones planned to be allocated in the fourth quarter of FY 2013"
Would that not mean they will be funded in FY2014?
Realistically Boeing is the "safe pair of hands" candidate in the same way OSC is for cargo. NASA's sees the long successful launch track record of Atlas V and expects no trouble. How difficult can CTS-100 be, after all they are Boeing.
Dragon however has the annoying ability to have actually started delivering real stuff to the ISS. Given an awful lot of the flight systems Spacex will use on crewed Dragon are already racking up flight experience (and indeed NASA might even be OK with the re-using the same capsules) it would seem to be very perverse, given NASA's love of "pedigree" if it turned it's back on Spacex for the crew transfer side.
This leaves SNC. It's very NASA (or as some parts of NASA would see themselves). Bold, leading edge, creative (first composite hulled human rated lifting body design anywhere. How cool is that?). But risky.
While new is not necessarily better things change. I'd love SNC to be able to convince NASA (and the Legislature, who ultimately pay the bills) they are the better bet over Boeing and be the #2 provider (providing design as well as LV diversity) but my head says that won't happen.
<sigh>
Has this ever happened? Has it ever been a significant problem?
Hold it. "milestones planned to be allocated in the fourth quarter of FY 2013"
Would that not mean they will be funded in FY2014?
Realistically Boeing is the "safe pair of hands" candidate in the same way OSC is for cargo. NASA's sees the long successful launch track record of Atlas V and expects no trouble. How difficult can CTS-100 be, after all they are Boeing.
Dragon however has the annoying ability to have actually started delivering real stuff to the ISS. Given an awful lot of the flight systems Spacex will use on crewed Dragon are already racking up flight experience (and indeed NASA might even be OK with the re-using the same capsules) it would seem to be very perverse, given NASA's love of "pedigree" if it turned it's back on Spacex for the crew transfer side.
This leaves SNC. It's very NASA (or as some parts of NASA would see themselves). Bold, leading edge, creative (first composite hulled human rated lifting body design anywhere. How cool is that?). But risky.
While new is not necessarily better things change. I'd love SNC to be able to convince NASA (and the Legislature, who ultimately pay the bills) they are the better bet over Boeing and be the #2 provider (providing design as well as LV diversity) but my head says that won't happen.
<sigh>
I like SNCs design not only because it's daring and innovative but it's also the best vehiucle for medical evacuation.
Most capsule designs land in the boonies or in the water.
This temporarily puts the stricken crew member in much a worse situation then they were in on ISS.
Dream Chaser lands on a runway where an ambulance can be already waiting.
Has this ever happened? Has it ever been a significant problem?
Admit it, you primarily think it looks cool. ;)
So what, they survived.Has this ever happened? Has it ever been a significant problem?
Admit it, you primarily think it looks cool. ;)
Of course it looks cool but medical emergencies have happened.
http://articles.philly.com/1997-08-15/news/25566238_1_tsibliyev-and-alexander-lazutkin-mir-mission-cosmonauts
As for a bad landing.
http://www.videocosmos.com/soyuz23.shtm
They barely survived.
So what, they survived.
BTW, you don't want to know what happens when Dreamchaser goes into "ballistic mode"...As for going into ballistic mode no spacecraft be it space plane or capsule should ever be allowed to go into an uncontrolled state.
Also, Dragon will be doing precision powered landing.
Regardless of whether you want to allow them, they might do it anyway.They barely survived.
So what, they survived.QuoteBTW, you don't want to know what happens when Dreamchaser goes into "ballistic mode"...As for going into ballistic mode no spacecraft be it space plane or capsule should ever be allowed to go into an uncontrolled state....
I would keep more providers too with two systems that have as little in common as possible. That way astronauts wont be grounded again for months (or years) if something happens with one of the systems (which is not completely unlikely given that they are all new).But, that ship has sailed...we have what we have. However I do think we should downselect to just one provider, whomever that might be, and proceed with just that with all due haste.
I was with you till that last para, could you elaborate on why you think we should downselect now? Personally I'd like to see two providers get business, just like with commercial cargo.
Plus competition will help keeping prices down. A single provider would be able to dictate. It would be better to kill the SLS and use the funds to extent ISS and accelerate commercial crew with 3 providers instead of two. Then do a follow up for a heavy lifter some time down the road, when commercial crew has "paid for itself".
Unfortunately that is impossible to get through politcially. Too many politicians with vested interests in the SLS.
I suppose you could test your hypothesis by reading the three SAAs I linked above to see if SpaceX and SNC have any single milestones that large. (Hint: SpaceX does, and SNC has one nearly as large.)
The HL-20 and I assume the DC was designed for low refurbishment cost - is there any data to suggest that this is true. The Boeing CST-100 cost model should show that a new CST-100 will be less than the cost to refurbish the DC ??? orDragon and cst100 are both reusable.
is the reliability of either the CST-100 or Dragon Rider better than the DC and worth the extra cost for new vehicles every launch.
I suppose you could test your hypothesis by reading the three SAAs I linked above to see if SpaceX and SNC have any single milestones that large. (Hint: SpaceX does, and SNC has one nearly as large.)
Yes, there are several. (Sorry, I think I posted the charts some time ago but can't find it.) The exposure or risk from underfunding depends on milestone amounts and timing. The milestones of particular concern are those in Q4 FY2013 or Jul-Sep CY2013; as can be seen, Boeing appears to be the most exposed.
Thanks for that. So that's a 6 month rotation? Could we not designate 2 of those 4 seats as bi-monthly rotations? What is currently driving the rotations for crew? Could we not, with more cost effective commercial providers, increase crew rotations?I honestly don't know the decision tree that designates how many Crewed flights there needs to be in any given year to the ISS. But I would think that if we had increased capability with 2 or 3 providers, we could either ensure a full US contingent at all times or a more timely rotation allowing for a more varied occupation schedule.
The current traffic model is 2 flights/year with 4 crew each, total of 8 seats/year. At least 6 are needed to replace what we have now with Soyuz. 8 would enable expansion of ISS crew to 7 (4 USOS+3 ROS).
Thanks for that. So that's a 6 month rotation? Could we not designate 2 of those 4 seats as bi-monthly rotations? What is currently driving the rotations for crew? Could we not, with more cost effective commercial providers, increase crew rotations?I honestly don't know the decision tree that designates how many Crewed flights there needs to be in any given year to the ISS. But I would think that if we had increased capability with 2 or 3 providers, we could either ensure a full US contingent at all times or a more timely rotation allowing for a more varied occupation schedule.
Only if you are willing to find the additional funding for these additional flights. Spaceflight isn't free.
The current traffic model is 2 flights/year with 4 crew each, total of 8 seats/year. At least 6 are needed to replace what we have now with Soyuz. 8 would enable expansion of ISS crew to 7 (4 USOS+3 ROS).
Thanks for that. So that's a 6 month rotation? Could we not designate 2 of those 4 seats as bi-monthly rotations? What is currently driving the rotations for crew? Could we not, with more cost effective commercial providers, increase crew rotations?I honestly don't know the decision tree that designates how many Crewed flights there needs to be in any given year to the ISS. But I would think that if we had increased capability with 2 or 3 providers, we could either ensure a full US contingent at all times or a more timely rotation allowing for a more varied occupation schedule.
The current traffic model is 2 flights/year with 4 crew each, total of 8 seats/year. At least 6 are needed to replace what we have now with Soyuz. 8 would enable expansion of ISS crew to 7 (4 USOS+3 ROS).
If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway.Additionally, if the Gateway /is/ actually assembled, it'd have some of its own ECLSS, so the complex's crew compliment could be expanded by a few (partially for the purpose of testing the gateway).
I really like graphs and that is a great bar chart. Thanks!
SpaceX and Boeing have milestones scheduled for September, the last month of FY 13, that total more than the $18M that is really being "sequestered". If these get paid, or even accomplished, in October, the start of FY-14, all would be well.
If NASA insists on withholding >$80M to cover the <$20M sequester, then there would be an issue, as they would eat into the July milestones, perhaps paying some of them three months late.
And why sould NASA be making a decision of whose milestones to defund? What's wrong with first come, first served? Are there political issues to be made by skewing the payouts?
If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway.
There's enough flights for two companies, if you combine crew and cargo.That could be challenging to implement. Cygnus will never be able to carry and return crew. I don't believe a CBM would fit on a CST-100 or Dream Chaser and those vehicles currently aren't being designed to be able berth to the ISS. As of this writing only two SIMAC adapters (APAS to SIMAC) are planned to be installed there, if CCP goes with a direct handover than they will both see often use. Which would result in more docking ports needed, new SIMAC adapters would need to be developed to convert the open CBMs but if they don't protrude enough than there may be clearance issues with Dream Chaser's wings.
Hardly. There'd still be no money for launching SLS (though enough to keep it afloat), and commercial logistics will already be well-established at that point. Orion on Delta IV Heavy, maybe, but a lot would have to change between where things stand and that point. I think relying on Soyuz alone for keeping ISS crewed (with either Orion or commercial crew as "backup") is far more likely than some switch to using Orion for regular trips to ISS, especially Orion launched on SLS.If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway.
Sure.. but they're going to be arguing for Orion for anything Gateway related. I think you just made the case for an early Orion to ISS capability.
If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway.
Sure.. but they're going to be arguing for Orion for anything Gateway related. I think you just made the case for an early Orion to ISS capability.
<snip>I think relying on Soyuz alone for keeping ISS crewed (with either Orion or commercial crew as "backup") is far more likely than some switch to using Orion for regular trips to ISS, especially Orion launched on SLS.
In fact, EELV-class launch vehicles are considered. They are the likely option at LEAST as much as SLS is, provided first launch this decade.If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway.
Sure.. but they're going to be arguing for Orion for anything Gateway related. I think you just made the case for an early Orion to ISS capability.
<snip>I think relying on Soyuz alone for keeping ISS crewed (with either Orion or commercial crew as "backup") is far more likely than some switch to using Orion for regular trips to ISS, especially Orion launched on SLS.
Who said anything about regular trips to the ISS?
The question was about Gateway assembly at the ISS. How do you think they're planning to get Gateway into orbit?...
Yes. CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport. L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway.Almost certainly that would be separate from the initial commercial crew contracts to ISS, and would be considerably later. So the initial contract(s) must be based solely on ISS needs, not exploration needs.
In any case, L2 Gateway is off-topic for a CCiCAP thread.
One single note: The reason we talked about it here in the first place is that the gateway (if built) would likely be built at ISS, thus the crew used to build it would use the same ISS crew transport system. Just to make that clear.Yes. CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport. L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway.Almost certainly that would be separate from the initial commercial crew contracts to ISS, and would be considerably later. So the initial contract(s) must be based solely on ISS needs, not exploration needs.
In any case, L2 Gateway is off-topic for a CCiCAP thread.
Yes. CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport. L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.
If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway.
(emphasis mine)If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway.
Almost certainly that would be separate from the initial commercial crew contracts to ISS, and would be considerably later. So the initial contract(s) must be based solely on ISS needs, not exploration needs.
...
Yes. CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport. L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.I thought yg1968's question was relevant:If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway... as was my reply. What's off-topic about it?
Jorge went much further than you did and suggested that NASA shouldn't (can't?) take into account future uses of commercial crew. That is pretty ridiculous, if true. Commercial crew's purpose certainly goes beyond ISS, and to /ONLY/ consider its relevance to ISS and nothing else puts it at a SEVERE disadvantage, especially if you're only considering ISS to 2020.Yes. CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport. L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.I thought yg1968's question was relevant:If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway... as was my reply. What's off-topic about it?
Because this is the "CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread", and CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.
Does anyone reasonably claim that potential future use of commercial crew transport may support other programs (such as an L2 gateway)? I'd say "yes".
Does anyone reasonably claim that the viability of commercial crew transport can, should or must be based on the efficacy of those other programs? I'd say, "no".
In short, two very different discussions IMHO.
Yes. CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport. L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.I thought yg1968's question was relevant:If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway... as was my reply. What's off-topic about it?
Because this is the "CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread", and CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.
Does anyone reasonably claim that potential future use of commercial crew transport may support other programs (such as an L2 gateway)? I'd say "yes".
Does anyone reasonably claim that the viability of commercial crew transport can, should or must be based on the efficacy of those other programs? I'd say, "no".
In short, two very different discussions IMHO.
There's enough flights for two companies, if you combine crew and cargo.
There's enough flights for two companies, if you combine crew and cargo.
Is there a provider other than SpaceX that could do both? And I think part of the advantage Cygnus had will be it's large pressurized volume compared to Dragon, but they can't do crew.
In fact, EELV-class launch vehicles are considered. They are the likely option at LEAST as much as SLS is, provided first launch this decade.If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway.
Sure.. but they're going to be arguing for Orion for anything Gateway related. I think you just made the case for an early Orion to ISS capability.
<snip>I think relying on Soyuz alone for keeping ISS crewed (with either Orion or commercial crew as "backup") is far more likely than some switch to using Orion for regular trips to ISS, especially Orion launched on SLS.
Who said anything about regular trips to the ISS?
The question was about Gateway assembly at the ISS. How do you think they're planning to get Gateway into orbit?...
There's enough flights for two companies, if you combine crew and cargo.
Is there a provider other than SpaceX that could do both? And I think part of the advantage Cygnus had will be it's large pressurized volume compared to Dragon, but they can't do crew.
DC can do cargo. Although, there are no plans for a cargo version, the CST-100 could also do cargo if necessary.
There's enough flights for two companies, if you combine crew and cargo.
Is there a provider other than SpaceX that could do both? And I think part of the advantage Cygnus had will be it's large pressurized volume compared to Dragon, but they can't do crew.
DC can do cargo. Although, there are no plans for a cargo version, the CST-100 could also do cargo if necessary.
Other than small cargo that could fit throught the docking port in an uncrewed CST-100, what else could CST-100 do? Again, as I understand, I think the stretched Cygnus has capabilities that Dragon, CST-100, and DC can't do as far as pressurized volume. And I think that's needed when ATV is retired. And Cygnus can't do crew.
I tink that's where it gets tricky. in theory, yea, two providers doing both cargo and crew seems ideal. If it could be mae to work.
HTV can do full-sized stuff, so there's as much redundancy as you need right there.Doesn't HTV have a limited number of flights left?
HTV can do full-sized stuff, so there's as much redundancy as you need right there.Doesn't HTV have a limited number of flights left?
There will be no test flights under the CCiCap optional milestones period according to a NASA statement sent to ASAP:Quote"NASA will not fly people to orbit under a Space Act Agreement," said Joe Dyer, the panel’s chair, reading from a NASA statement.
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130125/SPACE/130125025/Safety-panel-discusses-NASA-concerns-KSC-meeting
VADM Dyer read a statement prepared by NASA regarding certification:
“NASA is running the CPC contracts in parallel with the Commercial Crew Integration Capability (CCiCap) space act agreements today. This is allowed because they are separate activities with distinct goals. However, the goals of the program do not change nor do they end at the conclusion of the [SAA] base period. There has been no formal Agency-level decision at an Acquisition Strategy Meeting regarding the specific scope and mechanism of the Phase 2 Certification effort. However, we have determined that all NASA certification activity needs to be performed under a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based contract. In addition, NASA has been clear that it does not intend to exercise the optional milestones [carrying out flight test by the provider under the SAA]. However, NASA may choose to pursue some of the initial optional milestones or a portion of a milestone if exercising them furthers the purpose of developing a capability that could ultimately be available to serve both government and commercial customers, but the benefit to the government would need to be high. NASA will not fly people to orbit under a space act agreement.”
It is also worth noting that commercial crew commitments for FY2013 total ~$625M = ~$595M CCiCap milestones + ~$30M CPC. Some of the difference might be made up with funds carried forward (?), but there still appears to be a significant hole--even without sequestration reductions--that I've yet to see explained.
It is also worth noting that commercial crew commitments for FY2013 total ~$625M = ~$595M CCiCap milestones + ~$30M CPC. Some of the difference might be made up with funds carried forward (?), but there still appears to be a significant hole--even without sequestration reductions--that I've yet to see explained.
I'm surprised nobody else has commented on this one yet. Does anybody know how much if any funds were going to carry forward from FY12? My curiosity has definitely been piqued.
~Jon
It is also worth noting that commercial crew commitments for FY2013 total ~$625M = ~$595M CCiCap milestones + ~$30M CPC. Some of the difference might be made up with funds carried forward (?), but there still appears to be a significant hole--even without sequestration reductions--that I've yet to see explained.
I'm surprised nobody else has commented on this one yet. Does anybody know how much if any funds were going to carry forward from FY12? My curiosity has definitely been piqued.
~Jon
Ed Mango has mentionned that 75% of the FY 2012 amount for commercial crew would be spent on CCiCap (the other 25% was spent on CCDev2 optional milestones). So you have 75% x 406M = $304.5M for CCiCap for FY 2012. Plus you have at least $385M for commercial crew for FY 2013 if the sequester kicks in (reduction of 5% over FY 2012 amounts) and if the CR continues for the rest of the year. I am not sure about the exact number but I believe that the commercial crew office gets about $30M per year from the commercial crew budget (which must be substracted from the above amounts). So you get about $637M (95%x406M-30M+75%x406M-75%x30M) for CCiCap less the CCiCap milestones that were already paid in FY 2012 (which obviously don't get carried over to FY 2013) which were for an amount of $160M (60M+20M+50M+30M) based on the SAAs.It is also worth noting that commercial crew commitments for FY2013 total ~$625M = ~$595M CCiCap milestones + ~$30M CPC. Some of the difference might be made up with funds carried forward (?), but there still appears to be a significant hole--even without sequestration reductions--that I've yet to see explained.
I'm surprised nobody else has commented on this one yet. Does anybody know how much if any funds were going to carry forward from FY12? My curiosity has definitely been piqued.
So you get about $477M for CCiCap for FY 2013 according to my rough estimates if you carryover the FY 2012 amounts. The commercial crew office was expecting $525M based on the Senate's draft FY 2013 appropriation legislation. So that would essentially explain the hole of about $140-150M (525M-386M =139M) caused by the CR and the sequester.
See this link for more information:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28395.msg881383#msg881383
Yes, so based on appropriated funds, without sequester it's ~$60M shortfall; with sequester it's ~$80M shortfall.
Regardless, the program needs ~$800 million a year at some point.Yes, so based on appropriated funds, without sequester it's ~$60M shortfall; with sequester it's ~$80M shortfall.
I get a $140M to $150M shortfall including the sequester. I am not sure why we end up with different numbers. As I said, I believe that NASA was expecting $525M for commercial crew for FY 2013 based on the Senate draft appropriation bill and on representations made by Wolf on the House side. So the end result is a shortfall of 139M ($525M less $386M). My other (more detailed) calculations are more complicated but I essentially get the same results (shortfall of $625M less $477M = $148M).
If NASA actually *planned* on $525M (or *anything* more than $406M) after the CR passed, they were in violation of the law. So no, they weren't doing that.
Yes, so based on appropriated funds, without sequester it's ~$60M shortfall; with sequester it's ~$80M shortfall.
I get a $140M to $150M shortfall including the sequester. I am not sure why we end up with different numbers. As I said, I believe that NASA was expecting $525M for commercial crew for FY 2013 based on the Senate draft appropriation bill and on representations made by Wolf on the House side. So the end result is a shortfall of 139M ($525M less $386M). My other (more detailed) calculations are more complicated but I essentially get the same results (shortfall of $625M less $477M = $148M).
If NASA actually *planned* on $525M (or *anything* more than $406M) after the CR passed, they were in violation of the law. So no, they weren't doing that.
Regardless, the program needs ~$800 million a year at some point.Yes, so based on appropriated funds, without sequester it's ~$60M shortfall; with sequester it's ~$80M shortfall.
I get a $140M to $150M shortfall including the sequester. I am not sure why we end up with different numbers. As I said, I believe that NASA was expecting $525M for commercial crew for FY 2013 based on the Senate draft appropriation bill and on representations made by Wolf on the House side. So the end result is a shortfall of 139M ($525M less $386M). My other (more detailed) calculations are more complicated but I essentially get the same results (shortfall of $625M less $477M = $148M).
If NASA actually *planned* on $525M (or *anything* more than $406M) after the CR passed, they were in violation of the law. So no, they weren't doing that.
The continual fiscal crises are unnecessarily harming commercial crew and NASA. So is adding language into bills so that NASA can't finally finish the systems necessary to stop having to buy crew rides from the Russians.
In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.
In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.
If that's true, cancel it now.
In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.
If that's true, cancel it now.
But that is by far the best deal for NASA out of its HSF projects. (development of two independent HSF systems) If you think that is bad, I assume you just want to cancel the entire HSF program.
Cancel all of NASA, then.In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.
If that's true, cancel it now.
But that is by far the best deal for NASA out of its HSF projects. (development of two independent HSF systems) If you think that is bad, I assume you just want to cancel the entire HSF program.
If, as Robotbeat says, the program can't achieve those goals without funding which is never going to materialize, then why keep throwing money down the black hole?
Cancel all of NASA, then.
We actually don't know it will "never" materialize.
And it isn't a blackhole, either. Milestones are being completed and even if the program gets prematurely canceled, it will have greatly increased the possibility of non-gov't human orbital spaceflight.
Do not agree whatsoever.Cancel all of NASA, then.
Glad you agree.
...
You're arguing that no significant new program in NASA can ever get enough funding.
In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.
To say we should support an effective program isn't naive optimism, it's common freaking sense.
As far as your "cancel NASA" idea
Cancel all of NASA, then.
Do not agree whatsoever.
you should read the URL of this forum
http://m.xkcd.com/893/
In order to accomplish its goals, it needs to, at some point, get around $800 million a year. You can't make a baby in 18 months with half a woman.
I say it is never going to get around $800M/year. This is not a very controversial statement!
So, IF it's not going to get around $800M/year AND it needs to THEN why fund it at a lower level? Just cancel it and send the money to some other program where that will be full funding, or where a less than total funding will still deliver some results.
Who has claimed that it will deliver no result with less than full funding? Of course it will. The schedule will slip, however.
CCiCap was awarded last August before the CR was passed. They had no way of knowing whether we would be on a CR or not. Officially, their plans relied on the President's requested amounts. But unofficially, it had enough flexibility for a lesser amount. At least, that's how I understood it. But I could be wrong.
Right now the idea is "integrated capability"
The only sensible option is CST-100 but Boeing wants full funding and a monopoly to make it worthwhile. That's fair enough if Americans want astronauts launching from their own soil.
Falcon 9 simply doesn't have the launch rate and demonstrated reliability to be able to compete with Atlas V in any way, shape or form.
SpaceX can't simply shaft their commercial customers while doing CRS at the same time forever.
Man rated Atlas V is the most sensible option and Boeing has already been given a larger slice of funding than SNC.
Just cut the waste already.
Some feel SpaceX and SNC are getting money for nothing and this is why.
Yes, so based on appropriated funds, without sequester it's ~$60M shortfall; with sequester it's ~$80M shortfall.I get a $140M to $150M shortfall including the sequester. I am not sure why we end up with different numbers. As I said, I believe that NASA was expecting $525M for commercial crew for FY 2013 based on the Senate draft appropriation bill and on representations made by Wolf on the House side. So the end result is a shortfall of 139M ($525M less $386M). My other (more detailed) calculations are more complicated but I essentially get the same results (shortfall of $625M less $477M = $148M).
Who has claimed that it will deliver no result with less than full funding? Of course it will. The schedule will slip, however.
Robotbeat did. If he'd like to withdraw that claim, I'll withdraw the recommendation to stop wasting money on a project that he says can't succeed without full funding (at some point).
But the point stands for any other project that needs $X/year and can't get it.
The only sensible option is CST-100 but Boeing wants full funding and a monopoly to make it worthwhile. That's fair enough if Americans want astronauts launching from their own soil.
Falcon 9 simply doesn't have the launch rate and demonstrated reliability to be able to compete with Atlas V in any way, shape or form.
if Americans want astronauts launching from their own soil.
SpaceX can't simply shaft their commercial customers while doing CRS at the same time forever.
Some feel SpaceX, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and SNC are getting money for nothing and this is why.
850 million per year was for a program with 4 participants.
Congress has been pushing NASA to down select.
425 million a year is full funding for 2 participants.
850 million per year was for a program with 4 participants.
Congress has been pushing NASA to down select.
425 million a year is full funding for 2 participants.
I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.
Who has claimed that it will deliver no result with less than full funding? Of course it will. The schedule will slip, however.
Robotbeat did. If he'd like to withdraw that claim, I'll withdraw the recommendation to stop wasting money on a project that he says can't succeed without full funding (at some point).
But the point stands for any other project that needs $X/year and can't get it.
850 million per year was for a program with 4 participants.
Congress has been pushing NASA to down select.
425 million a year is full funding for 2 participants.
I don't believe Bigelow will ever have a private space station, and the whole exercise will enable us to have 2 providers each only providing a single flight to the ISS per year.
I don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment. It would have been much better just to pick one, and finish the development ASAP. I don't buy the argument that you can develop 2 integrated crew systems cheaper than 1.
QuoteI don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.So, you don't think government should be in the business of seeding new industries? I happen to agree with that sentiment, but many others don't.
He thinks almost all (perhaps simply all) gov't spending is a bad idea, on principle.QuoteI don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.So, you don't think government should be in the business of seeding new industries? I happen to agree with that sentiment, but many others don't.
So you think that COTS was a bad idea?
We already know that the price per seat of commercial crew will be between $26M and $36M per seat ...Nit: Not necessarily the price/seat for CTS. Those are based on Bigelow's statement and assumptions, some of which may apply to CTS, and some which may not.
We already know that the price per seat of commercial crew will be between $26M and $36M per seat ...Nit: Not necessarily the price/seat for CTS. Those are based on Bigelow's statement and assumptions, some of which may apply to CTS, and some which may not.
He thinks almost all (perhaps simply all) gov't spending is a bad idea, on principle.QuoteI don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.So, you don't think government should be in the business of seeding new industries? I happen to agree with that sentiment, but many others don't.
So you think that COTS was a bad idea?
To be honest, that's why it's pretty pointless to engage him. If the topic is a NASA program and the question is about whether it should continue or be funded or not, by default his answer is "cancel it."
He thinks almost all (perhaps simply all) gov't spending is a bad idea, on principle.QuoteI don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.So, you don't think government should be in the business of seeding new industries? I happen to agree with that sentiment, but many others don't.
So you think that COTS was a bad idea?
To be honest, that's why it's pretty pointless to engage him. If the topic is a NASA program and the question is about whether it should continue or be funded or not, by default his answer is "cancel it."
Quite reasonable points, IMHO, even though I think it has turned out better than should've been expected and in hindsight is a good investment. The EELVs should not have been excluded. Many think they were excluded in order to reduce the chance that NASA's main HSF turf would not be encroached upon.He thinks almost all (perhaps simply all) gov't spending is a bad idea, on principle.QuoteI don't believe it is a good use of billions of NASA funding to enable SpaceX / Boeing / SNC to provide private space missions to millionaires and scientists from other countries. That's never going to be a good investment.So, you don't think government should be in the business of seeding new industries? I happen to agree with that sentiment, but many others don't.
So you think that COTS was a bad idea?
To be honest, that's why it's pretty pointless to engage him. If the topic is a NASA program and the question is about whether it should continue or be funded or not, by default his answer is "cancel it."
The management of COTS was a bad idea. NASA did not need to fund the development of new launch vehicles when there were already too many launch vehicles on the market. You can add the cost of a couple of extra Shuttle logistics flights to the COTS program costs, since the CRS program did not deliver on schedule.
If COTS only funded the development of Dragon and Cygnus, it would have been worthwhile. At anytime, did Kistler look like they were going to deliver a product ?
If the CRS vehicles used an existing launcher, like Delta II, then the extra number of flights could have kept that program alive and lowered launch costs for other NASA missions that had to switch to Altas V instead. And ULA might have found ways to cost reduce Delta II instead of retiring the launcher.
CCDev/CCiCAP will end up costing at least 5 Billion. I believe it may even rival the JWST costs by the time it's done. And the only purpose of the exercise is to develop some domestic capability. ...This last sentence is either untrue or very misleading. It is NOT to simply provide domestic access to ISS. It will provide access to LEO for any future stuff in LEO that NASA wishes with potential for beyond-LEO as well as providing seeds for a possible new commercial industry. Disagree with those goals if you wish, but don't say it has JUST the single purpose of replacing a few Soyuzes.
Well, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew.$5 billion? That's a complete bargain for 2.5 qualified crewed systems (with multiple abort tests and launches), with milestones paid only when each milestone is completed. JWST is a single, unmanned spacecraft with a single launch. Pretty much as apples-to-oranges as you can get.
Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense.
Well, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew.You can't base your reasoning on requested funds. The actuals are considerably less. And even if it did approach JWST, which they haven't and most likely won't, it's still a huge bargain. Multiple commercial Cargo AND Crew capabilities for a few billion dollars? That is an incredible achievement that will pay dividends for years to come.
Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense.
Well, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew.$5 billion? That's a complete bargain for 2.5 qualified crewed systems (with multiple abort tests and launches), with milestones paid only when each milestone is completed. JWST is a single, unmanned spacecraft with a single launch. Pretty much as apples-to-oranges as you can get.
Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense.
Quite reasonable points, IMHO, even though I think it has turned out better than should've been expected and in hindsight is a good investment. The EELVs should not have been excluded. Many think they were excluded in order to reduce the chance that NASA's main HSF turf would not be encroached upon.
You will not have 2.5 qualified systems when this is done, not for $5B. One. Maybe 1.5.That's an interesting analysis, what do you base it on? Since Blue Origin seems to be chugging along for essentially zero dollars, I think that's overly pessimistic. we might end up with 2.5 even after Boeing implodes.
Well, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew.$5 billion? That's a complete bargain for 2.5 qualified crewed systems (with multiple abort tests and launches), with milestones paid only when each milestone is completed. JWST is a single, unmanned spacecraft with a single launch. Pretty much as apples-to-oranges as you can get.
Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense.
You will not have 2.5 qualified systems when this is done, not for $5B. One. Maybe 1.5.
You will not have 2.5 qualified systems when this is done, not for $5B. One. Maybe 1.5.That's an interesting analysis, what do you base it on? Since Blue Origin seems to be chugging along for essentially zero dollars, I think that's overly pessimistic. we might end up with 2.5 even after Boeing implodes.
Not /explicitly/ excluded, that's not what I meant. And let me make clear this is my opinion; it's based on comments from other experts (such as Jim).Quite reasonable points, IMHO, even though I think it has turned out better than should've been expected and in hindsight is a good investment. The EELVs should not have been excluded. Many think they were excluded in order to reduce the chance that NASA's main HSF turf would not be encroached upon.
The EELVs were not excluded from competing in COTS. This is a myth that people on this forum keep repeating but it isn't actually true. Boeing had a proposal that nearly won over Orbital's proposal in 2008. DC competed in 2006 and would have used an Atlas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services
Not /explicitly/ excluded, that's not what I meant. And let me make clear this is my opinion; it's based on comments from other experts (such as Jim).Quite reasonable points, IMHO, even though I think it has turned out better than should've been expected and in hindsight is a good investment. The EELVs should not have been excluded. Many think they were excluded in order to reduce the chance that NASA's main HSF turf would not be encroached upon.
The EELVs were not excluded from competing in COTS. This is a myth that people on this forum keep repeating but it isn't actually true. Boeing had a proposal that nearly won over Orbital's proposal in 2008. DC competed in 2006 and would have used an Atlas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services
Well, NASA requested at least 850 million each and every year thru 2017 for commerical crew.$5 billion? That's a complete bargain for 2.5 qualified crewed systems (with multiple abort tests and launches), with milestones paid only when each milestone is completed. JWST is a single, unmanned spacecraft with a single launch. Pretty much as apples-to-oranges as you can get.
Add that to the money already spent, and tell me how this does not approach JWST levels of expense.
What makes you think Boeing will implode?Wishful thinking. It's the option least likely to advance the state of the art. IMHO. And therefore the one that probably has the best chance of winning, it seems.
What makes you think Boeing will implode?Wishful thinking. It's the option least likely to advance the state of the art. IMHO. And therefore the one that probably has the best chance of winning, it seems.
What makes you think Boeing will implode?Wishful thinking. It's the option least likely to advance the state of the art. IMHO. And therefore the one that probably has the best chance of winning, it seems.
It also seems the most redundant, with Dragon and Orion already in production. I hope Dream Chaser's unique attributes give it the needed edge over another capsule design.
Well Orion is supposed to be BEO and the other's LEO. The only redundancy is in the LEO program. None in the BEO program. That's a worry. NASA needs redundancy in both IMO. They've got it with launchers so they're safe there.
if Americans want astronauts launching from their own soil.
But they don't care if the rockets are made in Russia?
Actually, the rocket is being built by Ukraine, not Russia.
They are no longer monolithic.Actually, the rocket is being built by Ukraine, not Russia.
*Russia and other former soviet republics. Fixed.
Actually, the rocket is being built by Ukraine, not Russia.
Actually, the rocket is being built by Ukraine, not Russia.
What rocket are you talking about?
I was talking about the RD-180 which, as far as I'm aware, is still built by NPO Energomash in Russia.
Edit: hmpft.. seems it's "made" by RD AMROSS, which is a Florida company. No idea where it is actually manufactured.
I was referring to the Antares rocket stage. And BTW, Aerojet and P&W (or whoever now owns them) can make the NK-33 and RD-180 if the fit hits the shan.
He means that they have been transferred the whole IP, even to the point of actually designing the factory and full process documentation, in the RD-180 case. Just add 140M and three years and you'd have a nice RD-180 factory.I was referring to the Antares rocket stage. And BTW, Aerojet and P&W (or whoever now owns them) can make the NK-33 and RD-180 if the fit hits the shan.
You mean they're allowed to try. :)
RD-180 is manufactured by NPO Energomash, which is headquartered in Khimki, Moscow State, Russia. RD AMROSS is the joint venture with PWR that facilitates import to the U.S..Actually, the rocket is being built by Ukraine, not Russia.
What rocket are you talking about?
I was talking about the RD-180 which, as far as I'm aware, is still built by NPO Energomash in Russia.
Edit: hmpft.. seems it's "made" by RD AMROSS, which is a Florida company. No idea where it is actually manufactured.
Unless the fit hits the shan.
Why is the SNC DC "better across the board", the DC has to be more complex then a capsule owing to it requirement to maneuver to land and the DC TPS is under more stress than the CST-100. While i am a DC fan, the CST-100 is a smart, relatively simple design that utilizes proven technology.Unless the fit hits the shan.
I think they should start working on a domestic alternative to the RD-180.
If not a US produced RD-180 then maybe the AJ-26-500.
On down selecting I think they can bring it to Spacex,SNC,and Boeing now.
Spacex is a shoe in with their proven CRS performance which leaves the remaining two SNC and Boeing.
SNC's vehicle is better across the board but Boeing has more resources
so choosing between those two is tough.
Though maybe go with 2.5 contractors for it.
This seems the best compromise between cost and redundancy.
2 is the minimum since with 1.5 you're putting too many eggs in one basket.
Why is the SNC DC "better across the board", the DC has to be more complex then a capsule owing to it requirement to maneuver to land and the DC TPS is under more stress than the CST-100. While i am a DC fan, the CST-100 is a smart, relatively simple design that utilizes proven technology.
That is still much different from "better across the board." The hybrid propulsion is likely to be, in practice, much lower performance than other options, even if they can get it to work reliably (their bid would be significantly improved if they switched to something else, say ethanol and nitrous). They're also unlikely to be usable for deep space (though it's not /impossible/), unlike both Dragon and CST-100. This is perhaps half the reason to develop such a vehicle in the first place. I can see plenty of good aspects of DC, but absolutely can not see how one can claim it's better "across the board."
The decent and landing method is the most tested and proven of all decent and landing modes used on spacecraft.
If STS proved anything it proved that a runway landing is by far the safest mode of recovery you can't really argue too much with the statistics.
The failure that did occur with STS were launch stack interaction induced.
Most tested and proved??? I think if you were to add up the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, chinese and Soviet/Russian capsules you will find far more than the shuttle. And they have shown where even failures (e.g., Soyuz 14S ballistic entry) can be recovered safely. I think statistically you would find the capsules are safer and by far, BY FAR, cheaper to operate. The shuttle was as safe as it was due to a tremendous amount of ground support, training, redudancy... Your statement just doesn't fly.
I like CST-100.
It lands on land. Good for live coverage of egress.
Good internal volume for the diameter.
Service module propellant is used for abort. Solid abort tractor tower I find icky in comparison.
Shape can handle BEO reentry.
It's light enough to launch on existing rockets.
Compared to Orion it's a hot rod dream machine.
Astronaut Lee Archambault will join Sierra Nevada Corp:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/releases/2013/J13-007.html
I think they should have at least 2 and simply expand the mission.
That way US astronauts wont be grounded if something (heaven forbid) was to happen to one of the operators. Personally, I would even prefer 3.
I think they should have at least 2 and simply expand the mission.
That way US astronauts wont be grounded if something (heaven forbid) was to happen to one of the operators. Personally, I would even prefer 3.
I don't see how they can have more than one. There are just two flights per year unless and until additional private Space Stations come into service. That's barely enough for one. The spare system can be Soyus as before.
A capsule system is not as likely to get out of service as the Shuttle was, so I don't see a reason for having two systems.
That is what I thought as well. But I guess there is no money to extent space station operations because it all goes to the SLS...
Back when I was a naive optimist, I thought the idea was to make spaceflight more routine and allow more frequent visits to the station than our current 3 up, 3 down every few months.
Back when I was a naive optimist, I thought the idea was to make spaceflight more routine and allow more frequent visits to the station than our current 3 up, 3 down every few months. But yeah, as long as current ISS expeditions represent the extent of our manned space program, the whole "commercial crew" thing really makes no sense.
Combine crew and cargo contracts, then having two suppliers is entirely feasible.
Combine crew and cargo contracts, then having two suppliers is entirely feasible.NASA will have to do a second CRS bidding process. But I seriously doubt that any CCS launched with an Atlas will be able to compete on price. And Dc doesn't seems to be able to fit an CBM, either. And I'm not sure CST-100 can retrofit an unpressurized compartment given where they've put their OMS. Ironically, the most likely candidate to make a good offer there would be... Liberty II. :o
Combine crew and cargo contracts, then having two suppliers is entirely feasible.
Nasa can't combine. They can offer the option of making dual offers. But they simply can't force a dual solution. Both because they have different requirements and because they don't have the budget to ask for such a wastage. I believe OSC has a very good solution for cargo.
Nasa can't combine. They can offer the option of making dual offers. But they simply can't force a dual solution. Both because they have different requirements and because they don't have the budget to ask for such a wastage. I believe OSC has a very good solution for cargo.If that's the only feasible way to get two crew providers, why the heck can't they combine? (And I agree OSC's solution is good for cargo.)
Because they already have made the specs for crew with CCiCAP. If you where to change the rules of the contest they won't be ready for 2016, probably only to 2019. And as stated above, the contestants have made technical decisions that might need a different approach for cargo. Boeing might have designed the RCS system differently, DC might have chosen a different LV, etc.Nasa can't combine. They can offer the option of making dual offers. But they simply can't force a dual solution. Both because they have different requirements and because they don't have the budget to ask for such a wastage. I believe OSC has a very good solution for cargo.If that's the only feasible way to get two crew providers, why the heck can't they combine? (And I agree OSC's solution is good for cargo.)
Because they already have made the specs for crew with CCiCAP. If you where to change the rules of the contest they won't be ready for 2016, probably only to 2019. And as stated above, the contestants have made technical decisions that might need a different approach for cargo. Boeing might have designed the RCS system differently, DC might have chosen a different LV, etc.Nasa can't combine. They can offer the option of making dual offers. But they simply can't force a dual solution. Both because they have different requirements and because they don't have the budget to ask for such a wastage. I believe OSC has a very good solution for cargo.If that's the only feasible way to get two crew providers, why the heck can't they combine? (And I agree OSC's solution is good for cargo.)
The specs are different and the needs are different. And in any case, you only care about total cost. They might allow mixed proposals for crew and cargo. But if somebody offers a cheaper cargo services, how do you justify to pay more for a service? What if A offers cheaper cargo than C, B cheaper Crew than C and A+B is less than C+C?
Let's not forget that there's a real need for pressurized cargo athmospheric disposal. Who's going to offer that? Currently only HTV and Cygnus can do it, and none of the current CCiCAP can do it.
So nobody thinks the commercial crew folks have considered cargo requirements? Dragon, a vehicle whose purpose for coming into existence was to eventually bring humans to orbit, seems to be doing a pretty good job at cargo service. Progress (which is based on Soyuz) served for several decades (and still does!) as a cargo vehicle, uses a docking system which is more cumbersome to get stuff through than NDSS. And the mini-CBM on Cygnus (significantly smaller than the one on Dragon, by the way) isn't too different in diameter from NDSS.I agree!
I guarantee you that /every/ commercial crew contender has given serious thought to cargo logistics as well.
EDIT: NDS is indeed significantly bigger than the probe-and-drogue system that Progress has used for logistics since the 1970s.
<snip>
And the mini-CBM on Cygnus (significantly smaller than the one on Dragon, by the way)...
<snip>
So nobody thinks the commercial crew folks have considered cargo requirements?They might have, but now they are quite focused on providing crew services. And even NASA had to think a lot about what they meant by man rating. All this has generated a very specific and custom designs.
Dragon, a vehicle whose purpose for coming into existence was to eventually bring humans to orbit, seems to be doing a pretty good job at cargo service. Progress (which is based on Soyuz) served for several decades (and still does!) as a cargo vehicle, uses a docking system which is more cumbersome to get stuff through than NDS.USOS and ROS are two different worlds. The Russian side is designed and optimized for the cone and probe. The USOS is designed and optimized for the CBM. They might work, but the whole approach system is the NASA requirement for Cargo.
And the mini-CBM on Cygnus (significantly smaller than the one on Dragon, by the way) isn't too different in diameter from NDS.Again, the CBM diameter is the same, is a smaller hatch. The true issue of CBM vs NDS is the approach (berthing vs docking).
I guarantee you that /every/ commercial crew contender has given serious thought to cargo logistics as well.Of course they have given it thought. But they are trying to get a contract under the CCiCAP rules, and those rules, as stated above, makes you optimize differently.
What would prevent SpaceX from buying a Russian docking system and swap out the current CBM system on the Dragon with it. Thus able to docked on the ROS. Provide the Russians are willing to sale.
USOS and ROS are two different worlds. The Russian side is designed and optimized for the cone and probe.
If it's the difference between only having one crew provider and having two, it makes far more sense to combine crew and cargo. Not only does it share costs, but it also greatly increases safety, since a randomly introduced design/process problem is more likely to be caught on a non-life-critical cargo flight than a crew flight.
I believe Elon said at a talk or during an interview not too long ago that crew Dragon would not have a trunk and solar panels but instead just have way bigger batteries.
CST-100 could probably work just as good as a Dragon, with a CBM, and a new service module.
I believe Elon said at a talk or during an interview not too long ago that crew Dragon would not have a trunk and solar panels but instead just have way bigger batteries.
You got it part right. No solar panels, yes, but the trunk will likely remain, even if it is in a shortened form.
I believe Elon said at a talk or during an interview not too long ago that crew Dragon would not have a trunk and solar panels but instead just have way bigger batteries.
You got it part right. No solar panels, yes, but the trunk will likely remain, even if it is in a shortened form.
Partly right again. The solar panels are gone yes, but it was _unspecified_ what will happen to the trunk. Everything beyond that is guess work.
They might have, but now they are quite focused on providing crew services. And even NASA had to think a lot about what they meant by man rating. All this has generated a very specific and custom designs.
CST-100 could probably work just as good as a Dragon, with a CBM, and a new service module. In fact, they seem to have almost all their RCS save the pusher escape system on the sides, so they might have thought about it.
Dream Chaser, seems more designed for Crew. A CBM doesn't seems to fit there, and the length and width might pose quite an interference problem if it were modified for being handled. And I can't see how to add unpressurized module. I mean, they could add a whole MLPM besides the DC, but it would block the propulsion modules. I ignore about Blue Origin's New Space Vehicle, but it doesn't seems to have a a way to put a CBM, since the NDS was on the side. Ironically, ATK's Liberty had the best proposal for cargo. Although I doubt it's cost and maturity.
But all of them have been designed and optimized for crew at this stage. That means having a pilot do the approach and docking. It's also the reason you have to put a CBM. I don't think NASA would allow automatic docking to the APAS-like on the USOS side. So now they would have to design all the new avionics and approaching software, plus the ISS interaction to get in the grapple box. And now there's no COTS money.
But the true issue is the LV. You don't use Atlas V because it's cheap, you use it because it's as reliably a LV as they come (which is important way more important for crew than for cargo). The New World Observatory papers stated that an Atlas V 501 cost 140M. Take in consideration that costs have gone up dramatically, and those where 2007 prices. What's more, these vehicles use the Centaur x 2, which uses two of the most expensive item on the Atlas V, the RL10. I would not be surprised if the 402 is about 170M today. Which is more than the whole Dragon mission. And each Cygnus mission costs 190M. There's one way to compete with them. But that would require to use a 431, or find a way to use a 551 (which would need a custom "fairing" upto the capsule adapter). Then you make a big craft that can double the payload of either Cygnus or Dragon. So you can compete on USD/kg. But that would mean half the missions and bigger spacecraft, too.
The other issue of optimizing for cargo (launching on Atlas V) is that you have to put a lot of volume, while optimizing for crew you worry about evacuation, ECLSS, etc. After they did a low of optimizing for crew, retrofitting cargo gets more difficult.
I believe Elon said at a talk or during an interview not too long ago that crew Dragon would not have a trunk and solar panels but instead just have way bigger batteries.I remember hearing that, oops.
I was referring to safety, not schedule impact. You only addressed schedule impact, as if knowing about a safety problem (and thus having to stop flights until it is fixed) is worse than not knowing about it... For /real/ levels of safety, it's much better to find out about the problem. CRS flights should be about 3 times more frequent than crew flights, so if the vehicles are largely the same, you have just one fourth as great of a chance of the problem first rearing its head on the crewed flight. That's a pretty good improvement!If it's the difference between only having one crew provider and having two, it makes far more sense to combine crew and cargo. Not only does it share costs, but it also greatly increases safety, since a randomly introduced design/process problem is more likely to be caught on a non-life-critical cargo flight than a crew flight.
Not true. A manufacturing defect could occur on either the crew or cargo mission, which would shut down both crew and cargo flights from that provider until it was resolved. Since the frequency of the CRS flights isn't that much greater than the manned missions, the problem could occur on either mission. Just go back to the problem with the Russian upper stages if you need an example of why 2 different providers are needed.
And as far as schedule impact... That's a good reason to have two crew providers!!!... who don't use the same launch vehicle. As cool as it might be to put DC on F9 instead of Atlas (might be cheaper too) It's probably not a good idea from that aspect.
Agreed.And as far as schedule impact... That's a good reason to have two crew providers!!!... who don't use the same launch vehicle. As cool as it might be to put DC on F9 instead of Atlas (might be cheaper too) It's probably not a good idea from that aspect.
And as far as schedule impact... That's a good reason to have two crew providers!!!... who don't use the same launch vehicle. As cool as it might be to put DC on F9 instead of Atlas (might be cheaper too) It's probably not a good idea from that aspect.
Or perhaps nominally on F9 but optionally on man-rated Delta IV...And as far as schedule impact... That's a good reason to have two crew providers!!!... who don't use the same launch vehicle. As cool as it might be to put DC on F9 instead of Atlas (might be cheaper too) It's probably not a good idea from that aspect.
Unless DC can be made LV agnostic. Then it could fly on either.
Unless DC can be made LV agnostic. Then it could fly on either.And as far as schedule impact... That's a good reason to have two crew providers!!!... who don't use the same launch vehicle. As cool as it might be to put DC on F9 instead of Atlas (might be cheaper too) It's probably not a good idea from that aspect.
Our launch system is the Atlas V, although we're agnostic, we can launch on anything that can lift our mass ... we chose the Atlas because it has the capacity to do what we do, but mainly because it has a long history...
If DC loses in the next rounds, it's highly unlikely there will be money for them to complete development, let alone qualify on a different LV.
Wonder if SpaceX and Boeing might each do a test launch of the other's capsule on their respective LVs?
Then any future hiccups with the LVs and capsules with not halt access to space.
While it still is TBD, Glad to see it coming up on the launch calendar.
(2015) "4th quarter - TBD, ABS 2A - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
yearend - Dragon (manned flight to ISS) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40"
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1025272#msg1025272
Wonder if SpaceX and Boeing might each do a test launch of the other's capsule on their respective LVs?
Then any future hiccups with the LVs and capsules with not halt access to space.
While it still is TBD, Glad to see it coming up on the launch calendar.That would probably be the second manned Dragon flight, right? The first would have SpaceX crew and not be on NASA's launch schedule.
(2015) "4th quarter - TBD, ABS 2A - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
yearend - Dragon (manned flight to ISS) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40"
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1025272#msg1025272
Wonder if SpaceX and Boeing might each do a test launch of the other's capsule on their respective LVs?
Wonder if SpaceX and Boeing might each do a test launch of the other's capsule on their respective LVs?
Undoubtedly they could, but the probability is nil. NASA has asked for and wants in integrated capability, not a mix-and-match solution. Given that NASA wouldn't fund such, who would? SpaceX, Boeing and SNC have placed their bets, and in the absence of funds and motivation to move those bets, the table is set.
Maybe Bigelow. Remember reading that Bigelow might offer CST-100 flights on the Falcon.
While it still is TBD, Glad to see it coming up on the launch calendar.
(2015) "4th quarter - TBD, ABS 2A - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
yearend - Dragon (manned flight to ISS) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40"
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1025272#msg1025272
That would probably be the second manned Dragon flight, right? The first would have SpaceX crew and not be on NASA's launch schedule.
Could they be launching SpaceX crew to the ISS for their crew qualification/demonstration/whatever flight then? Demonstrate a complete trip to the ISS and back?While it still is TBD, Glad to see it coming up on the launch calendar.
(2015) "4th quarter - TBD, ABS 2A - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
yearend - Dragon (manned flight to ISS) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40"
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1025272#msg1025272
That would probably be the second manned Dragon flight, right? The first would have SpaceX crew and not be on NASA's launch schedule.
Every launch has to be on the schedule, even if it's just a commerical payload, which this flight technically qualifies as.
Latest Commercial Spaceflight 60-Day Report (May 2013) has just been posted:
Latest Commercial Spaceflight 60-Day Report (May 2013) has just been posted:
Here is the link to the 60-day report:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/752771main_May_2013_60_Day_Report_508.pdf
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_01_2013_p26-589690.xml&p=1Man that has a lot of good info on both Boeing and SpaceX and their respective capsules.
"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”
News of the day (at least to me)... Boeing to meet with SpaceX soon to discuss launching CST-100 on Falcon 9. Up until now it was just rumors looks like it may be heading in that direction.
"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”
News of the day (at least to me)... Boeing to meet with SpaceX soon to discuss launching CST-100 on Falcon 9. Up until now it was just rumors looks like it may be heading in that direction.
No, it was not rumors, they have be stating that all along. This is no indication that they are selecting F9 over Atlas.
"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”
News of the day (at least to me)... Boeing to meet with SpaceX soon to discuss launching CST-100 on Falcon 9. Up until now it was just rumors looks like it may be heading in that direction.
No, it was not rumors, they have be stating that all along. This is no indication that they are selecting F9 over Atlas.
Always a good idea to keep you're options open. Might be a time where there's a need for a fast turn around and SpaceX has a rocket ready but no Dragon, while Boing might have a CST-100 ready but no rocket. This would save time and headaches, as well as potentilaly 'right sizing' a payload to the launcher.
Jason
Always a good idea to keep you're options open. Might be a time where there's a need for a fast turn around and SpaceX has a rocket ready but no Dragon, while Boing might have a CST-100 ready but no rocket. This would save time and headaches, as well as potentilaly 'right sizing' a payload to the launcher.
A bit of a late update:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/cert-joint-testing.html#.UdLxf6wlI4k (http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/cert-joint-testing.html#.UdLxf6wlI4k)
I noticed we have yet another acronym to learn!
"The newest certification phase expected to kick off next summer will be called the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap). The program manager said CCtCap will include at least one crewed demonstration mission to the orbiting laboratory."
I can't help but look at this program and think, what a disaster in the making. So, it's pretty much assured that two out of the three contenders are going to be dead-ends and pretty much just money down the drain for nothing?
I can't help but look at this program and think, what a disaster in the making. So, it's pretty much assured that two out of the three contenders are going to be dead-ends and pretty much just money down the drain for nothing?How much do you think this would have cost if it had been done under a single contractor and NASA could change and add features and requirements at will? It would have been a second Ares I. Or you'd have ended with SLS/Orion for ISS crew.
If we recall - the NASA/congress HL-20 had a lot of funds expended on the program with little flight hardware (maybe something like 1 billion spent on studies -citation needed??). The SAA method has reduced risk and produced three potential options, all of which are workable. If things go reasonably well (one can still hope) we will get both the highest reliability and lowest cost method to LEO for the next two or three decades.I can't help but look at this program and think, what a disaster in the making. So, it's pretty much assured that two out of the three contenders are going to be dead-ends and pretty much just money down the drain for nothing?How much do you think this would have cost if it had been done under a single contractor and NASA could change and add features and requirements at will? It would have been a second Ares I. Or you'd have ended with SLS/Orion for ISS crew.
This was not the cheapest way, but it was the cheapest way as long as you have MSFC doing launch systems. BTW, this will probably also be the safest. Purely commercial might not have been as safe as if NASA is calling the risk levels.
I can't help but look at this program and think, what a disaster in the making. So, it's pretty much assured that two out of the three contenders are going to be dead-ends and pretty much just money down the drain for nothing?
I think it sucks that they are essentially killing one of the biggest advantages of commercial crew, which was redundancy. With more than one provider, american crews would not end up being grounded for years in case of a problem (and the following investigation). Instead more money will go to the Russians. Well, I guess it depends on where your political priorities are...
U.S. Domestic provider redundancy has never been a goal of commercial crew or a criteria for selection (you won't find it mentioned in any of the solicitations).Hmmm, so maybe I am misunderstanding this (and other simillar quotes by NASA representatives on the topic):
This same philosophy of dissimilar redundancy is critical to cargo transportation to space station, and will be critical to the development of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.
Hmmm, so maybe I am misunderstanding this (and other simillar quotes by NASA representatives on the topic):You are conflating commercial cargo and crew. For cargo two domestic providers have been stated as a need; the same has not been stated for crew.
Hmmm, so maybe I am misunderstanding this (and other simillar quotes by NASA representatives on the topic):You are conflating commercial cargo and crew. For cargo two domestic providers have been stated as a need; the same has not been stated for crew.
and will be critical to the development of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.I read crew here...? Scratches head.
Quoteand will be critical to the development of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.I read crew here...? Scratches head.
This same philosophy of dissimilar redundancy is critical to cargo transportation to space station, and will be critical to the development of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. The successful completion of the Antares demonstration flight to space station will restore full U.S. redundancy to cargo transportation, along with NASA’s Commercial Resupply Service partner SpaceX. The Interantional Space Station Program’s cargo redundancy—rounded out by the European Automated Transfer Vehicle, the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle; and the Russian Progress—is such that space station can absorb a failure of any one of these systems without a major impact to on-orbit operations. Dissimilar redundancy is a sound engineering philosophy to which the space station program, along with its international and commercial partners, continues to adhere today.
According to Sam Scimemi, director of the International Space Station program at NASA Headquarters, “The long term viability and utilization of space station is dependent on two operational domestic cargo providers. Though currently there are multiple cargo providers across the partnership, there will be reductions in the availability in the future especially the ATV and HTV. Furthermore, spaceflight is inherently a challenging endeavor and no system is immune to significant anomalies or failures. Having two domestic cargo providers ensures that NASA’s mission in low-Earth orbit and on station is achievable.”
Latest Commercial Spaceflight 60-Day Report (May 2013) has just been posted:
Here is the link to the 60-day report:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/752771main_May_2013_60_Day_Report_508.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/752771main_May_2013_60_Day_Report_508.pdf)
Hmmm, see when I read it in the context of the commercial crew program, I DO read it as the need for multiple domestic commercial providers and I think that it was intended to mean that.
Parse carefully, and in context...QuoteThis same philosophy of dissimilar redundancy is critical to cargo transportation to space station, and will be critical to the development of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. The successful completion of the Antares demonstration flight to space station will restore full U.S. redundancy to cargo transportation, along with NASA’s Commercial Resupply Service partner SpaceX. The Interantional Space Station Program’s cargo redundancy—rounded out by the European Automated Transfer Vehicle, the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle; and the Russian Progress—is such that space station can absorb a failure of any one of these systems without a major impact to on-orbit operations. Dissimilar redundancy is a sound engineering philosophy to which the space station program, along with its international and commercial partners, continues to adhere today.
According to Sam Scimemi, director of the International Space Station program at NASA Headquarters, “The long term viability and utilization of space station is dependent on two operational domestic cargo providers. Though currently there are multiple cargo providers across the partnership, there will be reductions in the availability in the future especially the ATV and HTV. Furthermore, spaceflight is inherently a challenging endeavor and no system is immune to significant anomalies or failures. Having two domestic cargo providers ensures that NASA’s mission in low-Earth orbit and on station is achievable.”
... which translates to: (a) a need for dissimilar redundancy for cargo and crew; (b) a call for two domestic cargo providers to ensure "viability and utilization" (note conjunction); and (c) a need for dissimilar redundancy for crew, but no statement of a need for multiple domestic providers for crew.
Um, yes it has been. It has repeatedly been stated. You're the one trying to rewrite history.Hmmm, so maybe I am misunderstanding this (and other simillar quotes by NASA representatives on the topic):You are conflating commercial cargo and crew. For cargo two domestic providers have been stated as a need; the same has not been stated for crew.
... which translates to: (a) a need for dissimilar redundancy for cargo and crew; (b) a call for two domestic cargo providers to ensure "viability and utilization" (note conjunction); and (c) a need for dissimilar redundancy for crew, but no statement of a need for multiple domestic providers for crew.
NASA crew to fly ISS test flights
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36098nasa-astronauts-to-fly-on-space-taxi-test-flights-to-station#.UdkCFL-9LTo
With or without NASA, Crewed Dragon will be deployed, so even though I am a Dragon enthusiast, I would advocate to cut SpaceX, for the pure purpose of allowing CST-100 and Dreamchaser to be matured and deployed long enough to allow a commercial market to develop that could support at least one of them, with or without NASA. Crewed Dragon will fly anyway, so why needlessly cut either of the other two? And if two must be cut I would cut Dragon and CST-100 in order to keep the lifting body spacecraft alive. Dreamchaser offers the most cross range, the largest launch and recovery windows, earth-wide landing capability and the gentlest return flight for delicate payload and/or injured personnel. It's landing opportunities and cross range exceed even Shuttle's because it can utilized much shorter runways than Shuttle for emergency returns.
Cutting SpaceX will not stop Crewed Dragon from flying, but cutting either of the other 2 would, imo, be a death blow to that spacecraft.
With or without NASA, Crewed Dragon will be deployed
Quote from: clongtonWith or without NASA, Crewed Dragon will be deployed
And why is that? Is there a market for orbital human spaceflight that would support a commercial crew program?
If any of those programs is not supported by NASA anymore it will simply cease to exist.
Cutting SpaceX will not stop Crewed Dragon from flying, but cutting either of the other 2 would, imo, be a death blow to that spacecraft.
A manned Dragon is no certainty -
A manned Dragon is no certainty -
Unless SpaceX shuts down, yes it is - absolutely. It is the entire reason that SpaceX exists. Crewed Dragon was conceptually designed first, and the Falcon 9 was subsequently designed to lift it to orbit.
A manned Dragon is no certainty -
Unless SpaceX shuts down, yes it is - absolutely. It is the entire reason that SpaceX exists. Crewed Dragon was conceptually designed first, and the Falcon 9 was subsequently designed to lift it to orbit.
Elon started SpaceX for the very specific purpose of going to Mars, with or without NASA.
Which is why his launch vehicles also serve a commercial market.
You vastly overestimate Musk's fortune.
^You are missing my point. Musk needs the crewed Dragon for his own goals as well. Because of that he would build it with our without NASA. He would finance that by launching commercial payloads of all kinds.
Its about crewed dragon. I'm not convinced that $20m/seat will trigger big enough commercial demand to make its development worthwhile.
Quote from: clongtonElon started SpaceX for the very specific purpose of going to Mars, with or without NASA.
You vastly overestimate Musk's fortune.
A manned Dragon is no certainty -
Unless SpaceX shuts down, yes it is - absolutely. It is the entire reason that SpaceX exists. Crewed Dragon was conceptually designed first, and the Falcon 9 was subsequently designed to lift it to orbit.
Citation?
And it still means squat to ISS/NASA
and the commercial crew program
^You are missing my point. Musk needs the crewed Dragon for his own goals as well. Because of that he would build it with our without NASA. He would finance that by launching commercial payloads of all kinds.
Its about crewed dragon. I'm not convinced that $20m/seat will trigger big enough commercial demand to make its development worthwhile.
^
Its about crewed dragon. I'm not convinced that $20m/seat will trigger big enough commercial demand to make its development worthwhile.
But I'm skeptic about them continuing development of crewed Dragon.
Clongton, you seem sure they will
And you vastly underestimate the man and have obviously never bothered to actually listen to what he has to say.
But I'm skeptic about them continuing development of crewed Dragon.
Clongton, you seem sure they will
Yup
SpaceX deserves to be cut because the rocket they want to use hasn't flown 3 times.
It would be irresponsible for lawmakers to select SpaceX as the primary provider if forced to down select very soon.
Falcon 9 v1.1 isn't proven reliable. They retired the rocket that was.
SpaceX deserves to be cut because the rocket they want to use hasn't flown 3 times.
It would be irresponsible for lawmakers to select SpaceX as the primary provider if forced to down select very soon.
Falcon 9 v1.1 isn't proven reliable. They retired the rocket that was.
The situation sucks no matter how you slice it. The further we get the more wasted money and effort there is on two out of these three programs, whichever two end up getting the axe.
True, also, they might find use for their technology elsewhere. I still think that a downselect is a bad idea. Diversity is a good thing.The situation sucks no matter how you slice it. The further we get the more wasted money and effort there is on two out of these three programs, whichever two end up getting the axe.
That implies the remaining provider could or would have produced the same if the other two hadn't been competing.
The situation sucks no matter how you slice it. The further we get the more wasted money and effort there is on two out of these three programs, whichever two end up getting the axe.
That implies the remaining provider could or would have produced the same if the other two hadn't been competing.
When you think about it that way, the absolute worst thing NASA could do is say they'd prefer to keep all three.
Do you really think they will not be able to provide the best service for the best price? And do you really expect NASA and Congress to walk away from that scenario?
Do you really think they will not be able to provide the best service for the best price? And do you really expect NASA and Congress to walk away from that scenario?On the contrary I see SpaceX way in the lead which makes CST-100 and especially Dream Chaser extreme long shots and likely wasted efforts, sadly.
By that logic the SLS would deserve to be cut too. It has not flown yet either and it probably wont fly for a very long time.
This is a zero sum game. SpaceX will offer the greatest capability for the best price. And that my friends is what this is all about. Period. There is not a chance in hell they will not be selected.
On the contrary I see SpaceX way in the lead which makes CST-100 and especially Dream Chaser extreme long shots and likely wasted efforts, sadly.
This is about cost and savings for NASA.*
Everything else is gravy.*
It is frankly counterintuitive and borderline absurd to suggest that because SpaceX will develop Crewed Dragon regardless of selection that it means they won't be selected.*
The fact that F9 V1.1 has not flown 3 times and therefore should not be selected to launch a crewed Dragon 2-3 years from now is equally absurd. They'll have more then proven out the launcher before then.
SpaceX will offer a crewed service that is both value and capabilities oriented, grounded in and leveraged from a successful and extremely cost competitive commercial business of Sat and CRS launches. *
They have and will continue to gain valuable experience on ISS ops and continue to prove out Dragon and F9V1.1. With budgets being what they are, the services they are already providing and the milestones already achieved, do you really think they will not be in the final selection? Do you really think they will not be able to provide the best service for the best price?*
And do you really expect NASA and Congress to walk away from that scenario?*
This is a zero sum game. SpaceX will offer the greatest capability for the best price.* And that my friends is what this is all about. Period. There is not a chance in hell they will not be selected.*
Funny, I thought FAR didn't allowed for leaving out the best bid out because it will "happen anyways". But of course I haven't read it all.NASA crew to fly ISS test flights
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36098nasa-astronauts-to-fly-on-space-taxi-test-flights-to-station#.UdkCFL-9LTo
So at least one will be cut.
With or without NASA, Crewed Dragon will be deployed, so even though I am a Dragon enthusiast, I would advocate to cut SpaceX, for the pure purpose of allowing CST-100 and Dreamchaser to be matured and deployed long enough to allow a commercial market to develop that could support at least one of them, with or without NASA. Crewed Dragon will fly anyway, so why needlessly cut either of the other two? And if two must be cut I would cut Dragon and CST-100 in order to keep the lifting body spacecraft alive. Dreamchaser offers the most cross range, the largest launch and recovery windows, earth-wide landing capability and the gentlest return flight for delicate payload and/or injured personnel. It's landing opportunities and cross range exceed even Shuttle's because it can utilized much shorter runways than Shuttle for emergency returns.
Cutting SpaceX will not stop Crewed Dragon from flying, but cutting either of the other 2 would, imo, be a death blow to that spacecraft.
Conjecture by its' very nature is unsubstantiated. Feel free to choose one or the other, no need for both words.This is about cost and savings for NASA.*
Everything else is gravy.*
It is frankly counterintuitive and borderline absurd to suggest that because SpaceX will develop Crewed Dragon regardless of selection that it means they won't be selected.*
The fact that F9 V1.1 has not flown 3 times and therefore should not be selected to launch a crewed Dragon 2-3 years from now is equally absurd. They'll have more then proven out the launcher before then.
SpaceX will offer a crewed service that is both value and capabilities oriented, grounded in and leveraged from a successful and extremely cost competitive commercial business of Sat and CRS launches. *
They have and will continue to gain valuable experience on ISS ops and continue to prove out Dragon and F9V1.1. With budgets being what they are, the services they are already providing and the milestones already achieved, do you really think they will not be in the final selection? Do you really think they will not be able to provide the best service for the best price?*
And do you really expect NASA and Congress to walk away from that scenario?*
This is a zero sum game. SpaceX will offer the greatest capability for the best price.* And that my friends is what this is all about. Period. There is not a chance in hell they will not be selected.*
Unsubstantiated conjecture at every place with an *
As the most conservative design, and the smallest departure from an existing tried and proven spacecraft, it's the least likely to encounter some surprising reason for failure.
The "iCap" in CCiCap means "integrated capability".
That includes the rocket.
It's not my fault that SpaceX hasn't proven their launch vehicle before the crunch from the higher ups has come.
SpaceX fans might not be happy but it is what it is.
DEC is proven technology using proven engines.The record of DEC, please? Comparable to the record of Falcon 9? The record of ISS knowledge from SpaceX?
Government procurement doesn't look at how many times a vehicle will "have flown" it can only take the record at the time of awarding the contract.
*For the record, I personally would love to see the DC included and supported for future crew services. My response was specific to the idea put forth that SpaceX should not or would not be chosen since they will develop Crewed Dragon regardless. Context is important in understanding the response.
DEC is proven technology using proven engines.The record of DEC, please? Comparable to the record of Falcon 9? The record of ISS knowledge from SpaceX?
Government procurement doesn't look at how many times a vehicle will "have flown" it can only take the record at the time of awarding the contract.
Please stop making statements like facts when they are very questionable.
Not saying SpaceX will be or will not be chosen, but the amount of "knowledge" that gets sprayed around ( especially on the SpaceX parts of the forum ) that are just speculation, build on more speculation, build on someone saying "hey wouldn't it be a great idea if " and "hey guys my argument" while real sources are ignored or snowed under is truly amazing.
The confidence with which various statements are made is starting to really annoy me.
That is a great reason not to select them, and most likely will be the case.
Quote from: JimThat is a great reason not to select them, and most likely will be the case.
Except that the assumption that SpaceX will develop crewed dragon regardless is unsubstantiated. ;)
*For the record, I personally would love to see the DC included and supported for future crew services. My response was specific to the idea put forth that SpaceX should not or would not be chosen since they will develop Crewed Dragon regardless. Context is important in understanding the response.
That is a great reason not to select them, and most likely will be the case. Knowing a little about the spaceflight industry is important when making responses that include informed conjecture (which would be "substantiation").
The fact that Spacex got selected for COTS is something along this line. NASA could have selected a spacecraft that used a ULA launch vehicle, which would have been a quicker, cheaper and less risky solutions. But instead selected solutions that require launch vehicle development, which was going beyond meeting ISS cargo delivery requirements.
The record of DEC, please? Comparable to the record of Falcon 9? The record of ISS knowledge from SpaceX?
Dual Engine Centaur - > 200The point of course is that DEC hasn't flown yet in the current config. Neither has Falcon 9.
Falcon 9 V 1.1 - 0The record of DEC, please? Comparable to the record of Falcon 9? The record of ISS knowledge from SpaceX?
Dragon has carried cargo to and from the ISS three times already. Men have been inside it in space. I'd say that puts it more than a little ahead of the others, in terms of stage of development.
As the most conservative design, and the smallest departure from an existing tried and proven spacecraft, it's the least likely to encounter some surprising reason for failure.
And beyond the basic functionality of the initial version, there is potential for development of further capabilities, such as extreme operational convenience and landing on planets other than Earth.
Dragon represents the incremental approach, it isn't just the poor man's space capsule. More conservative doesn't always mean less ambitious, and sometimes smaller steps can take you to more places.
I also strongly suspect that they're going to be testing their launch abort / propulsive landing off a Grasshopper,
That is a great reason not to select them, and most likely will be the case.
CST-100 depends on a LOX/ethanol engine, while Dragon uses a much simpler hypergolic system.
So in this critical emergency system, the CST-100 is adding new points of failure, by depending on an ignition system, a cryogenic propellant, and one propellant which freezes solid at the temperature of the other propellant.
As for the LASes: all previous launch aborts were solid tractors (or ejection seats). Dragon and CST-100 are both liquid-fuelled pushers. CST-100 depends on a LOX/ethanol engine, while Dragon uses a much simpler hypergolic system.You're confusing the DreamChaser RCS to the CST-100 abort motor (which are already qualified and are hypergolic). BTW, DC abort motors are hybrid. And both Dragon and CST-100 use multiple abort motors exactly to have redundancy. I've never heard of multiple solids for abort. BTW, the requirement is only 90% of success rate for aborts.
Testing at a variety of altitudes and air speeds, after experiencing the acceleration and vibration of suborbital launch.
Testing at a variety of altitudes and air speeds, after experiencing the acceleration and vibration of suborbital launch.I also strongly suspect that they're going to be testing their launch abort / propulsive landing off a Grasshopper,
What does that accomplish?
As they get past the hovering tests and want to go supersonic and suborbital, they'll probably want some kind of aerodynamic cap. If that cap is a DragonFly, each Grasshopper flight can also be a Dragon test flight.
What kind of question is that? It's testing. You learn things and make things better.
Testing at a variety of altitudes and air speeds, after experiencing the acceleration and vibration of suborbital launch.
And what is that going to accomplish?
To get to the stage where propulsive landing is accepted in routine cases, Dragon needs to be tested like a commercial passenger aircraft: hundreds of test flights, under a wide variety of conditions. It doesn't need to go to orbit for most of those tests, but on many of them it does need to go higher than it can fly on its own power.
A very robust abort system would be a natural byproduct of this kind of flight testing.
At the same time, they need to fly many test flights of the reusable first stage, and learn how to quickly and affordably refuel and restack used stages. It seems natural to start combining these operations at some point.
No, not at all. I am in favor of maintaining competition as long as possible. And I applaud NASA for going down this route. However, competition was always just a means to an end. Competition in and of itself is not sustainable without enough companies to exist within a given sizable market to provide either downward pricing pressure or increased capabilities at competitive pricing or both. NASA can not currently provide that kind of scale on their own. They just don't have the funds or the needs to support both the development and utilization of 3 different Crew service providers.Do you really think they will not be able to provide the best service for the best price? And do you really expect NASA and Congress to walk away from that scenario?On the contrary I see SpaceX way in the lead which makes CST-100 and especially Dream Chaser extreme long shots and likely wasted efforts, sadly.
So what would you have done? Award a non-compete single-source contract to SpaceX or whoever? NASA tried to fast-forward with CCiDC but it didn't fly. So we have competition between the remaining contenders. Yes, it involves some "wasted effort", but competition always does.
The operative question is: Will that competition ultimately pay off in lower cost to the customer in the end? The jury is still out, but let's cut NASA some slack as this is (for them) a new way of doing business.
As an astronaut I would certainly prefer the CST-100 parachute and airbag landing to hypergolic thruster landing. The Dragon may be able to make more precise landings though.SNC has stated that DC has no black zones, so we would be talking RTLS, TAL or ATO. No need really to ditch, since they can throttle their hybrid rocket motors...
By the way, what is the Dreamchaser's solution to launch abort over the ocean, deploying floats? ;D
^OK I'll bite -
TAL? ATO?
I read something about crew bailout, which would be ok I guess.
The Dreamchaser is by far the coolest design, but I fear its also the most expensive to maintain.
1. I see no reason to believe they don't intend to fly unloaded or lightly loaded first stages all the way to space and on boost-back trajectories as part of the Grasshopper program. These are natural steps on an incremental path toward their stated goals.
2. CCiCAP manned orbital flight appears to also be years away, and going horizontal doesn't have to be incompatible with quick turnaround.
^TAL, “Trans Atlantic Landing” if needed at any 7000’ runway. ATO “Abort To Orbit, including once around. Bailing out might prove tricky wearing pressure suits out of the two hatches with the CoG changes as the crew is departing. If it’s not on fire why bail out?
TAL? ATO?
I read something about crew bailout, which would be ok I guess.
The Dreamchaser is by far the coolest design, but I fear its also the most expensive to maintain.
^OK I'll bite -
TAL? ATO?
I read something about crew bailout, which would be ok I guess.
The Dreamchaser is by far the coolest design, but I fear its also the most expensive to maintain.
The design of the HL-20 from the outset was for a reduced cost, low maintenance spacecraft (compared to Shuttle), the DC is an outgrowth and evolution of the HL-20, why do you feel that the DC will be the most expensive to maintain?
^OK I'll bite -
TAL? ATO?
I read something about crew bailout, which would be ok I guess.
The Dreamchaser is by far the coolest design, but I fear its also the most expensive to maintain.
The design of the HL-20 from the outset was for a reduced cost, low maintenance spacecraft (compared to Shuttle), the DC is an outgrowth and evolution of the HL-20, why do you feel that the DC will be the most expensive to maintain?
I agree with you that shape and cost are probably poorly correlated however, the design of the HL-20 had maintenance and refurbishment "built-in" such as access panels, simple engine replacement etc. The DC went a step further with the TPS "slipper" system for replacement of the lower section. These design choices should make the DC competitive, hopefully the DC will make it to flight so that the long-term costs of operation can be extrapolated.^OK I'll bite -
TAL? ATO?
I read something about crew bailout, which would be ok I guess.
The Dreamchaser is by far the coolest design, but I fear its also the most expensive to maintain.
The design of the HL-20 from the outset was for a reduced cost, low maintenance spacecraft (compared to Shuttle), the DC is an outgrowth and evolution of the HL-20, why do you feel that the DC will be the most expensive to maintain?
The HL-20 is a shape. Details of a shape aren't really known to correlate all that much with cost.
Clunky-legged, single-engined Grasshopper 1.0 was for close in testing. Grasshopper 1.1 apparently is for full flight envelope.
As an astronaut I would certainly prefer the CST-100 parachute and airbag landing to hypergolic thruster landing. The Dragon may be able to make more precise landings though.SNC has stated that DC has no black zones, so we would be talking RTLS, TAL or ATO. No need really to ditch, since they can throttle their hybrid rocket motors...
By the way, what is the Dreamchaser's solution to launch abort over the ocean, deploying floats? ;D
I'll be very interested to see how DC will handle (or not handle) ditching in the ocean, if needed. Not as simple as it sounds, and parachutes will add weight. DC is a great shape for runway landings, but what about anywhere else?
I'll be very interested to see how DC will handle (or not handle) ditching in the ocean, if needed. Not as simple as it sounds, and parachutes will add weight. DC is a great shape for runway landings, but what about anywhere else?
I don't understand.. surely it would be as easy to ditch in the ocean as any other glider. Why would you want parachutes?
how are you guys disagreeing, here? GH2 (whatever) will be more capable than GH1, but won't be ready until after v1.1 (and Falcon heavy?) flies, probably several times. Or do you have some insight on FH?
Clunky-legged, single-engined Grasshopper 1.0 was for close in testing. Grasshopper 1.1 apparently is for full flight envelope.
Far from it. They will being doing things with FH boosters before GH is ready.
Clunky-legged, single-engined Grasshopper 1.0 was for close in testing. Grasshopper 1.1 apparently is for full flight envelope.
Far from it. They will being doing things with FH boosters before GH is ready.
^Sorry I couldn’t reply, storm knocked out the power. Yes, it will fly up the east coast and then over Europe as Shuttle did (see attached). It really is about energy, how high, how far and how fast where you would land with many opportunities to land on a field. It has been discussed over the years on the DC threads, have a look. :) I need to mention again DC has no parachutes to lower it for landing...
So the trajectory is along the coast or something? Otherwise there is no guarantee it will reach a runway. Then the crew would have to bail out before hitting the water.
P.S. Ah those are shuttle abort modes :). Well but the shuttle had a whole tank of fuel to boost back to the launch site.
The “ablative slipper” has been rethought to conventional evolved TPS as on X-37 at this point.I agree with you that shape and cost are probably poorly correlated however, the design of the HL-20 had maintenance and refurbishment "built-in" such as access panels, simple engine replacement etc. The DC went a step further with the TPS "slipper" system for replacement of the lower section. These design choices should make the DC competitive, hopefully the DC will make it to flight so that the long-term costs of operation can be extrapolated.^OK I'll bite -
TAL? ATO?
I read something about crew bailout, which would be ok I guess.
The Dreamchaser is by far the coolest design, but I fear its also the most expensive to maintain.
The design of the HL-20 from the outset was for a reduced cost, low maintenance spacecraft (compared to Shuttle), the DC is an outgrowth and evolution of the HL-20, why do you feel that the DC will be the most expensive to maintain?
The HL-20 is a shape. Details of a shape aren't really known to correlate all that much with cost.
Sorry I couldn’t reply, storm knocked out the power. Yes, it will fly up the east coast and then over Europe as Shuttle did (see attached). It really is about energy, how high, how far and how fast where you would land with many opportunities to land on a field. It has been discussed over the years on the DC threads, have a look. :) I need to mention again DC has no parachutes to lower it for landing...
Once at a safe distance, a cluster of three emergency parachutes would open to lower the vehicle to a safe ocean landing. Inflatable flotation devices ensure that it rides high in the water, with at least one of two hatches available for crew emergency egress.
Good question, to my knowledge (which is limited) this aspect of the HL-20 is not on the DC. Maybe one of the SNC folks can answer this aspect of abort scenarios.Quote from: Rocket ScienceSorry I couldn’t reply, storm knocked out the power. Yes, it will fly up the east coast and then over Europe as Shuttle did (see attached). It really is about energy, how high, how far and how fast where you would land with many opportunities to land on a field. It has been discussed over the years on the DC threads, have a look. :) I need to mention again DC has no parachutes to lower it for landing...
Indulge me. The shuttle required to fire its engines to change its trajectory to the launch site or to the coast. And I read this about the HL-20:QuoteOnce at a safe distance, a cluster of three emergency parachutes would open to lower the vehicle to a safe ocean landing. Inflatable flotation devices ensure that it rides high in the water, with at least one of two hatches available for crew emergency egress.
I hope that Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser makes the cut! Having two roughly comparable capsules in CST-100 and Dragon would be kind of pointless and boring.Why do you believe it would be "pointless"?
Hopefully the "dissimilar redundancy" offered by a reusable lifting body spacecraft with low reentry g-loads and high cross-range will appeal to NASA.That's not what dissimilar redundancy is. Eventually CCDev is going to downselect to one.
Hopefully the "dissimilar redundancy" offered by a reusable lifting body spacecraft with low reentry g-loads and high cross-range will appeal to NASA.That's not what dissimilar redundancy is. Eventually CCDev is going to downselect to one.
He didn't claim dissimilar redundancy came from having Commercial Crew use different spacecraft and rockets than Commercial Cargo. He claimed it came from having a non-capsule design. So no, that is not dissimilar redundancy.Hopefully the "dissimilar redundancy" offered by a reusable lifting body spacecraft with low reentry g-loads and high cross-range will appeal to NASA.That's not what dissimilar redundancy is. Eventually CCDev is going to downselect to one.
Actually that is exactly what it means.
For those who think SpaceX is the answer to everything, I find it ironic that all the arguements against shuttle, etc were that the "eggs were in one basket" and now it seems perfectly acceptable to give SpaceX cargo and crew and on the same rocket and with only a variant Dragon.
Dreamchaser is not designed to carry crew and cargo. It is a crew vehicle. Any "cargo" that accompanies the crew will likely be personal items of the crews' or small stores of consumables that either don't rate a cargo launch or can't wait for one. In either case any cargo going uphill will be minor at most. SN does not advertise the Dreamchaser as a cargo vehicle.
Hopefully the "dissimilar redundancy" offered by a reusable lifting body spacecraft with low reentry g-loads and high cross-range will appeal to NASA.
That's not what dissimilar redundancy is. Eventually CCDev is going to downselect to one.
Actually that is exactly what it means.
For those who think SpaceX is the answer to everything, I find it ironic that all the arguements against shuttle, etc were that the "eggs were in one basket" and now it seems perfectly acceptable to give SpaceX cargo and crew and on the same rocket and with only a variant Dragon.
NASA reporting that it may go down to two competitors for next round.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36559next-round-of-commercial-crew-round-likely-to-support-only-two-competitors
This doesn't take a lightning strike, it's all human. It's the collective will and faith of enough people that determines whether a good idea will or will not happen. People like you and me influencing the influencers. Just saying.NASA reporting that it may go down to two competitors for next round.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36559next-round-of-commercial-crew-round-likely-to-support-only-two-competitors
While it is a great ideal, anything but one will just mean a delay past 2017. Just no way around it - unless lightening strikes and the CCP gets a HUGE budget increase. And that is not going to happen.
NASA, Congress Finalize Operating Plan for 2013
NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, intended to nurture development of commercial crew taxi services to and from the international space station, received $525 million under the final operating plan — exactly the presequestration amount Congress approved in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (H.R. 933) signed March 26
Mango Steps Down As Commercial Crew Manager
WASHINGTON — Edward Mango, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida has stepped down from his position and will be replaced on an acting basis by his deputy Kathryn Lueders, a NASA spokesman confirmed Oct. 29.
Meanwhile... in other news...
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/37916mango-steps-down-as-commercial-crew-managerQuoteMango Steps Down As Commercial Crew Manager
WASHINGTON — Edward Mango, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida has stepped down from his position and will be replaced on an acting basis by his deputy Kathryn Lueders, a NASA spokesman confirmed Oct. 29.
NASA Administrator Bolden to Hail Success of Commercial Cargo Program
NASA Administrator Charles Bolden will discuss the success of the agency's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) initiative during a televised news briefing at 11:30 a.m. EST Wednesday, Nov. 13.
Through COTS, NASA's partners Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences Corp., developed new U.S. rockets and spacecraft, launched from U.S. soil, capable of transporting cargo to low-Earth orbit and the International Space Station.
A successful Orbital Sciences demonstration mission to the space station was completed in October, signifying the end of COTS development. SpaceX made its first trip to the space station in May 2012 and completed its COTS partnership with NASA the same year. The agency now contracts space station cargo resupply missions with both companies.
The briefing will be held in the James E. Webb Auditorium at NASA Headquarters at 300 E St. SW in Washington. It will be broadcast live on NASA Television and streamed on the agency's website.
The participants will be:
-- Charles Bolden, NASA Administrator
-- Alan Lindenmoyer, Manager of Commercial Crew and Cargo Program, NASA
-- Gwynne Shotwell, President, SpaceX
-- Frank Culbertson, Executive Vice President and General Manager, Orbital Sciences Advanced Programs Group
-- Frank Slazer, Vice President of Space Systems, Aerospace Industries Association
-- Phil McAlister, Director of Commercial Spaceflight Development, NASA
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2013/november/nasa-administrator-bolden-to-hail-success-of-commercial-cargo-program/#.Un8CuuLjU7Y
Too well for some?Yepp, certain elements hate commercial crew and the fact that it is such a success. It makes their pet programs look inefficient and outdated.
Who would be these "certain elements" and what would be their "pet programs"?Too well for some?Yepp, certain elements hate commercial crew and the fact that it is such a success. It makes their pet programs look inefficient and outdated.
Who would be these "certain elements" and what would be their "pet programs"?Too well for some?Yepp, certain elements hate commercial crew and the fact that it is such a success. It makes their pet programs look inefficient and outdated.
There are three primary commercial crew efforts and there is MPCV. Is MPCV a "pet program"? Is it not a success? All four of these are NASA funded. MPCV and commercial crew have differing goals - deep space versus ISS resupply - so one is not at odds with the other. The only live-or-die competition is going to be among the three commercial crew alternatives.
- Ed Kyle
Who would be these "certain elements" and what would be their "pet programs"?Certain politicians and their pork rockets.
I wish things would not be presented this way. It should not be one or the other. It should be both, and more.Who would be these "certain elements" and what would be their "pet programs"?Certain politicians and their pork rockets.
I wish things would not be presented this way. It should not be one or the other. It should be both, and more.Tell that to these politicians.
The milestones are:
• Boeing Spacecraft Safety Review. NASA's investment is $20 million and the milestone is planned to be
accomplished in July 2014.
• SpaceX Dragon Parachute Tests. NASA's investment is $20 million and the milestone is planned to be
accomplished over several months culminating in November 2013.
• SNC Incremental Critical Design Review #1. NASA's investment is $5 million and the milestone is planned
to be accomplished in October 2013.
• SNC Incremental Reaction Control System Testing #1. NASA's investment is $10 million and the milestone
is planned to be accomplished in July 2014.
These milestones each reduce risks, advance the partners' development efforts or accelerate schedules consistent with the goals of CCiCap. NASA plans to use fiscal year 2014 funding for the total government investment of $55 million. Funding these optional milestones does not alter or affect NASA's acquisition strategy for the agency's Commercial Crew Program.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/four-milestones-added-to-commercial-crew-agreements (http://www.nasa.gov/content/four-milestones-added-to-commercial-crew-agreements)
The milestones are:
• Boeing Spacecraft Safety Review. NASA's investment is $20 million and the milestone is planned to be
accomplished in July 2014.
• SpaceX Dragon Parachute Tests. NASA's investment is $20 million and the milestone is planned to be
accomplished over several months culminating in November 2013.
• SNC Incremental Critical Design Review #1. NASA's investment is $5 million and the milestone is planned
to be accomplished in October 2013.
• SNC Incremental Reaction Control System Testing #1. NASA's investment is $10 million and the milestone
is planned to be accomplished in July 2014.
These milestones each reduce risks, advance the partners' development efforts or accelerate schedules consistent with the goals of CCiCap. NASA plans to use fiscal year 2014 funding for the total government investment of $55 million. Funding these optional milestones does not alter or affect NASA's acquisition strategy for the agency's Commercial Crew Program.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/four-milestones-added-to-commercial-crew-agreements (http://www.nasa.gov/content/four-milestones-added-to-commercial-crew-agreements)
I thought Dragon Crew was going to use the SuperDraco for landing not parachutes or is it chutes first evolving to the SDs?
Thanks.
The milestones are:
• Boeing Spacecraft Safety Review. NASA's investment is $20 million and the milestone is planned to be
accomplished in July 2014.
• SpaceX Dragon Parachute Tests. NASA's investment is $20 million and the milestone is planned to be
accomplished over several months culminating in November 2013.
• SNC Incremental Critical Design Review #1. NASA's investment is $5 million and the milestone is planned
to be accomplished in October 2013.
• SNC Incremental Reaction Control System Testing #1. NASA's investment is $10 million and the milestone
is planned to be accomplished in July 2014.
These milestones each reduce risks, advance the partners' development efforts or accelerate schedules consistent with the goals of CCiCap. NASA plans to use fiscal year 2014 funding for the total government investment of $55 million. Funding these optional milestones does not alter or affect NASA's acquisition strategy for the agency's Commercial Crew Program.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/four-milestones-added-to-commercial-crew-agreements (http://www.nasa.gov/content/four-milestones-added-to-commercial-crew-agreements)
I thought Dragon Crew was going to use the SuperDraco for landing not parachutes or is it chutes first evolving to the SDs?
Thanks.
Here's some relevant videos. The propulsion landing with parachutes video (https://youtu.be/6q3hHvdEqYE?t=34m) was from late July 2012. The entirely propulsive landing video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZJk4CrxctQ&t=1m30s) is from early August 2012.Is this what the nominal mission looks like?
Retro burn,
Heat shield deceleration
Parachute deceleration
Parachute release
Draco soft landing ...
The eventual goal is to skip parachutes completely and only have them as back-up. But they might start with what you suggest.
I thought Dragon Crew was going to use the SuperDraco for landing not parachutes or is it chutes first evolving to the SDs?Dragon v2 was originally supposed to use parachutes only in an emergency, but this CCICAP video shows Dragon landing on both rockets and chutes, similar to Soyuz. [urlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW3K3TfQbSI][/url]
Thanks.
I thought Dragon Crew was going to use the SuperDraco for landing not parachutes or is it chutes first evolving to the SDs?Dragon v2 was originally supposed to use parachutes only in an emergency, but this CCICAP video shows Dragon landing on both rockets and chutes, similar to Soyuz. [urlhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vW3K3TfQbSI][/url]
Thanks.
So long as you define "explore" as settlement, sure.
Last I heard, SpaceX isn't planning an exploration program, although they'd love to sell rockets and spaceships to NASA.
So long as you define "explore" as settlement, sure.
Last I heard, SpaceX isn't planning an exploration program, although they'd love to sell rockets and spaceships to NASA.
Read Elon's own words. He wants to open up Mars for settlement.
That's his driving goal.
All the profit he makes along the way is to fund that goal.
OIG report on the Commercial Crew program
http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY13/IG-14-001.pdf
On average, the three Commercial Crew partners are contributing under 20 percent of the CCiCap development costs for their spaceflight systems. ... For comparison, partner contributions for the cargo development program were roughly 50 percent.
So long as you define "explore" as settlement, sure.
Last I heard, SpaceX isn't planning an exploration program, although they'd love to sell rockets and spaceships to NASA.
Read Elon's own words. He wants to open up Mars for settlement.
That's his driving goal.
All the profit he makes along the way is to fund that goal.
Yes, I agree, but "exploration" is not the goal. It's a means to an end - settlement - and SpaceX expects government - NASA and others - to do that exploring.
Whereas there's plenty of people who support "space exploration" but think settlement isn't the goal.
16 NASA groups involved, inter agency roadblocks, miles of red tape, public funds footing most of the bill, downselect imminent .. sounds like COTS was an anomaly and everything is back to normal now.Not yet. One can hope :)
16 NASA groups involved, inter agency roadblocks, miles of red tape, public funds footing most of the bill, downselect imminent .. sounds like COTS was an anomaly and everything is back to normal now.There is no arguing about the bureaucracy at play. And yes, it gets frustrating and counterproductive on all levels.
COTS and CCDev are completely separate programs.
COTS was allow to go to completion without the same funding drama, mostly because they were asking for an order of magnitude less funding. Of course, neither vendor was allowed to fail either.
This is slightly OT, but I was looking for info on what is happening with human rating Atlas V. ULA did not get CCiCAP funding directly, but did any of the funds for Boeing or SNC include work for ULA to upgrade Atlas and/or the pad?
Also, where are threads related to human rating Atlas V supposed to go? There is a pinned thread in the "Commercial Crew Vehicles" section that says that they go in the ULA section. The ULA section has a pinned thread that says that they go in the Commercial Crew Vehicles section.
Re: earlier question...
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20131120/SPACE/131120008/?sf19694712=1&nclick_check=1
Re: earlier question...
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20131120/SPACE/131120008/?sf19694712=1&nclick_check=1
More info, with a reveal of "C.T.". Unfortunate.
Re: earlier question...
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20131120/SPACE/131120008/?sf19694712=1&nclick_check=1
Quote from the article:
"However, according to the records, he “believed his advocacy with others on C.T.’s behalf was appropriate because he was familiar with her work product.”
He actually said that? Ouch.
Meanwhile... in other news...And now we know why mr. Mango suddenly left his office.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/37916mango-steps-down-as-commercial-crew-manager (http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/37916mango-steps-down-as-commercial-crew-manager)QuoteMango Steps Down As Commercial Crew Manager
WASHINGTON — Edward Mango, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida has stepped down from his position and will be replaced on an acting basis by his deputy Kathryn Lueders, a NASA spokesman confirmed Oct. 29.
More info, with a reveal of "C.T.". Unfortunate.
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/NASA-employee-at-KSC-arrested-on-forgery-charges/-/1637132/17851572/-/1rksf0z/-/index.html
So you think the reveal is unfortunate, yet you link to stories and pictures identifying the individual?I don't think that the reveal is unfortunate. I think that the entire episode is unfortunate - for those involved, for NASA in general, for Commercial Crew, etc., but it appears that NASA has now done what it had to do and is moving on.
A very strange case this is...
Knew about it (and more) a few months ago. Opted not to report it.Thank you Chris for stopping this... I was uncomfortable where it was going this morning and I thought, “Let’s be the space site that doesn’t do this, we're not some tabloid rag”...
Afraid it could get a lot worse on this story and for fear of this turning into a Lisa Nowak style thread I'm probably going to send you off to other sites if this dominates threads like this.
And as such, no, we're not having a splinter thread for those who'll want to keep it bumped on top. Have a think to yourselves and don't post unless it's absolutely required.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by statistical illiteracy.It's a NASA document, not a pop press article.
The milestones, as far as I can tell, are not actually comparable in difficulty.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by statistical illiteracy.It's a NASA document, not a pop press article.
Each group has the same number of milestones left to go. 6.
But is a technical review the same difficulty of an in-flight max-q abort test? I kind of doubt it. The milestones can't be directly compared as if they're all the same.
Each group has the same number of milestones left to go. 6.
But is a technical review the same difficulty of an in-flight max-q abort test? I kind of doubt it. The milestones can't be directly compared as if they're all the same.
I did not see pad abort or maxQ-abort as milestones for the Boeing CST-100 capsule. Did I miss them or were they not regarded necessary? Or would they be part of the next phase with Boeing?
Quote from: RobotbeatThe milestones, as far as I can tell, are not actually comparable in difficulty.
Right, as far as you can tell.
It may be misleading insofar as it suggests Boeing is ahead overall in commercial crew dev.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by statistical illiteracy.It's a NASA document, not a pop press article.
The slant direction is correct but the amounts (percentages) are not. Actual percentag completions of number of milestones: Beoing 70%, SpaceX 65%, SNC 50%.
SNC completion of only 50% on a 50% budget compared to the other two plus their difficulty in completing the CCDev contract milestones has put them behind. They have a higher technical ramp to accomplish in a lifting body design than just a capsule design.
The true measure is not number of milestones completed but the estimated first operational flight capability based on the current milestone progress. This measure puts SpaceX way ahead.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by statistical illiteracy.Note how someone has been literate enough in the first doc, and then lost all of it for the next version of the same graph.
The true measure is not number of milestones completed but the estimated first operational flight capability based on the current milestone progress. This measure puts SpaceX way ahead.
The low flight rate and history of the Falcon is an interesting point - how does one weigh a few flights versus dozens (42) - does this affect NASA's decision making process on CCiCAP?Quote from: oldAtlas_EguyThe true measure is not number of milestones completed but the estimated first operational flight capability based on the current milestone progress. This measure puts SpaceX way ahead.
Is that so? Yes, Dragon is already flying, but in terms of designing a manned system capable of prolonged missions in space, ISS docking, compatibility with NASA mission control etc. Boeing may have some advantages. I don't know whether crewed Dragon shows much commonality in hardware/software with the cargo version (other than the shape).
By the way, is there a way to launch Dragon on Atlas? If Falcon doesn't show flawless performance next year the lack of proven launch vehicle could make them lose this.
Is that so? Yes, Dragon is already flying, but in terms of designing a manned system capable of prolonged missions in space, ISS docking, compatibility with NASA mission control etc. Boeing may have some advantages. I don't know whether crewed Dragon shows much commonality in hardware/software with the cargo version (other than the shape).
Quote from: oldAtlas_EguyThe true measure is not number of milestones completed but the estimated first operational flight capability based on the current milestone progress. This measure puts SpaceX way ahead.
Is that so? Yes, Dragon is already flying, but in terms of designing a manned system capable of prolonged missions in space, ISS docking, compatibility with NASA mission control etc. Boeing may have some advantages. I don't know whether crewed Dragon shows much commonality in hardware/software with the cargo version (other than the shape).
By the way, is there a way to launch Dragon on Atlas? If Falcon doesn't show flawless performance next year the lack of proven launch vehicle could make them lose this.
The low flight rate and history of the Falcon is an interesting point - how does one weigh a few flights versus dozens (42) - does this affect NASA's decision making process on CCiCAP?Quote from: oldAtlas_EguyThe true measure is not number of milestones completed but the estimated first operational flight capability based on the current milestone progress. This measure puts SpaceX way ahead.
Is that so? Yes, Dragon is already flying, but in terms of designing a manned system capable of prolonged missions in space, ISS docking, compatibility with NASA mission control etc. Boeing may have some advantages. I don't know whether crewed Dragon shows much commonality in hardware/software with the cargo version (other than the shape).
By the way, is there a way to launch Dragon on Atlas? If Falcon doesn't show flawless performance next year the lack of proven launch vehicle could make them lose this.
The low flight rate and history of the Falcon is an interesting point - how does one weigh a few flights versus dozens (42) - does this affect NASA's decision making process on CCiCAP?
* Not sure what the difference is between "system" and "integrated" critical design review. In some contexts NASA appears to treat them the same; in others they use slightly different verbiage.
* Not sure what the difference is between "system" and "integrated" critical design review. In some contexts NASA appears to treat them the same; in others they use slightly different verbiage.In this case, it's whether or not the launch vehicle is integrated, isn't it?
* Not sure what the difference is between "system" and "integrated" critical design review. In some contexts NASA appears to treat them the same; in others they use slightly different verbiage.
In this case, it's whether or not the launch vehicle is integrated, isn't it?
My question is if the "AtlasV HR" has enough software, avionics and physical differences to at least partially reset its success clock? Has it actually flown in anything but simulation?
At the end of the CCiCAP program, hopefully 2 vehicles will be at the CDR level, regardless of what the actual milestones completed along the way happen to be, and another vehicle will be close to CDR. We won't see manned flights from any of the vendors in 2014.
My impression from the CCiCap selection statement is that the objective was for both Boeing and SpaceX to get to CDR in early-mid 2014 (before CCtCap proposals). Another NASA presentation (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672130main_CCiCap%20Announcement.pdf) seems to affirm that both "Culminates in an integrated critical design review milestone". However, later in that presentation they seem to differentiate:Yeah, it's not really clear from that document exactly how far along both will be, but going on erioladastra's comment (copied below) on the difference between "system" and "integrated" reviews, it would seem to put SpaceX quite a ways ahead.
- Boeing: "System Critical Design Review"
- SpaceX: "Integrated Critical Design Review"
Integrated includes ground processing (means vehicle, cargo, astronauts...), launch vehicle, spacecraft, mission control, communications network and recovery area/forces. Some of those NASA will supply (e.g., TDRS) and some the commercial companies may reach agreement with NASA to provide but it is the company's responsonbility to string it all together and verify/validate the processes. System CDR either means a small system (e.g., the environmental system of the spacecraft) or could mean a part of the integrated system (e.g., THE spacecraft).So, if I'm understanding it right, an integrated CDR is the very last CDR?
My impression from the CCiCap selection statement is that the objective was for both Boeing and SpaceX to get to CDR in early-mid 2014 (before CCtCap proposals). Another NASA presentation (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672130main_CCiCap%20Announcement.pdf) seems to affirm that both "Culminates in an integrated critical design review milestone". However, later in that presentation they seem to differentiate:Yeah, it's not really clear from that document exactly how far along both will be, but going on erioladastra's comment (copied below) on the difference between "system" and "integrated" reviews, it would seem to put SpaceX quite a ways ahead.
- Boeing: "System Critical Design Review"
- SpaceX: "Integrated Critical Design Review"Integrated includes ground processing (means vehicle, cargo, astronauts...), launch vehicle, spacecraft, mission control, communications network and recovery area/forces. Some of those NASA will supply (e.g., TDRS) and some the commercial companies may reach agreement with NASA to provide but it is the company's responsonbility to string it all together and verify/validate the processes. System CDR either means a small system (e.g., the environmental system of the spacecraft) or could mean a part of the integrated system (e.g., THE spacecraft).So, if I'm understanding it right, an integrated CDR is the very last CDR?
At the end of the CCiCAP program, hopefully 2 vehicles will be at the CDR level, regardless of what the actual milestones completed along the way happen to be, and another vehicle will be close to CDR. We won't see manned flights from any of the vendors in 2014.
Correct, 2 will be at that level. No others will be close.
Obviously they need to find funding for some test flights, which may be challenging.They probably have the funds for at least some of them.
Obviously they need to find funding for some test flights, which may be challenging.They probably have the funds for at least some of them.
Current SNC CCiCap funding includes one "Engineering Test Article Flight Testing" milestone (was due Apr 2013) to "... reduce risk due to aerodynamic uncertainties in the subsonic approach and landing phase of flight ...".Obviously they need to find funding for some test flights, which may be challenging.They probably have the funds for at least some of them.
Current SNC CCiCap funding includes one "Engineering Test Article Flight Testing" milestone (was due Apr 2013) to "... reduce risk due to aerodynamic uncertainties in the subsonic approach and landing phase of flight ...".Obviously they need to find funding for some test flights, which may be challenging.They probably have the funds for at least some of them.
That's the same Engineering Test Article that, on its one and only free flight, had a landing gear failure and got banged up, no? NASA gave them the money for that milestone.Probably. IIRC the original plan was to subsequently outfit the CCDev2 ETA for the CCiCap test flights, although SNC apparently has another ETA that might be used.
A gliding drop test of a mock-up isn't really in the same league as an abort test of actual flight hardware at max-q, is it?Right. The current SNC CCiCap milestones don't provide for any powered test flights (only ground test of the main propulsion and RCS systems, among other things), let alone a flight abort test.
AFAIK SNC is a pretty big company (over 2000 employees) with branches in militar and other space related business. Dream Chaser is only a small part of their operations.
Really? Atlas launches aren't cheap. Or did you mean just more glide testing after being dropped from aircraft altitudes?
AFAIK SNC is a pretty big company (over 2000 employees) with branches in militar and other space related business. Dream Chaser is only a small part of their operations.
Really? Atlas launches aren't cheap. Or did you mean just more glide testing after being dropped from aircraft altitudes?
Obviously they need to find funding for some test flights, which may be challenging.They probably have the funds for at least some of them.
That's the same Engineering Test Article that, on its one and only free flight, had a landing gear failure and got banged up, no? NASA gave them the money for that milestone.
A gliding drop test of a mock-up isn't really in the same league as an abort test of actual flight hardware at max-q, is it?
This implies more than one test flight, which is at least two Atlas V launches, which is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. SNC isn't so big they can throw hundreds of millions of dollars to something that is only a small part of their operations without seriously harming the whole company.
This implies more than one test flight, which is at least two Atlas V launches, which is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. SNC isn't so big they can throw hundreds of millions of dollars to something that is only a small part of their operations without seriously harming the whole company.Well they have over 750 million in just government contracts every year and that is not all of their business. So over a few years, they might very well be able to set aside the funds. Also maybe ULA would co sponsor the flight (after all they would benefit as well if DC was selected, providing the LV and all that).
This implies more than one test flight, which is at least two Atlas V launches, which is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. SNC isn't so big they can throw hundreds of millions of dollars to something that is only a small part of their operations without seriously harming the whole company.
How many flights are the other vendors planning before a crewed flight to the ISS, which I assume NASA will pay for ?
Pad abort test does not require a launch vehicle, just the proper interface structure. This is where we get to see if those hybrid engines have enough oomph to get Dream Chaser successfully away from the LV and let it turn and land on a nearby runway.
They need the LV for the in-flight abort scenario, if they need to demonstrate it to the FAA / NASA.
Maybe one more LV for a "normal" test flight that lasts a day or two in orbit.
Do they need more flights than this ?
Is there any hardcore reason why SNC couldn't do an abort test on a vastly-cheaper Falcon 9?Yeah, they didnt book that launch 2 years ago.
Is there any hardcore reason why SNC couldn't do an abort test on a vastly-cheaper Falcon 9?Yeah, they didnt book that launch 2 years ago.
Is there any hardcore reason why SNC couldn't do an abort test on a vastly-cheaper Falcon 9?
How do you know for sure that they have only been looking at talking to the Atlas V folk?Is there any hardcore reason why SNC couldn't do an abort test on a vastly-cheaper Falcon 9?
Because of the design work already in process that mates the vehicle to Atlas.
The whole design for mating the craft to the top of centaur, The fairing, LAS interface, wind tunnel tests, etc.
I'm sure that any test flight is more than 2 years away. At that point, it may be easier to find an opening on the Atlas manifest than SpaceX.
How do you know for sure that they have only been looking at talking to the Atlas V folk?
It's nearly been a year since we got a proper status update on the Commercial Crew program!Here's your update. :(
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvVdD6qqROM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvVdD6qqROM)
January 9th to be precise. Anyone hear any indicators when the next one will be?
Delightful news! -_-It's nearly been a year since we got a proper status update on the Commercial Crew program!Here's your update. :(
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvVdD6qqROM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvVdD6qqROM)
January 9th to be precise. Anyone hear any indicators when the next one will be?
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/38944nasa-may-order-more-soyuz-rides-to-station-despite-commercial-crew
- Ed Kyle
There is also this presentation by McAlister to the NAC:Cool I haven't seen that pdf before thank's but still not much of an update. I demand a video update :D
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/20131209_heocnac_mcalister_tagged.pdf
Here is a copy of the FY 2014 CJS Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 158 of the bill):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-h3547-hamdt2samdt_xml.pdf
Here is a copy of the report (NASA starts at page 112 of the PDF):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-FM-B.pdf$696M for commercial report but $171M is conditional on NASA obtaining an independant cost-benefit report for commercial crew. See pages 161-162 of the bill.
Commercial crew will get $696M for FY 2014. See the post below:Here is a copy of the FY 2014 CJS Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 158 of the bill):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-h3547-hamdt2samdt_xml.pdf
Here is a copy of the report (NASA starts at page 112 of the PDF):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-FM-B.pdf
Commercial crew will get $696M for FY 2014. See the post below:Here is a copy of the FY 2014 CJS Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 158 of the bill):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-h3547-hamdt2samdt_xml.pdf
Here is a copy of the report (NASA starts at page 112 of the PDF):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-FM-B.pdf$696M for commercial report but $171M is conditional on NASA obtaining an independant cost-benefit report for commercial crew. See pages 161-162 of the bill.
Probably. The proposals for the next and final phase of the program, Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCAP), are due on the 22nd. The contract is expected to be awarded in either August or September. So we should know the winner of the Commercial Crew Program in about eight months.Commercial crew will get $696M for FY 2014. See the post below:Here is a copy of the FY 2014 CJS Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 158 of the bill):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-h3547-hamdt2samdt_xml.pdf
Here is a copy of the report (NASA starts at page 112 of the PDF):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-FM-B.pdf$696M for commercial report but $171M is conditional on NASA obtaining an independant cost-benefit report for commercial crew. See pages 161-162 of the bill.
(still a downselect this year?)
Couple of points:As of May 2013 I have seen quoted 71 million but not surprised (nor doubt) that it is now 73 million.
1) I think it's already at 73M, and the next extension should be at or around 85M.
2) Commercial Crew allows emergency escape for at least 4 (or upto 7, depending on who wins and craft configuration). That means that you can have one extra crew. Since there's a base amount of maintenance tasks at the station, a fourth passenger might mean upto a 50% extra utilization on the USOS. That's a lot of extra value for the 160B investment.
3) If they do direct handover, they could take a surge of three payload specialists for one week, that's a lot extra utilization.
4) Dollars sent to Russia are "lost" to the government. Those payed to US companies mostly "return" through further taxes.
As well as the Russians taking people to the ISS NASA could use the SLS + Orion. It is fair to include them because acting as a backup is one of the official purposes of the pair. At least one of the comparisons should use the optimistic assumption that the pair of development programs do not slip. Estimates for the total number of people launched on SLS and the cost per seat can be included.At what price per seat, and in how many years yet? I have difficulty in imagining any launch of the SLS+Orion combination at coming in at less than $400M dollars. Granted, it would be cheaper than launching with the Russians even if the total cost of the flight were $511M or less, but I have my doubts they will make even that price point.
As well as the Russians taking people to the ISS NASA could use the SLS + Orion. It is fair to include them because acting as a backup is one of the official purposes of the pair. At least one of the comparisons should use the optimistic assumption that the pair of development programs do not slip. Estimates for the total number of people launched on SLS and the cost per seat can be included.There has been discussions in congress about using Orion to ISS, I don't see that happening but my crystal ball is always cloudy. I don't see how SLS and Orion will be competitive with commercial crew. My point is that we have metrics to evaluate (bound) the costs for Russian services and that congress, through OMB, should be able to determine if CCiCAP is viable and not hold funds back.
Just doing some math......Don't forget the fact that this is money being spent on the aerospace/defense sector of an intense geopolitical rival.
2 astronauts paid by the US every 6 months or 4 "seats" per year to the ISS. Right now the Russians are charging $63 million per seat (is that correct?) which is $252 million per year. Starting in 2018 and going to 2024 (ISS extension). I count 7 years at $252 million per year which is
$1.764 billion to Russia for transport of US astronauts to ISS. Assume no change in cost 8)
There is some wording about the cost effectiveness of commercial crew in the appropriation- those that are against it would have this number as a metric for value. I am not saying that I agree that this value is correct but this is an amount that can be used to evaluate costs to the taxpayer.
Can the present mix of suppliers beat this cost to ISS?
$696M for commercial report but $171M is conditional on NASA obtaining an independant cost-benefit report for commercial crew. See pages 161-162 of the bill.
And I just want to say that the fixed-price mechanism is far better than cost-plus or a straight subsidy if you have secondary goals of stimulating a commercial capacity. In order to be competitive and win the bid, you have to have low costs, which is absolutely essential for getting commercial customers. A straight subsidy might potentially help, but it doesn't encourage a corporate culture of cost efficiency like fixed-price would, and a cost-plus mechanism actively discourages cost efficiency.I recall the debate in congress was about a 1 to 1 comparison - which to us appears very naive but this is how congress works. I hope wiser minds prevail and can see the benefits of CC well beyond transport to ISS. Can CC actually cost less than $2 billion - if it can - it will be a truly fantastic bargain.
Also don't forget that there is no reason why NASA could not use the commercial crew services created now for other projects besides the ISS. Even when the ISS is discontinued, NASA will most likely need to get people to LEO.If I recall correctly, CC is not supposed to be judged on potential future missions, just its application to ISS crew transport. The value in this criteria is that metrics can be provided for an existing POR and can be judged on that merit alone. I am not saying that this is a simple or straight-forward task, its not but serving the POR is a rational approach. I find it hard to believe that a $2 billion+ cost to the American tax payer (via Russia) is better than an indigenous capability - again can CC be developed and operated for $2 billion dollars?
As well as the Russians taking people to the ISS NASA could use the SLS + Orion. It is fair to include them because acting as a backup is one of the official purposes of the pair. At least one of the comparisons should use the optimistic assumption that the pair of development programs do not slip. Estimates for the total number of people launched on SLS and the cost per seat can be included.There has been discussions in congress about using Orion to ISS, I don't see that happening but my crystal ball is always cloudy. I don't see how SLS and Orion will be competitive with commercial crew. My point is that we have metrics to evaluate (bound) the costs for Russian services and that congress, through OMB, should be able to determine if CCiCAP is viable and not hold funds back.
I still say it’s a backdoor deal giving welfare to the Russian space sector. Keeps all their bright people gainfully employed lest they be selling their skills to other nefarious nations and a reason to stay engaged in ISS ops...Also don't forget that there is no reason why NASA could not use the commercial crew services created now for other projects besides the ISS. Even when the ISS is discontinued, NASA will most likely need to get people to LEO.If I recall correctly, CC is not supposed to be judged on potential future missions, just its application to ISS crew transport. The value in this criteria is that metrics can be provided for an existing POR and can be judged on that merit alone. I am not saying that this is a simple or straight-forward task, its not but serving the POR is a rational approach. I find it hard to believe that a $2 billion+ cost to the American tax payer (via Russia) is better than an indigenous capability - again can CC be developed and operated for $2 billion dollars?
Well, having 2 different systems has the big benefit of redundancy. Otherwise, we will be sending astronauts on Soyuz again for, should there be an accident that results in the system being grounded(and then an investigation, etc, etc).Did you not read where I clearly said I believe they will select 2 "different" systems. But each system would be brought on-line consecutively not concurrently as there will not be funds to do otherwise and perhaps not even that. One capsule and DC. Those are 2 Different vehicles using different rockets, no?
I was not disagreeing with you, merely adding. Agree on the competition being good (which is indeed the main point).Well, having 2 different systems has the big benefit of redundancy. Otherwise, we will be sending astronauts on Soyuz again for, should there be an accident that results in the system being grounded(and then an investigation, etc, etc).Did you not read where I clearly said I believe they will select 2 "different" systems. But each system would be brought on-line consecutively not concurrently as there will not be funds to do otherwise and perhaps not even that. One capsule and DC. Those are 2 Different vehicles using different rockets, no?
Besides, as much as what you say is obvious, the idea of more then one participant / provider was always about maintaining competition, hopefully resulting in innovations and efficiencies creating downward pricing pressure.
That's how NASA has always primarily justified keeping as many entrants involved for as long as possible. Competitive benefits, not redundancy.
PS: Also, the questions I listed were meant to be the questions I think NASA will be asking themselves, not necessarily what I would ask.
$696M for commercial report but $171M is conditional on NASA obtaining an independant cost-benefit report for commercial crew. See pages 161-162 of the bill.
Shambolic. That's all I have to say. Where's the cost-benefit report for the other programs?
Why one capsule and DC? Why not just 2 capsules?Yes. As much as I love DC, it does need to retire and/or mitigate much more risk then the other 2 systems. NASA has indeed said as much. And I am on the record as saying it as well. However...
EDIT:I will say that I think SNC is hungrier to get DC picked than Boeing is to get CST-100 picked. That's just my personal impression. But I think CST-100 is a much, much more conservative and realistic design with fewer unknown unknowns... The hybrid propulsion system being the most prominent issue, IMHO. If DC had used a conventional propulsion system from the start...
Well shame on me then for such a terse opening line to my response. There should be a thumbs down button for that. So, cool and I agree redundancy would be an added benefit both to NASA and the international commercial market.I was not disagreeing with you, merely adding. Agree on the competition being good (which is indeed the main point).Well, having 2 different systems has the big benefit of redundancy. Otherwise, we will be sending astronauts on Soyuz again for, should there be an accident that results in the system being grounded(and then an investigation, etc, etc).Did you not read where I clearly said I believe they will select 2 "different" systems. But each system would be brought on-line consecutively not concurrently as there will not be funds to do otherwise and perhaps not even that. One capsule and DC. Those are 2 Different vehicles using different rockets, no?
Besides, as much as what you say is obvious, the idea of more then one participant / provider was always about maintaining competition, hopefully resulting in innovations and efficiencies creating downward pricing pressure.
That's how NASA has always primarily justified keeping as many entrants involved for as long as possible. Competitive benefits, not redundancy.
PS: Also, the questions I listed were meant to be the questions I think NASA will be asking themselves, not necessarily what I would ask.
Because both CST-100 and Dragon can evolve in a very straightforward manner for BLEO missions when NASA needs them. Eventually ISS will be gone, and in its place we'll probably have some BLEO program (does anyone deny this?). Having vehicles which can service that capability makes a lot of sense for NASA. It's much harder for DC to do BLEO type missions.I don't think NASA will be factoring BLEO into their decision. Not when they are currently spending billions on Orion. Also, while I like the idea of at least one CC vehicle being able to take on a future BLEO role, I don't think we need both selections to be able to do so. I suspect there will be lots to do in LEO for a long time to come that will keep a vehicle like DC viable.
EDIT:I hope DC gets its chance, I just don't think it's as good of a pick for commercial crew right now. It could be quite a good vehicle for servicing a Bigelow station or something if they get a better propulsion system (i.e. not hybrid).
The Obama administration approved of the extension on January 9th at the International Space Exploration Forum. That does not however guarantee that the ESA and Russian partners will agree. If they don't, I suspect it will be hard to justify CC only on the merit of ISS transport alone.
So the ISS extension to 2024 is guaranteed? Otherwise its difficult to do a cost-benefit analysis...
So you think NASA won't take into account BLEO (which they're certainly heading for) but WILL take into account some sort of post-ISS LEO facility?As far as I am aware, NASA has not directly listed BLEO capability as having serious weighting towards the selection criteria. So purely from a legal standpoint, heavily weighting BLEO capability after the fact would be problematic to say the least.
So the ISS extension to 2024 is guaranteed? Otherwise its difficult to do a cost-benefit analysis...The Obama administration approved of the extension on January 9th at the International Space Exploration Forum. That does not however guarantee that the ESA and Russian partners will agree. If they don't, I suspect it will be hard to justify CC only on the merit of ISS transport alone.
Does any one remember the cots D option SpaceX was pushing for in 2008-2009? The funds requested for human conversion of dragon were I believe under $300 million total. What do you think SpaceX is spending all the extra money on?
Commercial Crew is paying for the man rating of the vehicles as well as development of the spacecraft. If Dream Chaser replaces the CST-100 then the cost of man rating the Atlas 5 will have to be transferred to the Dream Chaser program.
My understanding of the report is that the cost benefit analysis is for the life operations expectancy of ISS based on the study that NASA is currently doing on this (which is expected to be 2028).Do you have a reference for this date, if so, the CC program will look a lot better. A cost-benefit analysis can have many in it things as stated in this thread which will make CC a bargain but my fear is that the powers that have called for the analysis are doing so to prevent CC from going forward. Every year in the out-years that ISS is operating, the CC program looks better per cost per seat - including development. The four years from 2024 to 2028 will have Russian Soyuz seat costs projected at $85 million (according to posts in this thread) or an additional $1.36 billion over four years. So if CC starts operations in 2018 the equivalent costs sent to Russia would be about 3.5 billion dollars - I think we can do CC for 3.5 billion.
My understanding of the report is that the cost benefit analysis is for the life operations expectancy of ISS based on the study that NASA is currently doing on this (which is expected to be 2028).Do you have a reference for this date, if so, the CC program will look a lot better. A cost-benefit analysis can have many in it things as stated in this thread which will make CC a bargain but my fear is that the powers that have called for the analysis are doing so to prevent CC from going forward. Every year in the out-years that ISS is operating, the CC program looks better per cost per seat - including development. The four years from 2024 to 2028 will have Russian Soyuz seat costs projected at $85 million (according to posts in this thread) or an additional $1.36 billion over four years. So if CC starts operations in 2018 the equivalent costs sent to Russia would be about 3.5 billion dollars - I think we can do CC for 3.5 billion.
At that time, the partners added that there were “no identified technical constraints to continuing ISS operations beyond the current planning horizon of 2015 to at least 2020″ and that, moreover, “the partnership is currently working to certify on-orbit elements through 2028.” The decision to maintain a permanent U.S. presence aboard the station for at least another full decade goes a significant distance in establishing some middle ground between these two dates. Meeting that target will be challenging, though not impossible. In 2010, ISS Program Manager Michael Suffredini reported that he felt comfortable that the station was structurally capable of supporting human occupants until at least the early 2020s, whilst analysis of relevant factors—including the procurement of spare parts—are expected to be completed by all ISS partners no later than 2016.
Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.It would also be illegal. Government procurement works by setting requirements and awarding contract to the best offeror. You can't leave the best offeror out bevause he "could supply it anyways".
Looking at the discussions on this topic here and elsewhere, it is not quite clear who "the best offeror" really is.Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.It would also be illegal. Government procurement works by setting requirements and awarding contract to the best offeror. You can't leave the best offeror out bevause he "could supply it anyways".
Btw, it's not even the best way to bootstrap a commefcial LEO market. The missing supplier is space station one. If they want to really start the market, they should do something like COTS for the next National Laboratory in space for 2024-2044 and make the contract for a certain level of science utilization.
Looking at the discussions on this topic here and elsewhere, it is not quite clear who "the best offeror" really is.Best offeror is determined by the selection comitee based on the parameters of the tender. Anything not strictly on the tender rules is object of protest. BTW there's content on this site that stongly suggest that SpaceX is the leading offeror right now. And remember that somethin like 60% of the selection criteria is price.
I am sure arguments could be made for either one of them (as has been done here countless times). Also, if SpaceX got a large resupply contract instead of the crew, they might just go along (COTS was a lot less bureaucratic anyway and that might just be what they want).
I do agree that having a COTS for the next space station would be a good thing to do.
Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.
I do agree that having a COTS for the next space station would be a good thing to do.
Uhm, which was the point, I was trying to make?!
Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.
Why does it have to fair to Spacex, the point is maximizing return for NASA
I was referring to a post by Baldusi, who suggested that NASA should buy services for a new commercially operated space station by taking a similar contractual approach to COTS.
I do agree that having a COTS for the next space station would be a good thing to do.
There is no repeating of COTS. It is done and no need for anymore. Any future contracts will be for services.
Best offeror is determined by the selection comitee based on the parameters of the tender. Anything not strictly on the tender rules is object of protest. BTW there's content on this site that stongly suggest that SpaceX is the leading offeror right now. And remember that somethin like 60% of the selection criteria is price.I agree that SpaceX looks like the top contender (though some people here will disagree).
I was referring to a post my Baldusi, who suggested that NASA should buy services for a new commercially operated space station by taking a similar contractual approach to COTS.
Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.
Why does it have to fair to Spacex, the point is maximizing return for NASA
Sure this might not be completely fair to SpaceX, but it could mean the maximum return for NASA.
Why does it have to fair to Spacex, the point is maximizing return for NASA
Are you sure this is the regulations?
Or is it that the best offer should get the contract?
Commercial Crew is paying for the man rating of the vehicles as well as development of the spacecraft. If Dream Chaser replaces the CST-100 then the cost of man rating the Atlas 5 will have to be transferred to the Dream Chaser program.
Unless DC decides to launch on the Falcon 9.
This brings up something I've been wondering about the F9v1.1.Commercial Crew is paying for the man rating of the vehicles as well as development of the spacecraft. If Dream Chaser replaces the CST-100 then the cost of man rating the Atlas 5 will have to be transferred to the Dream Chaser program.
Unless DC decides to launch on the Falcon 9.
Then NASA loses the operational safety of having redundant launch vehicles. Having recently lost the ability to launch people into space I suspect NASA will not be in a hurry to repeat that embarrassment.
It should be possible to design the Dream Chaser so that it can be launched on both Atlas V and Falcon 9 LV.
This brings up something I've been wondering about the F9v1.1.
SpaceX has always maintained that the F9 was designed and built from the beginning to be human rated. Is it considered that now? Or are there additional avionics, monitoring sensors, redundancies, etc. that will need to be added or updated for the inclusion of the LAS?
Hmm. Well technically I used the term "human-rated". And while I appreciate your disdain for the term, there must be some HSF guidelines to all participants as to what is specifically needed for their systems to be considered adequately "rated for human occupancy". And since there are, I was wondering how close or even beyond the F9 is to those evaluations?
This brings up something I've been wondering about the F9v1.1.
SpaceX has always maintained that the F9 was designed and built from the beginning to be human rated. Is it considered that now? Or are there additional avionics, monitoring sensors, redundancies, etc. that will need to be added or updated for the inclusion of the LAS?
I hate the term "man-rated". It is outdated and never really used correctly. The requirements for "man-rating" are vague and nebulous.
Man-rated should be based on applicable reliability and accepted risk via some level of redundancy in critical systems.
Any launch vehicle with a crew vehicle on it will need some sort of avionics package that allows the booster to "talk" to the vehicle. This is in the event emergency separation is required and triggered by the av package if monitored parameters are at the redline or trending that way quickly.
SpaceX have repeatedly said that that F9 meets all published NASA human rating standards.Yes, I know they've said that. But the key word is published, which is why they qualified their answer with it. As they should. But I remember at some point last year, that NASA was behind in clearly communicating further standards. And that each participant was supposed to get additional clarification on standards, so they can do their final proposals. So I was wondering if anyone knew exactly what they were and if F9 was still on target to meet them.
Hmm. Well technically I used the term "human-rated". And while I appreciate your disdain for the term, there must be some HSF guidelines to all participants as to what is specifically needed for their systems to be considered adequately "rated for human occupancy". And since there are, I was wondering how close or even beyond the F9 is to those evaluations?
This brings up something I've been wondering about the F9v1.1.
SpaceX has always maintained that the F9 was designed and built from the beginning to be human rated. Is it considered that now? Or are there additional avionics, monitoring sensors, redundancies, etc. that will need to be added or updated for the inclusion of the LAS?
I hate the term "man-rated". It is outdated and never really used correctly. The requirements for "man-rating" are vague and nebulous.
Man-rated should be based on applicable reliability and accepted risk via some level of redundancy in critical systems.
Any launch vehicle with a crew vehicle on it will need some sort of avionics package that allows the booster to "talk" to the vehicle. This is in the event emergency separation is required and triggered by the av package if monitored parameters are at the redline or trending that way quickly.
See now, that's really interesting insight and the kind of response I was looking for. Thanks for that. I'd love to somehow see NASA's updated thinking on this and how each participant proposes to approach them. Maybe some day.Hmm. Well technically I used the term "human-rated". And while I appreciate your disdain for the term, there must be some HSF guidelines to all participants as to what is specifically needed for their systems to be considered adequately "rated for human occupancy". And since there are, I was wondering how close or even beyond the F9 is to those evaluations?
This brings up something I've been wondering about the F9v1.1.
SpaceX has always maintained that the F9 was designed and built from the beginning to be human rated. Is it considered that now? Or are there additional avionics, monitoring sensors, redundancies, etc. that will need to be added or updated for the inclusion of the LAS?
I hate the term "man-rated". It is outdated and never really used correctly. The requirements for "man-rating" are vague and nebulous.
Man-rated should be based on applicable reliability and accepted risk via some level of redundancy in critical systems.
Any launch vehicle with a crew vehicle on it will need some sort of avionics package that allows the booster to "talk" to the vehicle. This is in the event emergency separation is required and triggered by the av package if monitored parameters are at the redline or trending that way quickly.
There are but the general philosophy behind many of them are out dated. One of the key requirements has to do with traceability and configuration management.
While traceability is important in today's world with the influx of counterfeit EEE parts, having "paper" all the way down to the ore that was pulled from the ground is overkill.
Some of the original requirements came from the pipeline for downlisted telemetry was only so large and certain parameters were deemed more important and needed to be monitored over others, thereby driving what was required. That is essentially a moot point today as the pipeline for telemetry can host many parameters without much burden.
NASA no longer uses the word human-rating because it means different things to different people. They now use the word certified. A draft of the safety regulations relating to certification was published here (the most important document is CCT-REQ-1130):Most excellent. Thanks. Certified it is. Sounds better anyway.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.0
NASA no longer uses the word human-rating because it means different things to different people. They now use the word certified. A draft of the safety regulations relating to certification was published here (the most important document is CCT-REQ-1130):Most excellent. Thanks. Certified it is. Sounds better anyway.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.0
NASA no longer uses the word human-rating because it means different things to different people. They now use the word certified. A draft of the safety regulations relating to certification was published here (the most important document is CCT-REQ-1130):Most excellent. Thanks. Certified it is. Sounds better anyway.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.0
It's not like "certified" is any better. Because you have to be certified (presumably) to meet a some standard. Which puts us right back in the same boat.
I agree with Go4TLI that the term of little use. In reality and our history, the term "human rated" has in practice just meant "as safe as we can make it".
So you think that commercially operated space stations would not need development funding, at least to meet NASA requirements?
I was referring to a post my Baldusi, who suggested that NASA should buy services for a new commercially operated space station by taking a similar contractual approach to COTS.
Still wrong. COTS was funding development of launch vehicles and cargo deliver spacecraft via SAA and it was not funding cargo services. Services for a commercially operated space station could be done like launch services (NLS) and cargo service (CRS) contracts.
So you think that commercially operated space stations would not need development funding, at least to meet NASA requirements?
But if SpaceX is advanced enough to finish crew dragon reasonably soon, then SpaceX can just radically underbid Sierra Nevada and Boeing in their CCtCap proposal. Then it would be hard to legally justify a NASA refusal to fund SpaceX.
Everything depends on when the new docking adapter gets up to the ISS and is installed.Last I heard IDA-1 is planned to be delivered in April 2015 on SpX-7.
But if SpaceX is advanced enough to finish crew dragon reasonably soon, then SpaceX can just radically underbid Sierra Nevada and Boeing in their CCtCap proposal. Then it would be hard to legally justify a NASA refusal to fund SpaceX.Not true, if CCtCap is just to deliver astronauts to the ISS, a service, whether Spacex is ready sooner than the others has no bearing on the matter. There is no "funding", there is just paying for the services rendered. It all depends on what is contained in the proposals that is submitted by the 3 companieson who NASA will select.
Some of you have speculated that SpaceX, being most advanced, could be left out of CCtCap with the effect that NASA will have enabled three crew vehicles, since SpaceX, it is supposed, will finish crew Dragon no matter what.
But if SpaceX is advanced enough to finish crew dragon reasonably soon, then SpaceX can just radically underbid Sierra Nevada and Boeing in their CCtCap proposal. Then it would be hard to legally justify a NASA refusal to fund SpaceX.
Having said that, it is possible that SpaceX will request less money in its proposal than other companies but that would likely be a point in its favor.
Some of you have speculated that SpaceX, being most advanced, could be left out of CCtCap with the effect that NASA will have enabled three crew vehicles, since SpaceX, it is supposed, will finish crew Dragon no matter what.
But if SpaceX is advanced enough to finish crew dragon reasonably soon, then SpaceX can just radically underbid Sierra Nevada and Boeing in their CCtCap proposal. Then it would be hard to legally justify a NASA refusal to fund SpaceX.
That was just speculation and not very good one either. It would seem unlikely that SpaceX would get penalized for being more advanced than the others companies. The criteria that are set out in CCtCap do not suggest that this is a criteria that would be considered by NASA. Having said that, it is possible that SpaceX will request less money in its proposal than other companies but that would likely be a point in its favor.
Is the criteria for CCTCaP public knowledge? If it is, could you, or someone else, list the basic criteria and how much each item is weighted?
For example:
1. Cost 40%
2. Date ready 20%
Thanks.
SECTION M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD ........................................................ 158
M.1 SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS—GENERAL............................... 158
M.2 MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR........................................................................................ 159
I. Technical, Crew Safety and Mission Assurance Subfactor.....................................................................160
II. Management Approach Subfactor ...163
III. Small Business Utilization Subfactor .................................................................................................165
M.3 PRICE FACTOR ... 166
M.4 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR.......................................................................................... 167
Since it will be the world's biggest rocket the SLS it will also be the world's most expensive rocket.
Since it will be the world's biggest rocket the SLS it will also be the world's most expensive rocket.
In a couple of years Falcon Heavy will be the world's biggest rocket without being the world's most expensive rocket. SLS is expensive not just because it's big.
Since it will be the world's biggest rocket the SLS it will also be the world's most expensive rocket.
In a couple of years Falcon Heavy will be the world's biggest rocket without being the world's most expensive rocket. SLS is expensive not just because it's big.
Why take one sentence someone said 5 pages back just to split hairs? Being uniquely large is a big component of SLS' cost and unsuitability per economics for ISS delivery.
All other things equal, a contender a with lower price for certification (e.g., due to being further ahead in DDT&E) will have a correspondingly stronger possibility of winning the award.
Since it will be the world's biggest rocket the SLS it will also be the world's most expensive rocket.
In a couple of years Falcon Heavy will be the world's biggest rocket without being the world's most expensive rocket. SLS is expensive not just because it's big.
Why take one sentence someone said 5 pages back just to split hairs? Being uniquely large is a big component of SLS' cost and unsuitability per economics for ISS delivery.
Will Falcon Heavy really be the world's biggest rocket ?
Each core on a Delta is 5 meters where the Falcon is only 3.6 meters in diameter. And Wikipedia says that Delta can be 72 meters tall, also eclipsing Falcon (68.4) by several meters.
Sorry, FH failed the tale of the tape.
Biggest by thrust/LEO payload. KeroLox is much denser than LH2LOX. The "big" thing about LH2 is it's density is so low (about 1/10 of kerosene).
Is the criteria for CCTCaP public knowledge? If it is, could you, or someone else, list the basic criteria and how much each item is weighted?
For example:
1. Cost 40%
2. Date ready 20%
Thanks.
See Section M of the attached document (pages 158 to 168). The table of contents summarizes the criteria that will be used and are as follows:Quote from: Table of ContentsSECTION M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD ........................................................ 158
M.1 SOURCE SELECTION AND EVALUATION FACTORS—GENERAL............................... 158
M.2 MISSION SUITABILITY FACTOR........................................................................................ 159
I. Technical, Crew Safety and Mission Assurance Subfactor.....................................................................160
II. Management Approach Subfactor ...163
III. Small Business Utilization Subfactor .................................................................................................165
M.3 PRICE FACTOR ... 166
M.4 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR.......................................................................................... 167
See also this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32412.msg1121659#msg1121659
All other things equal, a contender a with lower price for certification (e.g., due to being further ahead in DDT&E) will have a correspondingly stronger possibility of winning the award.Not necessarily. While I suspect DDT&E will play a factor, there are certainly other things to consider. A couple that immediately come to mind... One is what capabilities will be offered and provided with said vehicle? The other of course is what is the cost once the integrated vehicle comes online and is certified?
You will see fairly negligible differences between flying once a year and twice a year because the real cost is keeping the integrated vehicle sustained and viable.
Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price. The Price factor is more important than Mission Suitability, which is more important than Past Performance.
Adding the capability to return more than three people to Earth would open the possibility of a seven-man ISS rotation, which would nearly double the possible crew time dedicated to experiments.It's not going to happen. The Russians wouldn't abandon Soyuz/PPTS (which is baselined for four crew members).
As I've stated multiple time, CC has to transport at least four people because it is specified to take a whole crew to the USOS (four). Since there's a base level of maintenance, that extra crew might mean as much as an extra 50% utilization, it can change our benefit significantly.There's a good chart on slide 10 of this presentation regarding that.
There's a good chart on slide 10 of this presentation regarding that.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/20131210_ISS_NAC_FINAL_TAGGED.pdf
Relative importance of evaluation factors:Quote from: CCtCap RFP para M.1(e)Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price. The Price factor is more important than Mission Suitability, which is more important than Past Performance.
* Added in the final RFP.
Many within the community of interest worry that NASA is being perceived as sending a message that cost outranks safety in the CCP RFP. The RFP’s Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors in Section M conveys: “Mission Suitability and Past Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price. The Price factor is more important than Mission Suitability, which is more important than Past Performance.”
There seems to be lots quotes regarding seat prices but not cost of flight.Presumably the latter as the CCtCap RFP pricing is based on per mission not per seat.
Does NASA buy seats or lease/pay for the whole capsule on CC flights?.
There seems to be lots quotes regarding seat prices but not cost of flight.Presumably the latter as the CCtCap RFP pricing is based on per mission not per seat.
Does NASA buy seats or lease/pay for the whole capsule on CC flights?.
Exactly! Cost-benefit has to include all the extra value (and all hidden costs).
A few comments on your calculations:
1) You would also have to factor in cargo. Commercial crew spacecrafts will use the empty seats to bring extra cargo to and from the ISS. Soyuz bring very little cargo. You could use the price of CRS to figure out how nuch that extra cargo is worth.
2) How do you get $80 for CTS?
3) You have to factor in the development cost of commercial crew.
A few comments on your calculations:
1) You would also have to factor in cargo. Commercial crew spacecrafts will use the empty seats to bring extra cargo to and from the ISS. Soyuz bring very little cargo. You could use the price of CRS to figure out how nuch that extra cargo is worth.
2) How do you get $80 for CTS?
3) You have to factor in the development cost of commercial crew.
Thanks; good comments and suggestions.
1) Yes, but the problem is coming up with a credible estimate. Cargo is generally going to fall into three buckets: (1) basic crew variable; (2) ISS operations and maintenance (O&M); and (3) research. I've tried to account for (1); (2) is largely an unknown and I've lumped that into ISS fixed costs; (3) costs will presumably scale up with greater resarch, but I have not found a credible source as to how to relate those costs to increased research activity. If you have ideas on how to divvy up those costs and relate them, I'll be happy to incorporate them.
2) $80M/seat is a figure Gerst mentioned in Congressional testimony a few years ago in response to a question as to how much they were budgeting. I can't find a cite at the moment (I only remember Holy Cow! That sounds high!), but figured it was reasonably conservative for this exercise. If you have a better number in mind, I can easily update the figures.
3) Agree, but that bears primarily on the payoff period and to answer the question: Is the investment in CC worth it before ISS splashes? I would love to have some credible numbers on what it will take to finish beyond the ~$1.5B for CCDev+CCiCap. As I've opined before (based on more optimistic cost-benefit), assuming it takes an additional $1.5-2.5B to finish, the payoff is 2-3 years. However, that was at best a guess. If you have a number in mind, I can easily plug it in to determine the payoff period.
Beyond those, there are a whole host of other factors that might be considered; for example:
a) Additional benefits of retaining spending within the US.
b) Additional benefits of not sending NASA crew to Russia.
c) Additional costs for crew such as ground support and training.
d) Additional costs for ISS O&M as it ages.
e) Additional costs due to increased research activity.
f) ...
If NASA are buying seats in Dragon do they buy 2 seats for passengers or 4 ie crew + passengers. If they are leasing whole why not use all 7 seats, transport is biggest cost of placing somebody in ISS.
If NASA are buying seats in Dragon do they buy 2 seats for passengers or 4 ie crew + passengers. If they are leasing whole why not use all 7 seats, transport is biggest cost of placing somebody in ISS.
NASA only needs 4 astronauts on each flight. Each astronaut stays for at least 6 months. There is only the budget for 6 or 7 astronauts on ISS. Gerst said that they weren't sure if they had the budget for a 7th astronaut.
Since the retirement of Shuttle, there is no longer any short term visits to the ISS. What makes short term visits difficult is that the arriving US spacecraft will also serve as a lifeboat for six months. So once you get to the ISS, the next U.S. ride down is 6 months later.
If NASA are buying seats in Dragon do they buy 2 seats for passengers or 4 ie crew + passengers. If they are leasing whole why not use all 7 seats, transport is biggest cost of placing somebody in ISS.
NASA only needs 4 astronauts on each flight. Each astronaut stays for at least 6 months. There is only the budget for 6 or 7 astronauts on ISS. Gerst said that they weren't sure if they had the budget for a 7th astronaut.
Since the retirement of Shuttle, there is no longer any short term visits to the ISS. What makes short term visits difficult is that the arriving US spacecraft will also serve as a lifeboat for six months. So once you get to the ISS, the next U.S. ride down is 6 months later.
But the replacement crew arrives before the old crew departs. The overlap time is the time short-term visitors can stay. They arrive on the new vehicle and go back on the vehicle that has been there for six months.
Thanks yg1968 for update.
So the issue is more of how many astronauts the ISS can support. If there is a Soyuz(3) and Dragon(7) present at one time then 10 maybe to much for the station. If the overlap was 2 Dragons then we a looking at 14 (7+7) which is definitely too many for the station. The only situation where spares seats could be used for short-term visitors(tourists) is if there is Dragon crew of 4 present with no Soyuz. Even then we are looking at 4+4+ upto 3 visitors. 11 maybe OK for a few days assuming everything goes to plan and return Dragon's flight is not delayed.
I'm now starting to see the reason for limiting seats to 4 per flight.
But the replacement crew arrives before the old crew departs. The overlap time is the time short-term visitors can stay. They arrive on the new vehicle and go back on the vehicle that has been there for six months.
However, the FPIP chart shows that, under current planning, only one commercial crew vehicle will ever be docked to the ISS at any one time, since one crew vehicle will return home at the end of its 6-month ISS stay prior to the launch of another crew vehicle, in what is known as an “indirect handover”.Note that would also implies at least one US crew continuing to ride on Soyuz in order to ensure the US segment always has at least one US crew present, and in turn one Russian crew riding on the US crew vehicle.
So the issue is more of how many astronauts the ISS can support. If there is a Soyuz(3) and Dragon(7) present at one time then 10 maybe to much for the station. If the overlap was 2 Dragons then we a looking at 14 (7+7) which is definitely too many for the station. The only situation where spares seats could be used for short-term visitors(tourists) is if there is Dragon crew of 4 present with no Soyuz. Even then we are looking at 4+4+ upto 3 visitors. 11 maybe OK for a few days assuming everything goes to plan and return Dragon's flight is not delayed.
Thanks yg1968 for update.
So the issue is more of how many astronauts the ISS can support. If there is a Soyuz(3) and Dragon(7) present at one time then 10 maybe to much for the station. If the overlap was 2 Dragons then we a looking at 14 (7+7) which is definitely too many for the station. The only situation where spares seats could be used for short-term visitors(tourists) is if there is Dragon crew of 4 present with no Soyuz. Even then we are looking at 4+4+ upto 3 visitors. 11 maybe OK for a few days assuming everything goes to plan and return Dragon's flight is not delayed.
I'm now starting to see the reason for limiting seats to 4 per flight.
13 People have stayed at the station short term but it takes extra consumables and they rode on the Shuttle.
10 or whatever is fine for short durations. It does increase consumables use, though.
But the replacement crew arrives before the old crew departs. The overlap time is the time short-term visitors can stay. They arrive on the new vehicle and go back on the vehicle that has been there for six months.
That would be direct handover (new crew arrives before old crew leaves). Last public information shows indirect handover (old crew leaves before new crew arrives). Indirect handover would not allow for short term visitors without additional flights. From NASA planning ISS module relocations to support future crew vehicles (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/07/nasa-planning-module-relocations-future-vehicles/), NASASpaceFlight.com, July 2013:QuoteHowever, the FPIP chart shows that, under current planning, only one commercial crew vehicle will ever be docked to the ISS at any one time, since one crew vehicle will return home at the end of its 6-month ISS stay prior to the launch of another crew vehicle, in what is known as an “indirect handover”.Note that would also implies at least one US crew continuing to ride on Soyuz in order to ensure the US segment always has at least one US crew present, and in turn one Russian crew riding on the US crew vehicle.So the issue is more of how many astronauts the ISS can support. If there is a Soyuz(3) and Dragon(7) present at one time then 10 maybe to much for the station. If the overlap was 2 Dragons then we a looking at 14 (7+7) which is definitely too many for the station. The only situation where spares seats could be used for short-term visitors(tourists) is if there is Dragon crew of 4 present with no Soyuz. Even then we are looking at 4+4+ upto 3 visitors. 11 maybe OK for a few days assuming everything goes to plan and return Dragon's flight is not delayed.
See above. Less a matter of how many people ISS can support and more dependent on transportation and direct vs. indirect handover. Until something changes, the only people flying will be ISS crew increments; no short term visitors.
On this issue, McAlister said that it was up to crew providers whether they wanted to use a rental or taxi system. A taxi system implies a short term visit for the pilot. McAlister admitted that a taxi system would be difficult if the commercial crew providers also provides the lifeboat function.
It had sufficient cross range capability that if necessary the crew could abandon station at any point in its orbit and return to almost any runway in the world
It had sufficient cross range capability that if necessary the crew could abandon station at any point in its orbit and return to almost any runway in the world
X-38 didn't use a runway
On this issue, McAlister said that it was up to the commercial crew provider to decide whether they wanted to use a rental or taxi system. A taxi system implies a short term visit for the pilot. McAlister admitted that a taxi system would be difficult to implement if the commercial crew provider also provides the lifeboat function.
Crew means any employee or independent contractor of a licensee, transferee, or permittee, or of a contractor or subcontractor of a licensee, transferee, or permittee, who performs activities in the courseof that employment or contract directly relating to the launch, reentry, or other operation of or in a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle that carries human beings. A crew consists of flight crew and any remote operator.
...
Space flight participant means an individual, who is not crew, carried aboard a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle.
For three missions there were even thirteen aboard.10 or whatever is fine for short durations. It does increase consumables use, though.
Shuttle routinely arrived with 7 crew. For the duration of Shuttle's visit, ISS hosted 10.
On this issue, McAlister said that it was up to crew providers whether they wanted to use a rental or taxi system. A taxi system implies a short term visit for the pilot. McAlister admitted that a taxi system would be difficult if the commercial crew providers also provides the lifeboat function.
Originally there was to be an X-38 CRV docked at all times to the ISS to provide on-demand safe haven or emergency crew return for a full ISS crew compliment. This was in addition to the visiting Soyuz and Shuttle spacecraft. If the CRV had come to full fruition short term visits to ISS could have been the norm. It had sufficient cross range capability that if necessary the crew could abandon station at any point in its orbit and return to almost any runway in the world within a wide swath under the ISS orbital path. It would be forward thinking (perhaps wishful thinking?) if NASA were to contract an SN DreamChaser spacecraft to fill this roll.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Return_Vehicle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Return_Vehicle)
Isn't there also the concern about the longevity on orbit of a "lifeboat"? If they rotate out the crew vehicles that is not an issue, but leaving a vehicle there for several years and expecting it to work is risky.
Isn't there also the concern about the longevity on orbit of a "lifeboat"? If they rotate out the crew vehicles that is not an issue, but leaving a vehicle there for several years and expecting it to work is risky.Yes, absolutely, and I assume that's why the current plan is to have the crew use the vehicle they took up as a lifeboat during their stay, then bring it back down.
Isn't there also the concern about the longevity on orbit of a "lifeboat"? If they rotate out the crew vehicles that is not an issue, but leaving a vehicle there for several years and expecting it to work is risky.Yes, absolutely, and I assume that's why the current plan is to have the crew use the vehicle they took up as a lifeboat during their stay, then bring it back down.
Yes; CTS requirement is minimum life of 210 days on-station. Not to mention something like a CRV would occupy a docking port. Only two will be available for the foreseeable future on the USOS side, and IIRC nominal rule is one remain unoccupied in case there is a problem with the other.
Isn't there also the concern about the longevity on orbit of a "lifeboat"? If they rotate out the crew vehicles that is not an issue, but leaving a vehicle there for several years and expecting it to work is risky.Yes, absolutely, and I assume that's why the current plan is to have the crew use the vehicle they took up as a lifeboat during their stay, then bring it back down.
Yes; CTS requirement is minimum life of 210 days on-station. Not to mention something like a CRV would occupy a docking port. Only two will be available for the foreseeable future on the USOS side, and IIRC nominal rule is one remain unoccupied in case there is a problem with the other.
There would be no need to leave a lifeboat docked there for "years". Just have that vehicle in the rotation schedule. That way there is always a "new" lifeboat docked.
Isn't there also the concern about the longevity on orbit of a "lifeboat"? If they rotate out the crew vehicles that is not an issue, but leaving a vehicle there for several years and expecting it to work is risky.Yes, absolutely, and I assume that's why the current plan is to have the crew use the vehicle they took up as a lifeboat during their stay, then bring it back down.
Yes; CTS requirement is minimum life of 210 days on-station. Not to mention something like a CRV would occupy a docking port. Only two will be available for the foreseeable future on the USOS side, and IIRC nominal rule is one remain unoccupied in case there is a problem with the other.
There would be no need to leave a lifeboat docked there for "years". Just have that vehicle in the rotation schedule. That way there is always a "new" lifeboat docked.
NASA only wants one CTS contractor starting in 2017. So SNC would have to have edge out SpaceX for the CTS contract.
NASA only wants one CTS contractor starting in 2017. So SNC would have to have edge out SpaceX for the CTS contract.
Offerors are to consider their CTS lead time when inputting their data above. The CCtCap contract is anticipated to conclude at the end of 2020.Note that all other CCtCap pricing information is also requested through 2020.
NASA has not downselected to anybody yet. That statement is your personal opinion and should be so labeled.
Isn't there also the concern about the longevity on orbit of a "lifeboat"? If they rotate out the crew vehicles that is not an issue, but leaving a vehicle there for several years and expecting it to work is risky.Yes, absolutely, and I assume that's why the current plan is to have the crew use the vehicle they took up as a lifeboat during their stay, then bring it back down.
Yes; CTS requirement is minimum life of 210 days on-station. Not to mention something like a CRV would occupy a docking port. Only two will be available for the foreseeable future on the USOS side, and IIRC nominal rule is one remain unoccupied in case there is a problem with the other.
There would be no need to leave a lifeboat docked there for "years". Just have that vehicle in the rotation schedule. That way there is always a "new" lifeboat docked.
NASA only wants one CTS contractor starting in 2017. So SNC would have to have edge out SpaceX for the CTS contract.
NASA has not downselected to anybody yet. That statement is your personal opinion and should be so labeled.
NASA has not downselected to anybody yet. That statement is your personal opinion and should be so labeled.
I think maybe the term down-select is being tossed about too freely. Nit: NASA can not and will not down-select awardees for CCtCap. Under FAR, CCtCap is open to any qualified bidder, and not a down-select from a predefined field. That said, some culling of the field is likely given past and projected CCP funding constraints.
The operative question is: Who gets selected to provide ISS crew services under CCtCap? In particular, will there be sufficient funds for 1, 2 or ...? Given a projected demand of two ISS crew missions per year, the justification for funding at least one provider seems clear; for two questionable; for three extremely dubious.
Given that, it appears that there will be one front-runner who will be awarded sufficient funds to see CCtCap through to providing ISS crew services; and another awarded reduced funds which, while not sufficient to provide ISS crew services, provides a backup--or at least an incentive to the front-runner to keep their eye on the ball.
There is no backup. Each round is independent of each other. If NASA decides to have 1.5 providers for CCtCap, the 0.5 company also has a chance of winning the CTS award. But my point was that there will only be one CTS award. NASA has said so on a number of occasions. It's not set out in stone but that's the current plan.
There is no backup. Each round is independent of each other. If NASA decides to have 1.5 providers for CCtCap, the 0.5 company also has a chance of winning the CTS award. But my point was that there will only be one CTS award. NASA has said so on a number of occasions. It's not set out in stone but that's the current plan.
Sorry should have been clearer as that was my point. Any such FAR acquisition (i.e, CTS) must be open to all qualified bidders, including those not selected for previous contracts (i.e., CCiCap and CCtCap).
I don't recall NASA making any single-award statements with respect to CTS. NASA's notional timeline at the CCtCap pre-proposal conference appears to suggest otherwise, with new-entrant certification and competition for CTS possible in the future (much like NLS on-ramp for new entrants). What am I missing?
Gerst said so in a few hearings. I don't remember which one. I will try to find it. But just from a practical point of view, 2 flights per year makes it difficult to have more than once company.
Mr. PALAZZO. What is your estimated cost per flight once the development stage is completed?
Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Again, we would look at it as equal to or less than what we would be paying for Soyuz at that time.
Mr. PALAZZO. Some———
Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Roughly $480 million or so.
Mr. PALAZZO. How much would that come down per astronaut since that seems to be the common way of looking at it?
Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Roughly $80 million per crew seat.
Mr. PALAZZO. Okay.
Mr. GERSTENMAIER. Six seats per year, $480 million total per year.
I found the document where Gerst says that commercial crew would cost $480M per year:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg70800/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg70800.pdf
That document from 2011 actually says that NASA might support more than one CTS provider. But I will see if I can find other more recent documents.
ISS Services Contract
Likely single award
Mr. BROOKS. Thank you. And continuing, Mr. Gerstenmaier, at a rate of no more than two NASA missions per year, most analysts conclude that only one provider will ultimately be needed. If only one provider is selected to provide this service, how much government funding will have been provided to the other firms that will not be providing subsequent services to the United States government?
Mr. GERSTENMAIER. If you want a precise number, I can take it for the record and we can go calculate what that number is, but there will be funds that will have gone to these other providers that are not providing a service. The question is, is the market going to be just ISS or is the market going to be bigger than ISS. What we hear from these commercial companies is they believe that there is a market for their spacecraft that is beyond the government’s need. They believe there is a commercial-sector market for that. So even though one of these companies may only provide services to NASA for our ISS activities, the others may have another market to go do that can be there. Then I have the advantage from the government side is now I have another contractor that I could go back and pick up to go provide services later in some future activity if we decide to extend, for example, space station beyond 2020 and we need some additional services. It may be someone else in the market for us to go by. So we are investing in that other contractor as you described but we potentially get some benefit if they can generate a market on their own.
Gerst said so in a few hearings. I don't remember which one. I will try to find it. But just from a practical point of view, 2 flights per year makes it difficult to have more than once company.That said, let's ensure we differentiate between CCtCap (including post-certification missions, which could run through 2020), and CTS.
Incidentally, I think that one of the reason for having post-certification missions is in order to provide incentives to the CCtCap company that doesn't obtain a CTS contract. I think that post-certification can not go beyond 5 years from the date of the award (August 2019). This change was made in the final RFP.
H.19 (a) Post Certification Mission (PCM) task orders may be awarded prior to completion of CLIN 001, DDTE/Certification. However, the Contractor shall meet the following development-related criteria before NASA will grant Authority to Proceed (ATP) with such missions. ATP for PCMs is at NASA’s sole discretion and is dependent on meeting the criteria. Specific mission objectives and target launch date are provided by NASA.
The maximum number of all PCMs awarded to all CCtCap contractors is six. To the extent that they do not overlap with the existing Soyuz contract, post-certification missions are expected to be used to rotate crews on the ISS. Ed Mango mentioned at the conference that post-certification missions can be ordered thru December 31, 2020 [now September 2019].
CCtCap is likely to have 1.5 or two providers. McAlister said that they are unlikely to maintain three providers for the next round but that NASA wants (if they have the budget for it) to keep competition going as long as possible which is why CCtCap is likely to have more than one provider. But the CTS contract (the contract for ferrying crew to the ISS which starts in 2017) is likely to have just one provider. At least, that is the current plan. I agree that there is an overlap between CTS and CCtCap and I believe that this was done on purpose in order to provide incentives for the company that doesn't win a CTS contract to continue.
So actually, then can come close to finishing out the decade without awarding a CTS contract.
There might actually be incentive for a company to remain in the CCtCap program as an "unfunded" if there is the possibility of funded post-certification flights.
That's a good question and I am not certain about the answer. My understanding is that NASA has the option of either ordering post-certification missions (PCM) from both providers (assuming that there is two) or not order any. See clauses B.4, H.8 and H.19 in the second document linked below. More specifically, under H.19, NASA appears to have the discretion to proceed or not with PCMs (i.e., the authority to proceed seems discretionary) but if they do proceed with PCMs, each provider must be considered for a minimum of 2 flights (See B.4).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32412.msg1121659#msg1121659
In accordance with clause C.1, Specification/Statement of Work, the task ordering procedures and other terms and conditions in the contract, the Contracting Officer may issue Post Certification Mission (PCM) task orders.
Correct, we can finish the decade without CTS; based on the notional schedule, CTS flights will not start until late CY2019 (FY2020), even though the notional CTS award is in 2017. IMHO the CTS contract* will likely be pushed back.
As to remaining in CCtCap unfunded, see above. CCtCap currently requires that every awardee complete DDT&E/certification and is guaranteed a minimum of two post-certification missions. If you get that far you're done, and the next step is missions paid for under CTS.
CCP is also assessing alternatives to mitigate transition timing between Phase 2 Certification and ISS Services (contracts). One approach being considered is to potentially include multiple postcertification mission(s) within the scope of the Phase 2 contract. The Government is considering these post-certification mission(s) to be optional (e.g. IDIQ or contract options); awarded at the Government’s discretion and based on Contractor performance. The mission(s) would be defined as the CCT-DRM-1110 of a certified configuration. During Phase 2 contract performance, flight specific objectives for optional mission(s) could be tailored to fit Agency requirements. The post-certification optional missions are expected to be licensed by the FAA for public safety.
s far as PCMs, B-4 of the RFP document uses the word "may" which implies that it is not automatic:QuoteIn accordance with clause C.1, Specification/Statement of Work, the task ordering procedures and other terms and conditions in the contract, the Contracting Officer may issue Post Certification Mission (PCM) task orders.
There is an overlap between CTS and CCtCap according to page 14 of this presentation. The chart also confirms that PCMs are optional and that they are there to provide incentives:
See the following document which is even clearer on this issue (page 3):
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/155325-OTHER-001-001.pdf
The winning (CCtCap) bidder will be awarded at least two missions, which gives them an assurance that they will recover some of their investment.
... It's easy to get confused with this stuff. The language in the contract threw me off. Anyways, I don't mind being proven wrong (it means that I have learned something). ...
... It's easy to get confused with this stuff. The language in the contract threw me off. Anyways, I don't mind being proven wrong (it means that I have learned something). ...
I would consider it less a matter of being "proven wrong" and more an indication of a good exchange. Challenged to revisit readings and interpretations is welcome, good exercise, and keeps us healthy and honest. That aside, I don't see how post-certification missions provide much of a consolation prize to the CTS loser or CCtCap runner-up. The CCtCap front-runner appears to be in a winner-take-all position (or mostly-winner-take-all) for the foreseeable future.
Watch Elon & company sue if he gets cut.Quote from: clongtonWith or without NASA, Crewed Dragon will be deployed
And why is that? Is there a market for orbital human spaceflight that would support a commercial crew program?
If any of those programs is not supported by NASA anymore it will simply cease to exist.
Because Commercial Crew is not necessary to justify crewed Dragon. Elon started SpaceX for the very specific purpose of going to Mars, with or without NASA. His original plans specifically excluded NASA. He signed on to NASA's commercial program because federal dollars, though not required at all, does speed things up. A commercial market for crewed Dragon is not required at all. It is Elon's spaceship, not NASA's or ours. It will fly with crew - with or without NASA.
Today (January 22) is the deadline for the CCtCap proposals. This deadline is important for three reasons:
...
Secondly, companies are relunctant to talk about their proposal until it has been submitted. The reason for this is simple; they don't want their competition to know what they are doing before the deadline (when it's too late to change their proposal).
Today (January 22) is the deadline for the CCtCap proposals. This deadline is important for three reasons:
First, it will allow NASA to determine what the cost of CCtCap will be and how many CCtCap providers they are able to fund.
Secondly, companies are relunctant to talk about their proposal until it has been submitted. The reason for this is simple; they don't want their competition to know what they are doing before the deadline (when it's too late to change their proposal).
Thirdly, we may find out if companies other than the CCiCap participants have submitted proposals. More specifically, we will find out if ATK or Blue Origin have submitted proposals. Although both companies are allowed to submit proposals, they must show that their certification plans is at the same level as the CPC participants (Boeing, SNC and SpaceX). I am not sure if that simply means that ATK or Blue Origin would submit additional certification documentation with their proposals or they would have had to conclude a prior (unfunded) arrangement with NASA to have completed this requirement (which we haven't heard anything about).
Today (January 22) is the deadline for the CCtCap proposals. This deadline is important for three reasons:
First, it will allow NASA to determine what the cost of CCtCap will be and how many CCtCap providers they are able to fund.
Secondly, companies are relunctant to talk about their proposal until it has been submitted. The reason for this is simple; they don't want their competition to know what they are doing before the deadline (when it's too late to change their proposal).
Thirdly, we may find out if companies other than the CCiCap participants have submitted proposals. More specifically, we will find out if ATK or Blue Origin have submitted proposals. Although both companies are allowed to submit proposals, they must show that their certification plans is at the same level as the CPC participants (Boeing, SNC and SpaceX). I am not sure if that simply means that ATK or Blue Origin would submit additional certification documentation with their proposals or they would have had to conclude a prior (unfunded) arrangement with NASA to have completed this requirement (which we haven't heard anything about).
It's hard for me to believe ATK or Blue Origin would submit a proposal at this point, unless it's just to play spoiler and delay the proceedings a bit with a protest. Neither has a spacecraft that could possibly be ready in time.
Is enough known about Blue Origin's progress, or lack thereof, given their secrecy? I ask because I simply haven't followed them closely. Pointers to info and discussions would be welcome - thank you.Quick recap from memory:
Is enough known about Blue Origin's progress, or lack thereof, given their secrecy? I ask because I simply haven't followed them closely. Pointers to info and discussions would be welcome - thank you.Quick recap from memory:
Well they now have a 110k lbs hydrolox engine. They made some testflights with a suborbital vehicle, but lost it during a supersonic test flight. They are currently building a replacement that will use the new engine. That will still be suborbital, though. The reusable orbital first stage would be much bigger with the suborbital vehicle being the template for the second stage.
Is enough known about Blue Origin's progress, or lack thereof, given their secrecy? I ask because I simply haven't followed them closely. Pointers to info and discussions would be welcome - thank you.Quick recap from memory:
Well they now have a 110k lbs hydrolox engine. They made some testflights with a suborbital vehicle, but lost it during a supersonic test flight. They are currently building a replacement that will use the new engine. That will still be suborbital, though. The reusable orbital first stage would be much bigger with the suborbital vehicle being the template for the second stage.
Also, as far as anyone knows, they've only been working on launch vehicles so far. There's no indication they've started work on a spacecraft.
...It's hard for me to believe ATK or Blue Origin would submit a proposal at this point, unless it's just to play spoiler and delay the proceedings a bit with a protest. Neither has a spacecraft that could possibly be ready in time.
Thirdly, we may find out if companies other than the CCiCap participants have submitted proposals. More specifically, we will find out if ATK or Blue Origin have submitted proposals. Although both companies are allowed to submit proposals, they must show that their certification plans is at the same level as the CPC participants (Boeing, SNC and SpaceX). I am not sure if that simply means that ATK or Blue Origin would submit additional certification documentation with their proposals or they would have had to conclude a prior (unfunded) arrangement with NASA to have completed this requirement (which we haven't heard anything about).
Is enough known about Blue Origin's progress, or lack thereof, given their secrecy? I ask because I simply haven't followed them closely. Pointers to info and discussions would be welcome - thank you.Quick recap from memory:
Well they now have a 110k lbs hydrolox engine. They made some testflights with a suborbital vehicle, but lost it during a supersonic test flight. They are currently building a replacement that will use the new engine. That will still be suborbital, though. The reusable orbital first stage would be much bigger with the suborbital vehicle being the template for the second stage.
Also, as far as anyone knows, they've only been working on launch vehicles so far. There's no indication they've started work on a spacecraft.
Then what is this? (see image) They may have it on slow burn due to missing out on the latest commercial crew funding, but it appears to exist.
Back to my original query and pardon the Rumsfeldism, but are the unknowns surrounding Blue Origin understood or not... knowns or unknowns?
This is somewhat related to commercial crew: Soyuz will be extended until the end of 2017:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39312nasa-to-order-more-soyuz-seats
See also:
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=85172e891582386f3ab04df8314f2fc2&tab=core&_cview=0
In its online procurement note, NASA said the first crewed demonstration flight to station under the Commercial Crew Program was tentatively scheduled for the fall of 2017.
tentatively.... assuming they get full funding for the years to come. Which they will not.This is somewhat related to commercial crew: Soyuz will be extended until the end of 2017:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39312nasa-to-order-more-soyuz-seats
See also:
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=85172e891582386f3ab04df8314f2fc2&tab=core&_cview=0
From the articleQuoteIn its online procurement note, NASA said the first crewed demonstration flight to station under the Commercial Crew Program was tentatively scheduled for the fall of 2017.
So its fall 2017 for the first commercial crew flight.
tentatively.... assuming they get full funding for the years to come. Which they will not.
I understand your argument but shorting the funding can't help the schedule.
tentatively.... assuming they get full funding for the years to come. Which they will not.
I'm of the opinion that Commercial Crew development is going to take the same amount of time regardless of whether Congress provides 700 million per year or 1 Billion per year for development. We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work. Even a down-select to one vendor and concentrating all of the funding to that vendor probably wont help the schedule at all.
We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work.
$830 million is being requested. The most that has ever has been requested is $850 million, it was in 2012, not even a year after the Space Shuttle program ended. Congressmen were complaining about how there wasn't a replacement ready, some even called it unacceptable. They didn't even give them half.
tentatively.... assuming they get full funding for the years to come. Which they will not.
I'm of the opinion that Commercial Crew development is going to take the same amount of time regardless of whether Congress provides 700 million per year or 1 Billion per year for development. We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work. Even a down-select to one vendor and concentrating all of the funding to that vendor probably wont help the schedule at all.
Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.And as a result the first flight slipped from 2015 to 2017. Under-funding has already resulted in a two year delay. The 2017 date only holds IF commercial crew is funded at the requested levels from FY2014 forward. The fact that for FY2014 there is again under-funding, respective to the requested amount, leads me to expect that we will see a delay into 2018 being announced this year.
We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work.
Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.
We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work.
I'm sorry, but when exactly did we "throw money" at some of these vendors? And how much funding would you consider "throwing money"??
Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.
Is this the same money that Shelby ended up redirecting to Constellation?We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work.
I'm sorry, but when exactly did we "throw money" at some of these vendors? And how much funding would you consider "throwing money"??
As part of the Stimulus program, both SpaceX and Orbital each received more than 100 million in additional COTS funding. Perhaps that's just pocket change to you. This extra COTS funding did not improve the schedule, and it only provided NASA funding tasks that the vendors needed to perform anyway.
No, as part of the stimulus package OSC and SpaceX were each awarded (and spent) ~$118M for additional COTS milestones.As part of the Stimulus program, both SpaceX and Orbital each received more than 100 million in additional COTS funding. Perhaps that's just pocket change to you. This extra COTS funding did not improve the schedule, and it only provided NASA funding tasks that the vendors needed to perform anyway.Is this the same money that Shelby ended up redirecting to Constellation?
NASA gave money to pay for risk reduction activities. In Orbital case that payed (among other things) for A-One. Which might actually have delayed a bit the schedule. And in SpaceX case other activities (like environmental testing and such) were executed.We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work.
I'm sorry, but when exactly did we "throw money" at some of these vendors? And how much funding would you consider "throwing money"??
As part of the Stimulus program, both SpaceX and Orbital each received more than 100 million in additional COTS funding. Perhaps that's just pocket change to you. This extra COTS funding did not improve the schedule, and it only provided NASA funding tasks that the vendors needed to perform anyway.
We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work.
I'm sorry, but when exactly did we "throw money" at some of these vendors? And how much funding would you consider "throwing money"??
As part of the Stimulus program, both SpaceX and Orbital each received more than 100 million in additional COTS funding. Perhaps that's just pocket change to you. This extra COTS funding did not improve the schedule, and it only provided NASA funding tasks that the vendors needed to perform anyway.
Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.And as a result the first flight slipped from 2015 to 2017. Under-funding has already resulted in a two year delay. The 2017 date only holds IF commercial crew is funded at the requested levels from FY2014 forward. The fact that for FY2014 there is again under-funding, respective to the requested amount, leads me to expect that we will see a delay into 2018 being announced this year.
Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.The attached shows commercial crew Presidential Budget Requests FY2010-FY2014 and actuals (assuming completion of CCtCap given current projections).
Do you come from an alternate dimension where this money was not spent, so you can illustrate how not spending this money wouldn't have affected their schedules? And how the companies would have been able to self-fund these activities in no extra time?
And pocket change or not, in the overall NASA budget is a very minor element, and money well spent if the risk was reduced for NASA. And in retrospect, with a successfully completed COTS program with two CRS providers, it seems difficult to argue against.
Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.And as a result the first flight slipped from 2015 to 2017. Under-funding has already resulted in a two year delay. The 2017 date only holds IF commercial crew is funded at the requested levels from FY2014 forward. The fact that for FY2014 there is again under-funding, respective to the requested amount, leads me to expect that we will see a delay into 2018 being announced this year.
Not quite true. The requested funding is shooting for multiple parnters for competition. It is possible that one partner could reach 2017 with the current funding (won't say how likely but possible).
As soon as you downselect, most benefits of commercial approach are lost. The winner has zero incentive to keep schedule and budget.Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.And as a result the first flight slipped from 2015 to 2017. Under-funding has already resulted in a two year delay. The 2017 date only holds IF commercial crew is funded at the requested levels from FY2014 forward. The fact that for FY2014 there is again under-funding, respective to the requested amount, leads me to expect that we will see a delay into 2018 being announced this year.
Not quite true. The requested funding is shooting for multiple parnters for competition. It is possible that one partner could reach 2017 with the current funding (won't say how likely but possible).
Not quite true. The requested funding is shooting for multiple parnters for competition. It is possible that one partner could reach 2017 with the current funding (won't say how likely but possible).As soon as you downselect, most benefits of commercial approach are lost. The winner has zero incentive to keep schedule and budget.
As soon as you downselect, most benefits of commercial approach are lost. The winner has zero incentive to keep schedule and budget.
As soon as you downselect, most benefits of commercial approach are lost. The winner has zero incentive to keep schedule and budget.Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.And as a result the first flight slipped from 2015 to 2017. Under-funding has already resulted in a two year delay. The 2017 date only holds IF commercial crew is funded at the requested levels from FY2014 forward. The fact that for FY2014 there is again under-funding, respective to the requested amount, leads me to expect that we will see a delay into 2018 being announced this year.
Not quite true. The requested funding is shooting for multiple parnters for competition. It is possible that one partner could reach 2017 with the current funding (won't say how likely but possible).
If you are going for a fast track you can add 2 or 3 milestone that basically say the contractor gets a large payment if he completes milestone g, j and y by a certain (early) date and passes a tough quality inspection.
This is not a new idea, and contrary to popular opinion, is exactly how cost-plus contracts work as far as incentives in order to keep cost and schedule per the baseline as outlined in a Statement of Work.Yeah, because cost plus has worked so well for NASA in the past 35 years (sarcasm). IIRC one of the drivers behind the COTS and commercial crew (as it was originally envisioned) was to get away from cost plus.
This is not a new idea, and contrary to popular opinion, is exactly how cost-plus contracts work as far as incentives in order to keep cost and schedule per the baseline as outlined in a Statement of Work.Yeah, because cost plus has worked so well for NASA in the past 35 years (sarcasm). IIRC one of the drivers behind the COTS and commercial crew (as it was originally envisioned) was to get away from cost plus.
1. If the government wants/needs unobtainium and no rational group would bid on it because no one knows enough to estimate the risks and costs (and thus insane to commit to firm-fixed-price), then cost-plus would be appropriate. Can you imagine Apollo or the Manhattan project being acquired solely on firm-fixed-price basis? Not.
As soon as you downselect, most benefits of commercial approach are lost. The winner has zero incentive to keep schedule and budget.Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.And as a result the first flight slipped from 2015 to 2017. Under-funding has already resulted in a two year delay. The 2017 date only holds IF commercial crew is funded at the requested levels from FY2014 forward. The fact that for FY2014 there is again under-funding, respective to the requested amount, leads me to expect that we will see a delay into 2018 being announced this year.
Not quite true. The requested funding is shooting for multiple parnters for competition. It is possible that one partner could reach 2017 with the current funding (won't say how likely but possible).
We already tried throwing money at some of these vendors for "risk reduction" activities to move the schedule to the left, but that didn't work.Just for the record, from 2009 to 2014 the Commercial crew was slated to get 3.052 billion, the program received 1.949 billion.
That doesn't sound to me like we "threw money" at anybody. Instead it sounds like we contracted for a product and then shortchanged the contractor.
Actually, what happened is that someone at NASA wanted enough money to kick-start an entire LEO spaceflight industry and Congress said no. Congress will pay for commercial crew to go to the ISS. Many people are saying there aren't enough flights to support more than 1 or 2 vendors. Why pay to develop a vehicle that won't earn a NASA crew rotation contract ?
Actually, what happened is that someone at NASA wanted enough money to kick-start an entire LEO spaceflight industry and Congress said no. Congress will pay for commercial crew to go to the ISS. Many people are saying there aren't enough flights to support more than 1 or 2 vendors. Why pay to develop a vehicle that won't earn a NASA crew rotation contract ?
Wasn't it a publicly declared aim of the program to "kick-start an entire LEO spaceflight industry"?
Actually, what happened is that someone at NASA wanted enough money to kick-start an entire LEO spaceflight industry and Congress said no. Congress will pay for commercial crew to go to the ISS. Many people are saying there aren't enough flights to support more than 1 or 2 vendors. Why pay to develop a vehicle that won't earn a NASA crew rotation contract ?
Wasn't it a publicly declared aim of the program to "kick-start an entire LEO spaceflight industry"?
Absolutely yes it was. That was the whole idea. NASA's stake in it was to be ISS cargo/crew but the aim was, as you said, "an entire LEO spaceflight industry". It was to go far beyond NASA, just as the aircraft industry went far beyond the military.
Actually, what happened is that someone at NASA wanted enough money to kick-start an entire LEO spaceflight industry and Congress said no. Congress will pay for commercial crew to go to the ISS. Many people are saying there aren't enough flights to support more than 1 or 2 vendors. Why pay to develop a vehicle that won't earn a NASA crew rotation contract ?
Wasn't it a publicly declared aim of the program to "kick-start an entire LEO spaceflight industry"?
Absolutely yes it was. That was the whole idea. NASA's stake in it was to be ISS cargo/crew but the aim was, as you said, "an entire LEO spaceflight industry". It was to go far beyond NASA, just as the aircraft industry went far beyond the military.
... I am shocked that someone in NASA thought it was going to ...
This is a very widely shared view. But I think it is incorrect. Private industry deals with unknown risks all the time. Venture capitalists do nothing else.
It's definitely not insane for a private company to bid just because the risks are hard to quantify.
Contracts can be written with firm fixed prices for milestones and still have outs that let the contractors bail out if it turns out to be too difficult to reach some of those milestones. So the liabilities of the contractors don't have to be unlimited.
It's not something all companies would be comfortable with. But the more the government started doing contracting this way, the more companies would learn how to operate in these kinds of environments.
Letting the private sector figure out the risk-adjusted cost would let the political decision makers make their decisions based on realistic cost estimates, in addition to the incentives being set up right to make the execution efficient.
Well no wonder Congress knocked them back for that kind of pie in the sky thinking. A whole industry was never going to just spring up because of this & I am shocked that someone in NASA thought it was going to. Maybe more of the blame for the delays in this process should be aimed at NASA rather than Congress for that kind of thinking.Considering the knock back from congress it has still worked pretty well so far. We have one new GEO launch provider, 2 new launchers, 2 new space craft, with another 2 on the way. Plus a whole bunch of new startups that are piggy backing on the commercial space trend. I would call that pretty good for the little money congress provided to the commercial space program.
Well no wonder Congress knocked them back for that kind of pie in the sky thinking. A whole industry was never going to just spring up because of this & I am shocked that someone in NASA thought it was going to. Maybe more of the blame for the delays in this process should be aimed at NASA rather than Congress for that kind of thinking.Considering the knock back from congress it has still worked pretty well so far. We have one new GEO launch provider, 2 new launchers, 2 new space craft, with another 2 on the way. Plus a whole bunch of new startups that are piggy backing on the commercial space trend. I would call that pretty good for the little money congress provided to the commercial space program.
If you are really serious about space development and expanding space exploration, the presidents vision is a good way to do it. Programs like the SLS wont get us anywhere in the long term. They may (and that is a big, huge may) be able to do a footprints and flags kind of mission. Anything beyond that is not going to be affordable. That sort of mission is not what I am interested in though. We did it once, it did not get us anywhere.
That's the opposite of true.Well no wonder Congress knocked them back for that kind of pie in the sky thinking. A whole industry was never going to just spring up because of this & I am shocked that someone in NASA thought it was going to. Maybe more of the blame for the delays in this process should be aimed at NASA rather than Congress for that kind of thinking.Considering the knock back from congress it has still worked pretty well so far. We have one new GEO launch provider, 2 new launchers, 2 new space craft, with another 2 on the way. Plus a whole bunch of new startups that are piggy backing on the commercial space trend. I would call that pretty good for the little money congress provided to the commercial space program.
If you are really serious about space development and expanding space exploration, the presidents vision is a good way to do it. Programs like the SLS wont get us anywhere in the long term. They may (and that is a big, huge may) be able to do a footprints and flags kind of mission. Anything beyond that is not going to be affordable. That sort of mission is not what I am interested in though. We did it once, it did not get us anywhere.
I don't think it will work there just isn't enough available public money in these times of austerity to successfully seed this kind of growth.
That's the opposite of true.Well no wonder Congress knocked them back for that kind of pie in the sky thinking. A whole industry was never going to just spring up because of this & I am shocked that someone in NASA thought it was going to. Maybe more of the blame for the delays in this process should be aimed at NASA rather than Congress for that kind of thinking.Considering the knock back from congress it has still worked pretty well so far. We have one new GEO launch provider, 2 new launchers, 2 new space craft, with another 2 on the way. Plus a whole bunch of new startups that are piggy backing on the commercial space trend. I would call that pretty good for the little money congress provided to the commercial space program.
If you are really serious about space development and expanding space exploration, the presidents vision is a good way to do it. Programs like the SLS wont get us anywhere in the long term. They may (and that is a big, huge may) be able to do a footprints and flags kind of mission. Anything beyond that is not going to be affordable. That sort of mission is not what I am interested in though. We did it once, it did not get us anywhere.
I don't think it will work there just isn't enough available public money in these times of austerity to successfully seed this kind of growth.
We will see when in ten years time there still isn't any kind of major competitive industry to LEO, perhaps people will then wake up and realise that.
We will see when in ten years time there still isn't any kind of major competitive industry to LEO, perhaps people will then wake up and realise that.
I assume you mean flying people.. as there's already a competitive industry for satellites and (arguably) for ISS cargo.
I doubt anyone will see the light when it comes to government interference.. the idea that government can "kickstart" an industry is too seductive.
The SLS comments are offtopic.
Government Interference?
Also, the current administration has a bad record trying to jump start industries. See how poorly the green energy business is doing.
With every risk investment, you plan for one out of 10 to be a success. One example for such a success would be Tesla, another would be Solar City. So I would be careful with dismissing the notion that this works. Besides, the whole jobs creation argument was used by the opponents of commercial crew to funnel tax money to their favored space projects and centers. So lets be careful with that argument. Finally, there was unfortunately not enough money spent to really jump start the industry on the scale desAlso, the current administration has a bad record trying to jump start industries. See how poorly the green energy business is doing.
I believe that exact comparison was made by members of the House in rejecting the funding request for CCDev.
No, but the COTS/CRS money /did/ help SpaceX enter the commercial satellite field in a significant way, bringing significant commercial launch business back to the US. And we don't actually know that CC won't end up jump-starting the commercial orbital human spaceflight industry, though Congress seems to be doing their best to make sure CC is done with cost-plus type contracts which are less likely to spur truly commercial development.With every risk investment, you plan for one out of 10 to be a success. One example for such a success would be Tesla, another would be Solar City. So I would be careful with dismissing the notion that this works. Besides, the whole jobs creation argument was used by the opponents of commercial crew to funnel tax money to their favored space projects and centers. So lets be careful with that argument. Finally, there was unfortunately not enough money spent to really jump start the industry on the scale desAlso, the current administration has a bad record trying to jump start industries. See how poorly the green energy business is doing.
I believe that exact comparison was made by members of the House in rejecting the funding request for CCDev.
No, but the COTS/CRS money /did/ help SpaceX enter the commercial satellite field in a significant way, bringing significant commercial launch business back to the US.
Not taxing them so much or removing 1/10th of the regulations on private investment would have done the same thing. Why? Because Elon built that, not the government. They did more to hinder than they did to help and they continue to do so.I might be wrong there, as I do not have access to their books, but I somehow doubt that SpaceX was paying much taxes by the time they got the COTS money.
No, but the COTS/CRS money /did/ help SpaceX enter the commercial satellite field in a significant way, bringing significant commercial launch business back to the US.
Not taxing them so much or removing 1/10th of the regulations on private investment would have done the same thing. Why? Because Elon built that, not the government. They did more to hinder than they did to help and they continue to do so.
Not taxing them so much or removing 1/10th of the regulations on private investment would have done the same thing. Why? Because Elon built that, not the government. They did more to hinder than they did to help and they continue to do so.I might be wrong there, as I do not have access to their books, but I somehow doubt that SpaceX was paying much taxes by the time they got the COTS money.
We will see when in ten years time there still isn't any kind of major competitive industry to LEO, perhaps people will then wake up and realise that. Even something like Dream Chaser, which I have a lot time for, I believe will struggle to move outside the taxi to ISS stage within this timespan.
SLS has for all its faults marginally more of a chance of doing something significant in that timeframe than all this commercialism of LEO people think is going to happen.
We will see when in ten years time there still isn't any kind of major competitive industry to LEO, perhaps people will then wake up and realise that. Even something like Dream Chaser, which I have a lot time for, I believe will struggle to move outside the taxi to ISS stage within this timespan.
SLS has for all its faults marginally more of a chance of doing something significant in that timeframe than all this commercialism of LEO people think is going to happen.
Agreed, NASA says commercial crew is expected to cost $80m per seat. That's for only 3 astronauts per flight, but even if you offer tourism flights you need pilots etc. and cargo.
I am pretty much convinced that there is no business case for manned LEO flights beyond the ISS in the next 10 years.
I am pretty much convinced that there is no business case for manned LEO flights beyond the ISS in the next 10 years.
There might be a business case for one or two vendors, but there isn't going to be enough volume to support more than that. Is it possible for any of the vendors to make a profit and pay off any of the investment expense on just one or two flights per year ? Look at how much overhead to support these low number of flights ? What is Boeing going to be doing in that OPF if the CST-100 only flights once per year. Are those employees going to spend 6 weeks on the capsule, and 46 weeks planning vacations ?If you assume that NASA will be the only client, then you have a problem.
There might be a business case for one or two vendors, but there isn't going to be enough volume to support more than that. Is it possible for any of the vendors to make a profit and pay off any of the investment expense on just one or two flights per year ? Look at how much overhead to support these low number of flights ? What is Boeing going to be doing in that OPF if the CST-100 only flights once per year. Are those employees going to spend 6 weeks on the capsule, and 46 weeks planning vacations ?If you assume that NASA will be the only client, then you have a problem.
If you assume there is going to be other clients than NASA in the near term then you have a problem.Maybe there will be others, maybe there wont. Bigelow certainly comes to mind. IIRC, transport of people to Bigelow stations was part of Boeings business plan for the CST-100 as it was presented to NASA for CCDev. Of course it depends a bit on what you call "near term".
Maybe there will be others, maybe there wont. Bigelow certainly comes to mind. IIRC, transport of people to Bigelow stations was part of Boeings business plan for the CST-100 as it was presented to NASA for CCDev.
Well, he seems to think that countries that are currently not space station partners and that cant afford ISS missions would be potential customers, as well as space tourists. I remember he originally wanted to charge about 15 million for a 4 week stay. That price has undoubtedly gone up since then. But I think that even twice as much puts this into the reach of a lot of small nations and institutions.Maybe there will be others, maybe there wont. Bigelow certainly comes to mind. IIRC, transport of people to Bigelow stations was part of Boeings business plan for the CST-100 as it was presented to NASA for CCDev.
However, Bigelow needs clients as well outside of any potential NASA interest.
Not taxing them so much or removing 1/10th of the regulations on private investment would have done the same thing. Why? Because Elon built that, not the government. They did more to hinder than they did to help and they continue to do so.
If you assume there is going to be other clients than NASA in the near term then you have a problem.Maybe there will be others, maybe there wont. Bigelow certainly comes to mind. IIRC, transport of people to Bigelow stations was part of Boeings business plan for the CST-100 as it was presented to NASA for CCDev. Of course it depends a bit on what you call "near term".
If you assume there is going to be other clients than NASA in the near term then you have a problem.Maybe there will be others, maybe there wont. Bigelow certainly comes to mind. IIRC, transport of people to Bigelow stations was part of Boeings business plan for the CST-100 as it was presented to NASA for CCDev. Of course it depends a bit on what you call "near term".
I guessed Bigelow might be mentioned. I am just not sure myself whether their time has come yet. Hopefully we might have a better idea how things stand with them once we see how their ISS project gets along.
Actually, the lack of features in the BEAM module illustrate how far away they are from a true standalone station that can support humans.
Not taxing them so much or removing 1/10th of the regulations on private investment would have done the same thing. Why? Because Elon built that, not the government. They did more to hinder than they did to help and they continue to do so.
Please provide more information/evidence related to these claims.
Besides some general non-SpaceX specific Commercial Crew funding issues I have seen nothing to indicate any of what you wrote is true. On the contrary, there are states and their congressmen/women practically begging SpaceX to set up shop there.
Just what is the difference between COTS-D and CC-whatever?
Just what is the difference between COTS-D and CC-whatever?
Certification for commercial crew is not under a space act agreement. There is no firm skin in the game requirement under commercial crew development. Safety requirements are a bit cumbersome under the commercial crew development program.
NASA has given each vendor a "Certification Products" contract. I assume that was to pay for the effort to determine how to certify the vendor's vehicle meets NASA's requirements for carrying NASA astronauts.
Is there any reason certification itself can't be conducted under a firm fixed price contract ? There should be no unknowns for either NASA or the vendor.
Of course, any failure and the costs associated with re-trying any portion of the certification tests would be borne by the vendor. No need for "cost-plus", since that does not limit NASA's liability. It would really be the same as the "SAA" milestones, except there is only 1 milestone. Get certified, get paid with the cost and task list well defined up front by the results of the certification products contract .
Thanks for the official reference. Incidentally, the amount of skin in the game among all three commercial crew providers is about 10% on average. See page 9 of the following PDF (page 5 of the document) from a September 2012 House Hearing:Actually, Boieng hasn't put any skin in the game for CCiCap and for the prior rounds but they said that they intend to do so for the next round (CCtCap). The skin in the game milestones are usually called "financial milestones" in the SAAs.Nit: We're not sure of Boeing's contribution to CCiCap, other than it was disappointingly small, per the selection statement "... does not provide significant industry financial investment and there is increased risk of having sufficient funding in the base period".
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg76234/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg76234.pdfQuote from: House Hearing StatementNASA's goal for the Commercial Crew Development program is to stimulate the aerospace industry to develop multiple, competitive, privately operated, human spaceflight vehicles and systems. Although the government is paying for about 90 percent(3) of this development, NASA will not own the vehicles or retain the designs, intellectual property, or data rights. Private entities will own and operate the vehicles and systems.
(Footnote 3): 90 percent is indicative of the approximate relative contribution of the Federal Government. The actual nongovernment cash or in-kind contributions of the commercial partners is proprietary information and varies by company, and may be greater or less than 10 percent of the total.
Rep Johson said 11% based on committee staff calculations (always thought that was a bit too precise); Gerstenmaier qualified "on the order of" 10-20%.
Looks like nobody is actually ahead.Differing milestone completion percentages.
I meant that everybody will be done at the same time in the third quarter. In any event, the number of milestones isn't representative of who is ahead. For example, even if SNC had completed all of its milestones, it would still be behind Boeing and SpaceX.
I meant that everybody will be done at the same time in the third quarter. In any event, the number of milestones isn't representative of who is ahead. For example, even if SNC had completed all of its milestones, it would still be behind Boeing and SpaceX.
Here is the 700 pages FY 2015 NASA Budget estimate which was released today:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_2015_Budget_Estimates.pdf
NASA is considrering extending CCiCap, see page 427:Quote from: Page 427 of the FY 2015 NASA Budget EstimateNASA is evaluating whether to extend CCiCap milestones through FY 2015. Competition is an important component of the commercial crew program. Competition is a key to controlling costs over the long term and NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has opined that competition should be maintained until safety confidence is achieved.
SpaceX (and Blue Origin!) are the only ones that will do a pad abort test this year. They may even do an in-flight abort test this year. To say the milestones are not a good proxy for how "ahead" one group is compared to another is an understatement.
Emphasis mine.SpaceX (and Blue Origin!) are the only ones that will do a pad abort test this year. They may even do an in-flight abort test this year. To say the milestones are not a good proxy for how "ahead" one group is compared to another is an understatement.
Ares-I had an actual test flight in Ares-X, so I don't think the ability to put hardware in the air should be the sole indicator of progress. But I agree, the milestones are not the same across the board so they aren't a good indicator in a vacuum either.
Should I have said it was off an STS stockpile 4 seg RMSRV with a dummy US going suborbital? If that's what you're getting at it does not change my point.Yeah, it does. It had very little to do with Ares I. Unless SpaceX uses left-over solid rockets for its abort tests (and doesn't plan on using them for actual operational aborts), the comparison is ridiculous.
Ares-I had an actual test flight in Ares-X, so I don't think the ability to put hardware in the air should be the sole indicator of progress.Ares-X has almost nothing in common with Ares-I. The rocket motor was different (4 segment instead of 5), there was no upper stage. The 4 and 5 segment boosters might look similar on the outside, but from what I understand the internal geometry of the solid propellant has to be very different.
Well, Ares I-x /was/ still much better than just more powerpoints and CAD drawings, although it was ridiculously expensive for being just cobbled together parts.It was a pointless waste of money.
NASA has named Kathy Lueders Commercial Crew Program manager; no longer "interim." She replaced Ed Mango.https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/458245608709836800
On page 2 of that report, is it just me or does that Dream Chaser on top of the Atlas V in the wind tunnel have a SRB attached? I though they were big on having no solids or could this be verifying that they could add them for higher energy missions for the distant future?
On page 2 of that report, is it just me or does that Dream Chaser on top of the Atlas V in the wind tunnel have a SRB attached? I though they were big on having no solids or could this be verifying that they could add them for higher energy missions for the distant future?
Good catch - I extracted the image from the PDF:
On page 2 of that report, is it just me or does that Dream Chaser on top of the Atlas V in the wind tunnel have a SRB attached? I though they were big on having no solids or could this be verifying that they could add them for higher energy missions for the distant future?
Good catch - I extracted the image from the PDF:
I've been lurking around for a few months, but I couldn't resist chiming in here. At the Spacecraft Technology Expo in Long Beach last month, ULA's booth had models of both the Boeing CST-100 and the Dreamchaser mounted on the Atlas 5. The single SRB was present on the Dreamchaser model in the same position as in this photo. I can't recall the configuration for the CST-100, but I think it was two SRBs.
Why would they have just 1? Would it be to oppose and cancel out the Dreamchaser's lifting force in the lower atmosphere?
Why would they have just 1? Would it be to oppose and cancel out the Dreamchaser's lifting force in the lower atmosphere?Atlas flight control system can deal with asymmetric / unbalanced thrusts from non-symmetrically disposed SRBs.
Wonder how much the SRBs will drive up the cost for launching the DC...
I don't believe that it's too much issue. In no time during the SRB duration, by itself, would have a T/W>1 for the single version. I don't remember the numbers for two. But easy to run away from in any case. The most delicate issue would be asymmetric thrust. But clearly, while not ideal, NASA deems them acceptable. And then you have to compare Atlas V flight history with Falcon 9 v1.1. As a fan, I don't might li. But if minimum risk should be the measure, Probably CST-100 on Atlas V is the choice. At least it has the strongest companies behind. Of course you might believe that is better to give chance to the yound boys. And I might concur. But lowest ex ante risk is that combo.Wonder how much the SRBs will drive up the cost for launching the DC...
I wonder if (a) maybe it's only for the unmanned OTV test flight and (b) if it's for the operational version too, what are the implications not only for cost but also safety?
From the CCiCAP selection statement, I remember that DC was considered as having a chance of using no solids. But CST-100 was at least a solid and any performance grows would risk the need for two. So my guess is that both went over their reserves and needed an extra solid. My calculation is that performance to an 51.6deg 300km circular orbit (normal insertion), is around 10.5tonne for 402; 12.5tonnes for 412; and 14.3tonnes for a 422. A Falcon 9 v1.1 is 15.3 tonnes. All numbers according to NLS II site.
Thus, it would seem that at least for this, SpaceX has more mass margin than CST-100 and DC.
From the CCiCAP selection statement, I remember that DC was considered as having a chance of using no solids. But CST-100 was at least a solid and any performance grows would risk the need for two. So my guess is that both went over their reserves and needed an extra solid. My calculation is that performance to an 51.6deg 300km circular orbit (normal insertion), is around 10.5tonne for 402; 12.5tonnes for 412; and 14.3tonnes for a 422. A Falcon 9 v1.1 is 15.3 tonnes. All numbers according to NLS II site.
Thus, it would seem that at least for this, SpaceX has more mass margin than CST-100 and DC.
I wouldn't use the NLS II numbers, they do not take into account the first stage reuse - Something SpaceX wants to do. Use their own numbers - and those seem to indicated that F9v1.1 has a LEO performance somewhere between Atlas V 412 and 422.
So DC should still be able to fly on a F9v1.1. CST-100 might be a problem, if it indeed required 2 SRBs.
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?
DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9. If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas. SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100. Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?I understand what you mean but Boeing has already stated that they planned on studying the viability of launching on an F9. And if NASA decided they wanted / needed 2 vehicles, Dragon and (insert name here) for whatever reason, why wouldn't SpaceX sell their launcher if needed?
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?
DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9. If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas. SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100. Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.
[devil's advocate] Every crewed DC or CST-100 launch is less revenue for the Dragon crew launch because it stays on the ground. My question hasn't been answered. [/devil's advocate]
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?
DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9. If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas. SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100. Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.
[devil's advocate] Every crewed DC or CST-100 launch is less revenue for the Dragon crew launch because it stays on the ground. My question hasn't been answered. [/devil's advocate]
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?
DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9. If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas. SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100. Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.
[devil's advocate] Every crewed DC or CST-100 launch is less revenue for the Dragon crew launch because it stays on the ground. My question hasn't been answered. [/devil's advocate]
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?
DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9. If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas. SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100. Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.
[devil's advocate] Every crewed DC or CST-100 launch is less revenue for the Dragon crew launch because it stays on the ground. My question hasn't been answered. [/devil's advocate]
Possibly the Monopolies Commission stepped in and split SpaceX in two.
Possibly the Monopolies Commission stepped in and split SpaceX in two.
Can't split a privately held company.
SpaceX is a very, very long way from any anti-trust laws. The courts can't just "do what they want", they have to apply laws to claims and evidence that are litigated before them.
Court ordered split ups of SpaceX and other nonsense are very much off-topic. Stick to the spirit of the thread title please. Thank you.
But why would SpaceX agree to launch its competitor's spacecraft? If the Atlas-V ends up becoming unsustainable because of engine woes, doesn't that eliminate their competition? Why then, from a company pov, take steps to save that competition?
DC and CST-100 are competition for Dragon, but Atlas V is competition for F9. If the engine issues don't make Atlas V go away but make it more expensive (having to start domestic engine production, for example), then agreeing to launch DC and/or CST-100 on F9 will hurt Atlas. SpaceX might decide winning against Atlas V is more important than winning against DC or CST-100. Also, every F9 launch is more revenue for SpaceX.
[devil's advocate] Every crewed DC or CST-100 launch is less revenue for the Dragon crew launch because it stays on the ground. My question hasn't been answered. [/devil's advocate]
I don't believe Bigelow will initiate one of his stations until he has two US crewed capsules available.
The question is did the contents Elon's speech at news conference on Friday trigger Rogozin's 'trampoline' tweet.No, that would be the latest round of EU and US Hi-Tech Export sanctions that he was responding to.
The question is did the contents Elon's speech at news conference on Friday trigger Rogozin's 'trampoline' tweet.No, that would be the latest round of EU and US Hi-Tech Export sanctions that he was responding to.
USA Today says commercial crew would get $785M under the proposed bill:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/30/nasa-commercial-crew-program-house-appropriations/8527815/Quote from: USA Today articleA key House Appropriations subcommittee voted unanimously Wednesday to approve a spending plan that would provide $785 million for the Commercial Crew Program in fiscal 2015.
House draft appropriation bill proposes $785M for commercial crew for FY 2015. See link below:This is great news, I'm glad the House is starting to support the program.USA Today says commercial crew would get $785M under the proposed bill:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/30/nasa-commercial-crew-program-house-appropriations/8527815/Quote from: USA Today articleA key House Appropriations subcommittee voted unanimously Wednesday to approve a spending plan that would provide $785 million for the Commercial Crew Program in fiscal 2015.
That's less than the number on the bill pre markup I think. Certainly less than the Administration request. What was the fate of the supplemental? Axed I expect.
That's less than the number on the bill pre markup I think. Certainly less than the Administration request. What was the fate of the supplemental? Axed I expect.
There was no prior number as far as I know. The House and Senate usually meet somewhere in the middle. Hopefully the Senate will propose $850M (as the President requested) and they will meet in the middle at $818M.
Republicans have called the supplemental DOA from the outset. Democrats knew it was DOA when they proposed it.
A Federal judge has issued an injunction on ULA re: RD-180'sI didn't expect that to happen. I wonder how this will effect Boeing's and Sierra Nevada's bids.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/elon-musks-spacex-granted-injunction-in-rocket-launch-suit-against-lockheed-boeing/2014/04/30/4b028f7c-d0cd-11e3-937f-d3026234b51c_story.html
That's less than the number on the bill pre markup I think. Certainly less than the Administration request. What was the fate of the supplemental? Axed I expect.
There was no prior number as far as I know. The House and Senate usually meet somewhere in the middle. Hopefully the Senate will propose $850M (as the President requested) and they will meet in the middle at $818M.
Republicans have called the supplemental DOA from the outset. Democrats knew it was DOA when they proposed it.
Yes, but they requested cash on top of that and it would have gone over a billon for FY 015 right?
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo)
The one takeaway I got is that Elon says he needs a minimum of 4 flights per year and a full compliment of astronauts (28?) for 20 million per seat.
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo)
The one takeaway I got is that Elon says he needs a minimum of 4 flights per year and a full compliment of astronauts (28?) for 20 million per seat.
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo)
The one takeaway I got is that Elon says he needs a minimum of 4 flights per year and a full compliment of astronauts (28?) for 20 million per seat.
Which probably means with two flights a year and 3 astronauts each he would not be cheaper than Sojus. Who can be surprised at this launch rate?
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo)
The one takeaway I got is that Elon says he needs a minimum of 4 flights per year and a full compliment of astronauts (28?) for 20 million per seat.
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo)
The one takeaway I got is that Elon says he needs a minimum of 4 flights per year and a full compliment of astronauts (28?) for 20 million per seat.
Which probably means with two flights a year and 3 astronauts each he would not be cheaper than Sojus. Who can be surprised at this launch rate?
The Crew program was designed for two flights. One early milestones was to have a 2nd market lined up for the Commercial market. Maybe someone else could confirm this.
The down select is going to be a real popcorn event.
Still better than sending it to Russia.http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo)
The one takeaway I got is that Elon says he needs a minimum of 4 flights per year and a full compliment of astronauts (28?) for 20 million per seat.
That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.
That's 140M per flight. If they can do two flights for 160M with four crew each that's still 40M per seat. Even at 200M per flight (with four crew) is only 50M per seat. Still cheaper than Soyuz.http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo (http://www.bloomberg.com/video/star-wars-the-battle-to-build-the-next-shuttle-GYBY6msZSKqUp41iUWoAFA.html?cmpid=yhoo)
The one takeaway I got is that Elon says he needs a minimum of 4 flights per year and a full compliment of astronauts (28?) for 20 million per seat.
That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.
That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.Confused about how you get to those numbers.
That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.Confused about how you get to those numbers.
That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.Confused about how you get to those numbers.
He gets that number by assuming that the cost of four flights with 7 astronauts each is exactly the same as the cost of two flights with four astronauts each. Which is completely nuts, so I understand your confusion about where he came up with it.
Edit: as others have pointed out, even if it's $200 million per flight for two flights per year instead of $140 million per flight, it comes to less than Russia's price. You have to really stretch to try to get the numbers to come out to being equal to or greater than the Russian price.
Not to mention that on Dragon three more astronauts, or a bunch of supplies, get to come along for free. ISS might be able to handle a few more people for a couple of weeks.
I am assuming that the price per year is fixed at $560M regardless how many missions you fly during the year.Unsubstantiated.
You can't make that reasoning. Else, you would have to assume that to fly ten missions per year it would cost 560M. There are certain fixed cost and some per mission costs, plus some discreet jumps, like requiring a new pad for more than the maximum rate of a single one. 560M means four missions. And must probably assume the Cargo Dragon contract. The human certification extra costs and particular tooling and design support for the crewed version would be part of the fixed costs, as would be the crew access tower and ancillary GSE. But most of the rocket (human rating requires extra paperwork and care) and Dragon infrastructure is already there.That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.Confused about how you get to those numbers.
He gets that number by assuming that the cost of four flights with 7 astronauts each is exactly the same as the cost of two flights with four astronauts each. Which is completely nuts, so I understand your confusion about where he came up with it.
Edit: as others have pointed out, even if it's $200 million per flight for two flights per year instead of $140 million per flight, it comes to less than Russia's price. You have to really stretch to try to get the numbers to come out to being equal to or greater than the Russian price.
Not to mention that on Dragon three more astronauts, or a bunch of supplies, get to come along for free. ISS might be able to handle a few more people for a couple of weeks.
I am assuming that the price per year is fixed at $560M regardless how many missions you fly during the year. It's a bit of a worst case scenario, I admit. But I get the feeling that the worst case scenario and the best case scenario aren't that far off.
For the comparaison to be fair, you would also have to calculate how much the extra cargo (100kg per extra seat) is worth. But saying that seats are $20M per seat by making unrealistic assumptions is also misleading. So chances are the price will be closer to $70M per seat than it will be to $20M per seat. If you factor in the extra cargo space, it goes down to $64M which is less than Soyuz which is a good thing.
P.S. Extra cargo = 100 kg / 20,000 kg x $1,600M (based on SpaceX's CRS prices)= $8M per 100kg. Thus 6 empty seats per year replaced by 6 x 100kg of cargo = 6 x $8M =$48M per year for the extra cargo. $560M less $48M = $512M / 8 seats = $64M per seat.
I am assuming that the price per year is fixed at $560M regardless how many missions you fly during the year.Unsubstantiated.
You can't make that reasoning. Else, you would have to assume that to fly ten missions per year it would cost 560M. There are certain fixed cost and some per mission costs, plus some discreet jumps, like requiring a new pad for more than the maximum rate of a single one. 560M means four missions. And must probably assume the Cargo Dragon contract. The human certification extra costs and particular tooling and design support for the crewed version would be part of the fixed costs, as would be the crew access tower and ancillary GSE. But most of the rocket (human rating requires extra paperwork and care) and Dragon infrastructure is already there.That means $560M per year. That is not that cheap. It's $70M per seat if you fly 8 astronauts per year (assuming that there is no reduction for ordering only two flights per year). That's the same price as Soyuz.
Confused about how you get to those numbers.
He gets that number by assuming that the cost of four flights with 7 astronauts each is exactly the same as the cost of two flights with four astronauts each. Which is completely nuts, so I understand your confusion about where he came up with it.
Edit: as others have pointed out, even if it's $200 million per flight for two flights per year instead of $140 million per flight, it comes to less than Russia's price. You have to really stretch to try to get the numbers to come out to being equal to or greater than the Russian price.
Not to mention that on Dragon three more astronauts, or a bunch of supplies, get to come along for free. ISS might be able to handle a few more people for a couple of weeks.
I am assuming that the price per year is fixed at $560M regardless how many missions you fly during the year. It's a bit of a worst case scenario, I admit. But I get the feeling that the worst case scenario and the best case scenario aren't that far off.
For the comparaison to be fair, you would also have to calculate how much the extra cargo (100kg per extra seat) is worth. But saying that seats are $20M per seat by making unrealistic assumptions is also misleading. So chances are the price will be closer to $70M per seat than it will be to $20M per seat. If you factor in the extra cargo space, it goes down to $64M which is less than Soyuz which is a good thing.
P.S. Extra cargo = 100 kg / 20,000 kg x $1,600M (based on SpaceX's CRS prices)= $8M per 100kg. Thus 6 empty seats per year replaced by 6 x 100kg of cargo = 6 x $8M =$48M per year for the extra cargo. $560M less $48M = $512M / 8 seats = $64M per seat.
As I stated, 200M for two flights would mean a marginal cost of just 80M per extra mission. And would still mean 50M per seat. Which I consider the upper bound in 2010 dollars.
Also there's the payload calculation. People has relatively little weight. You can stuff a lot more payload than 100kg per passenger that you don't take. In particular, there's. Lot of extra capacity and packing volume. So in the end I would guess that a standard flight would carry 4 pax + 400kg of payload.
The House would force downselection to one provider under CCtCap:Quote from: pages 71 and 72 of the ReportCommercial crew.—The Committee has provided NASA with substantial resources for the commercial crew program (CCP). CCP appropriations have often exceeded the program’s authorized levels and have increased in each of the last four fiscal years despite declining topline spending levels, sequestration and previously expressed concerns about the effective management of Federal investments in the program.
The Committee’s fiscal year 2015 recommendation provides $785,000,000 for the CCP, an increase of $89,000,000 above fiscal year 2014. These funds shall support one industry partner’s advancement through the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) process. The Committee believes that this recommendation strikes the appropriate balance between support for the program’s underlying goal and caution against management approaches that many in the Congress do not endorse. Consistent with prior direction, NASA shall take all steps necessary to incentivize further private investment in the program, including, to the maximum extent possible, taking the industry partners’ level of proposed private investment into account as a selection criterion for CCtCap.
Finally, each CCtCap proposer has now provided NASA with the flight price that would be charged if that proposer ultimately were to conduct missions to the International Space Station (ISS). Those prices will determine how much, if any, savings the CCP will generate compared to Soyuz transportation prices. While this information is currently subject to the CCtCap procurement blackout, NASA shall brief the Committee on expected flight pricing as soon as the blackout period is concluded.
It looks like the House wants to force NASA to downselect to one. Hopefully, the Senate will not have such a provision. The Report is still in draft form.Meh, of course the House would say stuff like that.The House would force downselection to one provider under CCtCap:Quote from: pages 71 and 72 of the ReportCommercial crew.—The Committee has provided NASA with substantial resources for the commercial crew program (CCP). CCP appropriations have often exceeded the program’s authorized levels and have increased in each of the last four fiscal years despite declining topline spending levels, sequestration and previously expressed concerns about the effective management of Federal investments in the program.
The Committee’s fiscal year 2015 recommendation provides $785,000,000 for the CCP, an increase of $89,000,000 above fiscal year 2014. These funds shall support one industry partner’s advancement through the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) process. The Committee believes that this recommendation strikes the appropriate balance between support for the program’s underlying goal and caution against management approaches that many in the Congress do not endorse. Consistent with prior direction, NASA shall take all steps necessary to incentivize further private investment in the program, including, to the maximum extent possible, taking the industry partners’ level of proposed private investment into account as a selection criterion for CCtCap.
Finally, each CCtCap proposer has now provided NASA with the flight price that would be charged if that proposer ultimately were to conduct missions to the International Space Station (ISS). Those prices will determine how much, if any, savings the CCP will generate compared to Soyuz transportation prices. While this information is currently subject to the CCtCap procurement blackout, NASA shall brief the Committee on expected flight pricing as soon as the blackout period is concluded.
Concerning the downselect, this is still just a committee draft so there's a lot of points when it can change and unless SpaceX, Boeing, or SNC are incredibly confident they will be selected as the sole source then all 3 will have lobbyists out suggesting the sole provider language be dropped.I believe the next part of that reference you selected, was that congress expects to be apprized of those prices after the blackout period is over. But essentially, yes. Prices should have been in all participants proposals delivered to NASA a few months ago. NASA just can't release them as they are all proprietary to the bidders, until after they make a selection.
What I found interesting in that though is this:
"Finally, each CCtCap proposer has now provided NASA with the flight price that would be charged if that proposer ultimately were to conduct missions to the International Space Station (ISS)."
I may just be behind the curve but have we heard before that all three have already made official price estimates?
For all practical purposes there are two viable companies - Boeing and SpaceX (sorry, but that is the reality in level of maturity).
First, I think you would be surprised but I suspect all the companies would prefer a down select. Maybe SpaceX because they are going regardless so some money may be better. These companies know there is not enough money so that more than one company just means less money, longer time, etc. [...]
For all practical purposes there are two viable companies - Boeing and SpaceX (sorry, but that is the reality in level of maturity).
IF Sierra Nevada follows through on the orbital test flight of the OTV-1 currently under construction, it's hard to say that SNC isn't equally viable.
I agree. I believe SpaceX gets the majority of funds to possibly accelerate their program and SNC gets what's left to continue and be available a bit later. After all, we have not seen the SNC proposal. Although they need to retire the most risk with reentry and abort among others, depending on how they have designed for efficient post flight turn-around and re-use, the economics, post development, may be highly desirable.For all practical purposes there are two viable companies - Boeing and SpaceX (sorry, but that is the reality in level of maturity).
IF Sierra Nevada follows through on the orbital test flight of the OTV-1 currently under construction, it's hard to say that SNC isn't equally viable.
And considering that both SpaceX and Boeing offer capsules, and Sierra Nevada is offering a runway-landing spacecraft, I'd say that NASA - if it was possible - would really like the Dream Chaser to be one of the available choices.
No doubt SNC would need the most of amount of time and money, but I would not be surprised if NASA were to do a 1.5 down-select that Dream Chaser would be the "0.5".
I don't think any of the competitors would object to a down-select to two providers, as long as they are one of the two. :)Ha, agreed WRT first part.
IMO, A down-select to 1 (or 1.5) seems very counter-intuitive at this point. Narrow the field to 2 instead, to allow the maximum probability of success.
For all practical purposes there are two viable companies - Boeing and SpaceX (sorry, but that is the reality in level of maturity).
IF Sierra Nevada follows through on the orbital test flight of the OTV-1 currently under construction, it's hard to say that SNC isn't equally viable.
First, I think you would be surprised but I suspect all the companies would prefer a down select. Maybe SpaceX because they are going regardless so some money may be better. These companies know there is not enough money so that more than one company just means less money, longer time, etc. [...]
In my opinion, astronauts shouldn't be allowed to offer suggestions for improvements under CCtCap. Each companies has already hired astronauts that are directly involved in their respective programs.
First, I think you would be surprised but I suspect all the companies would prefer a down select. Maybe SpaceX because they are going regardless so some money may be better. These companies know there is not enough money so that more than one company just means less money, longer time, etc. [...]
In my opinion, astronauts shouldn't be allowed to offer suggestions for improvements under CCtCap. Each companies has already hired astronauts that are directly involved in their respective programs.
It is called the Joint Test Team in tCAP. it WILL happen,
It would be really helpful if someone could summarize what's known about the current state of Atlas V human rating efforts. Has the NASA-funded work towards that been completed? Extra points for answers using acronyms like EDS, DER, and PRA... ;)
It would be really helpful if someone could summarize what's known about the current state of Atlas V human rating efforts. Has the NASA-funded work towards that been completed? Extra points for answers using acronyms like EDS, DER, and PRA... ;)
Yes, that would be nice. And we does ULA expect to fly the first Atlas V with dual engine Centaur?
“I will confidently predict that if this policy recommendation of a downselect becomes the policy of the United States, you will find that you have saved neither money nor time,” said Jeff Greason, CEO of XCOR Aerospace. La Branche said that this issue was an “ongoing discussion” that will later involve negotiations with the Senate when it crafts its appropriations bill in the coming weeks.
Even if it's likely I don't think she is privy to any decision on that as of yet.
I personally don't like Dream Chaser right now, but it has nothing to do with the basic design (which actually seems quite strong, especially if they are using Lockheed Martin avionics). It has to do with ridiculous secrecy about the crash landing, etc.I'd probably argue that SNC has been the least secretive. They've provided a lot of development updates and information about their vehicle. Boeing has only trickled out information, and SpaceX have only today told us what vehicle they're even competing with.
I'm left wondering about Dragon V2, which seems full of risky elements like propulsive landing and non-standard crew flight controls. I would have been happier to see something closer to a stock Dragon cargo capsule outfitted with seats and an LAS. Why didn't SpaceX go with what it has already proven in flight?
I'm left wondering about Dragon V2, which seems full of risky elements like propulsive landing and non-standard crew flight controls. I would have been happier to see something closer to a stock Dragon cargo capsule outfitted with seats and an LAS. Why didn't SpaceX go with what it has already proven in flight?
CST-100 seems to me to potentially look like a safer bet than Dragon to a risk-averse NASA.
Now that we've seen Dragon V2, or whatever its called, and have previously seen a CST-100 type mockup and clues about Dream Chaser, which one wins?
I'm left wondering about Dragon V2, which seems full of risky elements like propulsive landing and non-standard crew flight controls. I would have been happier to see something closer to a stock Dragon cargo capsule outfitted with seats and an LAS. Why didn't SpaceX go with what it has already proven in flight?
I personally don't like Dream Chaser right now, but it has nothing to do with the basic design (which actually seems quite strong, especially if they are using Lockheed Martin avionics). It has to do with ridiculous secrecy about the crash landing, etc.
CST-100 seems to me to potentially look like a safer bet than Dragon to a risk-averse NASA. But doesn't Boeing already have enough NASA contracts with the SLS core and the SLS upper stages?
- Ed Kyle
It's a tough call. At the moment, I think SpaceX has the advantage, but it could easily change if they fall behind in their launch rate or lose even one launcher.
The big advantage that Boeing has over SpaceX is their heritage experience and the greater demonstrated reliability of the Atlas V.
It's a tough call. At the moment, I think SpaceX has the advantage, but it could easily change if they fall behind in their launch rate or lose even one launcher.
Which is another way of saying that downselect or picking a winner at this stage would be statistically and scientifically about as solid as and excercise in tasseography.
The big advantage that Boeing has over SpaceX is their heritage experience and the greater demonstrated reliability of the Atlas V.
I think Ukraine turned Atlas V from an asset to a liability as far as commercial crew is concerned. Whether or not engine supply from Russia is ever disrupted, it has suddenly become a big doubt in everyone's mind. If the downselect is to one supplier, it's hard to see NASA wanting to have that one supplier dependent on engines that might stop coming because of some future crisis.
Also, by 2017 when the first commercial flights of NASA astronauts are to begin, there very likely will have been quite a few more Falcon 9 flights. That greatly reduces the edge of Atlas V in terms of its track record.
The only thing that's clear to me at this point is that all three contenders are producing a lot more "bang for the buck" than SLS/Orion, and all three have more potential to open up access to space for a reasonable cost than the budget busting SLS program. As a US taxpayer who believes that human spaceflight is a worthwhile investment, I'd be happy to see all of the above survive but if it comes down to tough choices, I hope we don't sacrifice the great potential of all three commercial crew systems in order to preserve an enormously expensive legacy jobs program that has no clearly defined mission.
Propulsive landing is just an added option.
..horizontal landing limits where you can land..
I hope we don't sacrifice the great potential of all three commercial crew systems in order to preserve an enormously expensive legacy jobs program that has no clearly defined mission.
The big advantage that Boeing has over SpaceX is their heritage experience and the greater demonstrated reliability of the Atlas V.
It's a tough call. At the moment, I think SpaceX has the advantage, but it could easily change if they fall behind in their launch rate or lose even one launcher.
The only thing that's clear to me at this point is that all three contenders are producing a lot more "bang for the buck" than SLS/Orion, and all three have more potential to open up access to space for a reasonable cost than the budget busting SLS program. As a US taxpayer who believes that human spaceflight is a worthwhile investment, I'd be happy to see all of the above survive but if it comes down to tough choices, I hope we don't sacrifice the great potential of all three commercial crew systems in order to preserve an enormously expensive legacy jobs program that has no clearly defined mission.I don't see it as a budget buster, because NASA is spending less per year for SLS/Orion than it spent for Shuttle. It is spending 35% of that total for commercial crew annually, but that is for a system that will only weigh about 10% as much as the SLS lifting capability to LEO, never mind that SLS/Orion is going to deep space which commercial crew will not. By these measures, SLS/Orion is actually more bang for the buck. But I support both endeavors, because both are different animals meant for different missions.
... never mind that SLS/Orion is going to deep space which commercial crew will not. By these measures, SLS/Orion is actually more bang for the buck.
But I support both endeavors, because both are different animals meant for different missions.
If the ISS ends in 2020, where's NASA's mission for commercial crew?
I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that down-select would favor SpaceX. That's more to do with the internet's bias towards that company and its marketing than what NASA will actually pick. They weren't even awarded the highest amount last round. It would be great if they were picked because precision landed pods sounds cool but I'm not counting on it.
I kinda feel that statement falls into Space X has a secret sauce territory. I haven't seen any evidence of them doing "more with less" or that they've any magical powers that other have escaped other aerospace companies. They may have just low balled their request because they didn't think they would get any more than that amount when competing with a company that's been involved with human spaceflight for decades. We're not privy to the total amount invested in any of the vehicles as I understand the company is required to partially pay for the developments.
SpaceX wasn't awarded the highest amount because they didn't ask for as much in their proposal as Boeing did. SpaceX can do more with less. That's a point in favor of SpaceX winning the downselect, not a point against it.
SpaceX wasn't awarded the highest amount because they didn't ask for as much in their proposal as Boeing did. SpaceX can do more with less. That's a point in favor of SpaceX winning the downselect, not a point against it.I kinda feel that statement falls into Space X has a secret sauce territory. I haven't seen any evidence of them doing "more with less" or that they've any magical powers that other have escaped other aerospace companies. They may have just low balled their request because they didn't think they would get any more than that amount when competing with a company that's been involved with human spaceflight for decades. We're not privy to the total amount invested in any of the vehicles as I understand the company is required to partially pay for the developments.
I agree that propulsive landing is a new feature, and there is potential risk there. It's really the only area where there's potentially more risk than CST-100, in my opinion. But SpaceX is going to be doing a lot of testing with Dragonfly to retire that risk. And they still carry the parachute system from Dragon V1. Propulsive landing is just an added option. And parachutes aren't without risk either. They can fail to deploy properly. With parachutes, there's less control over exactly where the vessel lands. With water landing, it doesn't matter so much exactly where it sets down, but then you have the risk of being in the water, where there's the potential to flip over, fill with water, or even sink. With proper testing with Dragonfly, by the time Dragon V2 actually carries crew to and from orbit, I just can't see it as being riskier than the parachutes of CST-100.
I think SNC is the least likely survivor. The prime contractor has the least relevant experience, horizontal landing adds complexity and limits where you can land, and hybrid propulsion is evidently riskier than it might appear at first glance.
The only thing that's clear to me at this point is that all three contenders are producing a lot more "bang for the buck" than SLS/Orion, and all three have more potential to open up access to space for a reasonable cost than the budget busting SLS program. As a US taxpayer who believes that human spaceflight is a worthwhile investment, I'd be happy to see all of the above survive but if it comes down to tough choices, I hope we don't sacrifice the great potential of all three commercial crew systems in order to preserve an enormously expensive legacy jobs program that has no clearly defined mission.
For NASA's use, i.e. 2 flights to the ISS a yearJust to pick nits, wouldn't it be closer to 4 flights a year? They're 6 month expeditions but they overlap quite a bit.
For NASA's use, i.e. 2 flights to the ISS a yearJust to pick nits, wouldn't it be closer to 4 flights a year? They're 6 month expeditions but they overlap quite a bit.
For NASA's use, i.e. 2 flights to the ISS a yearJust to pick nits, wouldn't it be closer to 4 flights a year? They're 6 month expeditions but they overlap quite a bit.
For NASA's use, i.e. 2 flights to the ISS a yearJust to pick nits, wouldn't it be closer to 4 flights a year? They're 6 month expeditions but they overlap quite a bit.
The current arrangement with expeditions staggered quarterly seems to work well.
It would make sense for Russia and the US to make a quid pro quo exchange, so that CC carries up one Russian, with the Soyuz in the following quarter carrying up one American or American partner.
Alternative is that both US & Russia will need to switch to switching their whole crew of three / four every six months (or to make more than two flights per year).
Cheers, Martin
Doing an abort test does not necessarily mean that you are ahead. Blue Origin did a pad abort test almost 2 years ago and I don't see anyone arguing that they are ahead of the others.
Doing an abort test does not necessarily mean that you are ahead. Blue Origin did a pad abort test almost 2 years ago and I don't see anyone arguing that they are ahead of the others.Boilerplate capsule with customized solids for test. It was not a capsule nor were those the actual abort engines. That's a huge difference from doing an actual flight abort, from the actual pad, with flight hardware.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgEt-R2FNEA
Wouldn't it be interesting to have an ISS that was a busy transport hub, with visiting scientists coming and going every week, rather than a lonely outpost that only had a ship visit every six months?
Small tip: think of what each visiting vehicle requires in attitude changes, orbital boosts, actual vehicle i pact, etc. Now think of the effects on microgravity. Now add that each VV eats about two to three days crew. And you'd see why they don't want many visits and also why they'd rather increase CRS-2 payload requirement per launch rather than allow more launches.Wouldn't it be interesting to have an ISS that was a busy transport hub, with visiting scientists coming and going every week, rather than a lonely outpost that only had a ship visit every six months?
I have had the same thought! You'd think that would be what we want to move toward as we build on our presence in low Earth orbit.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have an ISS that was a busy transport hub, with visiting scientists coming and going every week, rather than a lonely outpost that only had a ship visit every six months?
Small tip: think of what each visiting vehicle requires in attitude changes, orbital boosts, actual vehicle i pact, etc. Now think of the effects on microgravity. Now add that each VV eats about two to three days crew. And you'd see why they don't want many visits and also why they'd rather increase CRS-2 payload requirement per launch rather than allow more launches.Wouldn't it be interesting to have an ISS that was a busy transport hub, with visiting scientists coming and going every week, rather than a lonely outpost that only had a ship visit every six months?
I have had the same thought! You'd think that would be what we want to move toward as we build on our presence in low Earth orbit.
And then the microgravity environment of the station would be appalling. Remember that every-time a vehicle docks, the entire structure of the station shakes, and you have to orient it in certain ways. That effects experiments that need to be left alone, just adding flights to station to drive up the flight rates will diminish ISS science returns.
Maybe what it shows is that ISS support was a poor basis for trying to foster a new commercial human spaceflight industry then.Any port in a storm. Nothing else has worked.
I don't see it as a budget buster, because NASA is spending less per year for SLS/Orion than it spent for Shuttle.
It is spending 35% of that total for commercial crew annually, but that is for a system that will only weigh about 10% as much as the SLS lifting capability to LEO,
never mind that SLS/Orion is going to deep space which commercial crew will not.
If you really want to do deep space, you'll want to reuse the deep space hardware to keep the cost down, which means the deep space ship needs to go back to Earth orbit after the mission is done, at which point any commercial crew spacecraft can be used to ferry the crew, this makes Orion redundant.
No, it's not going to deep space, it's going to lunar orbit.
If you really want to do deep space, you'll want to reuse the deep space hardware to keep the cost down, which means the deep space ship needs to go back to Earth orbit after the mission is done, at which point any commercial crew spacecraft can be used to ferry the crew, this makes Orion redundant.
If at all it will go back to EML-2. Direct reentry from there or BEO in general makes sense, you safe lots of fuel.
Edit: Although compared to the fuel you need for the rest of the mission its probably peanuts.
No, it's not going to deep space, it's going to lunar orbit.
lunar orbit is about 1000x deeper into space than humans have gone in the last 50 years.
0) Fix your quotes, second one is from Ronsmitheiii.Small tip: think of what each visiting vehicle requires in attitude changes, orbital boosts, actual vehicle i pact, etc. Now think of the effects on microgravity. Now add that each VV eats about two to three days crew. And you'd see why they don't want many visits and also why they'd rather increase CRS-2 payload requirement per launch rather than allow more launches.Wouldn't it be interesting to have an ISS that was a busy transport hub, with visiting scientists coming and going every week, rather than a lonely outpost that only had a ship visit every six months?
I have had the same thought! You'd think that would be what we want to move toward as we build on our presence in low Earth orbit.And then the microgravity environment of the station would be appalling. Remember that every-time a vehicle docks, the entire structure of the station shakes, and you have to orient it in certain ways. That effects experiments that need to be left alone, just adding flights to station to drive up the flight rates will diminish ISS science returns.
1.The fact that each visiting vehicle requires two to three days of ISS crew time just says ISS hasn't developed a system that scales for handling visiting vehicles. There's no fundamental reason they couldn't do so.
2.As to the ISS having to be re-oriented for visiting vehicles, that also sounds like a solvable problem.
3.About vibrations: with vehicles docking rather than berthing, vibrations could be diminished. There's no lower limit on how much they could be diminished. And experiments could be isolated from the vibrations of the station itself.
4.It comes down to a question of what the purpose of the ISS is. Is it just a dead-end outpost for zero-gravity experiments that cannot stand vibrations? Or is it also meant as a step toward more routine human presence in space? Can we not find a way to grow our presence in space without sacrificing all microgravity research?
NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development. The lifting capability is relevant if someone is trying to compare commercial crew with SLS/Orion, which happens far too often on these forums.QuoteIt is spending 35% of that total for commercial crew annually, but that is for a system that will only weigh about 10% as much as the SLS lifting capability to LEO,It's not for "a" system, it's for 3 different systems. And the lifting capability is irrelevant if the mission doesn't need it.
For the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth. Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too. Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".Quotenever mind that SLS/Orion is going to deep space which commercial crew will not.No, it's not going to deep space, it's going to lunar orbit. For deep space missions you'll need a habitat module and in space propulsion, it's a complete different set of technologies from SLS/Orion, and it's not being worked on, so deep space is a pipe dream.
If you really want to do deep space, you'll want to reuse the deep space hardware to keep the cost down, which means the deep space ship needs to go back to Earth orbit after the mission is done, at which point any commercial crew spacecraft can be used to ferry the crew, this makes Orion redundant.Sit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described.
Wouldn't it be interesting to have an ISS that was a busy transport hub, with visiting scientists coming and going every week, rather than a lonely outpost that only had a ship visit every six months?
I have had the same thought! You'd think that would be what we want to move toward as we build on our presence in low Earth orbit.
Small tip: think of what each visiting vehicle requires in attitude changes, orbital boosts, actual vehicle i pact, etc. Now think of the effects on microgravity. Now add that each VV eats about two to three days crew. And you'd see why they don't want many visits and also why they'd rather increase CRS-2 payload requirement per launch rather than allow more launches.Wouldn't it be interesting to have an ISS that was a busy transport hub, with visiting scientists coming and going every week, rather than a lonely outpost that only had a ship visit every six months?
I have had the same thought! You'd think that would be what we want to move toward as we build on our presence in low Earth orbit.And then the microgravity environment of the station would be appalling. Remember that every-time a vehicle docks, the entire structure of the station shakes, and you have to orient it in certain ways. That effects experiments that need to be left alone, just adding flights to station to drive up the flight rates will diminish ISS science returns.
1.The fact that each visiting vehicle requires two to three days of ISS crew time just says ISS hasn't developed a system that scales for handling visiting vehicles. There's no fundamental reason they couldn't do so.
2.As to the ISS having to be re-oriented for visiting vehicles, that also sounds like a solvable problem.
3.About vibrations: with vehicles docking rather than berthing, vibrations could be diminished. There's no lower limit on how much they could be diminished. And experiments could be isolated from the vibrations of the station itself.
4.It comes down to a question of what the purpose of the ISS is. Is it just a dead-end outpost for zero-gravity experiments that cannot stand vibrations? Or is it also meant as a step toward more routine human presence in space? Can we not find a way to grow our presence in space without sacrificing all microgravity research?
0) Fix your quotes, second one is from Ronsmitheiii.
1) some of the thing they need time for is practice for procedures and contingencies, loading and unloading, checking comm and VV performance, etc. ISS is a very expensive lab. Not a VV hub, and it was too expensive as it is, adding more capabilities and automation is beyond current budgets and expected life.
2) you clearly don't understand orbital mechanics. Each orbit takes some 90min. So, you have to come exactly on se same plane. Even a few meters of difference would mean that if you were coming slightly to port, then 20minutes later you'd be on the same line, which might intersect the station (i.e. Crash). And you can only go from below to catch or above is you were further ahead.
But then there's the issue of the station's attitude. If you let an orbiting object to itself, and let's say that at a certain time there's a fore side, and a nadir side, 1/4 of and orbit later, fore would be pointing to nadir, the former nadir would be now fore. That's because while you orbit there's no force to change your attitude.
Now, once you mix this problems, you'll see why VV have to come from either from fore and slightly above or from aft and slightly below. And the station has to keep doing active attitude adjustments and keepings. So it can be solved.
3) yes there is and you're mixing concepts. Berthing is done with the arm, and is as gentle as possible. And yet it shakes (slightly) the station. For docking, you basically have to ram the vehicle in the station. Even LIDS was worse than berthing. And as long as you have the Russians with their drogue and probe, the US side is the "gentle" side.
4) go read about the ISS, is a microgravity laboratory. Period. There's no discussion about it.
For NASA's use, i.e. 2 flights to the ISS a yearJust to pick nits, wouldn't it be closer to 4 flights a year? They're 6 month expeditions but they overlap quite a bit.
The current arrangement with expeditions staggered quarterly seems to work well.
It would make sense for Russia and the US to make a quid pro quo exchange, so that CC carries up one Russian, with the Soyuz in the following quarter carrying up one American or American partner.
Alternative is that both US & Russia will need to switch to switching their whole crew of three / four every six months (or to make more than two flights per year).
Cheers, Martin
That's pretty much what we did when STS was still flying.
If you really want to do deep space, you'll want to reuse the deep space hardware to keep the cost down, which means the deep space ship needs to go back to Earth orbit after the mission is done, at which point any commercial crew spacecraft can be used to ferry the crew, this makes Orion redundant.
If at all it will go back to EML-2. Direct reentry from there or BEO in general makes sense, you safe lots of fuel.
Edit: Although compared to the fuel you need for the rest of the mission its probably peanuts.
You can still do aerobraking, but brake to help establish orbit. Then you don't need much propellent and you still get to keep your spaceship for your next mission. And you don't have to optimize your spaceship to survive re-entry and landing.
All this fuel depot, SLS, LEO gateway etc stuff is relevant to CCiCAP topic how?
With the cancelling of the ISS the Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo craft will be flying fuel to the propellant depot and people to the LEO gateway.
I wonder, does NASA need to add an extra milestone to each of the CCiCap SAA to cover producing high plans to fly
a. propellant to a propellant depot?
b. cargo to one or more new spacestations?
c. people to one or more new spacestations?
no, without ISS, there is no need for commercial crew or cargo. And there is no LEO gateway in the plans
{snip}
NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.
For the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth. Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too. Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".
Sit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described.
Says who? Elon Musk already went on record to say they only need $500 million to complete Dragon V2, if this is true then there's more than enough funding left to fund another system to completion.
So far, it's probably been $400M or $500M and it'll probably be that amount more to get through first flight. Something on the order of a billion dollars.
For the spacecraft itself, it's going to be probably something on the order of 70% to 80% NASA funded, but for the rocket it's not NASA funded at all. The development of Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, all of that, that's 100% private. If you say, what's the total cost of development has been, including the rocket and the spacecraft, it's probably something closer to 50/50 NASA and private. - transcript. (http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/spacex-dragon-2-unveil-qa-2014-05-29)
Several Congressmen have been calling for a down-select to one, to speed up the program and save money. Even those who support multiple contracts, such as the National Space Society, have called for a down-select to two. In my mind, it only makes sense for NASA to buy what it needs, which is one crew carrying system to ISS. The Air Force doesn't have F-35 and F-32. It eliminated "Monica" through a down select.NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.Says who?
Captured asteroid rendezvous is the current plan. An EML space station is contemplated for the future. EML is a lot closer than 1% to Mars in terms of delta-v. It's closer to escape velocity than it is to lunar orbit.QuoteFor the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth. Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too. Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.
Where will this high ISP method come from? If it is an LH2/LOX stage, it will require a more than doubling of the upper stage propellant mass initially lifted out of LEO. In other words, it will require doubling the number of SLS launches.QuoteSit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described.It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.
Several Congressmen have been calling for a down-select to one, to speed up the program and save money. Even those who support multiple contracts, such as the National Space Society, have called for a down-select to two. In my mind, it only makes sense for NASA to buy what it needs, which is one crew carrying system to ISS. The Air Force doesn't have F-35 and F-32. It eliminated "Monica" through a down select.NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.Says who?QuoteCaptured asteroid rendezvous is the current plan. An EML space station is contemplated for the future. EML is a lot closer than 1% to Mars in terms of delta-v. It's closer to escape velocity than it is to lunar orbit.QuoteFor the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth. Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too. Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.QuoteWhere will this high ISP method come from? If it is an LH2/LOX stage, it will require a more than doubling of the upper stage propellant mass initially lifted out of LEO. In other words, it will require doubling the number of SLS launches.QuoteSit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described.It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.
- Ed Kyle
Several Congressmen have been calling for a down-select to one, to speed up the program and save money. Even those who support multiple contracts, such as the National Space Society, have called for a down-select to two. In my mind, it only makes sense for NASA to buy what it needs, which is one crew carrying system to ISS. The Air Force doesn't have F-35 and F-32. It eliminated "Monica" through a down select.NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.Says who?QuoteCaptured asteroid rendezvous is the current plan. An EML space station is contemplated for the future. EML is a lot closer than 1% to Mars in terms of delta-v. It's closer to escape velocity than it is to lunar orbit.QuoteFor the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth. Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too. Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.QuoteWhere will this high ISP method come from? If it is an LH2/LOX stage, it will require a more than doubling of the upper stage propellant mass initially lifted out of LEO. In other words, it will require doubling the number of SLS launches.QuoteSit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described.It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.
- Ed Kyle
The most we could afford is funding two companies up to the first unmanned flight, and then mothballing the loser in case the winner is grounded by an operational failure, or gets unreasonable when it's time to renew their contract.
Unlike EELV, where both were kept.Several Congressmen have been calling for a down-select to one, to speed up the program and save money. Even those who support multiple contracts, such as the National Space Society, have called for a down-select to two. In my mind, it only makes sense for NASA to buy what it needs, which is one crew carrying system to ISS. The Air Force doesn't have F-35 and F-32. It eliminated "Monica" through a down select.NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.Says who?
Which will doubtlessly require logistics like ISS currently does, and not sortie like Apollo/Saturn. Extending outward.QuoteCaptured asteroid rendezvous is the current plan. An EML space station is contemplated for the future. EML is a lot closer than 1% to Mars in terms of delta-v. It's closer to escape velocity than it is to lunar orbit.QuoteFor the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth. Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too. Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.
The ROI for any US like this is really hard for any commercial provider. You have DCSS, Centaur, and foreign options, most recently India finally. Am not surprised SpaceX didn't go that way, their economics are dominated by a common engine/propellant approach thus CH4 not LH2.QuoteWhere will this high ISP method come from? If it is an LH2/LOX stage, it will require a more than doubling of the upper stage propellant mass initially lifted out of LEO. In other words, it will require doubling the number of SLS launches.QuoteSit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described.It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.
Really have to apologize for off topic here, but
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/
Well worth reading for all the commenters here, especially the "Lessons learned" parts. Some lessons appear to be promptly forgotten in the CCiCAP.
With this initial success achieved, the direction of commercial enterprise in space still contains unforeseen market potential. As Harvard Business School professor Clayton M. Christensen observed in his book The Innovator’s Dilemma, “Not only are the market applications for disruptive technologies unknown at the time of their development, they are unknowable.” What is knownHow do traditional primes deal with the "unknowable"? What do we budget for this vs "knowable"? Trades?
at this stage is that COTS has played an important and demonstrable role in the burgeoning commercial space transportation market.
In its 2013 Annual Report, the NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) led by Vice Admiral Joseph W. Dyer, USN (Ret.) included statements emphasizing the success of the COTS program. The report pointed out that it “was not simply the use of fixed-price Space Act Agreements that led to the Program’s success, although that helped to enable the successful outcome. Rather, NASA did a number of things right along the way, such as maintaining excellent program management, appointing well-qualified technical representatives [as project executives], providing the right amount of insight, requesting the right amount of information, and having the right number of Government attendees atDidn't Jim say there was too many NASA attendees at these meetings?
industry meetings.”
Several Congressmen have been calling for a down-select to one, to speed up the program and save money. Even those who support multiple contracts, such as the National Space Society, have called for a down-select to two. In my mind, it only makes sense for NASA to buy what it needs, which is one crew carrying system to ISS. The Air Force doesn't have F-35 and F-32. It eliminated "Monica" through a down select.NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.Says who?QuoteCaptured asteroid rendezvous is the current plan. An EML space station is contemplated for the future. EML is a lot closer than 1% to Mars in terms of delta-v. It's closer to escape velocity than it is to lunar orbit.QuoteFor the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth. Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too. Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.QuoteWhere will this high ISP method come from? If it is an LH2/LOX stage, it will require a more than doubling of the upper stage propellant mass initially lifted out of LEO. In other words, it will require doubling the number of SLS launches.QuoteSit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described.It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.
- Ed Kyle
The most we could afford is funding two companies up to the first unmanned flight, and then mothballing the loser in case the winner is grounded by an operational failure, or gets unreasonable when it's time to renew their contract.
It seems like you can easily afford 2 if CRS and Commercial Crew use the same systems.
What is the value of an option? When do you exercise/foreclose on them? Are we as much fooling ourselves by not having options as by having them?By that argument, NASA should be building two SLS/Orion systems, two JWST's, and two International Space Stations.
None of these were competitively bid, so that's silly.What is the value of an option? When do you exercise/foreclose on them? Are we as much fooling ourselves by not having options as by having them?By that argument, NASA should be building two SLS/Orion systems, two JWST's, and two International Space Stations.
The long used method is to study the options - even to a "fly off" phase if needed, then down-select to the best.
- Ed Kyle
Several Congressmen have been calling for a down-select to one, to speed up the program and save money. Even those who support multiple contracts, such as the National Space Society, have called for a down-select to two. In my mind, it only makes sense for NASA to buy what it needs, which is one crew carrying system to ISS. The Air Force doesn't have F-35 and F-32. It eliminated "Monica" through a down select.NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.Says who?QuoteCaptured asteroid rendezvous is the current plan. An EML space station is contemplated for the future. EML is a lot closer than 1% to Mars in terms of delta-v. It's closer to escape velocity than it is to lunar orbit.QuoteFor the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth. Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too. Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.QuoteWhere will this high ISP method come from? If it is an LH2/LOX stage, it will require a more than doubling of the upper stage propellant mass initially lifted out of LEO. In other words, it will require doubling the number of SLS launches.QuoteSit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described.It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.
- Ed Kyle
The most we could afford is funding two companies up to the first unmanned flight, and then mothballing the loser in case the winner is grounded by an operational failure, or gets unreasonable when it's time to renew their contract.
It seems like you can easily afford 2 if CRS and Commercial Crew use the same systems.
They won't be able to have two spacecraft systems each doing both roles. Dragon is volume constrained and ISS cargo tends to be bulky: the last three Dragon missions carried only 3.1 t in pressurized cargo, total. The other manned candidates have the same problem. You can use something like the Dragon for part of the cargo mission as long as you have something roomier like Cygnus to carry the rest, or visits become more frequent than is good for the microgravity research role of ISS. Or better yet, something like an HTV with a stretched propulsion module, launched on an Atlas.
But that, or any of the optimized ISS cargo spacecraft, is not going to share a lot of commonality with any of the Commercial Crew Vehicle Candidates.
Down mass is vital for certain science experiments. You will not see that requirement going away.
I noticed how big that trunk was in the Dragon V2 animation. It could carry a secondary pressurized cargo pod. This would give the best of two worlds. Only one version of Dragon V2 for cargo and crew, except the interior. Return capability and large volume with one vehicle. Docking port on the cargo version would not be a problem. Larger payloads can be stored in the secondary payload pod that has a berthing port. Also a crew flight can have significant pressurized upmass when needed. Only when there is need for large unpressurized cargo there would be no secondary pressurized cargo pod.
I noticed how big that trunk was in the Dragon V2 animation. It could carry a secondary pressurized cargo pod. This would give the best of two worlds. Only one version of Dragon V2 for cargo and crew, except the interior. Return capability and large volume with one vehicle. Docking port on the cargo version would not be a problem. Larger payloads can be stored in the secondary payload pod that has a berthing port. Also a crew flight can have significant pressurized upmass when needed. Only when there is need for large unpressurized cargo there would be no secondary pressurized cargo pod.
I was thinking that, as well. However, such a pod needs to be human rated, but also disposable.
Doesn't seem to fit SpaceX's MO.
Cheers, Martin
What is the value of an option? When do you exercise/foreclose on them? Are we as much fooling ourselves by not having options as by having them?By that argument, NASA should be building two SLS/Orion systems, two JWST's, and two International Space Stations.
The long used method is to study the options - even to a "fly off" phase if needed, then down-select to the best.
- Ed Kyle
The Cygnus PCM is 3.07m. Could it fit inside the trunk for this purpose? Ditch the service module and add a battery pack if needed.I noticed how big that trunk was in the Dragon V2 animation. It could carry a secondary pressurized cargo pod. This would give the best of two worlds. Only one version of Dragon V2 for cargo and crew, except the interior. Return capability and large volume with one vehicle. Docking port on the cargo version would not be a problem. Larger payloads can be stored in the secondary payload pod that has a berthing port. Also a crew flight can have significant pressurized upmass when needed. Only when there is need for large unpressurized cargo there would be no secondary pressurized cargo pod.
I was thinking that, as well. However, such a pod needs to be human rated, but also disposable.
Doesn't seem to fit SpaceX's MO.
Cheers, Martin
I noticed how big that trunk was in the Dragon V2 animation. It could carry a secondary pressurized cargo pod. This would give the best of two worlds. Only one version of Dragon V2 for cargo and crew, except the interior. Return capability and large volume with one vehicle. Docking port on the cargo version would not be a problem. Larger payloads can be stored in the secondary payload pod that has a berthing port. Also a crew flight can have significant pressurized upmass when needed. Only when there is need for large unpressurized cargo there would be no secondary pressurized cargo pod.
Really have to apologize for off topic here, but
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/ (http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/)
Well worth reading for all the commenters here, especially the "Lessons learned" parts. Some lessons appear to be promptly forgotten in the CCiCAP.
Because these were partnerships, not traditional contracts, NASA leveraged its $800M COTS program budget with partner funds. This resulted in two new U.S. medium-class launch vehicles and two automated cargo spacecraft and demonstrated the efficiency of such partnerships.
The Cygnus PCM is 3.07m. Could it fit inside the trunk for this purpose? Ditch the service module and add a battery pack if needed.I noticed how big that trunk was in the Dragon V2 animation. It could carry a secondary pressurized cargo pod. This would give the best of two worlds. Only one version of Dragon V2 for cargo and crew, except the interior. Return capability and large volume with one vehicle. Docking port on the cargo version would not be a problem. Larger payloads can be stored in the secondary payload pod that has a berthing port. Also a crew flight can have significant pressurized upmass when needed. Only when there is need for large unpressurized cargo there would be no secondary pressurized cargo pod.
I was thinking that, as well. However, such a pod needs to be human rated, but also disposable.
Doesn't seem to fit SpaceX's MO.
Cheers, Martin
Really have to apologize for off topic here, but
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/ (http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/)
Well worth reading for all the commenters here, especially the "Lessons learned" parts. Some lessons appear to be promptly forgotten in the CCiCAP.QuoteBecause these were partnerships, not traditional contracts, NASA leveraged its $800M COTS program budget with partner funds. This resulted in two new U.S. medium-class launch vehicles and two automated cargo spacecraft and demonstrated the efficiency of such partnerships.
This statement implies that government funds were used in the development of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, which is patently false. Musk is on record as stating that roughly 50% of the launch "system" costs was funded by NASA funds, but when you break it apart to launch vehicle and spacecraft he states that the launch vehicle funding is 100% SpaceX and zero% USGov funds, while 70% to 75% USGov funds were for the spacecraft.
Really have to apologize for off topic here, but
http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/ (http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/)
Well worth reading for all the commenters here, especially the "Lessons learned" parts. Some lessons appear to be promptly forgotten in the CCiCAP.QuoteBecause these were partnerships, not traditional contracts, NASA leveraged its $800M COTS program budget with partner funds. This resulted in two new U.S. medium-class launch vehicles and two automated cargo spacecraft and demonstrated the efficiency of such partnerships.
This statement implies that government funds were used in the development of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, which is patently false. Musk is on record as stating that roughly 50% of the launch "system" costs was funded by NASA funds, but when you break it apart to launch vehicle and spacecraft he states that the launch vehicle funding is 100% SpaceX and zero% USGov funds, while 70% to 75% USGov funds were for the spacecraft.
In the COTS report there is a diagram showing how much the US Government paid and how much the companies put in. See "Commercial Orbital Transportation Services - A New Era in Spaceflight". NASA/SP-2014-617 Chapter 8 page 95.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf)
In the COTS report there is a diagram showing how much the US Government paid and how much the companies put in. See "Commercial Orbital Transportation Services - A New Era in Spaceflight". NASA/SP-2014-617 Chapter 8 page 95.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf)
You have to admit that OSC was late in the game, and the "savings" from the Wallops subsidy wasn't. Personally, when you look at the amount of anomalies and LV+Spacecraft attributable delays, OSC has had a better performance than SPX.Orbital already had very substantial experience in building both spacecraft AND launchers. SpaceX had only Falcon 1 experience for launchers and NO experience building spacecraft. Thus, SpaceX having more anomalies of LV and spacecraft comes as really no surprise as their learning curve was significantly steeper in the COTS period than it was for Orbital.
Even if you look at later proposals, Cygnus is proposed for lots of missions.Correct. But alternative missions are proposed for Dragon as well: Red Dragon, DragonLab, CRS Dragon.
upmass-only cargo spacecraft
To do CRS2 OSC may need to replace the Russian engines. That adds to the costs.
Respectfully, I disagree. I'm as much a fan of Orbital as I am a fan of SpaceX. It's just that I have a personal preference with regards to value-for-money. Note the word 'personal'.upmass-only cargo spacecraft
This is one of the arguments that gives us SpaceX fans a bad name. The bulk-tanker upmass vehicle is a crucial station need, and optimizing for it makes for a very different spacecraft than the Dragon. Cygnus is awesome and necessary. Dragon cargo is awesome and necessary. Happy days.
Dragon also needs a rocket roughly twice as powerful as Cygnus does to ride up hill.Respectfully, I disagree. I'm as much a fan of Orbital as I am a fan of SpaceX. It's just that I have a personal preference with regards to value-for-money. Note the word 'personal'.upmass-only cargo spacecraft
This is one of the arguments that gives us SpaceX fans a bad name. The bulk-tanker upmass vehicle is a crucial station need, and optimizing for it makes for a very different spacecraft than the Dragon. Cygnus is awesome and necessary. Dragon cargo is awesome and necessary. Happy days.
The primary reason for Cygnus being a much different spacecraft than Dragon is not optimizing up-mass. The primary reason is the fact that Cygnus is upmass-only. Cygnus does not need to return to Earth in one piece; it doesn't need a heatshield and an aerodynamically stable shape. Dragon, on the other hand, does need that and thus requires a completely different basic form and construction.
Dragon also needs a rocket roughly twice as powerful as Cygnus does to ride up hill.Respectfully, I disagree. I'm as much a fan of Orbital as I am a fan of SpaceX. It's just that I have a personal preference with regards to value-for-money. Note the word 'personal'.upmass-only cargo spacecraft
This is one of the arguments that gives us SpaceX fans a bad name. The bulk-tanker upmass vehicle is a crucial station need, and optimizing for it makes for a very different spacecraft than the Dragon. Cygnus is awesome and necessary. Dragon cargo is awesome and necessary. Happy days.
The primary reason for Cygnus being a much different spacecraft than Dragon is not optimizing up-mass. The primary reason is the fact that Cygnus is upmass-only. Cygnus does not need to return to Earth in one piece; it doesn't need a heatshield and an aerodynamically stable shape. Dragon, on the other hand, does need that and thus requires a completely different basic form and construction.
Orbital's contract is for 1.9 billion and SpaceX's is for 1.6 billion. If we count the COTS money as well, the numbers are Orbital with about 2.2 billion and SpaceX with about 2.0 billion. So they're doing it for about 10% less.
This time do a 1.5 with the 1/2 as a backup. Lock in some milestones with "time" as the driver. If the first (full share) doesn't make the time milestone, at that point the program increases funding to the backup.
Over time we expect Dragon version one to be phased out, but we're going to carry both of them in parallel for at least a few years.
The biggest plus Dragon V2 has over DC and CST100 is being able to take large unpressuried items in its trunk. NASA has already put this good use and I doubt they would want to lose this ability.
Ironically having D V1 means NASA doesn't need D V2.
The biggest plus Dragon V2 has over DC and CST100 is being able to take large unpressuried items in its trunk. NASA has already put this good use and I doubt they would want to lose this ability.
Ironically having D V1 means NASA doesn't need D V2.
This was being discussed earlier. Is this a confirmed capability? Dragon V2 trunk is different from V1.
The biggest plus Dragon V2 has over DC and CST100 is being able to take large unpressuried items in its trunk. NASA has already put this good use and I doubt they would want to lose this ability.
Ironically having D V1 means NASA doesn't need D V2.
This was being discussed earlier. Is this a confirmed capability? Dragon V2 trunk is different from V1.
Elon directly said it could carry trunk cargo during the Dragon V2 Reveal Q&A:
From the transcript:
"I think, something around - if you really cram stuff in - about a ton of pressurized cargo and two to three tons of unpressurized cargo... It will carry trunk cargo."
The biggest plus Dragon V2 has over DC and CST100 is being able to take large unpressuried items in its trunk. NASA has already put this good use and I doubt they would want to lose this ability.
Ironically having D V1 means NASA doesn't need D V2.
Ok, we'll exclude the COTS numbers. SpaceX is doing it for 15% less.
NASA simply contracted both companies to haul 20 mT to the station. The number of trips required to complete the task is irrelevant at best. Unless someone is trying to slant numbers towards what they want them to say.
The article says that the pad abort is the 14th and final milestone. I think that the milestones include the launch abort as well.If the pad abort is the final milestone, then an abort during launch would not have been a milestone. You wouldn't launch a rocket to demonstrate an abort under max Q if you haven't already proven that the capsule can survive an abort under less strenuous initial conditions. You could forgo the pad abort and jump straight to the launch abort. But once you do that, there's not much to prove in then doing the pad abort.
Has anyone heard anything about the other 2 SpaceX pending milestones - the Integrated Critical Design Review and the Dragon Primary Structure Qualification?
Also, anyone know the latest status on the DreamChaser and CST-100 milestones?
The article says that the pad abort is the 14th and final milestone. I think that the milestones include the launch abort as well.If the pad abort is the final milestone, then an abort during launch would not have been a milestone. You wouldn't launch a rocket to demonstrate an abort under max Q if you haven't already proven that the capsule can survive an abort under less strenuous initial conditions. You could forgo the pad abort and jump straight to the launch abort. But once you do that, there's not much to prove in then doing the pad abort.
Has anyone heard anything about the other 2 SpaceX pending milestones - the Integrated Critical Design Review and the Dragon Primary Structure Qualification?
Also, anyone know the latest status on the DreamChaser and CST-100 milestones?
As for the status of the other two vehicles' milestones, the article says that DC needs more time to complete their milestones, but CST-100 will complete its milestones on time this August. I have no idea what the specific milestones are that are remaining for any of the vehicles.
If the pad abort is the final milestone, then an abort during launch would not have been a milestone. You wouldn't launch a rocket to demonstrate an abort under max Q if you haven't already proven that the capsule can survive an abort under less strenuous initial conditions. You could forgo the pad abort and jump straight to the launch abort. But once you do that, there's not much to prove in then doing the pad abort.
Do Boeing's milestones not include an abort test? I don't see one in the list linked above.
Has anyone heard anything about the other 2 SpaceX pending milestones - the Integrated Critical Design Review and the Dragon Primary Structure Qualification?
Officials at SpaceX and Sierra Nevada have both said they would press on with the development of their vehicles even if they don’t receive funding in the next round. Boeing, on the other hand, has said it will need to carefully evaluate whether it will continue building CST-100 if additional NASA funding does not come through. Boeing is reported to have committed the least amount of its own money to commercial crew compared with its competitors.
Article from Parabolic Arc.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/06/30/remaining-milestones-nasas-commercial-crew-partners/#more-52735
The last paragraph was interesting.QuoteOfficials at SpaceX and Sierra Nevada have both said they would press on with the development of their vehicles even if they don’t receive funding in the next round. Boeing, on the other hand, has said it will need to carefully evaluate whether it will continue building CST-100 if additional NASA funding does not come through. Boeing is reported to have committed the least amount of its own money to commercial crew compared with its competitors.
Edit/Lar: Made the fact that it's a quote more obvious by using "quote" tags...
Article from Parabolic Arc.Boeings' position has been consistent in that they most likely would not close the business case outside of NASA and therefore would likely not continue development without them. Closing the business case and percentage of private-investment has certainly been one of the tenets of CC. What we don't know is how NASA will ultimately weigh this in the larger context of safety, costs and schedule.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/06/30/remaining-milestones-nasas-commercial-crew-partners/#more-52735
The last paragraph was interesting.QuoteOfficials at SpaceX and Sierra Nevada have both said they would press on with the development of their vehicles even if they don’t receive funding in the next round. Boeing, on the other hand, has said it will need to carefully evaluate whether it will continue building CST-100 if additional NASA funding does not come through. Boeing is reported to have committed the least amount of its own money to commercial crew compared with its competitors.
Edit/Lar: Made the fact that it's a quote more obvious by using "quote" tags...
Currently, SpaceX is the only one who will complete both a pad and in-flight abort under this currently funded round of CC. Which means, IMO, that Boeing will need a much larger budget allotment then SpaceX for the next round if they were to be chosen since Boeing would need to purchase at least 2 Atlas Vs for the in-flight abort test and orbital flight test.
So if NASA has $800 Million-ish for the next round and say SpaceX needs $400Million-ish to have a fully integrated and certified service ready to go in 2016ish (2017), then how much more would Boeing need if they haven't even done the abort scenarios yet?
And DreamChaser has!Sorry missing something... "And DreamChase has!"... what?
And DreamChaser has!Sorry missing something... "DreamChase has!"... what?
Launched and tested on an Atlas.And DreamChaser has!Sorry missing something... "DreamChase has!"... what?
Article from Parabolic Arc.Boeings' position has been consistent in that they most likely would not close the business case outside of NASA and therefore would likely not continue development without them. Closing the business case and percentage of private-investment has certainly been one of the tenets of CC. What we don't know is how NASA will ultimately weigh this in the larger context of safety, costs and schedule.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/06/30/remaining-milestones-nasas-commercial-crew-partners/#more-52735
The last paragraph was interesting.QuoteOfficials at SpaceX and Sierra Nevada have both said they would press on with the development of their vehicles even if they don’t receive funding in the next round. Boeing, on the other hand, has said it will need to carefully evaluate whether it will continue building CST-100 if additional NASA funding does not come through. Boeing is reported to have committed the least amount of its own money to commercial crew compared with its competitors.
Edit/Lar: Made the fact that it's a quote more obvious by using "quote" tags...
Currently, SpaceX is the only one who will complete both a pad and in-flight abort under this currently funded round of CC. Which means, IMO, that Boeing will need a much larger budget allotment then SpaceX for the next round if they were to be chosen since Boeing would need to purchase at least 2 Atlas Vs for the in-flight abort test and orbital flight test.
So if NASA has $800 Million-ish for the next round and say SpaceX needs $400Million-ish to have a fully integrated and certified service ready to go in 2016ish (2017), then how much more would Boeing need if they haven't even done the abort scenarios yet?
DreamChaser has already purchased the Atlas launch vehicle and scheduled their flight test.And DreamChaser has!Sorry missing something... "DreamChase has!"... what?
Boeing hasn't even come close. And they can't just order up a new Atlas. Those things take time to build and there are no spares. By the time Boeing can get an Atlas in the chute and schedule their test flight Dreamchaser will already be long back on the ground, having completed theirs.
“It is a confirmed launch date. It’s a confirmed payment on the launch to start the process working,” Sirangelo told reporters at a press conference.In short, TBD.
“What happens after the [NASA] contract award happens or not happens we’ll decide then, but we are moving forward on the program for this one,” he added.
If the pad abort is the final milestone, then an abort during launch would not have been a milestone. You wouldn't launch a rocket to demonstrate an abort under max Q if you haven't already proven that the capsule can survive an abort under less strenuous initial conditions. You could forgo the pad abort and jump straight to the launch abort. But once you do that, there's not much to prove in then doing the pad abort.
As for the status of the other two vehicles' milestones, the article says that DC needs more time to complete their milestones, but CST-100 will complete its milestones on time this August. I have no idea what the specific milestones are that are remaining for any of the vehicles.
I'm confused as heck (and googling has been of no help) so could someone here let me know why only SpaceX has abort tests as milestones?
I'm confused as heck (and googling has been of no help) so could someone here let me know why only SpaceX has abort tests as milestones?
Because they bid to do it.
I'm confused as heck (and googling has been of no help) so could someone here let me know why only SpaceX has abort tests as milestones?
Because they bid to do it.
Because they bid to do it.
Yes, and there was a set amount of money that was available to fund all three CCiCap participants. No doubt NASA spent a lot of time figuring out what combination of funding would get all three vehicles as far as possible prior to the next funding event.
Sierra Nevada received $212.5M, which got them through flying their test article and doing Main Propulsion and other testing.
Boeing received $460M, the most of the three, which gets them through their Critical Design Review (CDR) Board.
SpaceX received $440M, but likely since they were using the cargo version of their Dragon as their starting point, their last milestones are the Integrated Critical Design Review (CDR) and an In-Flight Abort Test with the Dragon V2 vehicle Elon Musk unveiled recently.
Note that both Sierra Nevada and SpaceX were funded to the point that they could do some actual vehicle tests, but Boeing won't have a test or production vehicle ready as part of their funding. It will be interesting to see if that influences the CCtCap awards.
If I'm reading you right, you're saying that SpaceX being the only one to have abort tests as milestones was SpaceX's idea?
{snip}
Bolding mine.
Boeing got the most money, but doesn't have to come up with a test or production vehicle? What on earth was the reasoning for that?
In general regarding my (limited) understanding of CCiCAP, I can easily see why the three companies have different milestones, due to having different design concepts (for example, it'd make no sense for DC to have a parachute test milestone, or Dragon a glide test) but... they gave the most money to the company that, from the look of it, has done the least?
Boeing was upgrading the Atlas V as well as developing the CST-100. NASA had to pay for both.
Will the human rating of the Atlas V be finished at the end of CCiCap?
If I'm reading you right, you're saying that SpaceX being the only one to have abort tests as milestones was SpaceX's idea?
Yes.. but I expect the others offered to do it, but the price they offered to do it at was too high.
{snip}
Bolding mine.
Boeing got the most money, but doesn't have to come up with a test or production vehicle? What on earth was the reasoning for that?
In general regarding my (limited) understanding of CCiCAP, I can easily see why the three companies have different milestones, due to having different design concepts (for example, it'd make no sense for DC to have a parachute test milestone, or Dragon a glide test) but... they gave the most money to the company that, from the look of it, has done the least?
Boeing was upgrading the Atlas V as well as developing the CST-100. NASA had to pay for both.
{snip}
Bolding mine.
Boeing got the most money, but doesn't have to come up with a test or production vehicle? What on earth was the reasoning for that?
You have to look at this from a complete perspective. Boeing no doubt had a very strong initial proposal, since they have a lot of history and experience with complex aerospace projects. Based on that they were no doubt rated as the lowest risk, which likely played into their award size. Sierra Nevada likely was rated as the highest risk, and thus received the lowest award amount.QuoteIn general regarding my (limited) understanding of CCiCAP, I can easily see why the three companies have different milestones, due to having different design concepts (for example, it'd make no sense for DC to have a parachute test milestone, or Dragon a glide test) but... they gave the most money to the company that, from the look of it, has done the least?
There is a document that NASA released that explained their reasoning - I think you should Google it (I'm time limited, but maybe someone can point you too it).QuoteBoeing was upgrading the Atlas V as well as developing the CST-100. NASA had to pay for both.
No, ULA is responsible for the Atlas V, not Boeing. And just as a reminder, Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, not Boeing, so Boeing would not be involved with doing anything alone on the Atlas V.
If you want to see what Boeings milestones are here is the CCiCap Announcement Summary:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/672130main_CCiCap%20Announcement.pdf
Apollo-Saturn did not have a max-q abort test.
Apollo-Saturn did not have a max-q abort test.
No, ULA is responsible for the Atlas V, not Boeing. And just as a reminder, Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, not Boeing, so Boeing would not be involved with doing anything alone on the Atlas V.
No, ULA is responsible for the Atlas V, not Boeing. And just as a reminder, Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, not Boeing, so Boeing would not be involved with doing anything alone on the Atlas V.
But in this case Boeing would be the customer for the rocket. And as a customer with special needs they would be responsible for having those needs met, even if it means paying Lockheed or ULA to meet them.
Same issue. Boeing and SNC require a manrated rocket. Lockheed isn't providing this additional work for free, the required planning and modifications to Atlas V are being paid for by Boeing/SNC, not Lockheed.
No, ULA is responsible for the Atlas V, not Boeing. And just as a reminder, Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, not Boeing, so Boeing would not be involved with doing anything alone on the Atlas V.
But in this case Boeing would be the customer for the rocket. And as a customer with special needs they would be responsible for having those needs met, even if it means paying Lockheed or ULA to meet them.
But those special needs have to do with payload mass and mounting to the upper stage, not man-rating the Atlas 5. Separate issues.
As I imagine is the same for the design and build of the crew access tower.Same issue. Boeing and SNC require a manrated rocket. Lockheed isn't providing this additional work for free, the required planning and modifications to Atlas V are being paid for by Boeing/SNC, not Lockheed.
No, ULA is responsible for the Atlas V, not Boeing. And just as a reminder, Lockheed Martin built the Atlas V, not Boeing, so Boeing would not be involved with doing anything alone on the Atlas V.
But in this case Boeing would be the customer for the rocket. And as a customer with special needs they would be responsible for having those needs met, even if it means paying Lockheed or ULA to meet them.
But those special needs have to do with payload mass and mounting to the upper stage, not man-rating the Atlas 5. Separate issues.
Decided to copy my comment from the SpaceX In-Flight LAS Abort Test to here:
This extension to the end of March 2015 is very disappointing. Now a year late. The D2 unveil was billed as actual flight hardware with Elon stating that that particular capsule was destined for orbit. It was completely bare inside except for the temporarily mounted seats and (I assume mock-up) flight control panel.
Lots of work on interior to be done.
However, does the interior have to be finished for the abort tests? I think not. Since the capsule shown was for orbit, I think this implies that the abort capsule was previously built and should therefore be further on to completion.
All this leads me to believe that the abort capsule is almost complete, and on hold, waiting for DragonFly test results.
It occurred to me that maybe the abort capsule IS Dragonfly. Is that possible? Test as Dragonfly first before using it as the abort vehicle?
Hopefully this delay is not on the critical path to CCtCap certification. Any insight to CCiCap and CCtCap running in parallel? AIUI CCiCap completion is a pre-requisit to CCtCap funding, so I am wondering if this delay in completing milestones could delay CCtCap.
Not a big fan of that big fat pseudo analog thermometer graphic, especially since it's misleading in my view. Some milestones are more important than others.At the completion of these series of milestones, whose vehicle will be closer to launchability? That's what really matters, although I readily grant Boeing is ahead on the paper milestones...
Well if you already knew then why ask for it.Not a big fan of that big fat pseudo analog thermometer graphic, especially since it's misleading in my view. Some milestones are more important than others.At the completion of these series of milestones, whose vehicle will be closer to launchability? That's what really matters, although I readily grant Boeing is ahead on the paper milestones...
its a milestone charted what more do you want?
any way you wish to chart the # of completed milestones its going to look the same.
interesting; DC is completing milestones far faster then SpaceX yet they have less funding to work with.
just know what the spin reply for this will be....go for it, ready :D
The big question is what those thermometers would look like if they included all the milestones to the final, delivered service.Not a big fan of that big fat pseudo analog thermometer graphic, especially since it's misleading in my view. Some milestones are more important than others.At the completion of these series of milestones, whose vehicle will be closer to launchability? That's what really matters, although I readily grant Boeing is ahead on the paper milestones...
its a milestone charted what more do you want?
any way you wish to chart the # of completed milestones its going to look the same.
interesting; DC is completing milestones far faster then SpaceX yet they have less funding to work with.
just know what the spin reply for this will be....go for it, ready :D
Well if you already knew then why ask for it.Not a big fan of that big fat pseudo analog thermometer graphic, especially since it's misleading in my view. Some milestones are more important than others.At the completion of these series of milestones, whose vehicle will be closer to launchability? That's what really matters, although I readily grant Boeing is ahead on the paper milestones...
its a milestone charted what more do you want?
any way you wish to chart the # of completed milestones its going to look the same.
interesting; DC is completing milestones far faster then SpaceX yet they have less funding to work with.
just know what the spin reply for this will be....go for it, ready :D
Ok, I'll bite. Have you analysed each milestone and elapsed time and then compared like for like? I haven't but hoped you had and therefore could add substance to your aforementioned statement.
Cheers
The big question is what those thermometers would look like if they included all the milestones to the final, delivered service.Not a big fan of that big fat pseudo analog thermometer graphic, especially since it's misleading in my view. Some milestones are more important than others.At the completion of these series of milestones, whose vehicle will be closer to launchability? That's what really matters, although I readily grant Boeing is ahead on the paper milestones...
its a milestone charted what more do you want?
any way you wish to chart the # of completed milestones its going to look the same.
interesting; DC is completing milestones far faster then SpaceX yet they have less funding to work with.
just know what the spin reply for this will be....go for it, ready :D
Put another way, how much have each of the competitors left for the following CCtCap round?
Cheers, Martin
Well better than paying the Russians for it.
fair point, my thinking is a tad different .....how about a ROI to the taxpayer also :-X
The big question is what those thermometers would look like if they included all the milestones to the final, delivered service.Not a big fan of that big fat pseudo analog thermometer graphic, especially since it's misleading in my view. Some milestones are more important than others.At the completion of these series of milestones, whose vehicle will be closer to launchability? That's what really matters, although I readily grant Boeing is ahead on the paper milestones...
its a milestone charted what more do you want?
any way you wish to chart the # of completed milestones its going to look the same.
interesting; DC is completing milestones far faster then SpaceX yet they have less funding to work with.
just know what the spin reply for this will be....go for it, ready :D
Put another way, how much have each of the competitors left for the following CCtCap round?
Cheers, Martin
being prepared isn't asking for it :P
Flight proven? v2 seems to be a wholly different craft. And v1 does not have docking capability, a key component of the commercial crew vehicles...Has anyone posted a graphic of a side by side comparison of the two Dragon craft?
The next milestone for Blue Origin will be a subsystem interim design review that will assess the progress of the company's Space Vehicle design.
The Boeing Company, which is designing the CST-100 spacecraft, has two reviews later this summer. A full critical design review (CDR) will examine the detailed plans for the spacecraft, launch vehicle and a host of ground support, processing and operations designs. The second review will come soon after -- the Spacecraft Safety Review is designed to show the design of the spacecraft and its systems are in line with Boeing's CDR-level design.
Sierra Nevada Corporation completed risk reduction testing on the flight crew systems in development for its Dream Chaser spacecraft. The team evaluated crew ingress and egress using the full-scale mockup of the Dream Chaser pressurized cabin, as well as the visibility from inside the cockpit, controls and displays and seat loading. The company reviewed tests conducted on the thermal protection system for its spacecraft as well as the composite structure, life support system and thermal control systems. Later this summer, the reaction control system will undergo an incremental test to further its design.
SpaceX currently is completing a qualification test milestone for the primary structure of its Dragon spacecraft. Following this milestone, the company, which is using its own Falcon 9 launch vehicle, will outline its ground systems, crew and mission operations plans in an operational review that will put the company’s processes through a rigorous examination.
Later this year, NASA plans to award one or more contracts that will provide the agency with commercial services to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station by the end of 2017.
My gut feeling is that SpaceX may win the war with reuse but may lose a battle when it comes to NASA picking them for manned flight. I also like the way Sierra Nevada is positioning themselves internationally with Dreamchaser. The JAXA agreement is a good example of this.
My gut feeling is that SpaceX may win the war with reuse but may lose a battle when it comes to NASA picking them for manned flight. I also like the way Sierra Nevada is positioning themselves internationally with Dreamchaser. The JAXA agreement is a good example of this.
It would be rather difficult for NASA to go with only Atlas V based designs with the current cumulus cloud rule violations over the future of RD-180.
As soon as all crew to iss, freight to iss, and man usaf launches depend on russian engines it CERTAINLY will be an issue.
It would be rather difficult for NASA to go with only Atlas V based designs with the current cumulus cloud rule violations over the future of RD-180.
Why? There's no interruption.
NASA continues to rely on Atlas V, Antares, Soyuz, Progress, ISS Russian Segment, etc.
Maybe they want two LVs and that's fine, but the provenance of the engines is a not a valid issue.
I have not seen or heard anything that would dissuade me from thinking that SpaceX can and will finish first and offer the cheapest service.
1.)It sends the wrong signal to Russia to award new contracts for Russian engines at the current time.1. Not NASA's problem. NASA is the carrot, other agencies get to be the stick.
2.)Bolden explains Commercial Crew's motivation as ending reliance on Russia and stopping the transfer of mllions of dollars to Russia for crew flights. Atlas V fails on both counts.
3.)ISS wise, having domestic crew access including the engine leaves only a Zvezda replacement module to continue ISS without the Russians.
4.)Atlas V award would only further cripple the U.S. propulsion industrial base while NASA's goal ostensibly is to promote U.S. space capabilities and technology.
I have not seen or heard anything that would dissuade me from thinking that SpaceX can and will finish first and offer the cheapest service.
I tend to agree because I keep thinking of the costs of an Atlas 5 launch versus an F9 launch.
"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”
1.)It sends the wrong signal to Russia to award new contracts for Russian engines at the current time.1. Not NASA's problem. NASA is the carrot, other agencies get to be the stick.
2.)Bolden explains Commercial Crew's motivation as ending reliance on Russia and stopping the transfer of mllions of dollars to Russia for crew flights. Atlas V fails on both counts.
3.)ISS wise, having domestic crew access including the engine leaves only a Zvezda replacement module to continue ISS without the Russians.
4.)Atlas V award would only further cripple the U.S. propulsion industrial base while NASA's goal ostensibly is to promote U.S. space capabilities and technology.
2a. It's a lot less money, but yes, I'll concede the money one in principle.
2b."Reliance on Russia" is a relative measure; station is inoperable without the Russians. If people want to be 100% free of the Russians, they're gonna get sticker shock. If getting to the station with no Russian hardware is a priority for NASA, they certainly haven't been acting like it over the past decade.
3. "only a Zvezda replacement" is rather understating the problem. In the time it takes to figure that out, crew vehicle could be moved to a different LV or alternate engine could be ready.
4. 2 more RD-180s each year isn't going to change the situation for the U.S. industrial base. If anything, more demand for ORSC engines means a future domestic replacement could spread its fixed costs over more units.
NASA relies on other countries -including the Russians- for a part of almost anything they do. Russian engines are not sufficient reason to disqualify 2 of the 3 potential CCtCap providers.
1.)It sends the wrong signal to Russia to award new contracts for Russian engines at the current time.1. Not NASA's problem. NASA is the carrot, other agencies get to be the stick.
2.)Bolden explains Commercial Crew's motivation as ending reliance on Russia and stopping the transfer of mllions of dollars to Russia for crew flights. Atlas V fails on both counts.
3.)ISS wise, having domestic crew access including the engine leaves only a Zvezda replacement module to continue ISS without the Russians.
4.)Atlas V award would only further cripple the U.S. propulsion industrial base while NASA's goal ostensibly is to promote U.S. space capabilities and technology.
2a. It's a lot less money, but yes, I'll concede the money one in principle.
2b."Reliance on Russia" is a relative measure; station is inoperable without the Russians. If people want to be 100% free of the Russians, they're gonna get sticker shock. If getting to the station with no Russian hardware is a priority for NASA, they certainly haven't been acting like it over the past decade.
3. "only a Zvezda replacement" is rather understating the problem. In the time it takes to figure that out, crew vehicle could be moved to a different LV or alternate engine could be ready.
4. 2 more RD-180s each year isn't going to change the situation for the U.S. industrial base. If anything, more demand for ORSC engines means a future domestic replacement could spread its fixed costs over more units.
NASA relies on other countries -including the Russians- for a part of almost anything they do. Russian engines are not sufficient reason to disqualify 2 of the 3 potential CCtCap providers.
1. The carrot isn't leverage if the horse gets the carrot regardless. It is the US government's problem which NASA is a part of.
2. What sticker shock? 18 billion a year for NASA doesn't seem to bat an eyelid. 100 billion + for station construction didn't bat an eyelid. Besides, there are more efficient propulsion available for station keeping and attitude control that can reduce operating costs long term. It could be more life time cost nuetral then.
4.) death by a thousand pin pricks. Antares ISS resupply using NK-33, Atlas V using RD-180, commercial crew potentially using RD-180 not to mention the death of U.S. commercial in the 2000s. That SpaceX revived an industry that NASA and DoD oversaw the decimation of is simply miraculous.
Never said they would be disqualified, only that there are knocks against them and should be factors. There is nothing really stopping CST-100 and Dreamchaser from using Delta or Falcon though. It is up to Sierra Nevada and Boeing to update their proposals in light of the current environment. Yes, Delta costs about 50 million more per launch than Atlas but I would bet that is related more to launch rate and higher domestic wages than inherent to the vehicle. If NASA has a problem paying U.S. wages, I would suggest relocating Marshall Flight Center to Malaysia.
Never said they would be disqualified, only that there are knocks against them and should be factors.How do you weight that factor? Either it's weighted enough to swing the competition or it's not a factor at all.
2. What sticker shock? 18 billion a year for NASA doesn't seem to bat an eyelid. 100 billion + for station construction didn't bat an eyelid. Besides, there are more efficient propulsion available for station keeping and attitude control that can reduce operating costs long term. It could be more life time cost nuetral then.We've talked about this elsewhere, and how substantial of an undertaking it would be. The top line of NASA's budget looks big, but moving even $50M around causes a fight on capitol hill and throws somebody's life work out the window. And even if it could happen it would rely on the Russians for years during a tricky handover.
SpaceX revived an industry that NASA and DoD oversaw the decimation of is simply miraculous.
I have not seen or heard anything that would dissuade me from thinking that SpaceX can and will finish first and offer the cheapest service.
I tend to agree because I keep thinking of the costs of an Atlas 5 launch versus an F9 launch.
So does Boeing,
http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/boeing-spacex-detail-capsule-test-plans
[John Mulholland, VP Commercial Programs]Quote"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”
So much for "best value." I bet Michael Gass at ULA sh*t puppies when he read that! By considering SpaceX for manned launches, Mulholland basically just stated that the F9 is as "safe" as Atlas for far less cost. He publicly eviscerated the two justifications ULA gives for purchasing that launcher. Boeing and LockMart won't even buy their own boosters!
I have not seen or heard anything that would dissuade me from thinking that SpaceX can and will finish first and offer the cheapest service.
I tend to agree because I keep thinking of the costs of an Atlas 5 launch versus an F9 launch.
So does Boeing,
http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/boeing-spacex-detail-capsule-test-plans
[John Mulholland, VP Commercial Programs]Quote"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”
So much for "best value." I bet Michael Gass at ULA sh*t puppies when he read that! By considering SpaceX for manned launches, Mulholland basically just stated that the F9 is as "safe" as Atlas for far less cost. He publicly eviscerated the two justifications ULA gives for purchasing that launcher. Boeing and LockMart won't even buy their own boosters!
Boeing and Lockheed do not make Atlas or Delta, and haven't for some time now. Legacy workers are now ULA.
Boeing and Lockheed do not make Atlas or Delta, and haven't for some time now. Legacy workers are now ULA.
And who owns ULA...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Launch_Alliance
That SpaceX revived an industry that NASA and DoD oversaw the decimation of is simply miraculous.
Interesting point is that Dual Centaur, probably because of human rating requirements, will require RL-10A4, even after the rest of the EELV migrate to RL-10C1/2. That will certainly impact its costs structure.
If you want NASA to be more supportive of US rocket industry, I can understand that position, even if I don't agree that it's necessary. The 2 annual commercial crew flights are only a fraction of the job then: bring home Orion SM, stop using RD-180 for all science launches, stop accepting foreign launches in barter arrangements (JWST, GPM, GRACE-FO, etc).
For COTS, NASA had an explicit goal of bringing new LVs to the market. For crew NASA had no such luxury; look how CCdev > CCiCap >CPC/CCtCap weeded out anybody who was building new rockets. If NASA wants to implement a new industrial policy, kneecapping commercial crew at the 11th hour is the wrong way to go about it.
How do you weight that factor? Either it's weighted enough to swing the competition or it's not a factor at all.
We've talked about this elsewhere, and how substantial of an undertaking it would be. The top line of NASA's budget looks big, but moving even $50M around causes a fight on capitol hill and throws somebody's life work out the window. And even if it could happen it would rely on the Russians for years during a tricky handover.
Oh come off it. Spacex would never have gotten where they are today without both NASA and USAF.
I think it was a Mr. Sommers interview. But I remember that an ULA official stated that the CCtCap clients were going to use the A4 version because they had special needs. I'm assuming that human rating requirements is in it. I can't think of any other cause to have to special order such handmade engines. AIUI, is not that is not available. It's just that they are expensive. the C1/2 versions have made great advances into manufacturing automation.Interesting point is that Dual Centaur, probably because of human rating requirements, will require RL-10A4, even after the rest of the EELV migrate to RL-10C1/2. That will certainly impact its costs structure.
I was under the impression the RL-10C1 would be the human rated evolution of the A4. Do you have it on good authority the existing stock of A4s will be HR to the exclusion of C1s? That doesn't provide much long term use (unless there are hundreds sitting around somewhere)--especially if SLS-1B flies.
What I'd really like to see is ULA finish/make production a common 5m upper stage with two variants: a 2x RL-10C1 and 1x RL-10C2. That would open up the possibility of D-IVM lofting commercial crew or other human spacecraft, USAF and RS-68A notwithstanding (I still offer myself as ballast for DC on D-IVM4+2).
:)
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1406/04rl10c/I think it was a Mr. Sommers interview. But I remember that an ULA official stated that the CCtCap clients were going to use the A4 version because they had special needs. I'm assuming that human rating requirements is in it. I can't think of any other cause to have to special order such handmade engines. AIUI, is not that is not available. It's just that they are expensive. the C1/2 versions have made great advances into manufacturing automation.Interesting point is that Dual Centaur, probably because of human rating requirements, will require RL-10A4, even after the rest of the EELV migrate to RL-10C1/2. That will certainly impact its costs structure.
I was under the impression the RL-10C1 would be the human rated evolution of the A4. Do you have it on good authority the existing stock of A4s will be HR to the exclusion of C1s? That doesn't provide much long term use (unless there are hundreds sitting around somewhere)--especially if SLS-1B flies.
What I'd really like to see is ULA finish/make production a common 5m upper stage with two variants: a 2x RL-10C1 and 1x RL-10C2. That would open up the possibility of D-IVM lofting commercial crew or other human spacecraft, USAF and RS-68A notwithstanding (I still offer myself as ballast for DC on D-IVM4+2).
:)
BTW, I'm guessing that human rating the C1 was a significant fraction of the supposedly huge cost of human rating the ICPS for SLS.
Sowers said the RL10C will become the standard upper stage engine for all of the company's Atlas 5 and Delta 4 launches. An exception will be for the two-engine version of the Atlas 5's Centaur upper stage, which will continue flying with the RL10A-4-2 version of the engine.
The shape of the RL10C's bell-shaped nozzle prevents two of the engines from being placed side-by-side in a dual-engine configuration, Sowers said.
Hartman: U.S. and Russian Crews to Fly Both Soyuz and U.S. Commercial Vehicles
NASA intends to use future U.S. commercial crew vehicles to carry not only its astronauts, but also those of its Russian partner, to the International Space Station (ISS), said Dan Hartman, deputy space station program manager, at a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting on Monday (July 28).
>
It really does seem that SpaceX is going to be THE dominant player in space launch, certainly in the US. Even if Dragon somehow loses, SpaceX still wins with Falcon 9. This would ensure at least another couple launches per year for Falcon 9, ones that otherwise would go to ULA.I have not seen or heard anything that would dissuade me from thinking that SpaceX can and will finish first and offer the cheapest service.
I tend to agree because I keep thinking of the costs of an Atlas 5 launch versus an F9 launch.
So does Boeing,
http://m.aviationweek.com/awin/boeing-spacex-detail-capsule-test-plans
[John Mulholland, VP Commercial Programs]Quote"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”
This should prove interesting.We've known this for at least a year and a half.
SpacePolicyOnline.... (http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/hartman-u-s-and-russian-crews-to-fly-both-soyuz-and-u-s-commercial-vehicles)QuoteHartman: U.S. and Russian Crews to Fly Both Soyuz and U.S. Commercial Vehicles
NASA intends to use future U.S. commercial crew vehicles to carry not only its astronauts, but also those of its Russian partner, to the International Space Station (ISS), said Dan Hartman, deputy space station program manager, at a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting on Monday (July 28).
>
Bolden: think it will be "sooner rather than later" this yr when we select CCtCAP companies. Can be done by end 2017 if Congress fully fundshttps://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/494541290369859585
Bolden believes NASA on track to award Commercial Crew contracts "much sooner than later this year"https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/494541417134690304
Bolden: source selection deliberations for next comm'l crew phase, CCtCap, going "better than expected".https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/494541204281753600
EM: There will be a difference if you want a dramatic improvement in safety and emergency systems. As it is, our cargo Dragon maintains sea level pressure and normal room temperature in the pressurized module. If somebody had stowed on any of our [four cargo] flights, they would have made it to ISS and back fine, no problem. We’re required to transport biological cargo – fish and mice – so it has to be able to support life. And the pressurized cargo area is big – 12 cubic meters – plenty of room. As for people, it’s quite likely by the end of 2016 we will start [flying them].
Not necessarily a slip. NASA just thinks that SpaceX is being overly optimistic. NASA is planning for the end of 2017 but they would be happy with an earlier date. Incidentally, the latest draft FY 2015 appropriation bills are not that far off from fully funding commercial crew.Or they are confident on Boeing's projections. It still is an open race and Boeing has probably the more robust plan.
Not necessarily a slip. NASA just thinks that SpaceX is being overly optimistic. NASA is planning for the end of 2017 but they would be happy with an earlier date. Incidentally, the latest draft FY 2015 appropriation bills are not that far off from fully funding commercial crew.Or they are confident on Boeing's projections. It still is an open race and Boeing has probably the more robust plan.
Not necessarily a slip. NASA just thinks that SpaceX is being overly optimistic. NASA is planning for the end of 2017 but they would be happy with an earlier date. Incidentally, the latest draft FY 2015 appropriation bills are not that far off from fully funding commercial crew.
It might be worth reviewing NASA's assessment of its CCiCAP partners when the awards were announced: http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docID=645.That's a great baseline reminder, thanks. That may explain why SpaceX decided to do 2 abort scenarios and self fund the DragonFly testing program, to retire as much risk as possible before CCtCAP. But looks like they fell behind a bit. Hopefully they can get the pad abort done before final decisions are made. Although I'm not sure how much, if at all that would matter at this point.
In the Initial Evaluation, SpaceX was rated as Green (4/5) for technical approach with a low level of confidence rating, and Green for business approach with a medium level of confidence rating. Boeing was rated as Green for technical approach with a medium level of confidence rating, and White (3/5) with a medium level of confidence rating. SNC was rated Green for technical approach with a low level of confidence rating, and White with a medium level of confidence rating for business approach.
In the "Final Evaluation after Due Diligence", SpaceX was rated as Blue (5/5) for technical approach with a medium level of confidence rating, and Blue for business approach with a high level of confidence rating. Boeing was rated as Blue for technical approach with a high level of confidence rating, and for business approach remained White, but now with a high level of confidence rating. SNC was rated Blue for technical approach with a medium level of confidence rating, and Blue with a medium level of confidence rating for business approach.
There is a very thorough discussion of these factors in more detail in the same document that are well worth reading if interested in the subject. If you are curious why SNC ended up in third place in the CCiCAP awards (not really evident from these ratings alone) it is explained there.
Obviously, this was when CCiCAP was awarded and now we are getting close to the end of CCiCAP. It will be very interesting to see how things have changed since when the CCtCAP awards are announced, assuming that we get a similar level of disclosure this time around (and I hope we do).
That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.
That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.
Yes, that would be good. Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs. late 2017 is probably ideal. Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost). One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work. The longer NASA waits the worse it gets. So I don't think 2017 is realistic.
That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.
Yes, that would be good. Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs. late 2017 is probably ideal. Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost). One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work. The longer NASA waits the worse it gets. So I don't think 2017 is realistic.
I really don't see how a company saying that they need money to continue or they'll slow their work, or companies spreading their milestones a few months later makes 2017 unrealistic.
One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work.
With regards to delaying milestones...Not all milestones are created equal. And delaying them does not by default mean schedule or cost increases.That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.
Yes, that would be good. Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs. late 2017 is probably ideal. Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost). One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work. The longer NASA waits the worse it gets. So I don't think 2017 is realistic.
That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.
Yes, that would be good. Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs. late 2017 is probably ideal. Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost). One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work. The longer NASA waits the worse it gets. So I don't think 2017 is realistic.
I really don't see how a company saying that they need money to continue or they'll slow their work, or companies spreading their milestones a few months later makes 2017 unrealistic.
One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work.
That company has more money than you can shake a stick at. They are just so used to sucking on the government teat for so many decades that I fear they have lost the appetite for a knock down drag out competition and would prefer to withdraw from the field than spend any more of their own money, unlike what the other two have pledged to do.
Mind you that is not a knock on the company because they have done some really marvelous things with our taxpayers' monies. They just don't have any ambition beyond the almighty dollar anymore. That's sad because they used to be inspirational.
With regards to delaying milestones...Not all milestones are created equal. And delaying them does not by default mean schedule or cost increases.That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.
Yes, that would be good. Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs. late 2017 is probably ideal. Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost). One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work. The longer NASA waits the worse it gets. So I don't think 2017 is realistic.
I see no reason why one of these three couldn't be ready for 2017 if not earlier. Take SpaceX:
-Pad 39A mods have been initiated. No reason to think they can't have GSE, FSS, etc. mods ready for crew by mid 2016.
-F9V1.1 is gaining operational tempo and reliability every month
-Dragon V2 will undergo Pad and Max-Q aborts as well as return-flight and landing tests over the next 6-8 months
-Unmanned Orbital test by late 2015 early 2016
-Manned ISS docking by mid to late 2016
-Certified by mid 2017 if not earlier
You are correct they are not equal. But when you are delaying some because they are not complete/ready...well it means you encountered issues, were not as far as you thought/hoped you would be or have to stretch out the money. All three mean your schedule is likely at risk.Uhm, don't forget that some got less money than others. So it is not because of the company being incompetent, but because of the government (congress) not providing adequate funding.
That's good news. NASA should award CCtCap ASAP in my opinion in order not to give time for Congress to further temper with it. Their plans for announcing the awards was originally in August/September and they should stick to it.
Yes, that would be good. Looks more like Sept/Oct possibly - and that just delays and add costs. late 2017 is probably ideal. Two companies have already extended their milestones (means the same money spread over longer time which means increase in schedule and total cost). One company said they would run out of money in August and have to stop/slow work. The longer NASA waits the worse it gets. So I don't think 2017 is realistic.
I really don't see how a company saying that they need money to continue or they'll slow their work, or companies spreading their milestones a few months later makes 2017 unrealistic.
Because in my opinion I think 2017 is very aggressive without ANY funding issues or hiccups. That is my educated opinion. NASA is continuing to update and modify requirements (read changing the goal posts). That will add to the plans. Period. Hopefully I am wrong but I am pretty confident.
What last minute changes?Yes, what major requirements have changed recently that would effect costs and timing in a meaningful way?
What last minute changes?
NASA is continuing to update and modify requirements (read changing the goal posts).
This should prove interesting.We've known this for at least a year and a half.
SpacePolicyOnline.... (http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/hartman-u-s-and-russian-crews-to-fly-both-soyuz-and-u-s-commercial-vehicles)QuoteHartman: U.S. and Russian Crews to Fly Both Soyuz and U.S. Commercial Vehicles
NASA intends to use future U.S. commercial crew vehicles to carry not only its astronauts, but also those of its Russian partner, to the International Space Station (ISS), said Dan Hartman, deputy space station program manager, at a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting on Monday (July 28).
>
"The USCV will carry four crewmembers, meaning that once it docks to the ISS, the crew of the station will be boosted to seven – allowing significant extra research activities to be performed. However, one of the crewmembers on the USCV will be Russian – just as one American crewmember will continue to be rotated on the Soyuz." - Year in Review (1 January 2013) (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/yir-part4-iss-new-year-successful-2012/)
This should prove interesting.We've known this for at least a year and a half.
SpacePolicyOnline.... (http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/hartman-u-s-and-russian-crews-to-fly-both-soyuz-and-u-s-commercial-vehicles)QuoteHartman: U.S. and Russian Crews to Fly Both Soyuz and U.S. Commercial Vehicles
NASA intends to use future U.S. commercial crew vehicles to carry not only its astronauts, but also those of its Russian partner, to the International Space Station (ISS), said Dan Hartman, deputy space station program manager, at a NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting on Monday (July 28).
>
"The USCV will carry four crewmembers, meaning that once it docks to the ISS, the crew of the station will be boosted to seven – allowing significant extra research activities to be performed. However, one of the crewmembers on the USCV will be Russian – just as one American crewmember will continue to be rotated on the Soyuz." - Year in Review (1 January 2013) (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/yir-part4-iss-new-year-successful-2012/)
Wonder how much SpaceX is going to charge per seat for the Russians?
[deputy space station program manager Dan Hartman] explained. The idea is to barter: “It would be just a seat for a seat."
Is it perhaps time for a poll on the outcome of the downselect?
You are correct they are not equal. But when you are delaying some because they are not complete/ready...well it means you encountered issues, were not as far as you thought/hoped you would be or have to stretch out the money. All three mean your schedule is likely at risk.Uhm, don't forget that some got less money than others. So it is not because of the company being incompetent, but because of the government (congress) not providing adequate funding.
My (cynical) thought: a poll here is just a meaningless popularity contest. The CCtCap proposals are judged on vast amounts of information, only a tiny fraction of which is available here. I've heard stories about proposal paperwork completely filling the back of a Chevy Suburban -- for just one company!And yet, besides all the fan boys here, the consensus is rarely far from the end result. There is a lot of very knowledgeable people here, and most have access to as much information as there is publicly available. You should take it with a pinch of salt, but is a very valid datapoint.
What last minute changes?Yes, what major requirements have changed recently that would effect costs and timing in a meaningful way?
the latest changes.What were the previous changes?
My (cynical) thought: a poll here is just a meaningless popularity contest.
My (cynical) thought: a poll here is just a meaningless popularity contest.
I don't think that's cynical at all. It's just plain true: polls here are completely pointless. But they're fun.
Page 10 of the presentation says "CCtCAP contract mechanism may lead to safety/cost risk." SpaceX has already warned that the contract mechanism could lead to cost increases due to the extensive reporting requirements, but how would the contracting mechanism lead to safety risks?
Page 10 of the presentation says "CCtCAP contract mechanism may lead to safety/cost risk." SpaceX has already warned that the contract mechanism could lead to cost increases due to the extensive reporting requirements, but how would the contracting mechanism lead to safety risks?
CCtCap is a fixed price contract mechanism. The argument is that a cost plus contract would be safer given that NASA can still change the safety requirements by paying the company more money. But their box says that the likelyhood and consequences of using a fixed price contract mechanism (such as the one used for CCtCap) are moderate. That is the way that I understand it.
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
NASA Comm. Crew CCtCap award likely on 22 or 29 Aug.: allows finalization of contracts before likely Contin. Res. (CR) for next FY at 1 Oct.
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
Also: CCtCap probably two "full" awards, no "half;" depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration.
More news about this available in L2.QuoteCharles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
NASA Comm. Crew CCtCap award likely on 22 or 29 Aug.: allows finalization of contracts before likely Contin. Res. (CR) for next FY at 1 Oct.
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
Also: CCtCap probably two "full" awards, no "half;" depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration.
QuoteCharles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
NASA Comm. Crew CCtCap award likely on 22 or 29 Aug.: allows finalization of contracts before likely Contin. Res. (CR) for next FY at 1 Oct.
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
Also: CCtCap probably two "full" awards, no "half;" depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration.
This is what I've been waiting to hear. Regardless of the choices, I think partially funding two options is far and away the best choice NASA can make. Excellent news.
QuoteCharles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
NASA Comm. Crew CCtCap award likely on 22 or 29 Aug.: allows finalization of contracts before likely Contin. Res. (CR) for next FY at 1 Oct.
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
Also: CCtCap probably two "full" awards, no "half;" depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration.
By this time the winners already know they have won because they are doing a quick review of the draft FFP contracts that would be signed on the day or few days before of the public anouncement. They just can't say anything about it. Also they know they won but don't know who else if any also won. They have about 2 weeks to acomplish all of this word-smith ironing of the contracts with NASA. Plus until the contracts have actually been signed they have not technically won yet.
QuoteCharles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
NASA Comm. Crew CCtCap award likely on 22 or 29 Aug.: allows finalization of contracts before likely Contin. Res. (CR) for next FY at 1 Oct.
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
Also: CCtCap probably two "full" awards, no "half;" depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration.
What does "depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration" mean?
By this time the winners already know they have won because they are doing a quick review of the draft FFP contracts that would be signed on the day or few days before of the public anouncement. They just can't say anything about it. Also they know they won but don't know who else if any also won. They have about 2 weeks to acomplish all of this word-smith ironing of the contracts with NASA. Plus until the contracts have actually been signed they have not technically won yet.
Actually each company pre-signs an agreement whether they have won or lost. NASA then decides to sign or not that agreement. The companies only find out the day of whether they have won or lost. That's how it was explained by someone involved in the process in a prior round.
By this time the winners already knowNo matter who won, I am sure Boeing already knows.
I wonder if that's sposed 2B "Aug 22-29"? Time frame matches what I'm hearing on #CCtCap, but not those dates.
So, does this round of CCtCap cover the first crewed orbital test launches?
Ah, yes. I remember now. Thanks!
Good to hear. So we will have two American crewed spaceships, then. Both of which will be highly reusable and look awesome and don't rely solely on parachutes. Cool. Some "trampoline!"
QuoteCharles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
NASA Comm. Crew CCtCap award likely on 22 or 29 Aug.: allows finalization of contracts before likely Contin. Res. (CR) for next FY at 1 Oct.
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport
Also: CCtCap probably two "full" awards, no "half;" depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration.
What does "depending on $ avail., options to extend now/new active phases under consideration" mean?
Pre- or CCtCap task times may stretch contingent available $.
When posters claim they are "sure" and "certain" their favorite company is one of the winners, without knowing how a selection is being made, it is because they are participating in a one-sided groupthink conversation that makes something "obvious" that is not at all obvious.
Now, if someone has inside info, that is another matter.
Article ahead of the decision. Respecting the decision will be revealed when NASA reveal it.Chris,
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/cctcapnasa-wont-abandon-commercial-crew-loser/
I'll give this a standalone thread.
Mostly rumors.When posters claim they are "sure" and "certain" their favorite company is one of the winners, without knowing how a selection is being made, it is because they are participating in a one-sided groupthink conversation that makes something "obvious" that is not at all obvious.
Or they know the subject so well that they are making educated guesses. But even so, so what? It's a discussion thread where anyone can voice their opinion. And sometimes wild guesses can not only be entertaining, but sometimes they turn out to be right.QuoteNow, if someone has inside info, that is another matter.
On L2 there is inside info.
Mostly rumors.Yes, the government is actually keeping a pretty tight lid on it. Those who know the facts aren't talking.
Jeff Greason is in favour or maintaining competition for the commercial crew program. I completely agree with him:
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/08/expert-on-nasas-commercial-crew-program-so-far-an-unqualified-success/
https://twitter.com/chronsciguy/status/502518413278068736
Competition would be ideal. However, I don't think it will reduce costs for as much money you will be paying the second company in the long run. So you are mainly doing it for jobs or to create multiple providers.Not just that, you also reduce the chance that your astronauts would be grounded in case of a failure and a long subsequent investigation.
Competition would be ideal. However, I don't think it will reduce costs for as much money you will be paying the second company in the long run.
Which is a great goal but congress has rejected that and the money has not (and I don't believe will be) there more multiple.
Worse yet, I do not believe the ISS program has the ability to work with multiple partners at the pace that the partners would like.
The companies - all 3 - are race horses champing at the bit and ISS is a 500 pound weight tied to their necks.
If multiple partners al kinds of firewalls have to be maintained.
All this is good but if your goal is to get at least one company there fast, you won't do it this way. If your goal is to get one company there and maybe a second one there or close behind, than this will work.
But then you are looking at 2018 at least.
Long term it likely won't save money because you will put $X million on another partner that liekly won't be recouped. But my point about redundnancy was below.
Congress has made it VERY clear to NASA that fostering multiple companies, a new space, is not their priority.
No it is not immaterial. The schedule the providers have proposed, which is optimisitc for all 3, is heavily depend on ISS resources. If the ISS program can't keep up that pace, it will only add delay to the schedule.
Demand is there, support to integrate is what is needed. You need ISS people and testing and planning... Plus the ISS is changing requirements as we speak and will continue to make changes and require flexibility. Which will impact schedules.
At the start of Commercial crew the goal was multiple. Now with changes, fast is more important.
Note, that I am not advocating against multiple partners but folks need to be aware of what they are getting with that path. I would love to have multiple crew providers, but my personal requirement is to get americans back to the ISS by 2017.
Long term it likely won't save money because you will put $X million on another partner that liekly won't be recouped. But my point about redundnancy was below.
NASA isn't concerned about "cost savings", they are concerned about uninterrupted access to the ISS.QuoteCongress has made it VERY clear to NASA that fostering multiple companies, a new space, is not their priority.
You are falling into the trap of listening to what Congress says, instead of seeing what they actually do. We're talking about politicians here remember. And Congress has been increasing the budget Commercial Crew, not decreasing it.
There is a COMSTAC meeting on wednesday including a commercial crew update by Lueders. I think we will get some news there. ;)
See agenda here:
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/final_comstac_agenda.pdf
Webcast:
http://faa.capitolconnection.org/
The legislation never passed. By the time the legislation is passed, NASA will already have awarded CCtCap. So I expect that it will be dropped in the final version of the bill.
Speaking of the CR, the House won't vote on it until Wednesday (at the earliest).
I doubt it. NASA is likely to have a separate press conference for the CCtCap award. But thanks for the link!
It appears that things are getting to the point, economically, where what Congress WANTS and what NASA can actually provide in a timely fashion, no longer coincides.
QuoteThe service providers don't provide schedules - NASA does. NASA is the customer, and the service providers have to meet their needs...
Not correct. NASA determines when they want the capability. The providers then buld a schedule that will meet that.
QuoteI see a lot of hand waving, but I'm not seeing any facts that support what you are saying. NASA has a pretty smooth relationship with both Orbital Sciences and SpaceX for cargo, and I see no reason why there shouldn't be one with multiple crew service providers. Especially since they never fly at the same time.
I am basing this on the pile ups and resource issues I saw with CRS that folks may not have always seens due to other issues and in CCiCAP with the partners. I know first hand that there will resource issues. It is not a matter of flying at the same time - it is having access within ISS.
They may well be low risk, my point is that I will bet money that if if they could make 2017, if more than one is selected, they won't make 2017.
Rumors: Award between 10-11am EDT.
http://www.cnet.com/news/boeing-said-to-win-nasa-space-taxi-contract/
I hope this isn't true! Boeing's CST-100 would be my third choice.
Looks like it's today - and less than 2 hours from the Atlas V launch (!). :o
We’re returning human spaceflight launches to America. Learn who will take crews to the #ISS. Watch NASA TV at 4pm ET http://youtu.be/ceQycm1uCFI
cannot disregard the advantages of working with SpaceX for this project.
I wouldn't read anything into it but the commercial crew's office promotional video shows a Falcon 9 rocket:QuoteWe’re returning human spaceflight launches to America. Learn who will take crews to the #ISS. Watch NASA TV at 4pm ET http://youtu.be/ceQycm1uCFI
https://twitter.com/Commercial_Crew/status/511872287638061056
Looks like it's today - and less than 2 hours from the Atlas V launch (!). :o
Destroys my football plans this evening. I'm disgusted. Why can't they just stick with Soyuz! ;)
Crew Transportation Announcement Today
Posted on September 16, 2014 at 9:08 am by commercial-crew-program.
NASA will make a major announcement today at 4 p.m. EDT regarding the return of human spaceflight launches to the United States. Whoever is chosen will have the goal to achieve certification of the system including a test flight to the International Space Station with a NASA astronaut in 2017, returning a critical capability to America and greatly expanding the scientific research potential of the orbiting laboratory. Watch the announcement live on NASA TV at www.nasa.gov/ntv and find out details throughout the day on the Commercial Crew Program blog.
http://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2014/09/16/crew-transportation-announcement-today/
cannot disregard the advantages of working with SpaceX for this project.
What advantages?
For one, you don't have to go to the "Launch America" press conference and defend launching on Russian engines...
Another take from the Houston Chronicle. ;)
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php)
Another take from the Houston Chronicle. ;)
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php)
"To continue reading this story, you will need to be a digital subscriber to HoustonChronicle.com."
Chris, please don't do this with NSF.
Indeed, and almost always the juicy stuff (before it's vetted) in L2 ends up in a great (public, free) article by the staff here at NASASpaceflight after vetting, etc.Another take from the Houston Chronicle. ;)
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php)
"To continue reading this story, you will need to be a digital subscriber to HoustonChronicle.com."
Chris, please don't do this with NSF.
Our L2 supporters ensure the rest of the site (open forum and news site) is open to all.
"Dang it Jim! I'm a spaceflight journalist, not a mug seller!" ;)Indeed, and almost always the juicy stuff (before it's vetted) in L2 ends up in a great (public, free) article by the staff here at NASASpaceflight after vetting, etc.Another take from the Houston Chronicle. ;)
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php)
"To continue reading this story, you will need to be a digital subscriber to HoustonChronicle.com."
Chris, please don't do this with NSF.
Our L2 supporters ensure the rest of the site (open forum and news site) is open to all.
Also, can't wait to order a mug or something from the NSF store.
Another take from the Houston Chronicle. ;)
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php)
Another take from the Houston Chronicle. ;)
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php (http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/nation-world/article/HED-5680379.php)
Alan Boyle is reliable.
Forbes is now running with this story based on the WSJ piece.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/09/16/reports-boeing-to-beat-out-spacex-for-nasa-contract-thanks-to-jeff-bezos/
Alan Boyle is reliable.
He is retweeting Jay Barbree's article so his reliability is irrelevant here. Barbree's article sounds pretty similar to what WSJ said yesterday so I'm still slightly skeptical about this.
Pasztor didn't say anything about SpaceX winning.
Jay Barbree of NBC News says SpaceX and Boeing have won:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/boeing-spacex-are-due-win-nasas-nod-space-taxis-n204426
https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/511896353463488512
Sources say Boeing will be receiving the larger share of that money.
Pasztor didn't say anything about SpaceX winning.
WSJ - "One of the two other bidders—SpaceX or Sierra Nevada Corp.—is expected to obtain a smaller contract as a second source, these experts said. SpaceX is in a very strong position to get the nod, the experts added."
Jay Barbree - "Sources say Boeing will be receiving the larger share of that money."
Chris. Can you deny the WSJ article? I'd be shocked if CST-100 has won.
If true, I'm very upset for Dream Chaser. And I dare say surprised.
Jay Barbree of NBC News says SpaceX and Boeing have won:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/boeing-spacex-are-due-win-nasas-nod-space-taxis-n204426
https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/511896353463488512Sources say Boeing will be receiving the larger share of that money.
I am not sure how to construe that. Boeing probably got more money because their system is more expensive?
If the story pans out yes, I'd expect Boeing to get more as it's more expensive to develop. Sounds like both teams will be sending capsules to ISS.Jay Barbree of NBC News says SpaceX and Boeing have won:
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/boeing-spacex-are-due-win-nasas-nod-space-taxis-n204426
https://twitter.com/b0yle/status/511896353463488512QuoteSources say Boeing will be receiving the larger share of that money.
I am not sure how to construe that. Boeing probably got more money because their system is more expensive?
Sources familiar with the months-long selection process told NBC News that Boeing's CST-100 capsule and SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft are expected to start sending crews to the station in 2017.
Seen on the street: Boeing's top CCP brass are here in KSC vicinity.
Sources say Boeing will be receiving the larger share of that money.
Forbes is now running with this story based on the WSJ piece.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/09/16/reports-boeing-to-beat-out-spacex-for-nasa-contract-thanks-to-jeff-bezos/
From the Forbes article:
"We haven’t made that decision yet. We would have to take a step back, review the potential business case and go from there,” the [Boeing] spokesperson told me. “It would be more difficult to close the business case without the NASA foundation business.”
If that's a correct quote, then perhaps Boeing is backpedaling on their threats... er, previous statements... that if they didn't win they would not continue forward, and lay off many folk associated with the project.
Heard on the street: chairs being set up in OPF-3...but NASA announcement planned on OSB-2 balcony...unless it rains, then press site.
I'm still skeptical about this late Boeing publicity. Even going so far as tying in Blue Origin a day before the announcement. (the most bizarre aspect of this!)
I'm still skeptical about this late Boeing publicity. Even going so far as tying in Blue Origin a day before the announcement. (the most bizarre aspect of this!)
Does anything tie Blue Origin to CCtCap other than WSJ speculation?
Blue Origin might end up working with ULA on engine development for a new rocket variant. This does not actually imply any involvement in CCtCAP itself, which is mostly about developing a spacecraft to fly on existing rockets.
The Blue Origin/ULA partnership is more likely an attempt to better compete with SpaceX in the wider launch market.
There's some speculation about who's behind this billboard on U.S. 1...
Which to me means:Pasztor didn't say anything about SpaceX winning.
WSJ - "One of the two other bidders—SpaceX or Sierra Nevada Corp.—is expected to obtain a smaller contract as a second source, these experts said. SpaceX is in a very strong position to get the nod, the experts added."
Jay Barbree - "Sources say Boeing will be receiving the larger share of that money."
Another Boeing CST-100 confirmation?QuoteSeen on the street: Boeing's top CCP brass are here in KSC vicinity.
https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean/status/511904086481182720
Garrett Reisman @astro_g_dog
Big news today from @Commercial_Crew !
Looks like Garrett can't contain his excitement :)QuoteGarrett Reisman @astro_g_dog
Big news today from @Commercial_Crew !
I'm trying to decide if this NASA RFI is relevant
https://twitter.com/astro_g_dogg/status/511903296756277248QuoteGarrett Reisman @astro_g_dog
Big news today from @Commercial_Crew !
anybody know where Elon is today?
I'm still skeptical about this late Boeing publicity. Even going so far as tying in Blue Origin a day before the announcement. (the most bizarre aspect of this!)
Does anything tie Blue Origin to CCtCap other than WSJ speculation?
Blue Origin might end up working with ULA on engine development for a new rocket variant. This does not actually imply any involvement in CCtCAP itself, which is mostly about developing a spacecraft to fly on existing rockets.
The Blue Origin/ULA partnership is more likely an attempt to better compete with SpaceX in the wider launch market.
It would be unthinkable for NASA to lease LC-39A to SpaceX and then deny them a commercial crew contract. That would be absurd even by government standards. So a half award is literally the least they could reasonably do.
It would be unthinkable for NASA to lease LC-39A to SpaceX and then deny them a commercial crew contract. That would be absurd even by government standards. So a half award is literally the least they could reasonably do.
Boeing has underperformed throughout this entire process by any objective measure except for the paper milestones they defined for themselves, while consistently winning the highest contract awards, which just goes to show how exceptionally talented they are at the peculiar game of government contracting.
It would be unthinkable for NASA to lease LC-39A to SpaceX and then deny them a commercial crew contract. That would be absurd even by government standards. So a half award is literally the least they could reasonably do.
Boeing has underperformed throughout this entire process by any objective measure except for the paper milestones they defined for themselves, while consistently winning the highest contract awards, which just goes to show how exceptionally talented they are at the peculiar game of government contracting.
don't think the two are related, but I might be wrong.
This would be especially true if SpaceX finished pad and in-flight abort before CST-100 flew, and then started launching crew from LC-39A while NASA was still buying seats from Russia.
anybody know where Elon is today?
Or the flight plan for this airplane: N900SX :)
Washington Post is saying it's Boeing and SpaceX:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/16/nasa-awards-space-contract-to-boeing-and-spacex/
Boeing has underperformed throughout this entire process by any objective measure except for the paper milestones they defined for themselves, while consistently winning the highest contract awards, which just goes to show how exceptionally talented they are at the peculiar game of government contracting.
Just to expand on this, I compiled a list of completed milestones that involved building hardware, testing, or some sort of system demonstration.
CCDev 1
B4: Demo Abort Engine Demonstration (“COTS” RS-88 modified to run NTO/Hydrazine)
C4: Base Heat Shield and Carrier Structure Fabrication
D4: Avionics Systems Integration Facility (ASIF) Demonstration
E4: CM Pressure Shell Fabrication Demonstration and Test
F4: Landing System Demonstration (land and water)
G4: Life Support Demonstration (Life Support Air Revitalization)
H4: Integrated GNC Demonstration (Including an AR&D Demo)
CCDev2
4: Launch Abort Engine Fabrication & Hot Fire Test (Evolved RS-88 Engine)
5: Landing Air Bag Drop Demonstration #1
6: Phase I Wind Tunnel Tests
8: Parachute Drop Tests Demonstration
9: SM Propellant Tank Development Test
10: LV EDS/ASIF Interface Simulation Test
13: OMAC Hot Fire Test
14: SM Propulsion Cold Flow Tests
CCiCap
7: Integrated Stack Buffet Wind Tunnel Test
8: DEC Liquid Oxygen Duct Development Test
9: OMAC Engine Development Test
12: Mission Control Center Interface Demonstration Test
14: Emergency Detection System Standalone Testing
16: Avionics Software Integration Lab (ASIL) Multi-String Demonstration Test
17: Pilot-in-the-loop Demonstration
NASA is expected to award Boeing a space shuttle contract.
Anyone else have any information about the alleged (by the WSJ) co-operation between Boeing and Blue Origin on CST-100?
Gerst and Bolden, the two big drivers of ComCrew appear to be actively distancing themselves from the announcement.
Anyone else have any information about the alleged (by the WSJ) co-operation between Boeing and Blue Origin on CST-100?
Keep in mind that BO's design, manufacturing, and test skills have not been fully exposed to the media.Anyone else have any information about the alleged (by the WSJ) co-operation between Boeing and Blue Origin on CST-100?
I believe that this Reuters article is the source. Not teaming up on CST-100 but RD-180 replacement.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/16/us-boeing-lockheed-martin-bezos-idUSKBN0HB0UU20140916
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2014/09/16/source-nasa-to-announce-two-winners-to-fly-astronauts-to-iss/15718351/
More credible and plausible.
I expect NSF will be heavily hit with posts starting at 4:00:01pm Eastern time today, for the next few days. Chris, better call up the fail-over server! :)
We may need two new threads after the announcement - a Cheerleading thread for all the congrats (thinking of images of fireworks; U.S. flag with rocket&crew vehicle rising into the sky...)
and a Consolation thread for all the sad posts (thinking of image of many empty pint glasses on bar counter, several of them laying on their sides...)
CNN now reporting as breaking news that Boeing and SpaceX have won the contracts.
I expect NSF will be heavily hit with posts starting at 4:00:01pm Eastern time today, for the next few days. Chris, better call up the fail-over server! :)
We may need two new threads after the announcement - a Cheerleading thread for all the congrats (thinking of images of fireworks; U.S. flag with rocket&crew vehicle rising into the sky...)
and a Consolation thread for all the sad posts (thinking of image of many empty pint glasses on bar counter, several of them laying on their sides...)
Based on what I've read on here lately, maybe a third thread for all those who want to cry foul and say the process was rigged...
Has NASA published their selection criteria for CCtCAP?
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2014/09/16/source-nasa-to-announce-two-winners-to-fly-astronauts-to-iss/15718351/"According to the source, the awards do not impose a "leader-follower" arrangement in which one company is awarded significantly more funding and expected to fly first, with another receiving less funding and developing its systems more slowly."
More credible and plausible.
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2014/09/16/source-nasa-to-announce-two-winners-to-fly-astronauts-to-iss/15718351/"According to the source, the awards do not impose a "leader-follower" arrangement in which one company is awarded significantly more funding and expected to fly first, with another receiving less funding and developing its systems more slowly."
More credible and plausible.
Does this mean that they are funded at the same expectation of a 2017 flight date e.g. same precedence, w/o an "expedite" increase?
In that case, is it a race between a prime contractor with high loading budget, and a small "fast mover" with its usual frugal budget?
How does complexity of vehicle affect (or handicap) the race? Do they prove the vehicles to similar levels before first flight, or does "heritage" grant a "mulligan" for expense tests like in flight aborts?
Who gets precedence when they ask for the same resource as a gating factor to avoid schedule slip / program risk?
Net net: is it a "fair and balanced" competition?
Is NASA the arbiter or Congress?
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2014/09/16/source-nasa-to-announce-two-winners-to-fly-astronauts-to-iss/15718351/"According to the source, the awards do not impose a "leader-follower" arrangement in which one company is awarded significantly more funding and expected to fly first, with another receiving less funding and developing its systems more slowly."
More credible and plausible.
Does this mean that they are funded at the same expectation of a 2017 flight date e.g. same precedence, w/o an "expedite" increase?
In that case, is it a race between a prime contractor with high loading budget, and a small "fast mover" with its usual frugal budget?
How does complexity of vehicle affect (or handicap) the race? Do they prove the vehicles to similar levels before first flight, or does "heritage" grant a "mulligan" for expense tests like in flight aborts?
Who gets precedence when they ask for the same resource as a gating factor to avoid schedule slip / program risk?
Net net: is it a "fair and balanced" competition?
Is NASA the arbiter or Congress?
The NBC news article already said that both companies would fly to the ISS in 2017.
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?
How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1? ;)
So:
the drawback of Boeing + SpaceX is having 2 capsules.
the drawback of Boeing and Sierra Nevada is having 2 Atlas V vectors, although some say that DC can fly also on a Falcon.
the drawback of SN and Space X is that well, none of them is able or willing to finance re-election campaigns of various congress members in a month or so and then the presidential elections in a little less than two years. Which is an important factor even if not connected with aerospace.
Which is the less costly combination?
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?
How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1? ;)
I hope none. No one should realistically think they wouldn't be a good pick.
But no one should think that Boeing can't deliver either.
My emphasis above. What I'm getting at is the nature of that time line to ostensibly make that deadline."According to the source, the awards do not impose a "leader-follower" arrangement in which one company is awarded significantly more funding and expected to fly first, with another receiving less funding and developing its systems more slowly."
Does this mean that they are funded at the same expectation of a 2017 flight date e.g. same precedence, w/o an "expedite" increase?
The NBC news article already said that both companies would fly to the ISS in 2017.
I predict that before CST-100's first manned flight, Boeing will be at least 100% over budget - and NASA will pay the difference plus full incentives.
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?
How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1? ;)
I hope none. No one should realistically think they wouldn't be a good pick.
But no one should think that Boeing can't deliver either.
I predict that before CST-100's first manned flight, Boeing will be at least 100% over budget - and NASA will pay the difference plus full incentives.
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?
How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1? ;)
I hope none. No one should realistically think they wouldn't be a good pick.
But no one should think that Boeing can't deliver either.
I predict that before CST-100's first manned flight, Boeing will be at least 100% over budget - and NASA will pay the difference plus full incentives.
It's a fixed firm price contract. If Boeing is over budget, it's their problem.
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?
How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1? ;)
I hope none. No one should realistically think they wouldn't be a good pick.
But no one should think that Boeing can't deliver either.
I'm truly heartbroken for the Sierra Nevada team and the HL-20 design that has come so far, only to be denied a chance to fly time and time again. I hope that somehow they can keep the dream alive. I'll be curious to know they remain committed to completing the OTV and conducting the 2016 orbital test flight.
It's a fixed firm price contract. If Boeing is over budget, it's their problem.
While that was true of CCiCAP, I thought CCtCAP was going to be a FAR contract? Aren't the rules a little different in that case?
It's a fixed firm price contract. If Boeing is over budget, it's their problem.
While that was true of CCiCAP, I thought CCtCAP was going to be a FAR contract? Aren't the rules a little different in that case?
It's FAR part 15 but it's still a firm fixed contract.
It's a fixed firm price contract. If Boeing is over budget, it's their problem.
While that was true of CCiCAP, I thought CCtCAP was going to be a FAR contract? Aren't the rules a little different in that case?
It's FAR part 15 but it's still a firm fixed contract.
It's a fixed firm price contract. If Boeing is over budget, it's their problem.
While that was true of CCiCAP, I thought CCtCAP was going to be a FAR contract? Aren't the rules a little different in that case?
It's FAR part 15 but it's still a firm fixed contract.
At what point in the process does development cease and 'competition' kick in? If the final cost of one option is significantly less expensive than another, as everyone suspects, at what point does this provide NASA leverage in negotiations?
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?It's already begun and no announcement has yet been made!
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?It's already begun and no announcement has yet been made!
- Ed kyle
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?It's already begun and no announcement has yet been made!
- Ed kyle
There isn't going to be a number one as such though.
if Boeing has to win can they at least rename their spacecraft? "CST-100" sounds like the model number of an AV receiver or something.
if Boeing has to win can they at least rename their spacecraft? "CST-100" sounds like the model number of an AV receiver or something.
The "100" is to indicate that it crosses the 100 kilometer line that marks the entry into space.
Thus Commercial Space Transport - 100.
The "100" is to indicate that it crosses the 100 kilometer line that marks the entry into space.
Thus Commercial Space Transport - 100.
Well just because there's a logic to the name doesn't make it good. It lacks a certain poetry.
Well just because there's a logic to the name doesn't make it good. It lacks a certain poetry. Sounds like a robot named it.
This is going to be an interesting, as it will be the first time the US has had two manned space vehicle models in operation simultaneously. Thats quite different and will present unique training challenges.
This is going to be an interesting, as it will be the first time the US has had two manned space vehicle models in operation simultaneously. Thats quite different and will present unique training challenges.
Not counting, of course, the combination of Shuttle and ISS ;)
But also, why can't anyone in the major media do proper science writing? Yes a capsule may shuttle astronauts to orbit. But it is NOT a "space shuttle".
This is going to be an interesting, as it will be the first time the US has had two manned space vehicle models in operation simultaneously. Thats quite different and will present unique training challenges.
Not counting, of course, the combination of Shuttle and ISS ;)
A space vehicle is a rocket-powered vehicle used to transport unmanned satellites or humans between the Earth's surface and outer space.
Sen Nelson was just on CNN talking about "2 capsules on top of rockets" and presumably he has a heads up on what will be announced...
This contract is just to 2017, or through test flights? It is not clear what happens after that through 2020 or 2024, whether they would each get 1-2 flights per year, or another down-select.
We know SpaceX was talking 4 flights, 28 astronauts per year, but has back-off to 2 flights and 8 astronauts and cargo per year.
With two winners, I would expect a paltry 1 flight each per year for Boeing and SpaceX.
Always wondered why ISS was considered a spacecraft and not a space station. Well another topic for another time.This is going to be an interesting, as it will be the first time the US has had two manned space vehicle models in operation simultaneously. Thats quite different and will present unique training challenges.
Not counting, of course, the combination of Shuttle and ISS ;)
Depends on how you define space vehicle. with the definintion below ISS and the LM wouldn't be a space vehicle.QuoteA space vehicle is a rocket-powered vehicle used to transport unmanned satellites or humans between the Earth's surface and outer space.
i'm not getting any sound on the nasa ios app is any sound playing with these clips on nasa tv?I'm on chrome on windows, and it's silent for me as well.
i'm not getting any sound on the nasa ios app is any sound playing with these clips on nasa tv?
Typically these news reels do not have sound. Only some of them do.
Expect 60:40 split in favour of Boeing. ::)
Each company will get what they bid after negotiations regardless of the amount. The amount of the award has nothing to do with which company is preferred.
Why are we discussing Orion?
Casey Dreier @CaseyDreier 4m
NASA press release: Boeing gets $4.2B. SpaceX gets $2.6B.
So it's Dragon and DreamKiller.
From the update thread:QuoteCasey Dreier @CaseyDreier 4m
NASA press release: Boeing gets $4.2B. SpaceX gets $2.6B.
Yeah... that pretty much says it all ::)
See, that right there is a Boeing cost overrun. SpaceX doesn't need the US Navy to fish Dragon out of the ocean. Why does Boeing?
From the update thread:QuoteCasey Dreier @CaseyDreier 4m
NASA press release: Boeing gets $4.2B. SpaceX gets $2.6B.
Yeah... that pretty much says it all ::)
Sounds like Orion won?? :)
Watching armchair experts blather and whine is really tiresome to people who understand aerospace development and government contracting.
I worry about that "the same vigorous safety standards" phrase they keep using.
And I wonder if there will be manned missions without any NASA astronauts taking place before all these reviews are finished.
Watching armchair experts blather and whine is really tiresome to people who understand aerospace development and government contracting.
I wish I had a block of chedder to go with all the wine.
So it's Dragon and DreamKiller.
Nonsense. The loser was pipe dream
Selection process people not the folks making the announcement.
$4.2 billion Boeing. $2.6 billion SpaceX. Includes development, certification, one crewed demo flight, and two to six missions.
Selection process people not the folks making the announcement.
These senior NASA managers seem awfully out of touch with what is really going on,
like who made the decisions and using what criteria. Bolden in particular spouts whatever
talking point gets triggered by some keyword in the question.
Why does Boeing get more? Her answer further supported the confusing nature of the reward. I sure wish SpaceX had an extra billion to throw at the BFR / MCT.
Why does Boeing get more? Her answer further supported the confusing nature of the reward. I sure wish SpaceX had an extra billion to throw at the BFR / MCT.
Because they asked for/required more. It's really that simple.
What would be interesting to know is what SNC would have required if they had been awarded a contract.
I don't get it... what's the 60:40 split then? How is this fair to SpaceX if the requirements are the same? I'm trying to watch but my connection is bad...
I don't get it... what's the 60:40 split then? How is this fair to SpaceX if the requirements are the same? I'm trying to watch but my connection is bad...
SpaceX just bid lower. NASA didn't set the amount the companies bidding did.
I lost video after the question about funding from Congress. Was that question answered or dodged? Are these award amounts fully funded, or dependent on future money? Meaning the project can be cancelled?
Watching armchair experts blather and whine is really tiresome to people who understand aerospace development and government contracting.
I'm going to guess that some of the extra Boeing funding is needed for launch vehicle work - dual Centaur certification and so on. SpaceX presumably already has the launch vehicle. Also, Boeing still has a production space to create, and so on.
I don't get it... what's the 60:40 split then? How is this fair to SpaceX if the requirements are the same? I'm trying to watch but my connection is bad...
SpaceX just bid lower. NASA didn't set the amount the companies bidding did.
1.6 billion lower. For the same result.
What would be interesting to know is what SNC would have required if they had been awarded a contract.
So if both companies said they can satisfy the requirements, but SpaceX said they can do at a far cheaper cost, why didn't they win the whole award ?.
1.6 billion lower. For the same result.SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO. That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?
Likely it would have been more than what Boeing asked for, which would have played into the overall decision as to who to pick for the second provider (i.e. Boeing or Sierra Nevada). Sierra Nevada likely also had the most risk associated with their proposal, even though Boeing hasn't built any hardware, but Boeings design is conservative.
The contract includes $$ for "special studies".
Ha!
So if both companies said they can satisfy the requirements, but SpaceX said they can do at a far cheaper cost, why didn't they win the whole award ?.
So if both companies said they can satisfy the requirements, but SpaceX said they can do at a far cheaper cost, why didn't they win the whole award ?.
SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO. That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?
I look at this as 'we', spaceflight enthusiasts, get 2.6 billion to get 'us' closer to Mars while Boeing, stock holders, get 4.2 billion to get back to LEO. YMMV of course.
I look at this as 'we', spaceflight enthusiasts, get 2.6 billion to get 'us' closer to Mars while Boeing, stock holders, get 4.2 billion to get back to LEO. YMMV of course.
That's looking on the bright side. Spacex are still big winners here...
This was a bit confusing for me. ???
Now if NASA wants to keep Boeing for whatever reason (insert your idea here - they dont want trouble with Congress where Boeing has strong congressional backing, Boeing in some circles is a better choice because they have done so much with NASA already, they met the milestones better, etc...), then why not Boeing and SNC? That gives you the capsule and also something different with a winged aircraft (more landing options, lower g's for injured astronauts, etc...)?
Both Boeing and SpaceX are sort of the same capsule design, why not have some different functionality built in for the NASA contracts.
Putting SpaceX in there with Boeing is going to confuse many people like myself who are in this just for the joy of spaceflight but are not in the industry so dont have the know how. To me as a business man why wouldn't I pay less for more with SpaceX rather than Boeing? They are further along, cheaper, and have some actual hardware versus Boeing who is still only on paper hardware.
Is it all fear of congress?
I agree they were higher risk and I think that was the determining factor. And I can't shake the feeling that coming out with Boeing getting the biggest share of the pie doesn't also give NASA a better feeling when they go with their hat out to Congress for the money to fund this program.
SpaceX won $278 million for COTS and $1.6 billion for CRS. They used that money in part to develop the basic Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1, the factory and test facilities. That groundwork is directly applied now to Commercial Crew. It is a well funded head start not given Boeing's CST-100, which is why Boeing needs more money now.SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO. That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?
Er, no. $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).
Let's please not try and handwave this away. Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.
SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO. That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?
Er, no. $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).
Let's please not try and handwave this away. Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.
SNC had LM as a major contractor. Anything thinking they didn't have a similar level of lobbying is kidding themselves.I agree they were higher risk and I think that was the determining factor. And I can't shake the feeling that coming out with Boeing getting the biggest share of the pie doesn't also give NASA a better feeling when they go with their hat out to Congress for the money to fund this program.
This. Probably the main reason for selecting Boeing. They have the most pull in Congress. With SpaceX second in that department. Don't be fooled, this is purely a political decision; technical merit didn't really matter.
Well, I think this whole decision stinks.
Exactly Ed, and I think a decent portion of the 2.6B today will be used for things other than getting a human rated vehicle to the ISSSpaceX won $278 million for COTS and $1.6 billion for CRS. They used that money in part to develop the basic Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1, the factory and test facilities. That groundwork is directly applied now to Commercial Crew.SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO. That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?
Er, no. $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).
Let's please not try and handwave this away. Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.
- Ed Kyle
I don't get it... what's the 60:40 split then? How is this fair to SpaceX if the requirements are the same? I'm trying to watch but my connection is bad...
I agree they were higher risk and I think that was the determining factor. And I can't shake the feeling that coming out with Boeing getting the biggest share of the pie doesn't also give NASA a better feeling when they go with their hat out to Congress for the money to fund this program.
This. Probably the main reason for selecting Boeing. They have the most pull in Congress. With SpaceX second in that department. Don't be fooled, this is purely a political decision; technical merit didn't really matter.
...
I did not hear (maybe I missed it with the webfeed cutting out) saying one positive thing about SNC & DreamChaser
...
Both Boeing and SpaceX are sort of the same capsule design, why not have some different functionality built in for the NASA contracts.
SpaceX won $278 million for COTS and $1.6 billion for CRS. They used that money in part to develop the basic Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1, the factory and test facilities. That groundwork is directly applied now to Commercial Crew. It is a well funded head start not given Boeing's CST-100, which is why Boeing needs more money now.
To me as a business man why wouldn't I pay less for more with SpaceX rather than Boeing? They are further along, cheaper, and have some actual hardware versus Boeing who is still only on paper hardware. Is it all fear of congress?
I wonder if SNC is going to continue with the Dreamchaser or just close up house on it?
I wonder if SNC is going to continue with the Dreamchaser or just close up house on it?
Liberty 2.0?I wonder if SNC is going to continue with the Dreamchaser or just close up house on it?
I suspect Dreamchaser will die a slow, drawn-out death. SNC will talk about how they'll continue the program but at a much slower pace. Over time, little progress will be made, and in a few years it will be formally cancelled.
SpaceX won $278 million for COTS and $1.6 billion for CRS. They used that money in part to develop the basic Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1, the factory and test facilities. That groundwork is directly applied now to Commercial Crew. It is a well funded head start not given Boeing's CST-100, which is why Boeing needs more money now.SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO. That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?
Er, no. $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).
Let's please not try and handwave this away. Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.
- Ed Kyle
Did we actually get any information on what launch vehicles the two capsules are going to use?Not in the announcement but is known already.
Having dealt with Mr. B for the past few years, I'd say it's safe to say they will not meet schedule or cost milestones. ...
The Press Release Conference had some issues:
1) Bolden can't be bothered to spend more than 5 minutes answering questions? Has a plane to catch? This is one of the most important announcements of his career and he decides it isn't that important.
2) Bolden can't stay on topic. He spends at least half of his time talking about Orion instead of the topic at hand.
3) No one is on the Conference is directly involved with the selection process. So, you have no idea why SpaceX & Boeing was selected over SNC.
I did not hear (maybe I missed it with the webfeed cutting out) saying one positive thing about SNC & Dreamchaser.
This was an unprofessional press release through and through.
Having dealt with Mr. B for the past few years, I'd say it's safe to say they will not meet schedule or cost milestones. This decision ruined a beautiful thing.
(at least this is my opinion)
Having dealt with Mr. B for the past few years, I'd say it's safe to say they will not meet schedule or cost milestones. This decision ruined a beautiful thing.
(at least this is my opinion)
I think it will be interesting if SpaceX meets all cost schedules and has the Dragon crew capsule ready to fly before 2017 and Boeing has to ask for extra time beyond 2017.
Having dealt with Mr. B for the past few years, I'd say it's safe to say they will not meet schedule or cost milestones. This decision ruined a beautiful thing.
(at least this is my opinion)
I think it will be interesting if SpaceX meets all cost schedules and has the Dragon crew capsule ready to fly before 2017 and Boeing has to ask for extra time beyond 2017.
SpaceX won $278 million for COTS and $1.6 billion for CRS. They used that money in part to develop the basic Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1, the factory and test facilities. That groundwork is directly applied now to Commercial Crew. It is a well funded head start not given Boeing's CST-100, which is why Boeing needs more money now.SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO. That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?
Er, no. $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).
Let's please not try and handwave this away. Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.
- Ed Kyle
I wonder if SNC is going to continue with the Dreamchaser or just close up house on it?
I suspect Dreamchaser will die a slow, drawn-out death. SNC will talk about how they'll continue the program but at a much slower pace. Over time, little progress will be made, and in a few years it will be formally cancelled.
Very strange..Dream chaser has flowwn their protype with more flights soon,,,They have the orbital vehicle half built..All Space X has is a mock up.and Boeing just mock up also. Yet NASA thinks they can fly sooner JUST more wasteful thinking backward thinking.SpaceX showed real flight hardware, not mock-up.
Very strange..Dream chaser has flowwn their protype with more flights soon,,,They have the orbital vehicle half built..All Space X has is a mock up.and Boeing just mock up also. Yet NASA thinks they can fly sooner JUST more wasteful thinking backward thinking.
Very strange..Dream chaser has flowwn their protype with more flights soon,,,They have the orbital vehicle half built..All Space X has is a mock up.and Boeing just mock up also. Yet NASA thinks they can fly sooner JUST more wasteful thinking backward thinking.SpaceX showed real flight hardware, not mock-up.
That "special studies" award amount, I wonder if Boeing can put that money toward qualifying a new US engine for Atlas V. Nice way of getting NASA to bail ULA out of a jam if that's what happens.
On Bolden bringing up Orion, I can see that as intended for Congress. I think the general public will confuse CTS-100 with Orion though......
It's amusing to me how many LIKES there are in this thread, and which posts get them. Near as I can see, the harder someone bashes Boeing and/or the more loudly the proclamation of "the fix" or "backroom deals", the more LIKES the post garners.
Not very surprising, sad to say.
I, personally, am disgusted by what I heard during the announcement and the teleconference. Not because SpaceX got less (I'm biased for SpaceX, I'm aware of that), they did fine. But how SNC got massively screwed over by corruption. Massive award to Boeing without justification given or about to be given in the near future. Probably some kind of rationale will be made public in the future, focusing on safety and the ETA crash no doubt), but that will likely be a sad joke.
So it's Dragon and DreamKiller.
Nonsense. The loser was pipe dream
It's amusing to me how many LIKES there are in this thread, and which posts get them. Near as I can see, the harder someone bashes Boeing and/or the more loudly the proclamation of "the fix" or "backroom deals", the more LIKES the post garners.
Not very surprising, sad to say.
Yes, it seems the collective personality of this site has become rather ... different, as of late. I can understand having a fan favorite, but I feel we've collectively forgotten why we came here in the first place.I, personally, am disgusted by what I heard during the announcement and the teleconference. Not because SpaceX got less (I'm biased for SpaceX, I'm aware of that), they did fine. But how SNC got massively screwed over by corruption. Massive award to Boeing without justification given or about to be given in the near future. Probably some kind of rationale will be made public in the future, focusing on safety and the ETA crash no doubt), but that will likely be a sad joke.
Just as I predicted, according to the crowd here, if Boeing wins, it can't possibly be on the merits of their proposal -- it could only be corruption (based on... what exactly?). The amazing peopleism and sour grapes are truly disgusting.
oeing has underperformed throughout this entire process by any objective measure except for the paper milestones they defined for themselves, while consistently winning the highest contract awards, which just goes to show how exceptionally talented they are at the peculiar game of government contracting.
Winning on merits is ONLY valid at equivalent price levels. If you cost 1.5x as much and are 1.5x "better" does it actually show anything?
Winning on merits is ONLY valid at equivalent price levels. If you cost 1.5x as much and are 1.5x "better" does it actually show anything?
We don't know the price that SNC was asking for. For all we know, they might have been more expensive than Boeing.
Winning on merits is ONLY valid at equivalent price levels. If you cost 1.5x as much and are 1.5x "better" does it actually show anything?
Winning on merits is ONLY valid at equivalent price levels. If you cost 1.5x as much and are 1.5x "better" does it actually show anything?
I reject that notion. Do you only compare cars on their merits if they cost the same?
I predict that before CST-100's first manned flight, Boeing will be at least 100% over budget - and NASA will pay the difference plus full incentives.
I don't think that's fair. I doubt they will be double their bid. But I would expect overruns. That's their MO, after all. And I would expect that NASA will go to Congress and get the money and pay because what choice will they have?
How much whining is there going to be if SpaceX isn't #1?
How much whining will there be from some if they *are* #1? ;)
I hope none. No one should realistically think they wouldn't be a good pick.
But no one should think that Boeing can't deliver either.
Given enough money anything can be done if it's physically possible. And there's no new tech in their design so clearly it's physically possible. But money... there's the rub. They are likely to be the most expensive based on what I've seen so far.I predict that before CST-100's first manned flight, Boeing will be at least 100% over budget - and NASA will pay the difference plus full incentives.
I don't think that's fair. I doubt they will be double their bid. But I would expect overruns. That's their MO, after all. And I would expect that NASA will go to Congress and get the money and pay because what choice will they have?
.
Come on, it is a FFP, there are no overruns.
Is Boeing funding ULA out of pocket for the modifications needed for Atlas V to launch their vehicle?
While that was true of CCiCAP, I thought CCtCAP was going to be a FAR contract? Aren't the rules a little different in that case?
Taxpayers? ::)
Is Boeing funding ULA out of pocket for the modifications needed for Atlas V to launch their vehicle?
Who else is going to do it?
At what point in the process does development cease and 'competition' kick in? If the final cost of one option is significantly less expensive than another, as everyone suspects, at what point does this provide NASA leverage in negotiations?
I, personally, am disgusted by what I heard during the announcement and the teleconference. Not because SpaceX got less (I'm biased for SpaceX, I'm aware of that), they did fine. But how SNC got massively screwed over by corruption. Massive award to Boeing without justification given or about to be given in the near future. Probably some kind of rationale will be made public in the future, focusing on safety and the ETA crash no doubt), but that will likely be a sad joke.
Just as I predicted, according to the crowd here, if Boeing wins, it can't possibly be on the merits of their proposal -- it could only be corruption (based on... what exactly?). The amazing peopleism and sour grapes are truly disgusting.
At least Boeing will be able to afford the bonuses for their roaming hoards of lobbyists that worked their magic over the last few weeks.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35654.msg1256457#msg1256457
I feel like resigning today. Money buys you money.
now the "real" competition begins.
At what point in the process does development cease and 'competition' kick in? If the final cost of one option is significantly less expensive than another, as everyone suspects, at what point does this provide NASA leverage in negotiations?
The competition has already happened, this is the result.
Yep. Paper milestones are expensive. Hardware milestones are even more so. ;)
Just as I predicted, according to the crowd here, if Boeing wins, it can't possibly be on the merits of their proposal -- it could only be corruption (based on... what exactly?). The amazing peopleism and sour grapes are truly disgusting.
At what point in the process does development cease and 'competition' kick in? If the final cost of one option is significantly less expensive than another, as everyone suspects, at what point does this provide NASA leverage in negotiations?
The competition has already happened, this is the result.
now the "real" competition begins.
At what point in the process does development cease and 'competition' kick in? If the final cost of one option is significantly less expensive than another, as everyone suspects, at what point does this provide NASA leverage in negotiations?
The competition has already happened, this is the result.
I for one can not wait to see who launches first and what the achieve with the big money they are being given.
The contract includes $$ for "special studies".
Ha!
Why does Boeing get more? Her answer further supported the confusing nature of the reward. I sure wish SpaceX had an extra billion to throw at the BFR / MCT.
One person is not a crowd, so don't make sweeping condemnations.
Taxpayers? ::)
Is Boeing funding ULA out of pocket for the modifications needed for Atlas V to launch their vehicle?
Who else is going to do it?
Well, I think this whole decision stinks. Hopefully one day a commission will expose all the backroom dealing that went on, and those responsible will be held to account.
I look forward to reading the selection documentation once it's been re-written to fit today's selection.
>:( :(
While SpaceX develops their engines and rockets from basic metal,
Boeing is at the whim of the Russians to buy engines.
What if Russia raises the price they charge on those engines significantly?
Does Boeing have to eat the increased costs?
SpaceX won $278 million for COTS and $1.6 billion for CRS. They used that money in part to develop the basic Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1, the factory and test facilities. That groundwork is directly applied now to Commercial Crew. It is a well funded head start not given Boeing's CST-100, which is why Boeing needs more money now.SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO. That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?
Er, no. $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).
Let's please not try and handwave this away. Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.
- Ed Kyle
Going beyond sour grapes about how much bigger Boeing's award was than SpaceX's...
SpaceX submitted a bid based on what they think they require to finish a manned space launch system. And today, they got what they asked for. I imagine they are cheering and pressing ahead, not griping about the relative size of the award.
That must be pretty exciting. "We just nailed a $2.6B contract to fly people in space. We don't have to slow down. We're on our way."
3) No one is on the Conference is directly involved with the selection process. So, you have no idea why SpaceX & Boeing was selected over SNC.
If it was true commercial I'd have all the companies make a full prototype product on their own dime and demonstrate it to me independently.
And the logic all along has been that if NASA had the choice (i.e. enough money), that it would go with SpaceX for a capsule, and then Sierra Nevada because it was a better alternative to a capsule (i.e. lower g-forces, better cross-range capabilities, etc.). But I think money was a limiting factor, and so we got Boeing as the second choice.
That "special studies" award amount, I wonder if Boeing can put that money toward qualifying a new US engine for Atlas V. Nice way of getting NASA to bail ULA out of a jam if that's what happens.
If it was true commercial I'd have all the companies make a full prototype product on their own dime and demonstrate it to me independently.
Congratulations, you just ended up with zero companies bidding for your services.
They bid what they wanted to bid guessing how much more than they expected it would actually cost the client would pay. As did Boeing. Given that SpaceX has grown tremendously, that the task is more complex due to both the higher standards that NASA gives manned operations reliability and meeting the different requirements of this RFP over the various stages getting to the COTS final product, yes it will cost more. But implicit in this process is the fact that they have to include profit margin in the bid, not provide estimates, impeccable cost accounting and then are paid a percentage above and beyond that. They take risk, but hand in hand with risk goes reward and I would be willing to make a small wager that SpaceX ends up with more margin at the end of the day than Boeing, however Boeing will have greased more palms, fed more families, and elected more municipal, state and federal officials with their money.
In the end, there will be three vehicles (including Orion) that can deliver crew to the ISS.
I think the question that dglow is asking is how the individual prices of these competitors will factor into which one NASA uses, post 2017. Would we expect them to use each equally to spread things out? Or would NASA be required to use the lowest cost provider that meets their needs?
Boeing will have the traditional abort tower .
They bid what they wanted to bid guessing how much more than they expected it would actually cost the client would pay. As did Boeing. Given that SpaceX has grown tremendously, that the task is more complex due to both the higher standards that NASA gives manned operations reliability and meeting the different requirements of this RFP over the various stages getting to the COTS final product, yes it will cost more. But implicit in this process is the fact that they have to include profit margin in the bid, not provide estimates, impeccable cost accounting and then are paid a percentage above and beyond that. They take risk, but hand in hand with risk goes reward and I would be willing to make a small wager that SpaceX ends up with more margin at the end of the day than Boeing, however Boeing will have greased more palms, fed more families, and elected more municipal, state and federal officials with their money.
Why would they be paid a % above and beyond that? I thought part of the Fixed price contracts is that the companies bid on the contract and if the costs come in lower while they meet all the customers requirements then the private company pockets the extra money? This is the incentive to do the job well.
Actually, did a bit of research. Don't think that's actually likley afterall. The Japanese and Euopeans are VERY interested in the Dream Chaser. JAXA is a ctually one of their partners. So without NASA to compete with, I think that this bird may fly sooner rather than later or never.
Boeing is going to get extremely bad press over costing nearly double the cost of SpaceX. I can't really describe how pis*ed I am about how much more money they're getting. Boeing has a digital spacecraft with no hardware built. Rather than a flying spacecraft on one side and a flying prototype on the other.
I'm hoping that justice is served somehow at some point in the future. This is nearly criminal.
And the logic all along has been that if NASA had the choice (i.e. enough money), that it would go with SpaceX for a capsule, and then Sierra Nevada because it was a better alternative to a capsule (i.e. lower g-forces, better cross-range capabilities, etc.). But I think money was a limiting factor, and so we got Boeing as the second choice.
Or someone at NASA realized they don't really need lower g-forces nor larger cross-range capabilities?
I, personally, am disgusted by what I heard during the announcement and the teleconference. Not because SpaceX got less (I'm biased for SpaceX, I'm aware of that), they did fine. But how SNC got massively screwed over by corruption.
Winning on merits is ONLY valid at equivalent price levels. If you cost 1.5x as much and are 1.5x "better" does it actually show anything?
Actually, if you cost 1.5x and meet the same requirements doesn't that mean you are fundamentally worse? At my company we buy expensive products from our suppliers, but if a different supplier supplies an equivalent product at 60% the cost?... we'd drop our original supplier at the drop of the hat. That is Boeing here, right now.
Maybe Dream Chaser costed even more?
Which is almost the point I was trying to make. Pure commercial can't work here. I'm pretty sure we could go more commercial than we are though. It's barely "commercial" as it is.
Which is almost the point I was trying to make. Pure commercial can't work here. I'm pretty sure we could go more commercial than we are though. It's barely "commercial" as it is.
It's a huge step from NASA building it with cost-plus contracting. I think you're underselling what a big difference it is, personally.
I don't want to drag the other rocket and capsule into this, but the difference between the approaches is clear.
The only good thing I can draw from the selection of CST 100 is that it will help support Bigelow and (probably) Blue Origin, that is despite a portion of the money going to Washington lobbyists and the Boeing machine.
It's amusing to me how many LIKES there are in this thread, and which posts get them. Near as I can see, the harder someone bashes Boeing and/or the more loudly the proclamation of "the fix" or "backroom deals", the more LIKES the post garners.
Not very surprising, sad to say.
The only good thing I can draw from the selection of CST 100 is that it will help support Bigelow and (probably) Blue Origin, that is despite a portion of the money going to Washington lobbyists and the Boeing machine.
I doubt Bigelow has vested interest in Boeing. They're going to go with whoever is the most reliable and cheapest (with those two factors multipled together).
Blue Origin is another story though. I honestly am rather annoyed with BO now. They've turned into a patent troll. I really hope they can still do engineering though. I guess we'll find out.
Bigelow is developing CST 100 alongside Boeing. If that's not a vested interest I don't know what is.
Bigelow is developing CST 100 alongside Boeing. If that's not a vested interest I don't know what is.
Do you have a source? That's the first I've heard of that. I've been out of the loop lately so I likely have obviously missed it.
My post regarding naming of capsules gets deleted, but the posts slamming Boeing don't? Got it.
Do they really have to attempt to talk about how amazing SLS and Orion are at every press conference they ever make?
For one, you don't have to go to the "Launch America" press conference and defend launching on Russian engines...
That isn't an issue, just FUD.
Can anyone say Cost Plus.
Constellation has completely different requirements, different tooling, different factories, different launch sites, etc. Boeing is building SLS rocket stages, not spacecraft. One does not apply to the other. SpaceX already has Hawthorne building Falcons and Dragons and McGregor testing the rockets, and all of those also served COTS/CRS. Boeing has an empty shell of a building at KSC that needs to be tooled up for CST-100, and needs to fund some launch vehicle mods. They are playing catch up, which is why, in large part, they asked for more money. Kudos to SpaceX for leveraging their existing assets, much like Korolev did with R-7/Zenit/Voskhod. And kudos to Boeing for proposing a safe, conservative design that met NASA's requirements.This is nonsense, considering Boeing got all the money for previous space programs, including the cancelled Constellation, in the billions. The CST-100 is obvious related to the Orion, for example. You can't count one without counting the other.SpaceX won $278 million for COTS and $1.6 billion for CRS. They used that money in part to develop the basic Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 v1.1, the factory and test facilities. That groundwork is directly applied now to Commercial Crew. It is a well funded head start not given Boeing's CST-100, which is why Boeing needs more money now.SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO. That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?
Er, no. $400 million for SpaceX (and roughly the same for Orbital).
Let's please not try and handwave this away. Boeing is simply more expensive than SpaceX.
- Ed Kyle
For one, you don't have to go to the "Launch America" press conference and defend launching on Russian engines...
That isn't an issue, just FUD.
You're really taking your curmudgeonly persona to new extremes. Tomorrow's apparent announcement that Blue Origin will be building a replacement engine for Atlas V shows that yes, it is an issue, and not, it's not just FUD:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/09/16/nasa-awards-space-contract-to-boeing-and-spacex/
The BBC News site have an article that barely mentions SpaceX winning anything here, and that is was Boeing all the way.
BBC News - Nasa backs Boeing's astronaut crew ship design http://bbc.in/ZosY0y (http://bbc.in/ZosY0y)
I'm normally an advocate of the BBC but this article just seems skewed.
Paul
Newspace wings lost to oldspace capsule. Something must be demonized!
You're really taking your curmudgeonly persona to new extremes.
Bigelow is developing CST 100 alongside Boeing. If that's not a vested interest I don't know what is.
Do you have a source? That's the first I've heard of that. I've been out of the loop lately so I likely have obviously missed it.
“Moreover,” Bigelow added, “we’re extremely pleased to be part of the Boeing team constructing the CST-100 capsule under the auspices of NASA’s own Commercial Crew Development program. Boeing’s unparalleled heritage and experience, combined with Bigelow Aerospace’s entrepreneurial spirit and desire to keep costs low, represents the best of both established and new space companies. The product of this relationship, the CST-100 capsule, will represent the safest, most reliable, and most cost-effective spacecraft ever to fly.
Watching armchair experts blather and whine is really tiresome to people who understand aerospace development and government contracting.
Watching armchair experts blather and whine is really tiresome to people who understand aerospace development and government contracting.
Please do enlighten those of us in our armchairs... that's what a forum like this is well-suited for.
I said "It is pretty amazing that aerospace giants Boeing and Lockheed, in the form of ULA, will contract a startup with no orbital spaceflight experience to build a new engine for national-asset Atlas V. Am I reading that correctly?"
Thinking a little more clearly, BO obviously will be a seriously junior partner in any collaboration with ULA--more like the relationship of Bigelow to Boeing wrt CST-100. BO probably has some ideas, patented tech, or personnel that ULA likes, or perhaps they like the added political clout of Bezos himself.
So if both companies said they can satisfy the requirements, but SpaceX said they can do at a far cheaper cost, why didn't they win the whole award ?.
They both won the whole award. This isn't a prize for coming in first, it is a contract to deliver a whole bunch of specific things. SpaceX may even make more margin on their $2.6B than Boeing with their $4.2B.
However I am interested in the extra studies funding, and now what Boeing and SpaceX reveal about the details of what they have bid to do. Which, while they both are offering to meet the same NASA requirements they are committing to other things that have to do with what their proposals differ on in terms of precursor developments and milestones.
Thinking a little more clearly, BO obviously will be a seriously junior partner in any collaboration with ULA--more like the relationship of Bigelow to Boeing wrt CST-100. BO probably has some ideas, patented tech, or personnel that ULA likes, or perhaps they like the added political clout of Bezos himself.
Why aren't we excited. The meme is very negative, but the reality is we have a new space race. A space race for the first time in almost 50 years. It should not be about who got more money, but who is going to build a better ship, who is going to be first, who is going to build a sustainable, more than LEO, more than NASA passenger business model.
Sure SNC would have been great, but this is the safe technical and political path and we have two American competitors that could be fighting for contracts for the next 20 years. With 20 years of competition we have an opportunity to advance our space capabilities more than the last 45.
Why aren't we excited. The meme is very negative, but the reality is we have a new space race. A space race for the first time in almost 50 years.
QuoteThinking a little more clearly, BO obviously will be a seriously junior partner in any collaboration with ULA--more like the relationship of Bigelow to Boeing wrt CST-100. BO probably has some ideas, patented tech, or personnel that ULA likes, or perhaps they like the added political clout of Bezos himself.
Bezos also owns The Washington Post. Possibly some back scratching for a favorable light in the news media?
Two little birds told me you have first hand ISS program knowledge, which is nice to know. So you are saying that it's not a Commercial Crew provider issue, but an ISS scheduling issue that is outside of the control of the transportation providers?
I'm not sure why it would matter to SpaceX if there is a second winner, unless you're assuming a split in the money will affect the schedule. Could happen. We'll know better once the award(s) are made and the schedules unveiled.
Going with Boeing makes a lot of sense because of their history. There is a very high likelihood that they succeed
Why aren't we excited. The meme is very negative, but the reality is we have a new space race. A space race for the first time in almost 50 years. It should not be about who got more money, but who is going to build a better ship, who is going to be first, who is going to build a sustainable, more than LEO, more than NASA passenger business model.
Sure SNC would have been great, but this is the safe technical and political path and we have two American competitors that could be fighting for contracts for the next 20 years. With 20 years of competition we have an opportunity to advance our space capabilities more than the last 45.
Not exactly. First of all I don't think Boeing is interested in building a "more than LEO" passenger business model. They made it pretty clear that they were only interested in developing their capsule for the NASA station crew use case. Second, it's not really even a "race" to LEO since both companies are funded and will get a chance to obtain their launches, irrespective of the development path of the other.
Going with Boeing makes a lot of sense because of their history. There is a very high likelihood that they succeed
Or get the project cancelled, walking away with the money and not having to produce anything.. as they've done countless times before.
Glass half full, glass half empty. It's the first glass we've had in years.
well it's based on milestones, so if they walk away prematurely, they walk away from money
If NASA chooses SpaceX in the end, but Boeing have fullfilled their end of the contract, then that's the way the cookie crumbles
Glass half full, glass half empty. It's the first glass we've had in years.
Well, it's a bartender promising to show up to work if you pay for his heart surgery. Also, there's no beer.
well it's based on milestones, so if they walk away prematurely, they walk away from money
If NASA chooses SpaceX in the end, but Boeing have fullfilled their end of the contract, then that's the way the cookie crumbles
Sounds like a great way to get free money. Hey, pay for the development of a new vehicle for us.. we'll do all the paperwork milestones but not build any actual hardware. Deal?
So this means SpaceX is funded to develop from 3 to 7 Dragon v2 crew modules? (Test flight, plus 2 to 6 ISS flights).
That should be a nice stockpile slightly used Dragons that can be used for other manned launches, assuming SpaceX can get even 2 or 3 flights out of each one, let alone if they meet the 10x re-use goal on some (probably too optimistic for the first batch of crewed dragon).
If nothing else, they should have all the hardware they need to test and eventually prove-out re-usability of the Dragon v2!
Yes. Although my recollection is that the RFP said that there would be a maximum of 6 post-certification missions for both providers. So SpaceX is more likely to get between 2 and 4 post-certification missions plus a crewed demo flight to the ISS. Although they didn't say it during the pressers, there is likely also an uncrewed flight. See this article for more info:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/nasa-outlines-plans-commercial-crew-certification/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/nasa-outlines-plans-commercial-crew-certification/)
Huh?
It's not free money. You're saying the same thing for SpaceX then.
Have you seen the pressure capsule Boeing made? It's in this thread...
imagine being a spaceplane fan and having any realistic hope of seeing another reusable spaceplane in your lifetime killedYou still have Skylon.
On the question of why no more excitement from some of us, well, in my case it's quite simple: imagine being a spaceplane fan and having any realistic hope of seeing another reusable spaceplane in your lifetime killed, while NASA chooses to use its limited resources to fund three different flavors of capsule designs. On a more abstract level, I think it reflects risk aversion and a lack of willingness to do new and interesting things. No longer are we the country that does things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
Huh?
It's not free money. You're saying the same thing for SpaceX then.
Have you seen the pressure capsule Boeing made? It's in this thread...
SpaceX actually wants to fly. Boeing just wants the money. There's a pressure capsule for Orion too..
For Boeing, their goal is to make money, but they still need to produce the hardware to earn it, which means they need to fly.
They don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract.
Wow, that is an incredibly pessimistic view. Not saying you're wrong but I certainly hope it's not the case with this project.For Boeing, their goal is to make money, but they still need to produce the hardware to earn it, which means they need to fly.
Huh? They just finished all the milestones of a contract in which they produced nothing but stacks of paper and they got paid the most to do it. They don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract. As soon as it stops being profitable, and it will, they'll walk away.. as they've been doing on NASA contracts for years.
Huh? They just finished all the milestones of a contract in which they produced nothing but stacks of paper and they got paid the most to do it. They don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract. As soon as it stops being profitable, and it will, they'll walk away.. as they've been doing on NASA contracts for years.
Huh? They just finished all the milestones of a contract in which they produced nothing but stacks of paper and they got paid the most to do it. They don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract. As soon as it stops being profitable, and it will, they'll walk away.. as they've been doing on NASA contracts for years.
QuantumG you know quite well that they have produced more than paper, please stop with the FUD.
QuantumG, do you have the milestone list or text of the contract? I assume so if you were able to make that statement.
They don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract.
QuantumG, do you have the milestone list or text of the contract? I assume so if you were able to make that statement.
What statement?
I presume you meanThey don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract.
That's a given. It's development and certification, not operations.
Of course, and no it is not a given. Your statement was completely uninformed. It is very likely that a test flight will be one of the requirements for certification. A test flight was required in COTS prior to cargo operations.
Huh? They just finished all the milestones of a contract in which they produced nothing but stacks of paper and they got paid the most to do it. They don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract. As soon as it stops being profitable, and it will, they'll walk away.. as they've been doing on NASA contracts for years.
QuantumG you know quite well that they have produced more than paper, please stop with the FUD.
I don't know that "quite well". All they've done is produce paperwork for components built by others. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
Even with no space planes, we may end up with some kind of hybrid future design between capsules and spaceplanes. Just look at what ESA is doing with their test reentry vehicle. That could point the way to a future we have not even thought of.
Of course, and no it is not a given. Your statement was completely uninformed. It is very likely that a test flight will be one of the requirements for certification. A test flight was required in COTS prior to cargo operations.
Excuse me? What part of "milestone" don't you understand? Who says they actually have to achieve certification before they walk away?
Even with no space planes, we may end up with some kind of hybrid future design between capsules and spaceplanes. Just look at what ESA is doing with their test reentry vehicle. That could point the way to a future we have not even thought of.
Lots of maybe somedays out there, but DC was the only real chance of seeing NASA build on the shuttle legacy with a reusable spaceplane during my lifetime, or at least before I'm drawing social security. So close, and yet so far...it will be interesting to see if SNC stands by its previous statement that the OTV test flight is happening regardless of future NASA decisions.
Stop the whining, this is a huge step. NASA has spent $3B a year for nearly a decade developing a crew launch system that won't fly for another 4 years. Here is an opportunity to develop 2 crew systems for a fraction of this cost including multiple actual flights!
Stop the whining, this is a huge step.
It's worth noting however that the unique vehicle with so much potent......
Stop the whining, this is a huge step.
How is more of the same a huge step? How is changing the i to a t in what is essentially a continuation of an overblown paperwork exercise anything worth celebrating?
The "potential" is grossly over stated. Parachute or wings are means and not an end. The recovery system on a spacecraft is in use a small fraction of its mission. What matters is what it does on orbit and not how "gracefully" returns to earth. So this passion for winged spacecraft is misplaced.
This is more than paperwork.
I wonder if SNC is going to continue with the Dreamchaser or just close up house on it?
I suspect Dreamchaser will die a slow, drawn-out death. SNC will talk about how they'll continue the program but at a much slower pace. Over time, little progress will be made, and in a few years it will be formally cancelled.
Actually, did a bit of research. Don't think that's actually likley afterall. The Japanese and Euopeans are VERY interested in the Dream Chaser. JAXA is a ctually one of their partners. So without NASA to compete with, I think that this bird may fly sooner rather than later or never.
The only silver lining I can see is the possible use of DC for cargo flights. Now that the DC doesnt need an abort system, cockpit displays/chairs or full eclss, maybe that full OTV has a chance to fly unmanned cargo flights (probably worth more money in total) for NASA and under the fairing on the Ariane 5/HTV. We might not get a family of DC's, but one flying version could still keep going.
...What matters is what it does on orbit and not how "gracefully" returns to earth. So this passion for winged spacecraft is misplaced.
There is one other winner from today's decision and that is Bigelow. He now has 2 taxis for his space station.
There is one other winner from today's decision and that is Bigelow. He now has 2 taxis for his space station.
Those chickens aint hatched yet.
Here's my first article on all of this:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/09/dream-chaser-misses-out-cctcap-dragon-cst-100-win/
Was a bit more edgy in draft with more source notes, but decided to straight shoot it in the end as this is about the award. We'll be doing more articles on this over time.
If it was true commercial I'd have all the companies make a full prototype product on their own dime and demonstrate it to me independently. I'd then discard all the companies except the best two.
There is one other winner from today's decision and that is Bigelow. He now has 2 taxis for his space station.
Those chickens aint hatched yet.
Boeing's CST-100 nearly puts me to sleep every-time I see it. The fact remains that it is nothing more than a 1960's Apollo Command Module stripped down and tied with duct tape to a Gemini Service module, then stuffed with as many people as possible inside.CST-100 is bigger than Apollo, at 4.56 meters diameter. It is also bigger than Dragon V2, which is 3.7 meters diameter.
How is that worth over twice the asking price of the Dragon V2?The price included development and certification, and so isn't really an "asking price" for a certain number of spacecraft. SpaceX is already flying its rocket. Boeing still has to pay to certify two-engine Centaur and the other changes to Atlas 5. SpaceX already has a factory already building Dragons. Boeing still has to tool up a factory floor to build CST-100. SpaceX has already won contracts totaling close to $2 billion for Dragon/Falcon 9 missions. Boeing hasn't.
It's worth noting however that the unique vehicle with so much potent......
The "potential" is grossly over stated. Parachute or wings are means and not an end. The recovery system on a spacecraft is in use a small fraction of its mission. What matters is what it does on orbit and not how "gracefully" returns to earth. So this passion for winged spacecraft is misplaced.
$ for $, and assuming one test flight and six operational missions for each :
http://i1212.photobucket.com/albums/cc458/friendly222/Dragon-CST100OK_zps10d72969.jpg[/img]
By your math there is no value in the dozen cargo flights in the SpaceX CRS contract. Apples and oranges. Nice graphic, but it's not accurate.
Come to think of it, the majority of the responses in this thread have turned into an apples and oranges conversation. Bottom line is we have 2 new solid chances at crewed spaceflight. This is a day to celebrate future space.
Thanks NASA!
Well, I think this whole decision stinks. Hopefully one day a commission will expose all the backroom dealing that went on, and those responsible will be held to account.
I look forward to reading the selection documentation once it's been re-written to fit today's selection.
>:( :(
What data are you basing that accusation on? You are actually saying that a crime was done.
There is one other winner from today's decision and that is Bigelow. He now has 2 taxis for his space station.
Those chickens aint hatched yet.
I give the odds of at least one of them succeeding as being higher than the odds of Bigelow ever getting a space station built for them to go to...
~Jon
The only silver lining I can see is the possible use of DC for cargo flights. Now that the DC doesnt need an abort system, cockpit displays/chairs or full eclss, maybe that full OTV has a chance to fly unmanned cargo flights (probably worth more money in total) for NASA and under the fairing on the Ariane 5/HTV. We might not get a family of DC's, but one flying version could still keep going.
I was thinking something similar. By refocusing DC on unmanned cargo initially they might be able to simplify it enough to have a reasonable shot at CRS-2 (if they can move fast enough)... The unmanned version would also be more relevant to DoD and other non-NASA users. My guess is that without the abort system, and all the man-rating, they could probably finish a cargo DC for a small enough amount that SNC might just be able to afford it.
And if they did find a way to get a cargo vehicle flying and operating, it might be possible to bootstrap their way to a crew vehicle in time for a 2nd round of commercial crew flight contracts (if ISS keeps flying long enough).
Definitely a long-shot, I'd give it less than 30% chance of even a cargo-only Dreamchaser happening at this point. But I'd be really happy to see them pull it off--and not just because they're local.
~Jon
It's amusing to me how many LIKES there are in this thread, and which posts get them. Near as I can see, the harder someone bashes Boeing and/or the more loudly the proclamation of "the fix" or "backroom deals", the more LIKES the post garners.I don't know about you. But for me Space is about human dreams, human aspirations.
Not very surprising, sad to say.
Well, I think this whole decision stinks. Hopefully one day a commission will expose all the backroom dealing that went on, and those responsible will be held to account.
I look forward to reading the selection documentation once it's been re-written to fit today's selection.
>:( :(
What data are you basing that accusation on? You are actually saying that a crime was done.
NASA always wanted multiple providers so, OK, one is more expensive. Even after six flights, NASA will sign contracts for follow-on flights, and will have to pay whatever the second cheapest requires. These are the consequences of keeping two providers viable (and I suspect there will be a painful gap before purely commercial demand starts to shoulder part of the load.)
SpaceX was late with COTS, Boeing was late with Dreamliner. I don't know if either is really a completely safe pair of hands in terms of flying operationally in 2017. Actually, I suspect neither will, due to budgets. And I really don't see how SNC could make up their CCiCAP half award to fly in 2817.
We've had it drummed into us how the process is completely free from political interference. Reports that pressure might have affected the outcome are deeply disturbing. And I have no way to evaluate whether those reports are justified (and some will never be persuaded otherwise), but I repeat that the reports themselves are very disturbing, exactly because that would imply something criminal.
As counterpoint, there is always the possibility that these reports come from a faulty reading of the tea leaves beforehand, and that the announcement is just different than expected. Many warnings beforehand, of course, that even those close to the process often have a faulty read on what the outcome will be.
I don't know how we could get to the stage of resolving this, short of some whistle blower leaking a pre-release report, and comparing recommendations to awards. Major repercussions there, and I don't see it happening.
Cheers, Martin
It's amusing to me how many LIKES there are in this thread, and which posts get them. Near as I can see, the harder someone bashes Boeing and/or the more loudly the proclamation of "the fix" or "backroom deals", the more LIKES the post garners.I don't know about you. But for me Space is about human dreams, human aspirations.
Not very surprising, sad to say.
SpaceX so far is fulfilling our dreams while making money.
Boeing, ULA, LockMart, RocketDyne are 100% for profit companies that are dream killers instead, with a history of taking cost plus contracts and consistently ending up costing more than predicted.
So, yeah, I Like pro SpaceX and anti Boeing posts. Deal.
The two innovations it offers are landing in the dessert
There is one other winner from today's decision and that is Bigelow. He now has 2 taxis for his space station.
Those chickens aint hatched yet.
I give the odds of at least one of them succeeding as being higher than the odds of Bigelow ever getting a space station built for them to go to...
~Jon
I hope that you are wrong....
Boeing's CST-100 nearly puts me to sleep every-time I see it. The fact remains that it is nothing more than a 1960's Apollo Command Module stripped down and tied with duct tape to a Gemini Service module, then stuffed with as many people as possible inside.
The only silver lining I can see is the possible use of DC for cargo flights. Now that the DC doesnt need an abort system, cockpit displays/chairs or full eclss, maybe that full OTV has a chance to fly unmanned cargo flights (probably worth more money in total) for NASA and under the fairing on the Ariane 5/HTV. We might not get a family of DC's, but one flying version could still keep going.
There is one other winner from today's decision and that is Bigelow. He now has 2 taxis for his space station.
Those chickens aint hatched yet.
I give the odds of at least one of them succeeding as being higher than the odds of Bigelow ever getting a space station built for them to go to...
~Jon
I hope that you are wrong....
The only silver lining I can see is the possible use of DC for cargo flights. Now that the DC doesnt need an abort system, cockpit displays/chairs or full eclss, maybe that full OTV has a chance to fly unmanned cargo flights (probably worth more money in total) for NASA and under the fairing on the Ariane 5/HTV. We might not get a family of DC's, but one flying version could still keep going.
I was thinking something similar. By refocusing DC on unmanned cargo initially they might be able to simplify it enough to have a reasonable shot at CRS-2 (if they can move fast enough)... The unmanned version would also be more relevant to DoD and other non-NASA users. My guess is that without the abort system, and all the man-rating, they could probably finish a cargo DC for a small enough amount that SNC might just be able to afford it.
And if they did find a way to get a cargo vehicle flying and operating, it might be possible to bootstrap their way to a crew vehicle in time for a 2nd round of commercial crew flight contracts (if ISS keeps flying long enough).
Definitely a long-shot, I'd give it less than 30% chance of even a cargo-only Dreamchaser happening at this point. But I'd be really happy to see them pull it off--and not just because they're local.
~Jon
Why only 30%???
It's amusing to me how many LIKES there are in this thread, and which posts get them. Near as I can see, the harder someone bashes Boeing and/or the more loudly the proclamation of "the fix" or "backroom deals", the more LIKES the post garners.I don't know about you. But for me Space is about human dreams, human aspirations.
Not very surprising, sad to say.
SpaceX so far is fulfilling our dreams while making money.
Boeing, ULA, LockMart, RocketDyne are 100% for profit companies that are dream killers instead, with a history of taking cost plus contracts and consistently ending up costing more than predicted.
So, yeah, I Like pro SpaceX and anti Boeing posts. Deal.
I am a fan of SpaceX, and I think what they're doing for space exploration and the American space program cannot be understated. However, the idea that Boeing, ULA, Lockheed Martin, and Rocketdyne are "dream killers," is incorrect. These companies have been the back bone of the American aerospace industry for decades. Most of whatever you think of when you think about space exploration can be attributed to these companies.
Rocketdyne designed the F-1 rocket engine. Every dream about space you've ever had lifted off with that engine.
On the question of why no more excitement from some of us, well, in my case it's quite simple: imagine being a spaceplane fan and having any realistic hope of seeing another reusable spaceplane in your lifetime killed, while NASA chooses to use its limited resources to fund three different flavors of capsule designs. On a more abstract level, I think it reflects risk aversion and a lack of willingness to do new and interesting things. No longer are we the country that does things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
Remember that SpaceX has a head start on all this thanks to ISS cargo - a contract that has paid them billions already.Just a tad short of 2 billion US$ actually. SpaceX was awarded 396 million US$ under COTS and then 1.6 billion US$ under CRS-1.
- Ed Kyle
Nope. The capacity to launch a (cargo) capsule to ISS by SpaceX was developed and realized with NASA investing just 396 million US$ into SpaceX under COTS.1.6 billion lower. For the same result.SpaceX has a head start that accounts for the $1.6 billion difference, IMO. That ISS cargo head start was provided by previous NASA funding to the tune of, what, a couple billion dollars?
- Ed Kyle
You're saying they've been paid for nine CRS flights that haven't happened yet?Remember that SpaceX has a head start on all this thanks to ISS cargo - a contract that has paid them billions already.Just a tad short of 2 billion US$ actually. SpaceX was awarded 396 million US$ under COTS and then 1.6 billion US$ under CRS-1.
- Ed Kyle
There is already a spaceplane in use the X-37B & I suppose you could call the XS-1 one as well so they are still out there.:)
No, the real sum of money received by SpaceX from NASA, AT THIS MOMENT, under COTS and CRS, is indeed lower than 2 billion US$ because a good number of CRS missions have not been performed yet. And thus, SpaceX has not been paid for those missions yet.You're saying they've been paid for nine CRS flights that haven't happened yet?Remember that SpaceX has a head start on all this thanks to ISS cargo - a contract that has paid them billions already.Just a tad short of 2 billion US$ actually. SpaceX was awarded 396 million US$ under COTS and then 1.6 billion US$ under CRS-1.
- Ed Kyle
Cheers, Martin
I agree they were higher risk and I think that was the determining factor. And I can't shake the feeling that coming out with Boeing getting the biggest share of the pie doesn't also give NASA a better feeling when they go with their hat out to Congress for the money to fund this program.
This. Probably the main reason for selecting Boeing. They have the most pull in Congress. With SpaceX second in that department. Don't be fooled, this is purely a political decision; technical merit didn't really matter.
For Boeing, their goal is to make money, but they still need to produce the hardware to earn it, which means they need to fly.
Huh? They just finished all the milestones of a contract in which they produced nothing but stacks of paper and they got paid the most to do it. They don't actually have to fly anything to get more money in this contract. As soon as it stops being profitable, and it will, they'll walk away.. as they've been doing on NASA contracts for years.
To me, there are basically two reasons why Boeing got the larger of the two awards.
Someone expressed deep disappointment about the high bid of SpaceX, arguing it does not fit with Elon Musks promises of low cost. I want to break the bid down a bit to see where the money goes.
There are 7 flights to the ISS including the demo flight. At the quoted price of 140 Million $ per flight that is already 1 Billion $.
There is one unmanned and (I think) one manned flight before that. There is also the package for additional NASA requirements. That's at least 400 Million $.
Remaining 1 Billion $. For that they finish developing Dragon V2, building the Control Center, modifying LC 39A. And probably the most expensive bit is doing all the coordination, preparation, and presentation for the milestones. Also any cost exceeding the 140 Million $ for the test flights. Those would be more expensive than operational flights later.
Does not seem grossly overpriced to me. :)
From what I was reading around, this is great news for SpaceX, probably the most they could have asked for. If the budget is to be cut NASA would have no choice but to stick with its more traditional and well proven contractor, Boeing.
Excuse the simple question - If one of the winners of the contract can get it done for less than the amount they are awarded, what happens to the surplus funds? Can they use them for whatever other purpose the company sees fit? Or is it returned?
@Aquanaut,
That's a very negative viewpoint and, frankly, I don't think that we can look six years ahead and say that we can be that certain of something.
imagine being a spaceplane fan and having any realistic hope of seeing another reusable spaceplane in your lifetime killedYou still have Skylon.
So America needs three new capsules?
As for Bigelow... If ISS proved there was a viable business case for a private space station he would be in space already, or at least a lot further down the path.
As for Bigelow... If ISS proved there was a viable business case for a private space station he would be in space already, or at least a lot further down the path.
Not really. Why launch a space station when there is no way to reach it? Once Boeing and SpaceX are flying in 2017, then we'll see if Bigelow is serious.
Bigelow did launch two test stations a few years back. Putting hardware in orbit shows they are far down the path. Bigelow's problem has been having to wait for somebody to provide passenger access to LEO. The big question is can Bigelow stay in business while on hold for another three or four years. Boeing has worked with Bigelow and will probably want to help get a commercial space station in LEO to expand their market for CST-100.
As for Bigelow... If ISS proved there was a viable business case for a private space station he would be in space already, or at least a lot further down the path.
Not really. Why launch a space station when there is no way to reach it? Once Boeing and SpaceX are flying in 2017, then we'll see if Bigelow is serious.
Bigelow did launch two test stations a few years back. Putting hardware in orbit shows they are far down the path. Bigelow's problem has been having to wait for somebody to provide passenger access to LEO. The big question is can Bigelow stay in business while on hold for another three or four years. Boeing has worked with Bigelow and will probably want to help get a commercial space station in LEO to expand their market for CST-100.
imagine being a spaceplane fan and having any realistic hope of seeing another reusable spaceplane in your lifetime killedYou still have Skylon.
He said "realistic".
Skylon is a perfectly realistic paper spacecraft. The only funding for anything Skylon related is to produce and test a single full-scale prototype SABRE engine. But this is getting a little off topic.imagine being a spaceplane fan and having any realistic hope of seeing another reusable spaceplane in your lifetime killedYou still have Skylon.
He said "realistic".
I am not sure that's a particular constructive viewpoint & Skylon is perfectly realistic.
Watching armchair experts blather and whine is really tiresome to people who understand aerospace development and government contracting.
Lot of snippiness in this thread. I really don't get the anti-Boeing sentiment (or the pro SNC sentiment for that matter).
This decision by NASA seems entirely logical. They have a very firm requirement to get crew back into space on American launchers by 2017. Going with a dual track effort provides a very high degree of assurance that they'll succeed in meeting the requirement.
<snip>
Going with SNC just seems like risk piled upon risk to me if my goal is to assure access to space for American crews. This was a downselect waiting to happen considering the history of this program. Why throw a long bomb if your only payback is cross range capability? That's just my opinion obviously, but I just don't get it.
I give the odds of at least one of them succeeding as being higher than the odds of Bigelow ever getting a space station built for them to go to...
~Jon
Look to the South Pole for an indication - 1912 first visited and then a 40+ year wait before anyone returned, and that was via aircraft just before they built a base. Exploration is not a continuum it is a stop start thing.
Now, the Space Launch System that Gen. Bolden was going on about at the press conference is supposed to bring back exploration. And they sure are building a big rocket, although if it'll ever be as big as what we once had we don't know, and it certainly doesn't come cheap. But worse, there are no missions! Again it's the spirit of the thing. Columbus didn't go to the Queen of Spain saying "I want money to build a big ship", he wanted to find a new route to the Orient, to explore the world. Yes, Congress talks about Mars, but we've been hearing about missions to Mars for decades now, and we're still stuck in LEO. I'm not holding my breath.
@ Lourens
So you would rather a rapid and risky development process which has a 50/50 chance of scrapping US human space flight for at least another decade (the consequence of people being killed in todays environment) because "Establising routine access to LEO" isnt enough vision?
It seems to me that having three different capsule designs for just two to three missions total a year is not a good way to run a cost effective program. If the CCtCAP vehicles are to help with costs, then surely only going with the cheaper option and saving $4.2B
It seems to me that having three different capsule designs for just two to three missions total a year is not a good way to run a cost effective program. If the CCtCAP vehicles are to help with costs, then surely only going with the cheaper option and saving $4.2B, that could be used for other actual missions beyond LEO, like building a large upper stage, cryogenic propulsion stage and Lunar lander, seems to me to be a better way to use the available money.
Personally, I wanted Sierra Nevada to win so as to give someone else a chance, just like NASA gave SpaceX a chance. Anyways, here's a summary of the total program costs.
CCDEV CCDEV1 CCDEV2 CCDEV2+ CCiCap CPC CCiCap2 CCtCAP Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing $18.0 $92.3 $20.6 $460.0 $10.0 $20.0 $4200 $4820.9
SpaceX $0.0 $75.0 $0.0 $440.0 $9.6 $20.0 $2600 $3144.6
Sierra Nevada Corporation $20.0 $80.0 $25.6 $212.5 $10.0 $15.0 $363.1
Blue Origin $3.7 $22.0 $25.7
ULA $6.7 $6.7
Paragon $1.4 $1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total $49.8 $269.3 $46.2 $1112.5 $29.6 $55.0 $6800 $8362.4
CCDEV | CCDEV1 | CCDEV2 | CCDEV2+ | CCiCap | CPC | CCiCap2 | CCtCAP | Total | |
Boeing | $18.0 | $92.3 | $20.6 | $460.0 | $10.0 | $20.0 | $4200 | $4820.9 | |
SpaceX | $0.0 | $75.0 | $0.0 | $440.0 | $9.6 | $20.0 | $2600 | $3144.6 | |
Sierra Nevada Corporation | $20.0 | $80.0 | $25.6 | $212.5 | $10.0 | $15.0 | $363.1 | ||
Blue Origin | $3.7 | $22.0 | $25.7 | ||||||
ULA | $6.7 | $6.7 | |||||||
Paragon | $1.4 | $1.4 | |||||||
Total | $49.8 | $269.3 | $46.2 | $1112.5 | $29.6 | $55.0 | $6800 | $8362.4 |
I'm saying that SpaceX didn't seriously "launch" its Falcon 9 or Dragon programs until it won COTS. Until then it was a little company trying to launch Falcon 1 from Omelek (it had only tried once at the time, and failed) working out of a small shop in El Segundo. COTS is the reason that the company moved to the ex-Northrop facility at Hawthorne. It is why SpaceX moved into McGregor in a big way. NASA is the core customer, the primary "backer". The Agency marshaled all of this to create a clean-sheet method for reaching ISS. Falcon 9 didn't have a dedicated non-Dragon launch until only about one year ago. Falcon 9 and Dragon don't exist without that contract win, and the resulting billions (yes, billions, because it is more than two billion if you count the initial commercial crew money, and well more than $4.5 billion if you count yesterday's win).You're saying they've been paid for nine CRS flights that haven't happened yet?Remember that SpaceX has a head start on all this thanks to ISS cargo - a contract that has paid them billions already.Just a tad short of 2 billion US$ actually. SpaceX was awarded 396 million US$ under COTS and then 1.6 billion US$ under CRS-1.
- Ed Kyle
Cheers, Martin
Now, the Space Launch System that Gen. Bolden was going on about at the press conference is supposed to bring back exploration. And they sure are building a big rocket, although if it'll ever be as big as what we once had we don't know, and it certainly doesn't come cheap. But worse, there are no missions! Again it's the spirit of the thing. Columbus didn't go to the Queen of Spain saying "I want money to build a big ship", he wanted to find a new route to the Orient, to explore the world. Yes, Congress talks about Mars, but we've been hearing about missions to Mars for decades now, and we're still stuck in LEO. I'm not holding my breath.
Lourens, I'm probably one of the more 'rah rah Exploration types' that you'll find anywhere, but there is a major fallacy in the Columbus argument as you present it.
You hit on the right points but the wrong motivator. Columbus' intent was not to 'explore for the sake of exploration', which is what the last 70 years of NACA/NASA space work has been about. Columbus was exploring for the express purpose of 'getting rich'. In other words, he presented a business case to the Queen of Spain that he could break the 'overland' and 'Horn of Africa' monopoly's on trade to India, China and the East Indies. This was an economic motivator that drove him to explore westward for a 'shorter, more direct' route for that trade.
Currently, there is not an economic motivator for the type of exploration which you, me, (and probably most everyone on this board) wants. Going to Mars won't get me from New York to Tokyo quicker. Yes, spin-offs from space technology have, do, and will improve our lives. We're the choir, we sing this as loud as we can, but to Joe Sixpack, voter and constituent, he can't see it, so he doesn't support it and he believes whatever tripe rolls out on his choice of visual infotainment (read as Hoaxer TV).
You find me a space or non terrestrial product or resource that beats everything that can be done on Earth in its niche and you'll have a billion Columbus queuing up and roaring to go. The Queens of Spain will then follow.
edit: Minor grammar edits
I'm sad the Dream Chaser won't be getting the money, at least there are two company's fully funded.
(Looking for the silver lining)
I suppose that this is a good result for Bigalow Aerospace who were involved with the CST-100?
It's in Boeing interest to have a commercial 330 space station as an extra destination for CST-100 (other than the ISS). I hope that Boeing will now use some of the money (and it's political clout) to help get the Bigalow 330 Station in orbit.
@ Lourens
So you would rather a rapid and risky development process which has a 50/50 chance of scrapping US human space flight for at least another decade (the consequence of people being killed in todays environment) because "Establising routine access to LEO" isnt enough vision?
Been lurking here for a few years but new to posting. I know very little about the relative technical merits of the various commercial crew options, but am personally disappointed that SNC was left out. I was a big fan of Shuttle, because even though it was strictly a LEO ride it had so much more versatility than a capsule. Not saying that Dream Chaser would have had anywhere near those capabilities, but I would have liked for a lifting body spacecraft carry forward the Shuttle legacy in some form. Now it appears that we'll have capsules and only capsules for the foreseeable future.It is important if it impacts interest in STEM...
CST-100 will probably get the job done, but on the inspiration scale I think it's down there with Soyuz. I know that there is a lot more love for SpaceX and Dragon around here, but I'm not sure the general public will be inspired by that either. Does the inspiration factor of the general public matter? Maybe not, but IMO the best hope for any substantial budget increase that would allow SLS to get proper funding, missions and launch rate is for the general public to get engaged/inspired about space again. It was interesting how a lot of folks (again talking general public here) seemed to only realize what they were losing with Shuttle when it was already retired and orbiters were being ferried to museum sites.
Would SNC/Dream Chaser have been any more inspirational? Seems unlikely at this point that we will ever know.
It seems to me that having three different capsule designs for just two to three missions total a year is not a good way to run a cost effective program. If the CCtCAP vehicles are to help with costs, then surely only going with the cheaper option and saving $4.2B, that could be used for other actual missions beyond LEO, like building a large upper stage, cryogenic propulsion stage and Lunar lander, seems to me to be a better way to use the available money.
Personally, I wanted Sierra Nevada to win so as to give someone else a chance, just like NASA gave SpaceX a chance. Anyways, here's a summary of the total program costs.
CCDEV CCDEV1 CCDEV2 CCDEV2+ CCiCap CPC CCiCap2 CCtCAP Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing $18.0 $92.3 $20.6 $460.0 $10.0 $20.0 $4200 $4820.9
SpaceX $0.0 $75.0 $0.0 $440.0 $9.6 $20.0 $2600 $3144.6
Sierra Nevada Corporation $20.0 $80.0 $25.6 $212.5 $10.0 $15.0 $363.1
Blue Origin $3.7 $22.0 $25.7
ULA $6.7 $6.7
Paragon $1.4 $1.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total $49.8 $269.3 $46.2 $1112.5 $29.6 $55.0 $6800 $8362.4
Tapatalk really screws that up on mobile - doesn't honour the fixed-width font.
Let's see if this is any better:-
CCDEV CCDEV1 CCDEV2 CCDEV2+ CCiCap CPC CCiCap2 CCtCAP Total Boeing $18.0 $92.3 $20.6 $460.0 $10.0 $20.0 $4200 $4820.9 SpaceX $0.0 $75.0 $0.0 $440.0 $9.6 $20.0 $2600 $3144.6 Sierra Nevada Corporation $20.0 $80.0 $25.6 $212.5 $10.0 $15.0 $363.1 Blue Origin $3.7 $22.0 $25.7 ULA $6.7 $6.7 Paragon $1.4 $1.4 Total $49.8 $269.3 $46.2 $1112.5 $29.6 $55.0 $6800 $8362.4
cheers, Martin
Edit: nope. Epic fail there, TT.
Would SNC/Dream Chaser have been any more inspirational? Seems unlikely at this point that we will ever know.
So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?
...
CST-100 will probably get the job done, but on the inspiration scale I think it's down there with Soyuz. I know that there is a lot more love for SpaceX and Dragon around here, but I'm not sure the general public will be inspired by that either. ...
So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?
Good post. I was showing my son (13) an animation of Dragon 2 returning and his reaction was "that's so cool". I guarantee you the first powered landing (without chutes) that Dragon makes will get the public's attention. It's what they see in the movies and it's what they expect to see in real life but only get chutes and water most of the time.
It will be look mom, no chute needed! That's what I like about SpaceX above Boeing. It's that they are willing to not stay with the present but to ask questions and change things up. Boeing is a good company and will "get the job done" but they won't inspire the next generation of space engineers. Space X might.
So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?
IMO? Boeing's continued involvement was critical to stop Congress defunding the whole program for being 'without credibility'. Not funding SpaceX, a company actually already flying the vehicle to the ISS, would instantly fail the laugh test and not even SpaceX's most vituperative Congressional enemy would want to be associated with such a decision. Only two vehicles were going to be funded. The rest is just math.
So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?
IMO? Boeing's continued involvement was critical to stop Congress defunding the whole program for being 'without credibility'. Not funding SpaceX, a company actually already flying the vehicle to the ISS, would instantly fail the laugh test and not even SpaceX's most vituperative Congressional enemy would want to be associated with such a decision. Only two vehicles were going to be funded. The rest is just math.
You are probably right, but I am just so sick and tired of politics being used to evaluate an engineering program...
What is it about government contracting people do not understand? Request for proposals (RFP's) are put out, companies bid on those proposals (and all that paperwork really costs), government teams assess those proposals against criteria (legally they can not spill the details outside the assessment team) and a decision is finally made.Exactly. At least this appears to be a rational decision made by a more or less rational process. If you take the requirement for independent access seriously (as I think it should be taken) then you will need to fund a non-lowest bidder, and confidence in the solution working will be a strong criterium.
Boeing's bid cost more than SpaceX but outside the assessing team that would not have been known. So, it is not about Boeing getting more than SpaceX, it is rather that Boeing priced their RFP response higher. The bid assessment team would have had a huge matrix of criteria to work through - technical, schedule and financial risk assessments would have been in the mix as well. In the end they had to choose two players and the two that scored higher would have won.
I'm not seeing people running around with CST-100 baseball caps and "Capsules 4 EVA!" T-shirts this morning. ;)
Exploration is not a continuum it is a stop start thing.
So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?
Congrats on the 1G mark! :) I'd like to see the X-37B TPS after such long duration flights as a baseline....So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?
I'm disappointed too, yet in spite of our thinking it's political, there may well be technical considerations we aren't thinking of. We're not at the Gravity stage yet, but the day is coming when debris is the major obstacle to space flight. The ISS cupola already has 2 MMOD strikes. A fully exposed TPS covering the entire ship is far more vulnerable than a heat shield fully covered on both sides. There is more debris around ISS than anywhere else except perhaps the Chinese kill zone. In that ISS is the destination, perhaps they decided the exposed TPS was too risky.
(Edit-yea, 1000th post-full member-yippee!)
As a taxpayer I see a government entity making another large purchase with much higher costs with money they didn't earn. If the Boeing costs were much closer to the SpaceX ones it wouldn't traumatize me as much.
It's the same problem I have with the Air Force's block buy and every other branch of government easily spending money earned by others. I am not Libertarian but this constant poor judgment with money is driving me that way.
Exactly. At least this appears to be a rational decision made by a more or less rational process. If you take the requirement for independent access seriously (as I think it should be taken) then you will need to fund a non-lowest bidder, and confidence in the solution working will be a strong criterium.
So I can appreciate this decision just as I can appreciate a Supreme Court decision, whether I agree with it or not. At least they took a solid look at all the available evidence, and then decided. Compared with deciding by legislative and politically driven fiat, that alone is a huge improvement.
I'd like to see the X-37B TPS after such long duration flights as a baseline....
So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?It might not have been about SNC doing anything wrong. The competition may simply have lined up better with what NASA's decision makers wanted.
And yes, I have trouble getting excited over reestablishing the routine access to LEO that I grew up with in the 1980's and 1990's, except with smaller craft and fewer people. That seems to be the extent of the ambition of the CST-100.
The X-37B TPS is an "evolved" version of Shuttle's TPS and looked pretty clean from what they let us see...I'd like to see the X-37B TPS after such long duration flights as a baseline....
Agreed, however it doesn't fly to ISS. The more craft that visit ISS, the more little junk there is in that orb. Having the exposed TPS would mean visual inspections including stills and video at each arrival and departure. DC had no Canada Arm and boom with which to inspect itself. Then you have the embarassing situation if you do find a strike causing them to return to ISS for safe harbor and the program is cancelled after that. Everyone would say, "After all the problems STS had with tiles, why did they go with that system again?" I loved DC, but maybe using a protected heat shield is just safer in this debris filled environment.
I'd like to see the X-37B TPS after such long duration flights as a baseline....
Agreed, however it doesn't fly to ISS. The more craft that visit ISS, the more little junk there is in that orb. Having the exposed TPS would mean visual inspections including stills and video at each arrival and departure. DC had no Canada Arm and boom with which to inspect itself. Then you have the embarassing situation if you do find a strike causing them to return to ISS for safe harbor and the program is cancelled after that. Everyone would say, "After all the problems STS had with tiles, why did they go with that system again?" I loved DC, but maybe using a protected heat shield is just safer in this debris filled environment.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the inspection of the Shuttle's heat shield done because something could have hit it during launch? Dreamchaser would have been on top so no probs there.
So the question is what did SNC do wrong to get no joy from the CCtCAP selection committee?
IMO? Boeing's continued involvement was critical to stop Congress defunding the whole program for being 'without credibility'. Not funding SpaceX, a company actually already flying the vehicle to the ISS, would instantly fail the laugh test and not even SpaceX's most vituperative Congressional enemy would want to be associated with such a decision. Only two vehicles were going to be funded. The rest is just math.
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport · 5m (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/512293986602848256)
CCtCap rumor2: ULA stunned at Boeing selection-based on proposal, had concluded dead in water. Again:No
disrespect Boeing but what happened?
Wow, wonder if that's why Bolden's press conference was so weird and devoid of any real enthusiasm.
Not a total disaster, but very easily could have been. I think SpaceX was lucky to get in at all. The fix is definitely in and the only reason SpaceX made the cut, instead of just rewarding the whole thing to Boeing is optics. It would have caused an uproar if the whole deal was rewarded to Boeing straight out. Can't be too obvious with the graft. Too bad DC got the shyt end of the stick here. The have a very nice forward looking vehicle that hopefully will get put to use somewhere.
Not a total disaster, but very easily could have been. I think SpaceX was lucky to get in at all. The fix is definitely in and the only reason SpaceX made the cut, instead of just rewarding the whole thing to Boeing is optics. It would have caused an uproar if the whole deal was rewarded to Boeing straight out. Can't be too obvious with the graft. Too bad DC got the shyt end of the stick here. The have a very nice forward looking vehicle that hopefully will get put to use somewhere.
I disagree about the reason that SpaceX got in. The reason that it made the cut was the Falcon 9. The launch vehicle isn't dependent on Russian Rocket engines. By choosing SpaceX you get two different Capsules and two different launch vehicles.
I would be interested to know what was SNC's bid on the contract. Will we ever get that information?
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport 6m
CCtCap rumor1: Was to be SpaceX/SNC at about $5b total until the announcement delay about 2 wks ago. No disrespect Boeing but what happened?
Wow, wonder if that's why Bolden's press conference was so weird and devoid of any real enthusiasm.
The reason that it made the cut was the Falcon 9.
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport · 5m (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/512293986602848256)
CCtCap rumor2: ULA stunned at Boeing selection-based on proposal, had concluded dead in water. Again:No
disrespect Boeing but what happened?
Remember Boeing can launch on Falcon 9. It may have been part of Boeing's plan all along to have a co provider that can launch their capsule as well. With both in the game and Falcon 9 man rated to NASA standards, it makes for a double punch for CST-100 and an obvious advantage. Wonder if Boeing reps made this known as a favorable co partner in commercial crew for them? In other words, Boeing said if we are chosen, We'd like to have SpaceX chosen as the co participant in order to have guaranteed dual launcher access. We will never know but, there was a meeting between SpaceX and Boeing sometime ago. Maybe this was talked about by the two companies.
Charles A. Lurio @TheLurioReport · 5m (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/512293986602848256)
CCtCap rumor2: ULA stunned at Boeing selection-based on proposal, had concluded dead in water. Again:No
disrespect Boeing but what happened?
Here's my theory on how the rumors turned out wrong: Boeing had the lowest risk assessment. Spacex and SNC were riskier, but well within what most people considered acceptable (based on experience with COTS for example). Spacex and SNC were cheaper and looked cooler too.
At the last minute, the administration looked at the international political scene and the tight schedule* and decided that the risks and consequences of a delay were unacceptable and must be minimized at any cost. What's the lead time to order more Soyuz seats? Who wants that on their hands right now?
Another thing is the 4.2 and 2.6 figures are the maximum possible amount. My theory is that the certification costs for Boeing and Spacex are closer than the numbers suggest, with the primary difference being in the cost of the post certification missions.
(complete guesswork): certification + 2 PCMs for Spacex: ~1.5B, Boeing: ~2.2B.
*the margins to make 2017 are razor thin. If nothing else everyone should agree on this.
The reason that it made the cut was the Falcon 9.
I would instead say it was Dragon and the flight experience it has, at least some portion of which will translate to Dragon V2.
Whether the engines below are Russian or not, Atlas is currently a much better-proven vehicle than F9 v1.1. The latter isn't even up to 10 flights and is not "out of the woods yet". NASA might have even identified the F9 baseline as a risk and SpaceX quite likely presented contingency plans on Dragon on Atlas as part of their program risk mitigation steps.
Some people still do not get it. This decision was not a couple of good 'ol boys sitting around the table grumbling about how little kick back was coming their way from those fancy pants new boys not was it a bunch of heavy weight politicians threating to cut funding if the decision did not cut their way.
It was the product of a months long process by an army of experts forensically examining the bids submitted and scoring them against the requirements NASA set. If there is any biasing in the outcome it came from the requirements NASA formulated and against which the bids were scored.
This is standard government stuff. It is certainly not visionary and it can be as boring as hell. The vision comes from above, the product comes from an interminable paperwork process. Apollo was built the same way, so was Shuttle.
What would make F9 v1.1 a proven vehicle? Would it be 10 flight 20 flights 30 flights?
Some people still do not get it. This decision was not a couple of good 'ol boys sitting around the table grumbling about how little kick back was coming their way from those fancy pants new boys not was it a bunch of heavy weight politicians threating to cut funding if the decision did not cut their way.
It was the product of a months long process by an army of experts forensically examining the bids submitted and scoring them against the requirements NASA set. If there is any biasing in the outcome it came from the requirements NASA formulated and against which the bids were scored.
This is standard government stuff. It is certainly not visionary and it can be as boring as hell. The vision comes from above, the product comes from an interminable paperwork process. Apollo was built the same way, so was Shuttle.
Then why there were strong rumors that as late as two weeks ago, it was supposed to be SNC/SpaceX, and at a much lower total cost?
Bunch of nonsense and BS. Not one bit of truth in this post
Then why there were strong rumors that as late as two weeks ago, it was supposed to be SNC/SpaceX, and at a much lower total cost?
Bunch of nonsense and BS. Not one bit of truth in this post
What about Lurio's tweets?
I hear alot about our paying the Russians $71M per seat to fly to the ISS, but I can't find information on what the estimated cost will be per seat on the CST 100 and manned Dragon. Is this information published any where?
Bunch of nonsense and BS. Not one bit of truth in this post
What about Lurio's tweets?
Who is that? Was he on the selection board?
NASA must not be condemned for trying to secure safety first and only after that the better commercial terms. SpaceX and other competitors, once certified and holding reliable, well proven products and services will then be able to induce the desired change into the market.
Who is that? Was he on the selection board?
1. No, but neither were you.
2. Fine, it's a rumor, I get it. Will be interesting to see if more rumors come up. Also will be interesting to see what SNC does once they have the full report.
3. For the record, I predicted that SpaceX and Boeing would be the winners (see the poll thread), and I think there are good reasons Boeing was chosen. I just find the idea that there might have been such a radical change in the selection result two weeks ago alarming.
Given how poorly run and rushed the press conference was, it is not hard to suspect something fishy.
One difference between Boeing and Spacex, I occasionally search Youtube for "Spacex". More times than not over this summer, a paid ad for CST-100 would come up above the results. I am pretty sure Spacex is not spending money on Youtube ads.
Enjoy
Been lurking here for a few years but new to posting. I know very little about the relative technical merits of the various commercial crew options, but am personally disappointed that SNC was left out. I was a big fan of Shuttle, because even though it was strictly a LEO ride it had so much more versatility than a capsule. Not saying that Dream Chaser would have had anywhere near those capabilities, but I would have liked for a lifting body spacecraft to carry forward the Shuttle legacy in some form. Now it appears that we'll have capsules and only capsules for the foreseeable future.
CST-100 will probably get the job done, but on the inspiration scale I think it's down there with Soyuz. I know that there is a lot more love for SpaceX and Dragon around here, but I'm not sure the general public will be inspired by that either. Does the inspiration factor of the general public matter? Maybe not, but IMO the best hope for any substantial budget increase that would allow SLS to get proper funding, missions and launch rate is for the general public to get engaged/inspired about space again. It was interesting how a lot of folks (again talking general public here) seemed to only realize what they were losing with Shuttle when it was already retired and orbiters were being ferried to museum sites.
Would SNC/Dream Chaser have been any more inspirational? Seems unlikely at this point that we will ever know.
Bunch of nonsense and BS. Not one bit of truth in this post
What about Lurio's tweets?
Who is that? Was he on the selection board?
Charles Lurio is a journalist. He writes the Lurio report. The information that he received was similar to what Chris heard through his sources. It's possible that the sources are the same.
What would make F9 v1.1 a proven vehicle? Would it be 10 flight 20 flights 30 flights?
There's no threshold that makes a vehicle "proven". I simply stated A-V is better-proven than F9 on account of its significantly bigger flight history.
The more successful flights, the better. The fewer anomalies on any given flight, the better. Constant He leaks and other last-minute, unspecified anomalies and delays are not a sign of a mature vehicle.
A very coherent argument as to why Boeing got more:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/opinion/41897sn-blog-no-real-surprise-that-boeing%E2%80%99s-cctcap-award-is-bigger-than-spacex%E2%80%99s
What would make F9 v1.1 a proven vehicle? Would it be 10 flight 20 flights 30 flights?
IIRC - and do not hold me to it - but Boeing made an appeal against Airbus being selected for the airborne tanker currently being built by Boeing and won.
Stepping back a little, does the $6.8 billion price tag for this phase in CC tell us anything about how successful this public/private-commercial experiment is going?
Total CC bill seems to be getting high to me, but I've never built a spacecraft before... At some point it would have cost fewer tax dollars if NASA had gone to Boeing or LM in 2010 and said "please build us a spaceship, you know the drill: cost-plus".
In theory freeing up companies to design to specs, coupled with competition should have kept prices low. Is there evidence this has happened? To amateur eyes the disparity in what Boeing is charging for the same work as SpaceX suggests they have not been phased by the presence of SNC and SpaceX in the competition. But others may know differently.
Stepping back a little, does the $6.8 billion price tag for this phase in CC tell us anything about how successful this public/private-commercial experiment is going?Heh Adrian, you pretty much said what I said 5 pages back. They could of just cut a check to Boeing several years back and we wouldn't be on Soyuz today or needing to ride trampolines... ;)
Total CC bill seems to be getting high to me, but I've never built a spacecraft before... At some point it would have cost fewer tax dollars if NASA had gone to Boeing or LM in 2010 and said "please build us a spaceship, you know the drill: cost-plus".
In theory freeing up companies to design to specs, coupled with competition should have kept prices low. Is there evidence this has happened? To amateur eyes the disparity in what Boeing is charging for the same work as SpaceX suggests they have not been phased by the presence of SNC and SpaceX in the competition. But others may know differently.
In my humble opinion, is more apt to this situation that you think. You do realize that Airbus actually did win that contract based on the merits?
But please realize that, by your own example, the selection board is not always 100% apolitical, nor are they immune from outside influence.
In my humble opinion, is more apt to this situation that you think. You do realize that Airbus actually did win that contract based on the merits?
No, they won at first because the source selection criteria was changed mid stream. Exceeding requirements wasn't supposed to be a factor. See the GAO report.
But please realize that, by your own example, the selection board is not always 100% apolitical, nor are they immune from outside influence.
Yes, they are . Your example is wrong.
Boeing, its supporters in Congress and independent analysts were all surprised by the outcome, because in recent days, the Chicago-based company seemed to have given up hope of winning.
Bigelow are a *long* way from being able to free-fly anything for a paying customer. I don't expect them to be providing an alternate destination for the CC providers in 2017 or 2018.
I give the odds of at least one of them succeeding as being higher than the odds of Bigelow ever getting a space station built for them to go to...
~Jon
The odds of at least one of SpaceX or Boeing succeeding at this point (maybe later but succeeding) are extremely high. You effectively said Bigelow is not a sure bet. Which doesn't exactly seem like going out on a limb to me...
I don't really understand the anti-Boeing negativity, and I really like Dream Chaster.
CST-100 is a sound design that can do the job it was designed for. That's whats needed. Maybe I am not jaded enough, but I am excited about any human carrying spacecraft.
Whoever you like, the issue of all issues is that Congress is almost certainly not going to give NASA the money it needs to do this by 2017, and that is unfortunately. I hope I am wrong, but of all the entrants capable, if funded, of delivering on time, the CST-100 makes sense.
And frankly, if I were going up there, I'd want to be on the best funded, most conservative design. A vehicle like CST-100 is something I wish we had come out of from OSP.
What would make F9 v1.1 a proven vehicle? Would it be 10 flight 20 flights 30 flights?
One flight more than however many they've flown at that point in time, it appears.
Remember that is just not buying a new spacecraft. It is also buying 12 crew launches plus test launches. I don't see how for 6.8 Billion under cost plus you would have gotten 12 crew launches and full development paid for a single new capsule. Not even mentioning that 6.8 Billion you are getting two new capsules.You need to include prior CC programs, so the cost will be $8.3B. Mind you it looks like Orion will be pushing ~$13B to get passed tests and operational, but this is not an apples:apples comparison.
Remember that is just not buying a new spacecraft. It is also buying 12 crew launches plus test launches. I don't see how for 6.8 Billion under cost plus you would have gotten 12 crew launches and full development paid for a single new capsule. Not even mentioning that 6.8 Billion you are getting two new capsules.You need to include prior CC programs, so the cost will be $8.3B. Mind you it looks like Orion will be pushing ~$13B to get passed tests and operational, but this is not an apples:apples comparison.
Remember that is just not buying a new spacecraft. It is also buying 12 crew launches plus test launches. I don't see how for 6.8 Billion under cost plus you would have gotten 12 crew launches and full development paid for a single new capsule. Not even mentioning that 6.8 Billion you are getting two new capsules.You need to include prior CC programs, so the cost will be $8.3B. Mind you it looks like Orion will be pushing ~$13B to get passed tests and operational, but this is not an apples:apples comparison.
I don't really understand the anti-Boeing negativity, and I really like Dream Chaster.
CST-100 is a sound design that can do the job it was designed for. That's whats needed. Maybe I am not jaded enough, but I am excited about any human carrying spacecraft.
What would make F9 v1.1 a proven vehicle? Would it be 10 flight 20 flights 30 flights?
One flight more than however many they've flown at that point in time, it appears.
Yeah isn't it amazing how the bar always keeps shifting when SpaceX has another success.
I don't really understand the anti-Boeing negativity, and I really like Dream Chaster.
CST-100 is a sound design that can do the job it was designed for. That's whats needed. Maybe I am not jaded enough, but I am excited about any human carrying spacecraft.
I think maybe it's at a higher level that I have a problem, and this is just a symptom of NASA's current mission. We have no less than three separate manned vehicles under development now, and not a single one will be pushing the envelope in terms of technology or truly making spaceflight more routine. Gone are the days of visionary projects like NASP and VentureStar. Ill conceived as they may have been, they had the goal of pushing boundaries and advancing the state of the art.
Of the three vehicles that I'll likely live to see fly in my lifetime, only the SpaceX Dragon gives me any level of excitement and optimism over its potential to evolve and play a part in opening up the frontier.
What would make F9 v1.1 a proven vehicle? Would it be 10 flight 20 flights 30 flights?
One flight more than however many they've flown at that point in time, it appears.
Yeah isn't it amazing how the bar always keeps shifting when SpaceX has another success.
Oh, please. You can't seriously be telling me F9 v1.1 and Atlas are near the same level of reliability and maturity. One has 49 launches under its belt, the other has 7. So far, F9 is off to a good start, but it's not the strength of the SpaceX CCtCAP proposal. The strength is the Dragon and its flight heritage. A variant of the vehicle that will become Dragon V2 has already flown several times, whereas the competition has flown their proposed vehicle exactly zero times.
Just as NASA is likely to view F9 as the more riskier of the two vehicles, it's likely to view Dragon as less risky than other proposals. Doesn't mean these SpaceX-fanboi-like, knee-jerk reactions are in order just because someone dared to say F9 v1.1 has not yet proven itself to be the most reliable vehicle this side of the known universe.
Oh, please. You can't seriously be telling me F9 v1.1 and Atlas are near the same level of reliability and maturity. One has 49 launches under its belt, the other has 7. So far, F9 is off to a good start, but it's not the strength of the SpaceX CCtCAP proposal. The strength is the Dragon and its flight heritage. A variant of the vehicle that will become Dragon V2 has already flown several times, whereas the competition has flown their proposed vehicle exactly zero times.
Just as NASA is likely to view F9 as the more riskier of the two vehicles, it's likely to view Dragon as less risky than other proposals. Doesn't mean these SpaceX-fanboi-like, knee-jerk reactions are in order just because someone dared to say F9 v1.1 has not yet proven itself to be the most reliable vehicle this side of the known universe.
Technically, since Atlas V will be getting new engines for CCtCap then it [new man rated Altas V] has not yet flown even once.
You are also leaving out a huge strength for the Falcon 9 versus the Atlas-V, cost.
I give the odds of at least one of them succeeding as being higher than the odds of Bigelow ever getting a space station built for them to go to...
~Jon
The odds of at least one of SpaceX or Boeing succeeding at this point (maybe later but succeeding) are extremely high. You effectively said Bigelow is not a sure bet. Which doesn't exactly seem like going out on a limb to me...
I was trying to be nice. Bigelow has a long way to go before they have either the technology or the engineering organization capable of doing what he wants to do. They might make it, but I only give them a little higher odds than I do SNC for making Dreamchaser work without a CCtCap award.
~Jon
You are also leaving out a huge strength for the Falcon 9 versus the Atlas-V, cost.
Yes, but as NASA likes to say, "safety first" so cost would be a secondary consideration in their mind. IMHO, at least. In any case, the original point I was making is about LV reliability statistics.
I have trouble getting excited over reestablishing the routine access to LEO that I grew up with in the 1980's and 1990's, except with smaller craft and fewer people. That seems to be the extent of the ambition of the CST-100. Progress is doing things that haven't been done before, like propulsive landing and rapid reusability. That's not to say that new is automatically better, but it's definitely more satisfying.
I don't really understand the anti-Boeing negativity, and I really like Dream Chaster.
CST-100 is a sound design that can do the job it was designed for. That's whats needed. Maybe I am not jaded enough, but I am excited about any human carrying spacecraft.
...
In order to achieve LEO, the Atlas upper stage have to work.Technically, since Atlas V will be getting new engines for CCtCap then it [new man rated Altas V] has not yet flown even once.
If you're talking about the dual-engine Centaur, you do have a point. Although, one could argue that would be reintroducing a configuration that already existed on an earlier Atlas and for purposes of crew safety and criticality of abort (due to atmospheric flight), the boost stage is more critical. As far as I know, the Atlas boost stage will be the same as before.
Technically, since Atlas V will be getting new engines for CCtCap then it [new man rated Altas V] has not yet flown even once.
If you're talking about the dual-engine Centaur, you do have a point. Although, one could argue that would be reintroducing a configuration that already existed on an earlier Atlas and for purposes of crew safety and criticality of abort (due to atmospheric flight), the boost stage is more critical. As far as I know, the Atlas boost stage will be the same as before.
Q. Does the BE-4 replace the RD-180 engine that is imported through RD AMROSS?
A. The BE-4 is not a direct replacement for the RD-180 that powers ULA’s Atlas V rocket, however two
BE-4s are expected to provide the engine thrust for the next generation ULA vehicles. The details
related to ULA’s next generation vehicles – which will maintain the key heritage components of ULA’s
Atlas and Delta rockets that provide world class mission assurance and reliability – will be announced at
a later date.
I give the odds of at least one of them succeeding as being higher than the odds of Bigelow ever getting a space station built for them to go to...
~Jon
The odds of at least one of SpaceX or Boeing succeeding at this point (maybe later but succeeding) are extremely high. You effectively said Bigelow is not a sure bet. Which doesn't exactly seem like going out on a limb to me...
I was trying to be nice. Bigelow has a long way to go before they have either the technology or the engineering organization capable of doing what he wants to do. They might make it, but I only give them a little higher odds than I do SNC for making Dreamchaser work without a CCtCap award.
~Jon
Bigelow's habitats seems to be part of NASA's forward plans. DC isn't part of NASA's forward plans unless it wins a CRS2 contract.
...This Commercial Crew award was never going to be a totally off-the-shelf, because there isn't an existing market. But Boeing seems especially uninterested in having any sort of goal with CST-100 at all other than just building a one-off design for the government and making money. And if that's the direction we wanted to go with this, we should have just given them a cost plus contract to design a capsule for us years ago instead of messing around with various programs to spur commercial growth.
I nominate this for post of the day! I have to ask, if this was the inevitable outcome, what was the point of funding DC at all with our tax dollars, if it provided no incentive for Boeing to streamline and cut costs?
I glad he agreed with me... ;D...This Commercial Crew award was never going to be a totally off-the-shelf, because there isn't an existing market. But Boeing seems especially uninterested in having any sort of goal with CST-100 at all other than just building a one-off design for the government and making money. And if that's the direction we wanted to go with this, we should have just given them a cost plus contract to design a capsule for us years ago instead of messing around with various programs to spur commercial growth.
I nominate this for post of the day! I have to ask, if this was the inevitable outcome, what was the point of funding DC at all with our tax dollars, if it provided no incentive for Boeing to streamline and cut costs?
...This Commercial Crew award was never going to be a totally off-the-shelf, because there isn't an existing market. But Boeing seems especially uninterested in having any sort of goal with CST-100 at all other than just building a one-off design for the government and making money. And if that's the direction we wanted to go with this, we should have just given them a cost plus contract to design a capsule for us years ago instead of messing around with various programs to spur commercial growth.
I nominate this for post of the day! I have to ask, if this was the inevitable outcome, what was the point of funding DC at all with our tax dollars, if it provided no incentive for Boeing to streamline and cut costs?
QuoteBoeing, its supporters in Congress and independent analysts were all surprised by the outcome, because in recent days, the Chicago-based company seemed to have given up hope of winning.
. I don't know about you but for me having a Falcon 9 1st stage coming back down and landing would be pushing boundaries.
I think the biggest loser in all of this is ULA. NASA doing a very deep investigation into Falcon 9 and certifying it to fly NASA astronauts makes any claim that Falcon 9 isn't reliable enough for national security payloads look so silly that it's untennable.
And once Falcon 9 is considered reliable enough for national security payloads, it's not long before Falcon Heavy also has to be considered reliable enough, given the commonality between the two.
If NASA is booking flights for astronauts on Falcon 9 starting in 2017, what justification is there for the Air Force to say it's not safe enough for any launch after 2017?
The CCtCap award killed ULA.
. I don't know about you but for me having a Falcon 9 1st stage coming back down and landing would be pushing boundaries.
Meaningless if it can't be reused
I think the biggest loser in all of this is ULA. NASA doing a very deep investigation into Falcon 9 and certifying it to fly NASA astronauts makes any claim that Falcon 9 isn't reliable enough for national security payloads look so silly that it's untennable.
And once Falcon 9 is considered reliable enough for national security payloads, it's not long before Falcon Heavy also has to be considered reliable enough, given the commonality between the two.
If NASA is booking flights for astronauts on Falcon 9 starting in 2017, what justification is there for the Air Force to say it's not safe enough for any launch after 2017?
The CCtCap award killed ULA.
Not true at all. Crew vehicles have abort systems. NASA isn't going to look that deep
Do we know the difference in requirements between USAF certification for DOD payloads and NASA certification for human-rating a rocket?
. I don't know about you but for me having a Falcon 9 1st stage coming back down and landing would be pushing boundaries.
Meaningless if it can't be reused
Why wouldn't it be re-used at some point?
We don't know if it can be reused or how much.
Do we know the difference in requirements between USAF certification for DOD payloads and NASA certification for human-rating a rocket?
NASA is not human rating any of the crew launch vehicles.
I'm a big Dream Chaser fan -- my Dad was NASA's project manager for HL-20 on which Dream Chaser is based, so naturally I'm very disappointed.
I'm a big Dream Chaser fan -- my Dad was NASA's project manager for HL-20 on which Dream Chaser is based, so naturally I'm very disappointed. Then today I ran across the obscure but fascinating fact.
SNC's new subsidiary -- Orbitec -- is making the life support and environmental control system for the CST-100. So a bit of the CST-100 belongs to Sierra Nevada. How odd. Link is below:
http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/nasa-commercial-space-announcement-very-disappointing-for-madison-s-orbitec/article_f06abd1a-0b3e-5e28-af4b-a1b31414818c.html
::)
I have been on selection boards, I know the processJim, could you elaborate on the process a bit? Don't these selections involve a multi-step process that might, at one point, produce a document that ranks competitors in several areas and that might be interpreted by some as favoring one or two over the others, even though it is only an input to the final decision making process? I wonder if something like that happened here, offering one explanation for the rumors.
Wow! Very cool!
Welcome to the site's forum!
all I can do in my present state is volunteer to stand outside of storefronts with a "Save Dream Chaser" collection plate! ;)I'd like to join you in that effort.
Gingrich criticizes CCtCAP decision and rips SLS:Boring and hypocritical piece by Gingrich. First part of his piece he's lashing out to US politicians. He seems to be forgetting he has been one of those for a substantial part of his life.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/opinion/gingrich-nasa-contract/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
And if that cheaper option fails, NASA is left holding the bag on another failed problem, no closer to regaining independence in access to space. There are a lot of people acting like the fact that these two companies have been awarded CCtCAP contracts means the spacecraft are all but wrapped up neatly in a bow ready to use.
No, that's not acceptable, and I'm glad NASA is sticking to their guns (under substantial pressure from Congress) on keeping with two providers. No, it's not the most cost effective solution, but it gives us options and that's a good thing.
By the way SpaceX have hot-tested 50 Merlin engine in actual flown missions this year. Just how many RD-180 have flown in total?
There is problem with stability and smoothness trust of hybrid enginesQuoteWow! Very cool!
Welcome to the site's forum!
Thanks! I've been keeping my Dad up to date on Dream Chaser's progress since the Space Dev days. A couple of years ago, SNC even had a special event at LRC to thank the old HL-20 crew for their contribution which my Dad and Mom attended. Very classy of SNC.Quoteall I can do in my present state is volunteer to stand outside of storefronts with a "Save Dream Chaser" collection plate! ;)I'd like to join you in that effort.
One thing that gave me a sinking feeling in the days leading up to the announcement was the realization that both CST-100 and Dragon V2 can boost the ISS's orbit. Dreamchaser can't do that, not with the engines pointed at the station while she is docked. If Russia does abandon the station early, that capability will be needed and may have been a factor in the decision.
Speaking of engines, does anyone know what went wrong with SNC's hybrid technology? Both Virgin Galactic and SNC seem to have abandoned it. Or is that covered somewhere else in the forum?
I was referring to the RD-180. The article linked to below [1] indicates that the new BE-4 engine is intended to replace the RD-180. While it doesn't specifically state so.
Gingrich criticizes CCtCAP decision and rips SLS:Boring and hypocritical piece by Gingrich. First part of his piece he's lashing out to US politicians. He seems to be forgetting he has been one of those for a substantial part of his life.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/opinion/gingrich-nasa-contract/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
I like CST-100.
It lands on land. Good for live coverage of egress.
Good internal volume for the diameter.
Service module propellant is used for abort. Solid abort tractor tower I find icky in comparison.
Shape can handle BEO reentry.
It's light enough to launch on existing rockets.
Compared to Orion it's a hot rod dream machine.
I think the biggest loser in all of this is ULA. NASA doing a very deep investigation into Falcon 9 and certifying it to fly NASA astronauts makes any claim that Falcon 9 isn't reliable enough for national security payloads look so silly that it's untennable.
And once Falcon 9 is considered reliable enough for national security payloads, it's not long before Falcon Heavy also has to be considered reliable enough, given the commonality between the two.
If NASA is booking flights for astronauts on Falcon 9 starting in 2017, what justification is there for the Air Force to say it's not safe enough for any launch after 2017?
The CCtCap award killed ULA.
Not true at all. Crew vehicles have abort systems. NASA isn't going to look that deep
I like CST-100.
It lands on land. Good for live coverage of egress.
Good internal volume for the diameter.
Service module propellant is used for abort. Solid abort tractor tower I find icky in comparison.
Shape can handle BEO reentry.
It's light enough to launch on existing rockets.
Compared to Orion it's a hot rod dream machine.
Today is the day Orion became obsolete in my eyes.
Well done to Boeing. Get it on SLS and go to The Moon.
QuoteBoeing, its supporters in Congress and independent analysts were all surprised by the outcome, because in recent days, the Chicago-based company seemed to have given up hope of winning.
Who says Boeing had given up hope of winning this contract or that Boeing, its supporters in Congress and independent analysts were all surprised by the outcome?
Not specifically the crew launch vehicles. However they are human rating the entire Commercial Crew transport system which includes the spacecraft and Launch vehicle.
I'm not making claims that something illegal or even necessarily bad happened here, just that there may have been considerations outside of pure engineering involved. Is that really so hard to believe?
The crew isn't gaurenteed to survive if the LV has an issue even with an abort system. There is a probability of LV failure and a probability of abort failure. You need to minimize both in order to maximize crew survivability. NASA definately has an interest in LV reliability for crew systems, and if they aren't looking at it, they are putting on the exact same pair of blinders they did in the past - with potentially disastrous results. A future accident investigation where NASA is blamed for not qualifying the LV to carry humans as a result of an LV exploding and the abort malfunctioning or the capsule being damaged by the explosion ... Let's just try to avoid this? Not looking at the reliability of the LV is equivalent to ignoring foam insulation.
Frankly those of you who are trying to portray this process as some sort of completely above board, separate from politics, and somehow sacred process are sounding a bit absurd. To borrow a line from Casablanca, "There's politics in government contracting? I'm SHOCKED!"
I'm not making claims that something illegal or even necessarily bad happened here, just that there may have been considerations outside of pure engineering involved. Is that really so hard to believe?
That is in the selection criteria that is known to everybody. Again, what smoke?
Also, for those who think all government decisions are just automatically corrupt: if that were true, the United States would be no different from third world countries that are riddled with corruption. A big part of what separates the rich countries from the poor countries is the relative lack of corruption in the rich countries.
Of course, that's not to say there isn't room for improvement in the United States. But the mindless posts assuming corruption just because the decision went against what they thought it should be betray a deep ignorance about the level of corruption in the U.S. government.
Not specifically the crew launch vehicles. However they are human rating the entire Commercial Crew transport system which includes the spacecraft and Launch vehicle.
NASA is not doing that. NASA levied requirements on the contractors. NASA has insight but not oversight.
Boring and hypocritical piece by Gingrich. First part of his piece he's lashing out to US politicians. He seems to be forgetting he has been one of those for a substantial part of his life.
I'm not making claims that something illegal or even necessarily bad happened here, just that there may have been considerations outside of pure engineering involved. Is that really so hard to believe?
That is in the selection criteria that is known to everybody. Again, what smoke?
The fact that on two separate bid processes almost identical statements have been made. Boeing thought they were out, the experts thought they had lost, etc. Now sure, everyone could have been wrong. It simply seems strange to me that two separate sets of reporters would end up thinking the same things about two separate programs.
But you are right, no politics (from politicians or bureaucrats) could have possibly entered into anyone's minds even at a low level. Those on the selection committees are 100% impartial, just like you Jim. ::)
Also, for those who think all government decisions are just automatically corrupt: if that were true, the United States would be no different from third world countries that are riddled with corruption. A big part of what separates the rich countries from the poor countries is the relative lack of corruption in the rich countries.
Of course, that's not to say there isn't room for improvement in the United States. But the mindless posts assuming corruption just because the decision went against what they thought it should be betray a deep ignorance about the level of corruption in the U.S. government.
Oh come on. That is ridiculous. OF COURSE there is corruption within the US government. Are you kidding me? It is not necessarily automatic. But it is also not automatic that there is none. The fact that on two completely separate bid processes there are stories that sound very similar should at least make one think, no?
I'm not making claims that something illegal or even necessarily bad happened here, just that there may have been considerations outside of pure engineering involved. Is that really so hard to believe?
That is in the selection criteria that is known to everybody. Again, what smoke?
The fact that on two separate bid processes almost identical statements have been made. Boeing thought they were out, the experts thought they had lost, etc. Now sure, everyone could have been wrong. It simply seems strange to me that two separate sets of reporters would end up thinking the same things about two separate programs.
But you are right, no politics (from politicians or bureaucrats) could have possibly entered into anyone's minds even at a low level. Those on the selection committees are 100% impartial, just like you Jim. ::)
People believing rumors that turned out to be different from what the final selection announcement said doesn't require a late change in the decision. All it requires is that the rumor wasn't based on correct information.
Guess what? Rumors based on incorrect information happen all the time. They're almost inevitable when there's a lack of genuine information and a strong desire for information.
I never said there's no corruption. I said it isn't so widespread that corruption is a better explanation than a groundless rumor for the fact that people believed one thing a few weeks before the announcement and the announcement was different.
Why do the people that interview Musk ask all the wrong questions?
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/tech/2014/09/18/orig-jag-space-race-space-war.cnn.html?hpt=hp_t2
Apart from NSF that is :D
I imagine there is some dart boards at Boeing with Musk's face on them.
The smoke is in the fact that on two separate bid processes almost identical statements have been made. Boeing thought they were out, the experts thought they had lost, etc. Now sure, everyone could have been wrong. It simply seems strange to me that two separate sets of reporters would end up thinking the same things about two separate programs.
But you are right, no politics (from politicians or bureaucrats or low level functionaries) could have possibly entered into anyone's minds even at a low level. Those on the selection committees are 100% impartial, just like you Jim. ::)
I imagine there is some dart boards at Boeing with Musk's face on them.
Jeesh. Really? Why would you think that? They are not in the same class, Boeing is more concerned about planes.
The smoke is in the fact that on two separate bid processes almost identical statements have been made. Boeing thought they were out, the experts thought they had lost, etc. Now sure, everyone could have been wrong. It simply seems strange to me that two separate sets of reporters would end up thinking the same things about two separate programs.
But you are right, no politics (from politicians or bureaucrats or low level functionaries) could have possibly entered into anyone's minds even at a low level. Those on the selection committees are 100% impartial, just like you Jim. ::)
wrong, You have not shown that they are similar or have identical statements. Show me where Boeing had given up. Again, you are seeing things that are not there. Since you are quoting the internet, I suppose you also think that we maybe didn't go to the moon either? What else do you believe on the internet?
And yes, I am impartial when I am on selection committee.
Just weeks ago, it was widely believed both SpaceX’s Dragon V2 and SNC’s Dream Chaser spacecraft were likely to progress into the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) phase of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. On Tuesday, NASA announced Boeing’s CST-100 was the winner of billions of dollars alongside the SpaceX spacecraft.
Not specifically the crew launch vehicles. However they are human rating the entire Commercial Crew transport system which includes the spacecraft and Launch vehicle.
NASA is not doing that. NASA levied requirements on the contractors. NASA has insight but not oversight.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/09/dream-chaser-misses-out-cctcap-dragon-cst-100-win/QuoteJust weeks ago, it was widely believed both SpaceX’s Dragon V2 and SNC’s Dream Chaser spacecraft were likely to progress into the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) phase of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. On Tuesday, NASA announced Boeing’s CST-100 was the winner of billions of dollars alongside the SpaceX spacecraft.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/09/dream-chaser-misses-out-cctcap-dragon-cst-100-win/QuoteJust weeks ago, it was widely believed both SpaceX’s Dragon V2 and SNC’s Dream Chaser spacecraft were likely to progress into the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) phase of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. On Tuesday, NASA announced Boeing’s CST-100 was the winner of billions of dollars alongside the SpaceX spacecraft.
One quote and it says nothing about Boeing giving up.
Also, I don't believe the sources used for the article. Rumors are hearsay and not facts.You will have to take that up with the author of the article. I for one tend to believe what is published as news on this site. If you don't that's with you. Rumors can be partial facts from well placed sources within the industry that might not have all the facts.
Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.
I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN. Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.
Sorry for the rambling post:
1. On the Blue Origin contract to build a new engine for some future launch system like a follow-on Atlas or Delta rocket:
- Why can Boeing stick the costs of this contract in their bid for the Crew Transport and get away with it?
2. - Would this be considered a new launch system which if it is used for future military launches be required to go through the same certification like SpaceX is being required to meet before qualifying for contracts (3 flights, submit tons of data, have their design processes examined for years, etc.)?
And on Man-rating the Atlas in general:
3. - Can you man-rate the current Atlas rocket with existing design margins without significant re-design, beefing up structures (it has got to add weight), and what does that do to performance? Or do you relax your standards, and just accept the risk with lower margins (e.g. It has launched successfully in the past enough, so margins are OK as is)?
4. - If you have to re-design it and beef it up, how many launches do you need to qualify it for human occupied flight? It sounds like the contract only calls for two flights. Why are only two flights acceptable for NASA while the military needs three flights to certify platforms for launching their missions?
1. I could find more, but I don't feel like it as you won't even consider any point of view other than yours. And I don't think that Boeing giving up is the point. The point is that it looked to many as they were out.
2. All I, and many others, are saying is that there are some legitimate questions.
I understand that you have an unquestioning devotion to authority, but some of us do not.
Are you prepared to be wrong if 2017 comes and goes and Boeing is asking for more time and money?
I will tell my plausible scenario.
1) The technical committee was in love with the DreamChaser proposal.
2) SpaceX proposal was cheaper and had the best chance of IOC by 2016 of any contract.
3) The SNC contract was comparable to the CST-100, but had higher technical and schedule risks.
4) Given the Russian situation, the decision officer considered that not achieving IOC by 2017 was not an option.
5) If you wanted to minimize IOC date risk, SpaceX and CST-100 were the right choice. SpaceX could shave one year on IOC, but if they didn't CST-100 was the safest choice to IOC by 2017.
Plain and simple. Nothing strange, no lobby, just a great schedule risk aversion explains everything.
(b) Evaluation Factors and Subfactors: The Government will use the evaluation factors Mission
Suitability, Price, and Past Performance, as described in NFS 1815.304-70, NASA Evaluation
Factors, to evaluate each proposal. [...]
(e) Relative Order of Importance of Evaluation Factors: Mission Suitability and Past
Performance, when combined, are approximately equal to Price. The Price factor is more
important than Mission Suitability, which is more important than Past Performance.
Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.
I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN. Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.
I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.
Does CST-100 have trunk space? I think it would interfere with the abort engine placement.
Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.
I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN. Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.
I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.
Does CST-100 have trunk space? I think it would interfere with the abort engine placement.
Does CST-100 have trunk space? I think it would interfere with the abort engine placement.
Has no bearing on the matter, it is crew transport and not unpressurized cargo.
Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.
I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN. Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.
I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.
We don't know if it can be reused or how much.
The 1st stage of F9v1.1 has been designed with re-usability in mind. The Merlin 1D engines have been tested through multiple cycles of firing. If they get the 1st stage to land vertically on land there is a high degree of confidence it can be re-used as it was designed to do. I don't know how much more excitement you want. You have a private company trying to do what NASA has never done before in spaceflight.
Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.
I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN. Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.
I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.
Does CST-100 have trunk space? I think it would interfere with the abort engine placement.
Good point. Although the CST-100 can carry a maximum of 10 persons whereas Dargon V2 can only carry 7 persons. NASA will only be using 4 seats but the empty seats can be replaced by cargo.
With this type of US tax dollar investment, true competition should include an orbital and sucessful return fly-off... Then decide from there... My morning 2 cents...In the big picture, that's exactly what this is. Both companies will build their spacecraft and try a few (<=6) missions. Then the next contract can be based on the cost, results, schedules, etc. achieved on these efforts.
With this type of US tax dollar investment, true competition should include an orbital and sucessful return fly-off... Then decide from there... My morning 2 cents...In the big picture, that's exactly what this is. Both companies will build their spacecraft and try a few (<=6) missions. Then the next contract can be based on the cost, results, schedules, etc. achieved on these efforts.
Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.
I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN. Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.
I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.
Does CST-100 have trunk space? I think it would interfere with the abort engine placement.
Good point. Although the CST-100 can carry a maximum of 10 persons whereas Dargon V2 can only carry 7 persons. NASA will only be using 4 seats but the empty seats can be replaced by cargo.
10 people in coach vs 7 people first class? What is the internal volume of each? I have always heard CST-100 had a crew of 7.
ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.
I'm sorry Lou I should had stated in a clearer way, I mean all three companies are in the fly-off, then selection is made...With this type of US tax dollar investment, true competition should include an orbital and sucessful return fly-off... Then decide from there... My morning 2 cents...In the big picture, that's exactly what this is. Both companies will build their spacecraft and try a few (<=6) missions. Then the next contract can be based on the cost, results, schedules, etc. achieved on these efforts.
ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.
At the press conference NASA said they only wanted 4 seats, and that supports the previously announced plans to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7 once Commercial Crew becomes operational (3 from Soyuz, 4 from CC).
Somewhere else on NSF there was a discussion about comments Garrett Reisman of SpaceX had made about the number of people going to the ISS, and that NASA was not interested in extra passengers at this time.
Has that changed?
Boeing wants to sell the 5th seat via Space Adventures.
We'll see if they can convince NASA to let them.
Boeing also has the one thing likely to be able to convince NASA: The ears of congress...
Kind of defeats the purpose of "commercial crew" though to eliminate one of the innovators and then give the least innovative proposal a significantly higher amount of funding. But really, I'd rather see CST-100 replace Orion which is the real waste of money (along with the white elephant SLS), and the two "newspace" innovators allowed to proceed on commercial crew.
My understanding is that CST-100 is strictly a LEO space station taxi, which is only about half reusable, whereas Dragon V2 is meant to be capable of relatively long independent stays in space, high-energy BEO returns, and propulsive landings on Mars, and is about 95% reusable (only the interstage/solar array/escape fins are expendable, with the heat shield reusable for "on the order of ten" flights before refurbishment).Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.
I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN. Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.
I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.
This isn't just a contract for a dozen crew transporation missions to the ISS.
This isn't just a contract for a dozen crew transporation missions to the ISS. The main purpose of this program is to develop capabilities for future NASA consumption.
ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.
At the press conference NASA said they only wanted 4 seats, and that supports the previously announced plans to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7 once Commercial Crew becomes operational (3 from Soyuz, 4 from CC).
Somewhere else on NSF there was a discussion about comments Garrett Reisman of SpaceX had made about the number of people going to the ISS, and that NASA was not interested in extra passengers at this time.
Has that changed?
ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.
At the press conference NASA said they only wanted 4 seats, and that supports the previously announced plans to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7 once Commercial Crew becomes operational (3 from Soyuz, 4 from CC).
Somewhere else on NSF there was a discussion about comments Garrett Reisman of SpaceX had made about the number of people going to the ISS, and that NASA was not interested in extra passengers at this time.
Has that changed?
No that hasn't changed. The 7 or 10 seat configuration would be for Bigelow. I am not sure what the 5 seat CST-100 configuration would be for. Possibly for a space taxi model with a Boeing taxi driver and 4 NASA astronauts.
ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.
At the press conference NASA said they only wanted 4 seats, and that supports the previously announced plans to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7 once Commercial Crew becomes operational (3 from Soyuz, 4 from CC).
Somewhere else on NSF there was a discussion about comments Garrett Reisman of SpaceX had made about the number of people going to the ISS, and that NASA was not interested in extra passengers at this time.
Has that changed?
No that hasn't changed. The 7 or 10 seat configuration would be for Bigelow. I am not sure what the 5 seat CST-100 configuration would be for. Possibly for a space taxi model with a Boeing taxi driver and 4 NASA astronauts.
Here you find the possible answer (one extra seat for tourists to ISS).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1258230#msg1258230
ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.
At the press conference NASA said they only wanted 4 seats, and that supports the previously announced plans to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7 once Commercial Crew becomes operational (3 from Soyuz, 4 from CC).
Somewhere else on NSF there was a discussion about comments Garrett Reisman of SpaceX had made about the number of people going to the ISS, and that NASA was not interested in extra passengers at this time.
Has that changed?
No that hasn't changed. The 7 or 10 seat configuration would be for Bigelow. I am not sure what the 5 seat CST-100 configuration would be for. Possibly for a space taxi model with a Boeing taxi driver and 4 NASA astronauts.
Here you find the possible answer (one extra seat for tourists to ISS).
ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.
At the press conference NASA said they only wanted 4 seats, and that supports the previously announced plans to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7 once Commercial Crew becomes operational (3 from Soyuz, 4 from CC).
Somewhere else on NSF there was a discussion about comments Garrett Reisman of SpaceX had made about the number of people going to the ISS, and that NASA was not interested in extra passengers at this time.
Has that changed?
No that hasn't changed. The 7 or 10 seat configuration would be for Bigelow. I am not sure what the 5 seat CST-100 configuration would be for. Possibly for a space taxi model with a Boeing taxi driver and 4 NASA astronauts.
Here you find the possible answer (one extra seat for tourists to ISS).
Ah, that makes sense, but is it likely to happen?
The model supposedly being used by NASA is the "car rental" model, where SpaceX and Boeing provide the vehicle and NASA fills it up however they want (NASA personnel also operate the vehicle). So with that model Boeing would not have a seat to "sell", and NASA is unlikely to be getting into the tourism business.
Has there been any mention of whether CST-100 or DV2 will be used as a lifeboat?
[...]
The other thing is : how does the tourist come home? This only works if SpaceX agrees to bring the tourist home on the returning flight and there is a direct handover. Is that even possible?
On orbit time requirement, 6 months?
Maybe discussed earlier, I didn't found:Congress would have to appropriate more funding to do this. Seats until 2017 have already been purchased on Soyuz and CC program funding is estimated to run from 2017-end of program. To start launches earlier Congress would have to buy the same astronaut a second seat on a different launcher and that would be a hard sell.
What about if SpaceX will be ready earlier than 2017? (I wouldn't be surprised).
Could they begin with the launches earlier under this contract?
The model supposedly being used by NASA is the "car rental" model, where SpaceX and Boeing provide the vehicle and NASA fills it up however they want (NASA personnel also operate the vehicle). So with that model Boeing would not have a seat to "sell", and NASA is unlikely to be getting into the tourism business.
On orbit time requirement, 6 months?
NASA won't sell out seats on their flights, they aren't in the commercial space business. It's kind of the crux of this whole program in fact, having commercial providers able to sell the service instead of NASA.
[...]
The other thing is : how does the tourist come home? This only works if SpaceX agrees to bring the tourist home on the returning flight and there is a direct handover. Is that even possible?
I'd love to see the actual details, but we've got nothing.
My assumption is that the tourist stays on orbit for 6 months and sleeps in CST. Most of capsule's stowage capacity is taken over by the tourist's provisions. There are obviously all kinds of reasons NASA may not be okay with this. One challenge I wasn't expecting was that, at $80,000/kg. or more, NASA may simply outbid any potentially spaceflight participants. NASA wants that cargo badly.On orbit time requirement, 6 months?
210 days IIRC.
The other thing is : how does the tourist come home? This only works if SpaceX agrees to bring the tourist home on the returning flight and there is a direct handover. Is that even possible?
You know, I think I understand why Boeing won instead of SNC.I think it's more likely a combination of Boeing's lobbying power combined with uncertainty about the Dream Chaser engine and concern with risk management after revelations of the details of Dragon V2.
Of the three companies competing, only Boeing had any provision to be able to reboost the station.
SpaceX is becoming a proven commidoty and with the commercial contracts that they are getting, they could finish their manned flight capibilities without NASA. Boeing has a track record with them. And SNC's bird reminded NASA too much of the Space Shuttle.
Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?
Besides, as a matter of risk management, Dream Chaser and Dragon V2 are both extremely ambitious vehicles. CST-100 is pedestrian, mediocre, safe. If Dragon V2 had seemed more like a fallback option, if it was just the Dragon capsule with life support and a LAS module, Dream Chaser might have won alongside Dragon.
When Dragon V2 turned out to be this extremely ambitious design, with propulsive landing capability, it couldn't be treated as the fallback anymore. Failures in the DragonFly test program could lead to delays in Dragon V2 being ready for service.
Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?
You know, I think I understand why Boeing won instead of SNC.I think it's more likely a combination of Boeing's lobbying power combined with uncertainty about the Dream Chaser engine and concern with risk management after revelations of the details of Dragon V2.
Of the three companies competing, only Boeing had any provision to be able to reboost the station.
SpaceX is becoming a proven commidoty and with the commercial contracts that they are getting, they could finish their manned flight capibilities without NASA. Boeing has a track record with them. And SNC's bird reminded NASA too much of the Space Shuttle.
There have been indications and rumors that Dream Chaser would switch from a hybrid engine to a liquid-fuelled one. They've denied that this is decided, or that it would lead to a delay, but acknowledged that they are exploring the option. The declaration that it wouldn't cause a delay came after fear, uncertainty, and doubt were spreading about SNC abandoning hybrid motors, so it wasn't entirely convincing. In any case, SNC is generally now behaving as if they know that hybrid motors were a mistake, to be moved away from at first opportunity.
Besides, as a matter of risk management, Dream Chaser and Dragon V2 are both extremely ambitious vehicles. CST-100 is pedestrian, mediocre, safe. If Dragon V2 had seemed more like a fallback option, if it was just the Dragon capsule with life support and a LAS module, Dream Chaser might have won alongside Dragon.
When Dragon V2 turned out to be this extremely ambitious design, with propulsive landing capability, it couldn't be treated as the fallback anymore. Failures in the DragonFly test program could lead to delays in Dragon V2 being ready for service.
Dragon V2 has a lot of unknowns but could be landed Soyuz style with parachutes plus rockets.
Yes but at one time there was talk of more than coverage of each astronaut, having an extra crew return vehicle for unforseen events such as taking a crew member off for a medical emergency, or, covering off evacuation in the event of a catastrophe that impacted one of the regular return vehicles.Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?
There is also a Soyuz lifeboat for the other 3 astronauts. So everyone is covered by a lifeboat.
You do know that Dragon V2 doesn't require propulsive landing to return crew and cargo, right? You keep using the phrase, "extremely ambitious design" for Dragon. It's a capsule, with parachute landing capability, and pusher style abort system, just like the CST-100. While the design includes more ambitious options, they aren't required for it to function.Unlike the CST-100, the abort system comes down with the crew, and unlike Soyuz, the rockets used to soften the parachute landing are liquid-fuelled with NTO/MMH, and are capable at full throttle of launching the capsule upward at about 6g. They're certainly capable of boosting it high in the air and wrecking the parachute before hammering the capsule into the ground, wrong-side up.
A pure parachute landing in Dragon V2 is basically meant to be a surviveable crash. With the big NTO and MMH tanks onboard. And it's not like they can do an extensive crash test program, as if they were designing a mass-market car.
The possibility that the propulsive landing system / LAS doesn't work as designed isn't equivalent to the case where it's not present. If it malfunctions, it is capable of destroying the capsule or killing the crew in a variety of ways.
This kind of design will be great if they can dramatically lower launch costs and increase launch availability (both stages reusable), so it can be flight tested extensively like a commercial aircraft, but being able to trust it enough to put people in it after just one unmanned test flight is harder than with a simpler design that has less to go wrong.
This is where the DragonFly test program comes in....but what I'm saying is that the DragonFly test program needs to be completed for this system to be trustworthy even with a parachute-assisted landing.
Yes but at one time there was talk of more than coverage of each astronaut, having an extra crew return vehicle for unforseen events such as taking a crew member off for a medical emergency, or, covering off evacuation in the event of a catastrophe that impacted one of the regular return vehicles.Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?
There is also a Soyuz lifeboat for the other 3 astronauts. So everyone is covered by a lifeboat.
Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?
I suppose that's possible.
The USTV designation is designed to dock on N1 Nadir & N2 Nadir (after PMM relocation). Currently (L2 document) they have only 1-month docked stays shown. However, SpaceX, Orbital, and HTV all use those same two docking ports for cargo, and JAXA plans on providing an additional 2 modules in the future (yay). So it makes it very congested.
I do believe however that there are plans for an additional port? I can't remember 100% though.
edit to add: 'ISS' Pete is the authority on here to figure this stuff out. ;)
Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?
I suppose that's possible.
The USTV designation is designed to dock on N1 Nadir & N2 Nadir (after PMM relocation). Currently (L2 document) they have only 1-month docked stays shown. However, SpaceX, Orbital, and HTV all use those same two docking ports for cargo, and JAXA plans on providing an additional 2 modules in the future (yay). So it makes it very congested.
I do believe however that there are plans for an additional port? I can't remember 100% though.
edit to add: 'ISS' Pete is the authority on here to figure this stuff out. ;)
USTV is the CRS2 cargo vehicles. Look for "USCV"
Should be Node 2 Fwd and Node 2 Zenith.
But I'm rather surprised and disappointed SNC lost out to Boeing when Dream Chaser is clearly a more capable and innovative then the CST-100.
I suspect the same since SNC's vehicle was clearly a better vehicle and seemed to have been farther along.
Kind of defeats the purpose of "commercial crew" though to eliminate one of the innovators and then give the least innovative proposal a significantly higher amount of funding. But really, I'd rather see CST-100 replace
I'm really surprised Boeing got 4.2 billion dollars while Spacex only got 2.6 billion.
Exactly what I keep saying, I feel like it was a "bait and switch"... So what's the ROI in SNC?I'm really surprised Boeing got 4.2 billion dollars while Spacex only got 2.6 billion.
I'm too cynical to be surprised. If the goal was simply to get the lowest risk solution to supplementing Soyuz for the few remaining years of ISS life, then it makes sense. But then we should have just awarded a cost-plus contract years ago, as that's a poor basis for trying to spur an innovative commercial spaceflight revolution.
I suspect the same since SNC's vehicle was clearly a better vehicle and seemed to have been farther along.
I'm really surprised Boeing got 4.2 billion dollars while Spacex only got 2.6 billion.
I'm too cynical to be surprised. If the goal was simply to get the lowest risk solution to supplementing Soyuz for the few remaining years of ISS life, then it makes sense. But then we should have just awarded a cost-plus contract years ago, as that's a poor basis for trying to spur an innovative commercial spaceflight revolution.
So does this have anything to do with the decision to axe DC?
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/08/19/snc-abandons-hybrid-motors-dream-chaser/
Seems like quite a late change. Calling a new play after the snap really.
But I'm rather surprised and disappointed SNC lost out to Boeing when Dream Chaser is clearly a more capable and innovative then the CST-100.
I suspect the same since SNC's vehicle was clearly a better vehicle and seemed to have been farther along.
Jim, in what ways was DreamChaser inferior to CST-100?
Jim, in what ways was DreamChaser inferior to CST-100?
Exactly what I keep saying, I feel like it was a "bait and switch"... So what's the ROI in SNC?I'm really surprised Boeing got 4.2 billion dollars while Spacex only got 2.6 billion.
I'm too cynical to be surprised. If the goal was simply to get the lowest risk solution to supplementing Soyuz for the few remaining years of ISS life, then it makes sense. But then we should have just awarded a cost-plus contract years ago, as that's a poor basis for trying to spur an innovative commercial spaceflight revolution.
quick, safe, cheap - choose two.
quick, safe, cheap - choose two.
Dragon V2 will be in orbit quicker and it will cost less. Invariably, this means that Dragon V2 has a higher LOC rate than CST-100?
Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?
I suppose that's possible.
The USTV designation is designed to dock on N1 Nadir & N2 Nadir (after PMM relocation). Currently (L2 document) they have only 1-month docked stays shown. However, SpaceX, Orbital, and HTV all use those same two docking ports for cargo, and JAXA plans on providing an additional 2 modules in the future (yay). So it makes it very congested.
I do believe however that there are plans for an additional port? I can't remember 100% though.
edit to add: 'ISS' Pete is the authority on here to figure this stuff out. ;)
quick, safe, cheap - choose two.
Dragon V2 will be in orbit quicker and it will cost less. Invariably, this means that Dragon V2 has a higher LOC rate than CST-100?
It's not an infinite resolution quip. All these vehicles will not have been developed "quick" by any sensible definition.. but they will meet all NASA's exacting standards of safety and they will do it on starvation budgets, as they have for years now. If they desperately wanted to fly astronauts to the station on a US vehicle, they'd use a cargo Dragon and be done with it - quick, cheap, but not very safe.
For the life of me, I can't see what makes that an inherently superior approach for a spacecraft in THIS size and with THIS mission. Is it stronger? More survivable in a crash?
For the life of me, I can't see what makes that an inherently superior approach for a spacecraft in THIS size and with THIS mission. Is it stronger? More survivable in a crash?
Of course, SNC have already performed a test on this, and the result seems to be that DC can tumble down the runway and be quite survivable for any occupants.
If DC is in control, its velocity vector is mostly forward, and it gets the chance to scrub off speed in an extended crash.
A failed parachute landing comes in at high speed with an extremely short deceleration zone. (Yes, I know, SuperDracos, etc.)
Kind of defeats the purpose of "commercial crew" though to eliminate one of the innovators and then give the least innovative proposal a significantly higher amount of funding. But really, I'd rather see CST-100 replace Orion which is the real waste of money (along with the white elephant SLS), and the two "newspace" innovators allowed to proceed on commercial crew.
quick, safe, cheap - choose two.
quick, safe, cheap - choose two.
You made that up. It's not a truism.
It could just as easily have been quick, innovative, and cheap.
Or innovative, capable, and safe.
quick, safe, cheap - choose two.
You made that up. It's not a truism.
It could just as easily have been quick, innovative, and cheap.
Or innovative, capable, and safe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_management_triangle
Btw why should "innovative" as such be desirable option. People innovating for just innovativeness sake does not necessary produce faster, cheaper or better results, sometimes the opposite.
I hear alot about our paying the Russians $71M per seat to fly to the ISS, but I can't find information on what the estimated cost will be per seat on the CST 100 and manned Dragon. Is this information published any where?
It's apparently up to over $80 million now, by the way http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-spacex-to-team-with-nasa-on-space-taxi/. Although I have to say I am a little dubious about that claim, I had a hard time trying to find it amid lots of reports that it is over $70.
We don't have an estimated price per seat if you are excluding development costs. I don't know that anyone has done an estimated price per seat including CCiCAP and CCtCAP but it would obviously be far higher than anything the Russians have charged us.
(1)Excluding development (as 60%), including 6 flight of 7 seats:
~$25M per seat to ISS
That's the price for a comercial client after this contract ends.
On the innovation question, I think the ultimate goal is what matters. I still believe in the vision of NASP of routine civilian access to space, even if that was never really that program's goal and even if I won't realistically live to see it:Somewhat off topic?
While SpaceX is keeping the dream alive, albeit with a pragmatic and measured evolutionary approach, this is the type of thing NASA should be about. Unfortunately, we have become too timid and too risk averse to push the boundaries or invest in ambitious R&D, at least in the civilian world. What goes on at places like Groom Lake we may never know, but what good does it do for humanity if we only invest in advancing weaponry?Ever read the NASA charter? "Humanity" has quite a narrow definition. :(
Maybe Dream Chaser seemed like it was keeping some vestige of that dream and spirit alive, even if in reality it was no revolutionary vehicle. I was always a fan of the HL-20.You appear to be profoundly ignorant of how innovative Dream Chaser is.
On the innovation question, I think the ultimate goal is what matters. I still believe in the vision of NASP of routine civilian access to space, even if that was never really that program's goal and even if I won't realistically live to see it:Somewhat off topic?QuoteWhile SpaceX is keeping the dream alive, albeit with a pragmatic and measured evolutionary approach, this is the type of thing NASA should be about. Unfortunately, we have become too timid and too risk averse to push the boundaries or invest in ambitious R&D, at least in the civilian world. What goes on at places like Groom Lake we may never know, but what good does it do for humanity if we only invest in advancing weaponry?Ever read the NASA charter? "Humanity" has quite a narrow definition. :(QuoteMaybe Dream Chaser seemed like it was keeping some vestige of that dream and spirit alive, even if in reality it was no revolutionary vehicle. I was always a fan of the HL-20.You appear to be profoundly ignorant of how innovative Dream Chaser is.
1)First human carrying orbital lifting body. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.
2)Hybrid main propulsion system functioning as both launch escape and on orbit OMS. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.
3) A human rated space vehicle whose primary structure is entirely carbon fibre composite. That has never been flown anywhere on the planet.
This was all done on a budget 1/2 that of the (much) more conservative CTS100 and Dragon systems.
I hear alot about our paying the Russians $71M per seat to fly to the ISS, but I can't find information on what the estimated cost will be per seat on the CST 100 and manned Dragon. Is this information published any where?
It's apparently up to over $80 million now, by the way http://www.cbsnews.com/news/boeing-spacex-to-team-with-nasa-on-space-taxi/. Although I have to say I am a little dubious about that claim, I had a hard time trying to find it amid lots of reports that it is over $70.
We don't have an estimated price per seat if you are excluding development costs. I don't know that anyone has done an estimated price per seat including CCiCAP and CCtCAP but it would obviously be far higher than anything the Russians have charged us.
In short, to justify CCtCap, you need to go well beyond annual/operations $seat numbers.Weaning out of Soyuz is sufficient, I think.
In short, to justify CCtCap, you need to go well beyond annual/operations $seat numbers.
Somewhat off topic?
You appear to be profoundly ignorant of how innovative Dream Chaser is.
On the innovation question, I think the ultimate goal is what matters. I still believe in the vision of NASP of routine civilian access to space, even if that was never really that program's goal and even if I won't realistically live to see it:Somewhat off topic?QuoteWhile SpaceX is keeping the dream alive, albeit with a pragmatic and measured evolutionary approach, this is the type of thing NASA should be about. Unfortunately, we have become too timid and too risk averse to push the boundaries or invest in ambitious R&D, at least in the civilian world. What goes on at places like Groom Lake we may never know, but what good does it do for humanity if we only invest in advancing weaponry?Ever read the NASA charter? "Humanity" has quite a narrow definition. :(QuoteMaybe Dream Chaser seemed like it was keeping some vestige of that dream and spirit alive, even if in reality it was no revolutionary vehicle. I was always a fan of the HL-20.You appear to be profoundly ignorant of how innovative Dream Chaser is.
1)First human carrying orbital lifting body. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.
2)Hybrid main propulsion system functioning as both launch escape and on orbit OMS. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.
3) A human rated space vehicle whose primary structure is entirely carbon fibre composite. That has never been flown anywhere on the planet.
This was all done on a budget 1/2 that of the (much) more conservative CTS100 and Dragon systems.
Not meaning to sound like I am raining on your parade - I greatly admire and respect the SNC work - but to be technically correct this was not "done" on 1/2 that. It was IN WORK. it was not yet a human rated sapce vehicle, it hadn't really flown (drop test is a great start), it did not have a working hybrid motor... Just keeping it in perspective.
Somewhere pn this thread it was quoted that development was the bigger part of this contract so 60% seems to be the lower limit of being the bigger part.(1)Excluding development (as 60%), including 6 flight of 7 seats:
~$25M per seat to ISS
That's the price for a comercial client after this contract ends.
Where does the 60% number come from?
I am more concerned from the crs1 price of $80M per ton ($1.6B / 20T). Is this the real price for cargo?
I guessed it's the same for cctcap and crs1I am more concerned from the crs1 price of $80M per ton ($1.6B / 20T). Is this the real price for cargo?
That does not take into account vacuum cargo and downmass cargo. It refers to pressurized upmass only.
QuoteMaybe Dream Chaser seemed like it was keeping some vestige of that dream and spirit alive, even if in reality it was no revolutionary vehicle. I was always a fan of the HL-20.You appear to be profoundly ignorant of how innovative Dream Chaser is.
1)First human carrying orbital lifting body. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.
2)Hybrid main propulsion system functioning as both launch escape and on orbit OMS. That combination has never been flown anywhere on the planet.
3) A human rated space vehicle whose primary structure is entirely carbon fibre composite. That has never been flown anywhere on the planet.
This was all done on a budget 1/2 that of the (much) more conservative CTS100 and Dragon systems.
I guessed it's the same for cctcap and crs1I am more concerned from the crs1 price of $80M per ton ($1.6B / 20T). Is this the real price for cargo?
That does not take into account vacuum cargo and downmass cargo. It refers to pressurized upmass only.
Agree, I just think commercial crew then was the wrong program to try to spur innovation. NASA's ISS crew rotation/assured crew return needs don't mesh with pushing the envelope, which means NASA really needs separate programs for doing that imo.
...
If we take baldusi's $150M per flight, the final cost gets even lower since two of these flights are part of the development (certification) process.
...
...
If we take baldusi's $150M per flight, the final cost gets even lower since two of these flights are part of the development (certification) process.
...
There is one crewed flight to the ISS required for certification. The other (2-6) flights are post-certification missions and all have the same pricing framework.
Agree, I just think commercial crew then was the wrong program to try to spur innovation. NASA's ISS crew rotation/assured crew return needs don't mesh with pushing the envelope, which means NASA really needs separate programs for doing that imo.
That actually makes a lot of sense. While true that Dragon also pushed the envelope it does it in such a way that is evolutionary of existing methodology to fill a very specific and well defined need. I had hoped to see DreamChaser win thru but in hindsight I have to admit that for the very specific need NASA is attempting to fill that DC was too much. So to all who think that the board decided that DC wasn't good enough I submit that it may have been the other way around - it was too advanced for the very specific need being filled, and thus a higher risk to the program. It's not that NASA didn't like DC because they obviously did. But it didn't fit well within the very narrow risk envelope NASA had defined for this program. VT is correct - DC would be a better fit in a NASA-sponsored X-Plane program. In such a program DC would have fared extremely well.
In short, to justify CCtCap, you need to go well beyond annual/operations $seat numbers.To be precise, that's to justify CCtCap as they chose to award it. If they had gone with a downselect to just SpaceX it would have been justifiable on a pure cost basis within a much shorter period.
We found the assumptions underlying NASA’s future life cycle estimates for transportation costs unrealistic. For example, NASA estimates for commercial crew transportation are based on the cost of a Soyuz seat in FY 2016 – $70.7 million per seat for a total cost of $283 million per mission for four seats. However, the Program’s independent government cost estimates project significantly higher crew transportation costs when using commercial crew companies. ISS Program officials explained they used the price of a Soyuz seat as a planning tool and are tracking the cost of commercial crew missions as a program risk, in essence acknowledging that the price for commercial crew missions is expected to be more than the current Soyuz prices paid by the Program.
I would argue that ESA's IEV hybrid vehicle is the possible future not winged vehicles.One can imagine such a minimalistic lifting body to provide low-g reentry and cross range capability, combined with DV2-style propulsive landing + parachute backup, which would default to a capsule-style high-g reentry if the control surfaces are damaged (and ejected).
Keith Cowing seems to be upset that CST-100 is too Apollo ...I'm not seeing it. Maybe I have to look closer?
He should wish it was the Apollo CM/SM...Keith Cowing seems to be upset that CST-100 is too Apollo ...I'm not seeing it. Maybe I have to look closer?
- Ed Kyle
I'm not seeing it. Maybe I have to look closer?
It differs in pretty much the same way a Boeing 707 differs from Boeing 787. It's just the right shape for the job.
It differs in pretty much the same way a Boeing 707 differs from Boeing 787. It's just the right shape for the job.
Not really. CST-100 has exactly the same outer mold lines as Apollo. Exactly the same size, exactly the same shape.
Keith Cowing seems to be upset that CST-100 is too Apollo ...I'm not seeing it. Maybe I have to look closer?
- Ed Kyle
It differs in pretty much the same way a Boeing 707 differs from Boeing 787. It's just the right shape for the job.
Not really. CST-100 has exactly the same outer mold lines as Apollo. Exactly the same size, exactly the same shape.
Keith Cowing seems to be upset that CST-100 is too Apollo ...I'm not seeing it. Maybe I have to look closer?
- Ed Kyle
He was saying it with regards to the vehicle interior
So I guess now you divide up the astronaut class, group A for Dragon and group B for CST. Since each capsule layout and interface will be different.The example, I suppose, would be how NASA astronauts trained for launching on both Shuttle and Soyuz. Won't they also be passengers, not pilots?
But you have to train for contingency situations, evacuation, loss of pressure, aborts, etc. And if I'm guessing it right, training and qualification will be done by the contractors (i.e. Boeing and SpaceX). Probably NASA will want as much commonality as possible. But my guess is that it will be one of the lessons learned from this program. In the end, Boeing and SpaceX will have to coordinate a lot to simplify things for NASA.So I guess now you divide up the astronaut class, group A for Dragon and group B for CST. Since each capsule layout and interface will be different.The example, I suppose, would be how NASA astronauts trained for launching on both Shuttle and Soyuz. Won't they also be passengers, not pilots?
- Ed Kyle
But you have to train for contingency situations, evacuation, loss of pressure, aborts, etc.Seems like diminishing returns to me.
Back in the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo days, human skill was important because they had such limited control systems, and there was even some hardware that was accessible and meaningfully field-repairable/modifiable. Now, in a modern spacecraft, if something goes wrong, and there isn't a programmed response, and ground control doesn't take care of it, it's terribly unlikely that it will be anything that the so-called "crew" can do anything about.
But you have to train for contingency situations, evacuation, loss of pressure, aborts, etc.Seems like diminishing returns to me.
Progressively improving and testing the capsule and launch vehicle: increasing crew survivability from 50% (if you take your first whack at it, and stick people in, totally untested) to 90% to 99% to 99.9% to 99.99% (extensive launch history) etc.
Progressively improving and training on emergency procedures: increasing crew survivability from 99% (stick blindfolded human cargo in the capsule, without telling them they're going to space), to 99.1% ("You can use the seat cushions as a floatation device." flight attendant speech), to 99.11% to 99.111% to 99.1111% (he train from child) etc. And as the vehicle is improved, those benefits are going down from 0.1...% to 0.01...% to 0.001...%
Back in the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo days, human skill was important because they had such limited control systems, and there was even some hardware that was accessible and meaningfully field-repairable/modifiable. Now, in a modern spacecraft, if something goes wrong, and there isn't a programmed response, and ground control doesn't take care of it, it's terribly unlikely that it will be anything that the so-called "crew" can do anything about.
I think in this generation, the realistically useful vehicle-specific "crew" training is going to amount to:
In the CST-100: knowing for each individual button, why you should never press it.
In the Dragon V2: knowing how to delete any U2 albums that are automatically uploaded.
What would Sandra Bullock do...? ;DBut you have to train for contingency situations, evacuation, loss of pressure, aborts, etc.Seems like diminishing returns to me.
Progressively improving and testing the capsule and launch vehicle: increasing crew survivability from 50% (if you take your first whack at it, and stick people in, totally untested) to 90% to 99% to 99.9% to 99.99% (extensive launch history) etc.
Progressively improving and training on emergency procedures: increasing crew survivability from 99% (stick blindfolded human cargo in the capsule, without telling them they're going to space), to 99.1% ("You can use the seat cushions as a floatation device." flight attendant speech), to 99.11% to 99.111% to 99.1111% (he train from child) etc. And as the vehicle is improved, those benefits are going down from 0.1...% to 0.01...% to 0.001...%
Back in the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo days, human skill was important because they had such limited control systems, and there was even some hardware that was accessible and meaningfully field-repairable/modifiable. Now, in a modern spacecraft, if something goes wrong, and there isn't a programmed response, and ground control doesn't take care of it, it's terribly unlikely that it will be anything that the so-called "crew" can do anything about.
I think in this generation, the realistically useful vehicle-specific "crew" training is going to amount to:
In the CST-100: knowing for each individual button, why you should never press it.
In the Dragon V2: knowing how to delete any U2 albums that are automatically uploaded.
Water egress. Loss of cabin pressure. Loss of communications. Fire in cabin.
Survivable to trained crew, deadly to untrained individuals.
What would Sandra Bullock do...? ;D
What would Sandra Bullock do...? ;D
Study Shenzhou buttons too :)
Why are you assuming crew of modern spacecrafts cannot access hardware and field-repair/mod it? Volvo didn't win CCtCAP contract...I said meaningfully field-repairable/modifiable, as opposed to it technically being possible, but not being necessary or helpful in any plausible scenario.
1. Water egress.1: If you land in the water, or otherwise in a hostile and remote environment, the safest thing is probably to just stay in the capsule until it gets retrieved.
2. Loss of cabin pressure.
3. Loss of communications.
4. Fire in cabin.
What would Sandra Bullock do...? ;DProbably show off legs a 50-year-old woman has no business having, to attract a space station with a spare lifeboat from an alternate reality into fire-extinguisher range.
Why are you assuming crew of modern spacecrafts cannot access hardware and field-repair/mod it? Volvo didn't win CCtCAP contract...I said meaningfully field-repairable/modifiable, as opposed to it technically being possible, but not being necessary or helpful in any plausible scenario.
1. Water egress.1: If you land in the water, or otherwise in a hostile and remote environment, the safest thing is probably to just stay in the capsule until it gets retrieved.
2. Loss of cabin pressure.
3. Loss of communications.
4. Fire in cabin.
2 and 4: You're in a suit. Stay in the suit, stay in your chair. Let automated systems and ground control detect and put the fire out / pick and execute the fastest reasonably-safe way to get you somewhere you're not dependent on the suit for survival.
Won't they also be passengers, not pilots?
Right, you've landed in the water and the vehicle is slowly filling and sinking. Rather than getting out and living, you're going to stay in and drown.If you've landed in water, the crew compartment is taking on water, and the vehicle is sinking, that means you've suffered at least three separate major system failures (the launch or targetted reentry failed, the main pressure vessel has lost integrity, the air bags have failed). But somehow, the crew is still alive and concious, it's only taking on water slowly, so they still have time to climb out and swim for it.
Same with a fire on landing. Or, say there's a fire in the vehicle in orbit. A trained crewmember could pick up a fire extinguisher and put it out. Or simply put something on it to smother the fire. Or notice it's an electrical fire and yank the wires. None of which an automated system could realistically be expected to do. But instead you'd have the crew sit and die.
Same goes for loss of cabin pressure. A trained crew member might be able to find the leak and plug it. Instead, by your rules, they'll just sit by and do nothing.
Not to mention that Soyuz-13 crew died because an oxygen valve was difficult to access and they had no training on how to do it. even the latest F-22 fatality had this problem. If that poster thinks that training is unnecessary, he shouldn't be close to any dangerous activity (that means no driving, btw).It was Soyuz-11 (all the way back in 1971), and the crew died because cabin pressure was lost unexpectedly due to mechanical failure during reentry and they had no suits. It is grossly implausible that any training would have enabled them to detect and repair the defect in time.
So I guess now you divide up the astronaut class, group A for Dragon and group B for CST. Since each capsule layout and interface will be different.
So I guess now you divide up the astronaut class, group A for Dragon and group B for CST. Since each capsule layout and interface will be different.
They're not VFR kids getting their first time in a Piper. They can figure out two capsule systems.
{snip}
If you've landed in water, the crew compartment is taking on water, and the vehicle is sinking, that means you've suffered at least three separate major system failures (the launch or targetted reentry failed, the main pressure vessel has lost integrity, the air bags have failed). But somehow, the crew is still alive and concious, it's only taking on water slowly, so they still have time to climb out and swim for it.
If you say I should be being prevented from driving, then I say rather you should require a 6-week emergency procedures course on any particular model of elevator you wish to ride in. Neither the Dragon V2 nor the CST-100 will need a pilot, nor any other crew.A similar argument could be made for airliners.
Even at the full $108 million/seat, since this is money that's being spent in America, it's probably a better deal for American government than spending $80 million in Russia, just by counting the consequent immediate increase in tax revenue (income and sales taxes, as people take their salaries and profits home to spend, giving other people salaries and profits to spend, etc.).
Even at the full $108 million/seat, since this is money that's being spent in America, it's probably a better deal for American government than spending $80 million in Russia, just by counting the consequent immediate increase in tax revenue (income and sales taxes, as people take their salaries and profits home to spend, giving other people salaries and profits to spend, etc.).
Don't forget that NASA is paying for redundant access, so you also need to include the price for CST-100 as well. This means that if NASA only flies six missions at four crew per mission from 2017 to 2019 (using a normal six month rotation), that works out to ($2600+$4200)/(6x4) = $283M per seat, which is 3.5 times the cost of using Soyuz.
Don't forget that NASA is paying for redundant access, so you also need to include the price for CST-100 as well. This means that if NASA only flies six missions at four crew per mission from 2017 to 2019 (using a normal six month rotation), that works out to ($2600+$4200)/(6x4) = $283M per seat, which is 3.5 times the cost of using Soyuz.
Well, you can, and you should, if either:Don't forget that NASA is paying for redundant access, so you also need to include the price for CST-100 as well. This means that if NASA only flies six missions at four crew per mission from 2017 to 2019 (using a normal six month rotation), that works out to ($2600+$4200)/(6x4) = $283M per seat, which is 3.5 times the cost of using Soyuz.
Steve you can't do it that way because the price per seat does not include the spacecraft development cost.
The other factor that should be considered is the increase in ISS crew size from 6 to 7. That would not be possible with Soyuz alone. It is difficult to put a price on that extra crew member, but one could argue that getting more out of your $100 billion space station could be worth a lot.
Musk has said that they needed about another $400-500 million to finish the Dragon V2, and they've said a passenger launch would be priced at $140 million.Don't forget that NASA is paying for redundant access, so you also need to include the price for CST-100 as well. This means that if NASA only flies six missions at four crew per mission from 2017 to 2019 (using a normal six month rotation), that works out to ($2600+$4200)/(6x4) = $283M per seat, which is 3.5 times the cost of using Soyuz.
Steve you can't do it that way because the price per seat does not include the spacecraft development cost.
Musk has said that they needed about another $400-500 million to finish the Dragon V2, and they've said a passenger launch would be priced at $140 million.Don't forget that NASA is paying for redundant access, so you also need to include the price for CST-100 as well. This means that if NASA only flies six missions at four crew per mission from 2017 to 2019 (using a normal six month rotation), that works out to ($2600+$4200)/(6x4) = $283M per seat, which is 3.5 times the cost of using Soyuz.
Steve you can't do it that way because the price per seat does not include the spacecraft development cost.
I am almost positive that Musk said the 140 million/flight and 20 million/seat cost was contingent on 6 dragon v2 flights per year. 3 cargo flights and 1 crew rotation flight is only 4. All these soyuz/CRS comparisons are also valuing the cargo that is taking up the space of the extra 3 seats, the unpressurized trunk cargo, and extra downmass as worthless.
Don't forget that NASA is paying for redundant access, so you also need to include the price for CST-100 as well. This means that if NASA only flies six missions at four crew per mission from 2017 to 2019 (using a normal six month rotation), that works out to ($2600+$4200)/(6x4) = $283M per seat, which is 3.5 times the cost of using Soyuz.
Steve you can't do it that way because the price per seat does not include the spacecraft development cost...
Well, you can, and you should, if either:Don't forget that NASA is paying for redundant access, so you also need to include the price for CST-100 as well. This means that if NASA only flies six missions at four crew per mission from 2017 to 2019 (using a normal six month rotation), that works out to ($2600+$4200)/(6x4) = $283M per seat, which is 3.5 times the cost of using Soyuz.
Steve you can't do it that way because the price per seat does not include the spacecraft development cost.
a) your main concern is the short term, or
b) you're considering the case that these are the only flights the vehicles will perform.
We won't ever know that part of the contract. Neither SpaceX or Boeing will make their pricing that transparent. Those payments will be obfuscated with other hard to measure metrics.
You'll have to plug in the real numbers, which we won't know for some time, but that's how you figure the per-seat cost for the performance portion of the contract.
We won't ever know that part of the contract. Neither SpaceX or Boeing will make their pricing that transparent. Those payments will be obfuscated with other hard to measure metrics.
For the sake of argument suppose that SpaceX uses $1.75 of its $2.6 billion award to get the vehicle to certification before the 1st ISS crew flight. That leaves $.85 billion remaining to perform the crew flights. Let's assume SpaceX gets 6 paid flights. That's 24 seats. $.85b/24=$35.4 million per seat - half the Soyuz cost, not 3.5 times.
Suggestion to mods: this thread is 143 pages long and has had 247480 views. Maybe time to lock it and start a dedicated CCtCap thread?
Suggestion to mods: this thread is 143 pages long and has had 247480 views. Maybe time to lock it and start a dedicated CCtCap thread?
Any program can be made look cheap if you count the recurring per unit costs separate from the development costs. Everything from the F35 Fighter Jet to the SLS is spun that way. With the total award Boeing recieved, they could have paid for the seats of every NASA+ESA expedition member all the way up to 2028, the probable longest date they will stretch the station out to before its deorbited. They could have paid for that and still paid SpaceX's award for DragonV2. Of course, these things are not really driven by economics, even if you call it 'commercial'. It's local politics and national politics, and in the case of Russia, geopolitics.Look at the ISS Risk Matrix. The Nr. 1 Risk is lack of crew access redundancy. That's on a 110B investment of taxpayers money. And that was before the Russian issues. Wouldn't you pay a 5% insurance to protect your most expensive asset?
I hope the spin off technologies of these two craft pay off enough to recoup and exceed the ~7 Billion for the taxpayers..prayers are an awful strategy though!
That's also the explanation of Boeing's award. SpaceX might do it faster and cheaper... or might fail. If there's one company in the US that you can depend on for crew access, it is Boeing. If they say they'll IOC by 2017, they will IOC by 2017 with a 99.5% probability (conditional to getting the requested funding, of course).
I hope the spin off technologies of these two craft pay off enough to recoup and exceed the ~7 Billion for the taxpayers..prayers are an awful strategy though!
SpaceX already has a dragon v1 in operation
SpaceX might have the lowest costs but they still don't tell the public what each launch costs.We won't ever know that part of the contract. Neither SpaceX or Boeing will make their pricing that transparent. Those payments will be obfuscated with other hard to measure metrics.
That tactic is only convenient if you have higher costs and try to mud waters. Those with lower costs what would have to gain from it?
Look at the requirements. Boeing has been working on the CST since the Crew Exploration Vehicle, at least. They have taken the most conservative decisions. They have been studying this for a decade. They are the engineers of both the Shuttle and the ISS. Sure, when the do business, they may take risks. When they are developing new technology, they'll most probably have delay (who hasn't, btw). But when they are told that the top priority is a safe service by 2017, I'm pretty sure they are the safest bet there is.That's also the explanation of Boeing's award. SpaceX might do it faster and cheaper... or might fail. If there's one company in the US that you can depend on for crew access, it is Boeing. If they say they'll IOC by 2017, they will IOC by 2017 with a 99.5% probability (conditional to getting the requested funding, of course).
Yeah, Boeing is *never* late, are they. ::) You might want to update your view on Boeing.