Author Topic: Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1  (Read 640905 times)

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #560 on: 03/08/2015 01:48 pm »
Well, apparently the redactions indicate order of magnitude.

 ;D

The lengths implies a figure value in the format of 9,999,999.00 but the second one is a possible no cost value in the form of 0.00.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #561 on: 03/16/2015 10:23 pm »
New commercial crew video:


Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #562 on: 03/17/2015 06:51 am »
New commercial crew video:
<skip>
New being a relative term here. Nothing that we had not already seen.

Offline okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 6806
  • Likes Given: 1345
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #563 on: 05/03/2015 12:37 am »
The Dream is Alive once more!  (In a few years!)

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 694
  • Hazards & Risk Analyst in SC, USA
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 580
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #564 on: 05/08/2015 02:17 pm »
The Dream is Alive once more!  (In a few years!)

Indeed! Another fantastic render okan!
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starship/SH, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #565 on: 05/09/2015 10:22 am »
The Dream is Alive once more!  (In a few years!)
Docking systems look great!
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #566 on: 05/09/2015 06:30 pm »
The Dream is Alive once more!  (In a few years!)
Docking systems look great!

The similarity between Orion and the CST-100 is obvious, as they both use the Apollo CM outer mold line. If our cash-strapped agency is going to be developing three different spacecraft, there should be room to make one of them a lifting body reusable shuttle imo. I say cut the Orion/SLS pork that's eating through NASA's budget, adapt CST-100 and Dragon for beyond-LEO missions, and fund the HL-20/Dream Chaser to completion to gain some diversity in the fleet via a reusable shuttle for LEO ops.
« Last Edit: 05/09/2015 06:31 pm by vt_hokie »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #567 on: 05/09/2015 08:51 pm »
Technically, all 3 of them have a lifting trajectory, not a ballistic one.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #568 on: 05/09/2015 09:06 pm »
fund the HL-20/Dream Chaser to completion to gain some diversity in the fleet via a reusable shuttle for LEO ops.

Diversity has benefits and costs.  They already have diversity with CST-100 and Dragon 2.  There's far less benefit from adding a third option than from going from one to two options.  I can't see how the minor benefit of having a third vehicle for such a small number of missions could possibly be worth the enormous cost.

One of the main promises of Commercial Crew is cost savings.  Scale is one of the biggest drivers of cost savings, and the scale is terribly low even if just one provider had all the flights.  Splitting it among three is a huge blow to potential cost savings from commercial crew.

Offline vt_hokie

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Hazlet, NJ
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 436
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #569 on: 05/09/2015 10:32 pm »
It just kills me that we have both Orion and CST-100, which seems totally unnecessary, and yet we couldn't make room for DC, leaving the promising and long overdue HL-20 at yet another dead end. So frustrating!

Orion seems totally unjustifiable to me, as does SLS, especially if there's potential for SpaceX to evolve its hardware for beyond-LEO missions. That we're entertaining pointless asteroid capture stunts just to find something for Orion to do indicates just how lost our space agency is, imo.
« Last Edit: 05/09/2015 10:32 pm by vt_hokie »

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #570 on: 05/09/2015 10:43 pm »
It just kills me that we have both Orion and CST-100, which seems totally unnecessary, and yet we couldn't make room for DC, leaving the promising and long overdue HL-20 at yet another dead end. So frustrating!

Orion seems totally unjustifiable to me, as does SLS, especially if there's potential for SpaceX to evolve its hardware for beyond-LEO missions. That we're entertaining pointless asteroid capture stunts just to find something for Orion to do indicates just how lost our space agency is, imo.

I agree with you there -- Orion and SLS are far worse than Dream Chaser.  I'd just rather spend that money on BEO infrastructure than Dream Chaser.

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #571 on: 05/09/2015 11:11 pm »
It just kills me that we have both Orion and CST-100, which seems totally unnecessary, and yet we couldn't make room for DC, leaving the promising and long overdue HL-20 at yet another dead end. So frustrating!

Orion seems totally unjustifiable to me, as does SLS, especially if there's potential for SpaceX to evolve its hardware for beyond-LEO missions. That we're entertaining pointless asteroid capture stunts just to find something for Orion to do indicates just how lost our space agency is, imo.

The Orion and SLS program where justifiable when first started.  Even three years ago could anyone seriously buy into the concept of putting faith into Elon Musk and SpaceX for the US BEO manned spaceflight program?  You have billions already spent on SLS and Orion and you expect NASA to ask to abandon these programs and re-direct funding to SpaceX? 

What you are seeing is a fundamental problem in how the US govt procures the development of multi-billion hardware from military fighters, submarines to space hardware.  The process is broken, it isn't that NASA is broken.     

"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10199
  • Likes Given: 11928
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #572 on: 05/10/2015 12:01 am »
The Orion and SLS program where justifiable when first started.  Even three years ago could anyone seriously buy into the concept of putting faith into Elon Musk and SpaceX for the US BEO manned spaceflight program?

Three years ago there wasn't a funded BEO program, and there still isn't today.  So the SLS/Orion represent "excess capability".

Quote
You have billions already spent on SLS and Orion and you expect NASA to ask to abandon these programs and re-direct funding to SpaceX?

The U.S. Government doesn't have a funded BEO program, so they don't need any BEO hardware from anyone.  But when that day comes for non-NASA hardware, normally there would be a competition held to find the best solution & provider.  Maybe SpaceX would win, maybe not, but usually competition results in the best potential result.

However notice I said "normally", since the SLS and Orion were not the result of any competitive process, either for the solution or the provider.  Which is part of the reason they don't perfectly match any known need.

Quote
What you are seeing is a fundamental problem in how the US govt procures the development of multi-billion hardware from military fighters, submarines to space hardware.  The process is broken, it isn't that NASA is broken.   

You are comparing apples & oranges.

The Commercial Crew program is a great example of competitive procurement.

The SLS and Orion were not competitively procured, they were specified by Congress.  So what they represent is how the political process screws things up, not that government procurement per se is broken.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #573 on: 05/10/2015 12:47 am »
It just kills me that we have both Orion and CST-100, which seems totally unnecessary, and yet we couldn't make room for DC, leaving the promising and long overdue HL-20 at yet another dead end. So frustrating!

Orion seems totally unjustifiable to me, as does SLS, especially if there's potential for SpaceX to evolve its hardware for beyond-LEO missions. That we're entertaining pointless asteroid capture stunts just to find something for Orion to do indicates just how lost our space agency is, imo.
The truth is that the requirements were such that this is how it ended up. Orion is a Congress mandate, there's no point in criticizing NASA for that. And NASA wanted at least two crew contractors, the only pair of offerings with realistic chances of IOC in 2017, were the two chosen ones. Lifting bodies are cool, but also require extra work. If you look at Orbital proposal, they were very clear that it is a very costly development and they wouldn't pursue it without a massive assurance of ROI.
Now, you want the cheapest way to transport 16 astronauts at a time to LEO? Probably HL42/Falcon Heavy would be the cheapest option. And could probably do 15tonnes of cargo, too. But those were not the requirements. Plain and simple. Not now, not in the future. If NASA was planning on opening a LEO training facility in 15 years, the DC would probably be the best option, but that's not what's planned for the future. In fact, the ISS partners are planning on BEO destinations, and both Dragon and CST-100 (and Cygnus and Jupiter/Exoliner) are easily extendable to lunar and Martian returns. DreamChaser isn't and thus it is a LEO dead end for a program that plans to go BEO in the future.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #574 on: 05/10/2015 01:08 am »
The Dream is Alive once more!  (In a few years!)
Docking systems look great!

The similarity between Orion and the CST-100 is obvious, as they both use the Apollo CM outer mold line. If our cash-strapped agency is going to be developing three different spacecraft, there should be room to make one of them a lifting body reusable shuttle imo. I say cut the Orion/SLS pork that's eating through NASA's budget, adapt CST-100 and Dragon for beyond-LEO missions, and fund the HL-20/Dream Chaser to completion to gain some diversity in the fleet via a reusable shuttle for LEO ops.
That sounds like faulty logic.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline Brovane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1285
  • United States
  • Liked: 828
  • Likes Given: 1797
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #575 on: 05/10/2015 01:35 am »
Three years ago there wasn't a funded BEO program, and there still isn't today.  So the SLS/Orion represent "excess capability".

Depends on how you define a "BEO program".  Certainly hardware development for a manned BEO program has been funded for almost a decade.  What hasn't been funded is specific mission for that hardware, just the hardware capability itself to allow a BEO mission.  In my opinion the funding of that hardware does represent a BEO program.  It might not have every laid out neatly as we would like but it is a program.   

The U.S. Government doesn't have a funded BEO program, so they don't need any BEO hardware from anyone.  But when that day comes for non-NASA hardware, normally there would be a competition held to find the best solution & provider.  Maybe SpaceX would win, maybe not, but usually competition results in the best potential result.

The funding of that hardware does represent a BEO program.  There was a "competition" for Orion and SLS hardware development.  It was held in the previous decade. 

However notice I said "normally", since the SLS and Orion were not the result of any competitive process, either for the solution or the provider.  Which is part of the reason they don't perfectly match any known need.

There was a "competition".  Congress just made sure that specific companies won the competition for better or for worse.  Then the actual mission for what to use the hardware for was changed.  This has lead NASA to just go with developing the capability and then hopefully a mission will be funded by Congress. 

 
You are comparing apples & oranges.
The Commercial Crew program is a great example of competitive procurement.
The SLS and Orion were not competitively procured, they were specified by Congress.  So what they represent is how the political process screws things up, not that government procurement per se is broken.

Of course I am comparing Apples and Oranges.  The Commercial Crew program is a great example of competitive procurement.  The Orion and SLS are not.  More important the Commercial Crew is a good example of how to use "fixed cost" contracting along with FAR.  The biggest determent for NASA with Orion and SLS is that they are "cost plus" contracts and not competitively procured.  We know how to build space hardware.   NASA needs to use more "fixed cost" contracting to control costs.  The govt procurement process of using cost plus contracting to develop new hardware is broken.  We start using more competitive processes and "fixed cost" contracting this can hopefully minimize damage from the political process which will always be there.   
"Look at that! If anybody ever said, "you'll be sitting in a spacecraft naked with a 134-pound backpack on your knees charging it", I'd have said "Aw, get serious". - John Young - Apollo-16

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #576 on: 05/10/2015 11:44 am »
Reacting to a report to mod, but everyone please focus on the thread title ;)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Nibb31

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • France
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #577 on: 05/13/2015 09:19 pm »
DreamChaser is a lifting body capsule just like Dragon and CST, which also could be reusable of reusability made sense economically. I don't believe that it qualifies as a "reusable shuttle" as it needs to launch on top of an expendable EELV just like the other capsules.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #578 on: 05/13/2015 11:40 pm »
DreamChaser is a lifting body capsule just like Dragon and CST, which also could be reusable of reusability made sense economically. I don't believe that it qualifies as a "reusable shuttle" as it needs to launch on top of an expendable EELV just like the other capsules.
It can fly on F9R, I believe with first stage reuse, which makes it at least as reusable as Shuttle was (though cheaper and smaller).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1594
  • Somewhere on the boat
  • Liked: 1869
  • Likes Given: 1262
Re: Commercial Crew (CCtCAP) - Discussion Thread
« Reply #579 on: 05/31/2015 10:10 am »
Not sure this is the right thread for this.

Can anyone explain why it's going to take almost another 2 years before we see the first crewed flight of CST or Dragon? I know there is some engineering to be done but in this day and age, with all our great modelling, prior experience etc, it should be possible to get a vehicle flying sooner than 2 years (April 2017 I think is the planned date).

Is it primarily down to cost? If Nasa released more $$, would this happen sooner? I realize there are some engineering bits to be done but it's not like we're starting from scratch - We understand heat shields, chutes, life support, abort systems. Why 2 (ish) years?

#frustrated!


Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0