COTS D in the On-Deck Circle...

[tnphysics]

Why is it so hard to develop an LAS?

[bad_astra]

Testing is a big chunk of expense.

[Comga]

So in terms of commercial manned spaceflight to LEO, here are some possibilities...

SpaceX Dragon on Falcon 9
Boeing/Bigelow "orion lite" on Atlas V
Spacedev Dreamchaser on Atlas V
Lockmart winged RLV on something, possibly Atlas V?

That's in addition to Orion (on Ares V/Jupiter, DIVH), plus of course Soyuz and Shenzhou.

Am I leaving out anything?

A small capsule on an Atlas V 401?  (posted once again)
If this had been started in 2006, IOC might be pretty darn close.

[Antares]

Had OSP continued we'd have seen multiple test flights by now.

[yg1968]

WSJ says that Boeing is expected to be one of the CCDev winners (it is not clear where their information comes from):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126135372896199409.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Separately, Boeing in the next few weeks is expected to emerge as one of the winners in a small-scale NASA competition for research grants to work on advanced crew transportation concepts.

[yg1968]

WSJ says that Boeing is expected to be one of the CCDev winners (it is not clear where their information comes from):
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126135372896199409.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Separately, Boeing in the next few weeks is expected to emerge as one of the winners in a small-scale NASA competition for research grants to work on advanced crew transportation concepts.

I found this document by doing a google search on CCDev:

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/idscommon/ccr/c/ccdev_2009_12_07.pdf

It's effective December 7th and it seems to imply that Boeing would be part of a CCDev contract with NASA.

[yg1968]

Here is an article that says that the X-37 has also been rumored to be the basis for one of the CCDev proposal:

http://www.ascendworldwide.com/content/spacetrak/SINSample.pdf

It has also been speculated that the Boeing-built unmanned X-37B (aka Orbital Test Vehicle) mini-shuttle of the U.S. Air Force may also be the basis of a manned design.

[simonbp]

In the second COTS round, Boeing narrowly lost out to Orbital with a design that (IIRC) was more expensive, but crew-capable. So, they would naturally have been well-placed to do well in CCDev.

I doubt X-37 itself would have been the basis for the proposal, though they could have claim some subsystems commonality with it...

[yg1968]

In the second COTS round, Boeing narrowly lost out to Orbital with a design that (IIRC) was more expensive, but crew-capable. So, they would naturally have been well-placed to do well in CCDev.

I doubt X-37 itself would have been the basis for the proposal, though they could have claim some subsystems commonality with it...

Interesting. I couldn't find much detail on Boeing's previous COTS II proposal except for the following links.

Here is an L2 thread on the COTS II round:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12822.0

Here is a comment made by a poster saying that Boeing's COTS II proposal was a simple capsule on an EELV.

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/09/22/shuttle-vs-soyuz-obama-says-yes/

[Harbatkin]

In regard to this earlier post: "I found this document by doing a google search on CCDev:

http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/idscommon/ccr/c/ccdev_2009_12_07.pdf

It's effective December 7th and it seems to imply that Boeing would be part of a CCDev contract with NASA."

This document is just part of the template for a generic Space Act Agreement that all the CCDev bidders were required to modify and include in their proposals. Some of the company references in this one still say "XYZ"--haven't even been changed to Boeing, and no milestones have been added. All 8 finalists negotiated these agreements with specific milestones and gave NASA signed copies (so they could be executed immediately) before the final selection. In some cases multiple signed agreements were requested at different price points, so some redistribution of funding could be done by the selection authority. This particular document does not imply anything about the likelihood of Boeing getting an award.

That said, Boeing Houston is on the Bigelow team, Boeing Phantom Works is rumored to be on the SNC team, and Boeing is part of ULA, so they are likely to get some action out of this...if it ever really happens.

[yg1968]

Thanks for the information. Very interesting! Boeing had mentionned in its press release that it was involved with 3 other proposals (other than the one with Bigelow) but they never said which ones. I guess that we will have to wait and see.

[FinalFrontier]

Question:
I have heard rumors that spacex is developing a hydrolox version of merlin. For what would this (or the so called raptor stage) be used for? I thought that Falcon 9 with a crewed dragon would use the existing merlin kerolox first and second stage engines but is it possible that it would use a second stage hydrolox engine instead? (also would this increase their payload and is there any kind of time frame on when this might be unveiled or at least offically announced?)
Sorry for all the questions I have been out of the loop lately (traveling).

[Robotbeat]

Question:
I have heard rumors that spacex is developing a hydrolox version of merlin. For what would this (or the so called raptor stage) be used for? I thought that Falcon 9 with a crewed dragon would use the existing merlin kerolox first and second stage engines but is it possible that it would use a second stage hydrolox engine instead? (also would this increase their payload and is there any kind of time frame on when this might be unveiled or at least offically announced?)
Sorry for all the questions I have been out of the loop lately (traveling).

They wouldn't use the hydrolox merlin (or raptor) for the Dragon manned spacecraft, since I've heard that they already have more than enough margin (as far as mass capability) with just the Merlin Vacuum. Of course, all of this is subject to the successful launching of Falcon 9 a few times with the unmanned Dragon.

[FinalFrontier]

Question:
I have heard rumors that spacex is developing a hydrolox version of merlin. For what would this (or the so called raptor stage) be used for? I thought that Falcon 9 with a crewed dragon would use the existing merlin kerolox first and second stage engines but is it possible that it would use a second stage hydrolox engine instead? (also would this increase their payload and is there any kind of time frame on when this might be unveiled or at least offically announced?)
Sorry for all the questions I have been out of the loop lately (traveling).

They wouldn't use the hydrolox merlin (or raptor) for the Dragon manned spacecraft, since I've heard that they already have more than enough margin (as far as mass capability) with just the Merlin Vacuum. Of course, all of this is subject to the successful launching of Falcon 9 a few times with the unmanned Dragon.

Got it. So raptor is actually a whole new engine? Would it be used for increased cargo capability (both a dragon cargo or just to launch bigger sattilites, probes, other things)?

[mlorrey]

Question:
I have heard rumors that spacex is developing a hydrolox version of merlin. For what would this (or the so called raptor stage) be used for? I thought that Falcon 9 with a crewed dragon would use the existing merlin kerolox first and second stage engines but is it possible that it would use a second stage hydrolox engine instead? (also would this increase their payload and is there any kind of time frame on when this might be unveiled or at least offically announced?)
Sorry for all the questions I have been out of the loop lately (traveling).

They wouldn't use the hydrolox merlin (or raptor) for the Dragon manned spacecraft, since I've heard that they already have more than enough margin (as far as mass capability) with just the Merlin Vacuum. Of course, all of this is subject to the successful launching of Falcon 9 a few times with the unmanned Dragon.

Got it. So raptor is actually a whole new engine? Would it be used for increased cargo capability (both a dragon cargo or just to launch bigger sattilites, probes, other things)?

Apparently the idea is after F9H is in operation, the next model to be developed will use a Merlin 2 (1.5 million lb thrust each, kerolox fuelled) on each booster core, and Raptor on the 2nd stage. The 9 Merlin 1's on each booster core make 1.1 million lb thrust, so this would increase total thrust by over 25% on launch. Not sure whether the booster cores will have greater tank volumes. Presumably this would allow TLI of a crewed Dragon with the service module fully fleshed out with an engine and significant fuel tanks like Apollo and Orion do.

[Antares]

Using the existing F9 first stage with a hydrolox second stage would be a more incremental growth path than Merlin 2.  It would open up a lot more GTO commercial missions (maybe even GSO) as well as NASA planetaries.  Without a high Isp second stage, these missions need a 3rd stage or be really light or can't fly on F9.  Tom Mueller is a pretty smart guy, so I'll defer to him which makes more sense to develop next: a 1M+ kerolox booster engine or a Merlin 1-class hydrolox engine.

BTW, don't call it a hydrolox "version".  Change fuels and it's a completely different engine, especially when it's a single shaft turbopump.

[Luc]

While it may be a completely different engine, in terms of the design and engineering challenges, it would be true to form for Spacex to share as many parts/dimensions/tooling with kerolox Merlin as possible to contain costs of production, even at the expense of some performance.  This is exactly the kind of thinking/decision making that gives SpaceX such an advantage over oldspace commercial - who have been trained to maximize development/manufacturing costs under a cost plus government procurement economic model.

[Jim]

This is exactly the kind of thinking/decision making that gives SpaceX such an advantage over oldspace commercial - who have been trained to maximize development/manufacturing costs under a cost plus government procurement economic model.

What advantage?  It hasn't panned out that way.  CRS is not a proof of this.  That was ISS cargo delivery which involves a capsule.  Falcon 9 has yet to get a sinle relevant spacecraft delivery contract.

[Jim]

oldspace commercial - who have been trained to maximize development/manufacturing costs under a cost plus government procurement economic model.

Where is your proof that this model exists?

Just more empty nuspace trash talking without anything to back it up.

So the RS-68 wasn't CAIV design?

[Antares]

in terms of the design and engineering challenges, it would be true to form for Spacex to share as many parts/dimensions/tooling with kerolox Merlin as possible to contain costs of production, even at the expense of some performance.  This is exactly the kind of thinking/decision making that gives SpaceX such an advantage over oldspace commercial - who have been trained to maximize development/manufacturing costs under a cost plus government procurement economic model.

Good grief, not to pile on here, but you're ignoring physics - the extreme difference in properties between RP-1 and LH2.