Commercial Crew Launch Thread

[gladiator1332]

I figured I would make a thread for any news, speculation, and discussion about Commercial Crew Launch, as it keeps popping up in other threads, and I don't want to keep leading discussions off topic.

So what we know so far is that there is a good chance that Bolden will be announcing some type of plan that will include a Shuttle Derived HLV, as well as some type of commercial launcher of LEO and ISS.

What I was wondering is how everyone thinks the contract for the commercial launcher and vehicle will be awarded. Will it be like COTS, where several teams compete, and NASA goes with two or three contractors, each with their own crewed vehicles and launchers to develop? Will it be more like OSP, where NASA specifies the vehicle (Orion?) and the competing teams put forward launch vehicle ideas, one or two are selected and they compete for one future contract. Or will NASA go right ahead and just select one team and one vehicle?

[kraisee]

I'm expecting $2.5 to $3.5bn over the next 6-8 years will go into a COTS-like program, but open to the likes of Boeing and Lockheed to also compete for, along with everyone else.

Having said that, the program's primary political requirement is really to provide seed money to ensure that the space industry does not become stagnant with only one or two major players in it, so expect the New.Space companies to get the most favourable hearing here.


With luck, a lot of different companies will be allowed to compete initially, and then they will gradually be whittled-down to just a small number, 2 or 3, who will actually get valuable contracts to proceed to completion.

I think its going to be an exciting program, and should help stimulate the marketplace.   And that is its purpose.

Ross.

[TOG]

I figured I would make a thread for any news, speculation, and discussion about Commercial Crew Launch, as it keeps popping up in other threads, and I don't want to keep leading discussions off topic.

So what we know so far is that there is a good chance that Bolden will be announcing some type of plan that will include a Shuttle Derived HLV, as well as some type of commercial launcher of LEO and ISS.

What I was wondering is how everyone thinks the contract for the commercial launcher and vehicle will be awarded. Will it be like COTS, where several teams compete, and NASA goes with two or three contractors, each with their own crewed vehicles and launchers to develop? Will it be more like OSP, where NASA specifies the vehicle (Orion?) and the competing teams put forward launch vehicle ideas, one or two are selected and they compete for one future contract. Or will NASA go right ahead and just select one team and one vehicle?

From my official position of outside observer and armchair quarterback, I would think that the day of "one team, one vehicle" is no longer with us.  I would suspect that the "official" choice would be to have several companies provide solutions, and then for NASA to select their favorites.  Trying to keep all of their eggs out of one basket.  That would be to their best advantage seeing the gaps that took place after Apollo1, Challenger, and Columbia.  With multiple vendors and separate systems, one could go "on the shelf" for a while without giving up the overall manned capabilities.

IMHO-
TOG

[robertross]

I'm expecting $2.5 to $3.5bn over the next 6-8 years will go into a COTS-like program, but open to the likes of Boeing and Lockheed to also compete for, along with everyone else.

Having said that, the program's primary political requirement is really to provide seed money to ensure that the space industry does not become stagnant with only one or two major players in it, so expect the New.Space companies to get the most favourable hearing here.


With luck, a lot of different companies will be allowed to compete initially, and then they will gradually be whittled-down to just a small number, 2 or 3, who will actually get valuable contracts to proceed to completion.

I think its going to be an exciting program, and should help stimulate the marketplace.   And that is its purpose.

Ross.

Agreed, except that for ISS, the contract will probably end up being just a little more in that kind of timeframe.

[jongoff]

What Ross said.  I think it'll probably be 2-4 main awards, as well as some seed money for some smaller, more "long-shot" options, and/or small technology demonstrators related to commercial crew capabilities (stuff like maybe some TPS demonstrators for instance).

~Jon

[trout007]

I'm not an expert in the EELV but didn't the DOD specify the payload capabilities and interface? That might be a good way to go. Let NASA define a common interface so that you could have people design just a launch vehicle or just a capsule. I would think the EELV would be a good place to start.

[trout007]

I had another thought. I guess it depends on how the contract is written but could USA buy the remaining shuttles and operate them independently?

[RocketEconomist327]

ULA - Jim knows more than I, but many of us know it is possible to get either Atlas or Delta IV Man Rated.  The track record is there. 
Major Obstacle:  DoD allowing their EELVs to be used

SpaceX - Claiming 24 months once they get funds for an LAS.  Falcon 9/Dragon yet to fly, but could potentially be the first out of the block to launch Americans back into space.
Major Obstacle:  Getting a positive track record with Falcon 9

Orbital - Awarded COTS money and is currently building infrastructure and hardware.
Major Obstacle:  They are playing catch up, could be biggest advantage IMHO.  Could design to NASA requirements RIGHT NOW.

You would think, if NASA is smart, that ULA and SpaceX would get funds.  Depending on where Orbital is in it's development, they may end up getting funds.

The goal is for as many "providers" as possible.  It would be "healthy" if you had Atlas', Falcon 9s, Delta IVs, and maybe Taurus IIs all with the capability to carry Americans into space.

You would think that ULA has to get a piece of this pie.  They can take an Orion, Block 1 to LEO while SpaceX and Orbital "could" use their respective "space craft".

VR
RS327

edit: spelling

[HIP2BSQRE]

I think that it will be a you would want at least 4 awards and this is how I see it, if I was given out $1+ billion the first year.

COTS I

ULA:                  :                             $400 m
SpaceX:             :Falcon 9 +Dragon      $200 m
Bigalow + Boeing  :Atlas + Orion Lite      $150-200 m
Orbital:                                             $100 m
One or two smaller companies:  Small pieces $50

Next year there would be another COTS program for $1 billion.  NASA would have a chance to see what you did in the first year.  You may or may not be awarded in COTS II. 

[Jorge]

I had another thought. I guess it depends on how the contract is written but could USA buy the remaining shuttles and operate them independently?

Not without blanket indemnity from the government, otherwise the liability costs will eat them alive.

[Jim]

ULA:                  :                             $400 m

ULA can't do it.  They only supply launch vehicles.  They would have to be a sub to Boeing, LM, OSC, or somebody else that is going to build a capsule.

[ugordan]

How would pad crew access mods, EDS box development, etc. then be handled if not by ULA?

[Jorge]

How would pad crew access mods, EDS box development, etc. then be handled if not by ULA?

Boeing or LM, like Jim said.

[Jim]

How would pad crew access mods, EDS box development, etc. then be handled if not by ULA?

Boeing or LM, like Jim said.

Boeing or LM would have to pay ULA to do it.  It is their requirements and not ULA's.

[ugordan]

Boeing or LM would have to pay ULA to do it.

That's exactly what I was asking, not who would NASA pay, but who would do the actual work. I interpreted that list above as which entity would get how much money to do its part in the end.

Say a Bigelow/Boeing proposal won, meaning NASA would contract out $600 m total to them, of which the former would pay $400 to ULA for LV-related work. Correct?

[William Barton]

One question I have is, if Orion on AVH and/or DIVH becomes part of the new PoR, would it also be part of CCDEV? I do agree with the general sense it's time for the US to have more than one indiginous manned LEO access capability.

[Jim]

Boeing or LM would have to pay ULA to do it.

That's exactly what I was asking, not who would NASA pay, but who would do the actual work. I interpreted that list above as which entity would get how much money to do its part in the end.

Say a Bigelow/Boeing proposal won, meaning NASA would contract out $600 m total to them, of which the former would pay $400 to ULA for LV-related work. Correct?

yes

[FinalFrontier]

Nice thread . This will certainly be a place of much activity in the coming days.
Jim: What do you think the chances are of ULA developing and flying a commercial "taxi" spacecraft to ISS?

[ugordan]

What do you think the chances are of ULA developing and flying a commercial "taxi" spacecraft to ISS?

ULA can't do that, it can only provide launch service for someone else's spacecraft.

[SpacexULA]

ULA can't do that, it can only provide launch service for someone else's spacecraft.

That's what ULA has Bigelow, and to a lesser extent SpaceDev for.

[Jim]

That's what ULA has Bigelow, and to a lesser extent SpaceDev for.

Bigelow doesn't build capsules

[mr. mark]

Spacex said that they do not need the NASA money for LAS as of this time. They must know something. As far as them getting ready, Falcon 9 should have it's first rollout in about 2 weeks for system checks and interaction with launch tower.

[infocat13]

That's what ULA has Bigelow, and to a lesser extent SpaceDev for.

Bigelow doesn't build capsules

today at the national press club Bolden brought in the COTS contracters and ULA and there was the Boeing representative.Boeing announced himself as the Bigalow partner.So I believe the trade commission ( antitrust agreement) has ULA as the government only launch provider but the individual Delta and Atlas manufacturers are free to engage the private sector for a payload.does this sound about right?
I have noted the posts above with interest on how this done when ULA then provides the launch service for a fee.
So a question or two. There is the new fuel depot,inflatable habs line item in the proposed budget and it is a large line item.NASA buys off the shelf a Bigalow module is it a government payload at that point?or is it a service.if a NASA purchased Bigalow went up on a COTS C then I would think it is outside the antitrust agreement.
I look forward to possibly the economic affects of a increased EELV buy but also I am hoping in the next decade the COTS D folks give them a run for there money
Bolden said something interesting at the press club today,he stated that we should not assume that fuel depots will be the answer but that the technology line item might produce a better interplanetary upper stage.

[Jim]

1.  So I believe the trade commission ( antitrust agreement) has ULA as the government only launch provider but the individual Delta and Atlas manufacturers are free to engage the private sector for a payload.does this sound about right?

2.  .NASA buys off the shelf a Bigalow module is it a government payload at that point?

1.  The former manufacturers market their former vehicles.  ULA would still built and operate the launch vehicles for them.

2.  it depends on where NASA buys the module.  On the ground or in space?  That determines whether it is gov't or commercial launch.

[infocat13]

1.  So I believe the trade commission ( antitrust agreement) has ULA as the government only launch provider but the individual Delta and Atlas manufacturers are free to engage the private sector for a payload.does this sound about right?

2.  .NASA buys off the shelf a Bigalow module is it a government payload at that point?

1.  The former manufacturers market their former vehicles.  ULA would still built and operate the launch vehicles for them.

2.  it depends on where NASA buys the module.  On the ground or in space?  That determines whether it is gov't or commercial launch.

1. rats! it skipped my mind ULA runs Decater, it is the manufacturer .

2.confused I am.......(A)If Bigalow hires Boeing to loft its payload to say the ISS or a fuel depot or any where else and then NASA buys services or buys the payload its a commercial launch.Its commercial even if Boeing pays ULA to do it.
(B)If NASA buys the payload from Bigalow then ships it to the cape its a government purchased ULA flight.(C) if NASA buys a Bigalow and ships it to the cape and lofts it on a falcon its a de facto commercial luanch

[robertross]

Just to clarify something for me please. Like the COTS contract (if commercial crew is written in such a manner) if the crew fails to reach orbit due to a glitch and they have to use the LAS to get back, the mission is a failure. Under contract, the provider must replace that launch (or launch vehicle) for free?

They obviously get paid to provide a service, and if that service is not executed as perscribed, they refund, or in this case replace the service.

[yg1968]

FYI. There is another commercial crew thread in the commercial section that discusses the CCDev awards:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20268.0

[infocat13]

Just to clarify something for me please. Like the COTS contract (if commercial crew is written in such a manner) if the crew fails to reach orbit due to a glitch and they have to use the LAS to get back, the mission is a failure. Under contract, the provider must replace that launch (or launch vehicle) for free?

They obviously get paid to provide a service, and if that service is not executed as perscribed, they refund, or in this case replace the service.

is this not what happens in the case of commercial satillights? In the case of a crew launch failure I think the ALS manufacturer work crews should all get nice things to drink on new years eve .
 

[Jim]

2.confused I am.......(A)If Bigalow hires Boeing to loft its payload to say the ISS or a fuel depot or any where else and then NASA buys services or buys the payload its a commercial launch.Its commercial even if Boeing pays ULA to do it.
(B)If NASA buys the payload from Bigalow then ships it to the cape its a government purchased ULA flight.(C) if NASA buys a Bigalow and ships it to the cape and lofts it on a falcon its a de facto commercial luanch

A.  commercial
b  government
c.  Government (NASA has falcon under contract, same goes for OSC) 

It has nothing to do with ULA/Boeing/LM.  It has to do with who pays for the rockets.  If Bigelow buys a Delta or Falcon, it is commercial, if NASA does, it is gov't

[Jim]

Just to clarify something for me please. Like the COTS contract (if commercial crew is written in such a manner) if the crew fails to reach orbit due to a glitch and they have to use the LAS to get back, the mission is a failure. Under contract, the provider must replace that launch (or launch vehicle) for free?

They obviously get paid to provide a service, and if that service is not executed as perscribed, they refund, or in this case replace the service.

That is something they need to work out.  For unmanned launches, the contractor gets paid in ten progress payments.  It doesn't get the last one for a failure.

[robertross]

Just to clarify something for me please. Like the COTS contract (if commercial crew is written in such a manner) if the crew fails to reach orbit due to a glitch and they have to use the LAS to get back, the mission is a failure. Under contract, the provider must replace that launch (or launch vehicle) for free?

They obviously get paid to provide a service, and if that service is not executed as perscribed, they refund, or in this case replace the service.

That is something they need to work out.  For unmanned launches, the contractor gets paid in ten progress payments.  It doesn't get the last one for a failure.

Okay, so still up in the air. Thanks.
All the more reason to have a launch vehicle with a good pedigree.

I'm anxious to know if it will be D4H, Atlas V H, or both. From CCDev award, it looks like BOTH will be run in parallel in a development fashion, and then I guess NASA picks the launcher/service it wants.

[Downix]

Just to clarify something for me please. Like the COTS contract (if commercial crew is written in such a manner) if the crew fails to reach orbit due to a glitch and they have to use the LAS to get back, the mission is a failure. Under contract, the provider must replace that launch (or launch vehicle) for free?

They obviously get paid to provide a service, and if that service is not executed as perscribed, they refund, or in this case replace the service.

That is something they need to work out.  For unmanned launches, the contractor gets paid in ten progress payments.  It doesn't get the last one for a failure.

Okay, so still up in the air. Thanks.
All the more reason to have a launch vehicle with a good pedigree.

I'm anxious to know if it will be D4H, Atlas V H, or both. From CCDev award, it looks like BOTH will be run in parallel in a development fashion, and then I guess NASA picks the launcher/service it wants.

And if one turns out to not fulfil the job, there is the other to rely on.  No more putting all eggs in one basket!

[yg1968]

For the CRS contract, both Orbital and SpaceX were chosen. So I would suspect that it would be the same for commercial crew. For example, you could have both SpaceX and the Atlas V winning the commercial crew transportation contract .

[Jim]

For the CRS contract, both Orbital and SpaceX were chosen. So I would suspect that it would be the same for commercial crew. For example, you could have both SpaceX and the Atlas V winning the commercial crew transportation contract .

No, the contract will be with the spacecraft and they will select the launch vehicle

[Jim]

I'm anxious to know if it will be D4H, Atlas V H, or both. From CCDev award, it looks like BOTH will be run in parallel in a development fashion, and then I guess NASA picks the launcher/service it wants.

It will be up to the spacecraft to team with LV's.  NASA won't directly pick the LV

[mmeijeri]

It will be up to the spacecraft to team with LV's.  NASA won't directly pick the LV

Any chance we'll get to see pictures of you working commercial crew launches?

[robertross]

It will be up to the spacecraft to team with LV's.  NASA won't directly pick the LV

Any chance we'll get to see pictures of you working commercial crew launches?

That would be sweet! 
Be a nice addition to his 'collection'

[Jim]

It will be up to the spacecraft to team with LV's.  NASA won't directly pick the LV

Any chance we'll get to see pictures of you working commercial crew launches?

Nope, because the commercial companies will working them.

[clb22]

For the CRS contract, both Orbital and SpaceX were chosen. So I would suspect that it would be the same for commercial crew. For example, you could have both SpaceX and the Atlas V winning the commercial crew transportation contract .

I very much believe that for the initial phase 3 contractors will be chosen, which might get narrowed down to 2 after a while. Any guesses on timing? I'd say the winners might probably be announced beginning of next year, maybe January/February with the whole process starting rather soon, with an official selection process being implemented right after the budget passes.

If SpaceX does well with Falcon 9 and might even launch a Dragon COTS DEMO this year (big if), I think it's quite a no-brainer NASA choses SpaceX. If Falcon 9 is seriously delayed, if Dragon has big problems etc., then maybe NASA lets them fall...

Second no-brainer in my opinion is something on top of an EELV, that means probably Boeing + some smaller player.

Third one? I really don't know. I doubt NASA wants to fund the development of a new launch vehicle, rather the development of a new spacecraft. OSC might bid for it, but I doubt they really get (or want to get) into that.

[Jim]

I'd say the winners might probably be announced beginning of next year, maybe January/February with the whole process starting rather soon, with an official selection process being implemented right after the budget passes.

It is going to take that long just to figure out the requirements and the procurement strategy.  there will be an RFI in this process. The RFP won't go out until at least the budget is past but see earlier and the selection is not going to be quick

[Jim]

I see 3 spacecraft and their selection with be based partially on the types and number of LVs that they will team with.

The key will be the teaming strategy

[clb22]

It is going to take that long just to figure out the requirements and the procurement strategy.  there will be an RFI in this process. The RFP won't go out until at least the budget is past but see earlier and the selection is not going to be quick

COTS timeline:

Program announcement January 18, 2006
Bidding process until April/May
Semifinalists announced May 9, 2006
Downselection
Finalist announced August 18, 2006

We already got CCDev in place and NASA has gone through the COTS selection process twice. I would have thought the initial stage of commercial crew to LEO is NOT going to be the standard procurement process, but will be modeled after COTS. I may be wrong of course.

[mmeijeri]

The RFP won't go out until at least the budget is past but see earlier and the selection is not going to be quick

Good point, they're going to have to get this show on the road quickly.

[Jim]

COTS timeline:

Program announcement January 18, 2006
Bidding process until April/May
Semifinalists announced May 9, 2006
Downselection
Finalist announced August 18, 2006

That doesn't include the work before January

[Bernie Roehl]

OSC might bid for it, but I doubt they really get (or want to get) into that.

I would be very surprised if OSC bids.  The Taurus II is pretty under-powered for the task (barely 6.5 mt to LEO), and would be very tough to human-rate.  Kerolox first stage, solid fuel second stage, hypergolic third stage.

They also didn't originally have any plans for a manned spacecraft, just their unmanned Cygnus.

I really don't think they're in this particular competition.

[yg1968]

Orbital had a CCDev proposal for a crewed Cygnus according to the article below.
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/orbital-plans-develop-cygnus-based-crew-capsule.html

[yg1968]

For the CRS contract, both Orbital and SpaceX were chosen. So I would suspect that it would be the same for commercial crew. For example, you could have both SpaceX and the Atlas V winning the commercial crew transportation contract .

No, the contract will be with the spacecraft and they will select the launch vehicle

Apparently Boeing's capsule would work with many rockets. This means that Boeing could then chose between SpaceX and ULA?

It would seem odd that Boeing would make this choice for NASA.

P.S. See this article concerning the Boeing capsule:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/02ccdev/

The proposed Boeing spacecraft could be flexible enough to launch on several different rockets, according to industry officials.

[ugordan]

It would seem odd that Boeing would make this choice for NASA.

Boeing could make any choice of LV they wanted just as SpaceX got to "choose" their own Falcon 9. NASA would (nor really should) have any say in this. NASA would buy rides to orbit on whichever commercial option they preferred, it would not get to tell the operator which LV to use.

[yg1968]

I guess as long as NASA is satisfied that the LV is man-rated (after NASA defines this by implementing safety regulations). In any event, I suppose that Boeing would choose a ULA rocket given its participation in that company.

So the choice would be between the crewed Dragon (Falcon 9), the Boeing capsule (using a ULA rocket) and the Dream Chaser (using a ULA Atlas V 402 rocket).

[Bernie Roehl]

Orbital had a CCDev proposal for a crewed Cygnus according to the article below.
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/orbital-plans-develop-cygnus-based-crew-capsule.html

Thanks, interesting article.  Relevant quote:

"Beneski said a crew variant of Orbital’s Cygnus pressurized cargo module capable of carrying three or four astronauts, along with a human-rated version of Taurus 2, could be developed at a cost of  $2 billion to $3 billion."

That seems like a *lot* of money compared to what everyone else is asking for, especially for a vehicle that only carries half the crew that the other proposals do.  And at a guess, I'd say they haven't done any work at all on a manned version of their launcher or their spacecraft, unlike the other competitors.  I wonder if they're just saying "oh sure, we can do that too... just give us $3 billion and we can do anything!".

Another relevant quote:

"One industry source identified Boeing as a potential partner in the effort, which would involve adding a new liquid-hydrogen second stage to the Taurus 2, giving it the thrust needed to carry around 8 metric tons to the space station."

Boeing's just showing up everywhere, aren't they?   :-)

Probably a smart move on their part.

However, even with the cryogenic second stage, an 8 metric ton payload would still make it the least-powerful of the launchers under consideration by a wide margin.  Falcon 9 and Atlas V 402 are both 12.5 mt, and Delta is 22.5mt.

It's hard to see how OSC can compete.

[bad_astra]

It's hard to see developing a fourth launcher when two are almost ready with flight heritage, and another is on the way. I'm sure Taurus II will be a great launcher for unmanned use, but the changes it would take to use it for crew would be new LV

[yg1968]

The fact that they didn't win a CCDev award is probably telling.

[mmeijeri]

Note how competition is starting to do its job. An organisation that doesn't have the required expertise won't be asked to build a crew launcher. Five years ago they asked an organisation that didn't have the experience to build a crew launcher to rebuild the expertise they didn't have. How times have changed.

[yg1968]

It's also the fact that the crewed Cygnus could only carry 3 or 4 astronauts. The rest of the competition (Boeing, Crewed Dragon and Dream Chaser) are offering to carry 7 astronauts.

[robertross]

I guess as long as NASA is satisfied that the LV is man-rated (after NASA defines this by implementing safety regulations). In any event, I suppose that Boeing would choose a ULA rocket given its participation in that company.

So the choice would be between the crewed Dragon (Falcon 9), the Boeing capsule (using a ULA rocket) and the Dream Chaser (using a ULA Atlas V 402 rocket).

The other driving factor, as per the CCDev selection process notes, is meeting NASA's expected timeline. Some were already discounted due to risk in fielding a capability in the desired time.

[mike robel]

so just finished is my 1/144 Atlas V 421 with HL-20

[Krispace]

It would seem odd that Boeing would make this choice for NASA.

Boeing could make any choice of LV they wanted just as SpaceX got to "choose" their own Falcon 9. NASA would (nor really should) have any say in this. NASA would buy rides to orbit on whichever commercial option they preferred, it would not get to tell the operator which LV to use.

They could y'know: guess who adminsters the launch sites and facilities...!

[ugordan]

They could y'know: guess who adminsters the launch sites and facilities...!

[clb22]

Back to the timeline of this program. Yes, they of course need time to formulate the requirements and fletch out the details. I still believe, given the urgency of the situation (not having the gap widen mandate), NASA will push for starting the bidding process right after the budget is approved, which would get us winners at some point in Q1 2011. With a nominal 48month program, this would put a first test launch to probably Q4 2013/Q1 2014 and IOC into 2015 if things work out well.

[DaveS]

They could y'know: guess who adminsters the launch sites and facilities...!

Well, technically the Air Force only owns and operates the Range. Each LV provider is responsible for their own launch pad(s).

[bluebert]

so just finished is my 1/144 Atlas V 421 with HL-20

My first reaction to the looks of this configuraration is: interesting aerodynamics... 
Wings on the top of a rocket may give quite some side-load when moving through the atmosphere at high speed.

[gospacex]

so just finished is my 1/144 Atlas V 421 with HL-20

My first reaction to the looks of this configuraration is: interesting aerodynamics... 
Wings on the top of a rocket may give quite some side-load when moving through the atmosphere at high speed.

Just set it up at AOA which results in zero lift.

[butters]

so just finished is my 1/144 Atlas V 421 with HL-20

My first reaction to the looks of this configuraration is: interesting aerodynamics... 
Wings on the top of a rocket may give quite some side-load when moving through the atmosphere at high speed.

Just set it up at AOA which results in zero lift.

Does HL-20 generate lift at zero AOA?  It could have symmetric camber airfoils that depends on positive AOA for lift.  I could be mistaken, but I think HL-10 had symmetric airfoils.

[Jim]

They could y'know: guess who adminsters the launch sites and facilities...!

Incorrect, NASA has no say in the pads or facilities on CCAFS

[Jim]

For the CRS contract, both Orbital and SpaceX were chosen. So I would suspect that it would be the same for commercial crew. For example, you could have both SpaceX and the Atlas V winning the commercial crew transportation contract .

No, the contract will be with the spacecraft and they will select the launch vehicle

Apparently Boeing's capsule would work with many rockets. This means that Boeing could then chose between SpaceX and ULA?

It would seem odd that Boeing would make this choice for NASA.

The contract will be for crew launch services, not a spacecraft, the contractor will be responsible for providing the whole package, end to end, launch vehicle, spacecraft, launch site, etc

[Jim]

I guess as long as NASA is satisfied that the LV is man-rated (after NASA defines this by implementing safety regulations). In any event, I suppose that Boeing would choose a ULA rocket given its participation in that company.

So the choice would be between the crewed Dragon (Falcon 9), the Boeing capsule (using a ULA rocket) and the Dream Chaser (using a ULA Atlas V 402 rocket).

The whole package will have to be looked at, not just the LV

I wouldn't say that is all the choices.  OSC. LM, NG, etc might offer something.

[Downix]

For the CRS contract, both Orbital and SpaceX were chosen. So I would suspect that it would be the same for commercial crew. For example, you could have both SpaceX and the Atlas V winning the commercial crew transportation contract .

No, the contract will be with the spacecraft and they will select the launch vehicle

Apparently Boeing's capsule would work with many rockets. This means that Boeing could then chose between SpaceX and ULA?

It would seem odd that Boeing would make this choice for NASA.

The contract will be for crew launch services, not a spacecraft, the contractor will be responsible for providing the whole package, end to end, launch vehicle, spacecraft, launch site, etc

Much like FedEx.  We don't ask weither FedEx delivers on a truck, van, or orbital space gun, we just ask "hey, can you deliver this by date xyz?"

[yg1968]

I guess as long as NASA is satisfied that the LV is man-rated (after NASA defines this by implementing safety regulations). In any event, I suppose that Boeing would choose a ULA rocket given its participation in that company.

So the choice would be between the crewed Dragon (Falcon 9), the Boeing capsule (using a ULA rocket) and the Dream Chaser (using a ULA Atlas V 402 rocket).

The whole package will have to be looked at, not just the LV

I wouldn't say that is all the choices.  OSC. LM, NG, etc might offer something.

I am not sure that I understand, you first told me the spacecraft maker chooses the LV. Now you are telling me that NASA would choose the whole package?

[Jim]

I guess as long as NASA is satisfied that the LV is man-rated (after NASA defines this by implementing safety regulations). In any event, I suppose that Boeing would choose a ULA rocket given its participation in that company.

So the choice would be between the crewed Dragon (Falcon 9), the Boeing capsule (using a ULA rocket) and the Dream Chaser (using a ULA Atlas V 402 rocket).

The whole package will have to be looked at, not just the LV

I wouldn't say that is all the choices.  OSC. LM, NG, etc might offer something.

I am not sure that I understand, you first told me the spacecraft maker chooses the LV. Now you are telling me that NASA would choose the whole package?

As part of the evaluation, NASA would look at the LV that the contractor team proposes.  The contractor team might have a great spacecraft concept but their LV choice or implementation may be lacking. Hence "the whole package will be looked at". 

but to be truly a crew launch service, NASA can't pick and match spacecraft and LV's from different proposals unless those combinations are offered.
This is conjecture, the actual procurement strategy will determine this.   

[yg1968]

OK, thanks. That makes sense. But apparently Boeing indicated that their capsule works with a number of rockets.

[Downix]

OK, thanks. That makes sense. But apparently Boeing indicated that their capsule works with a number of rockets.

Makes complete sense for them to do so, that way they can better position it against their competition.

[infocat13]

I have been searching the net for a good software program to model launcher images to learn how to model a  Delta IV heavy with a 3 segment ATK shuttle SRB.
came across this,
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/377875main_081109%20Human%20Rated%20Delta%20IV.pdf
an interesting read on Human rating the Delta

look at the costs analysis on page page 54 comparing Delta and Ares I
page 41 on the document

[Bernie Roehl]

I wouldn't say that is all the choices.  OSC. LM, NG, etc might offer something.

I'm doubt if OSC will offer anything, unless pressured to by their investors.  It would just be too costly for them to enter the manned orbital spaceflight game at this point.

LM could offer a craft based on their work on Orion, essentially going head-to-head with Boeing.

I haven't heard much about Northrop-Grumman lately.  I vaguely recall that they bought Scaled Composites a couple of years back, but other than that, I have no idea what they're doing.

[bad_astra]

NG/OSC teamed up for their OSP proposal. It was a good looking spaceplane, atop an D4H, no shroud.

By the time of CEV, NG's offering didn't look all that different from Orion.

[Ben the Space Brit]

By the time of CEV, NG's offering didn't look all that different from Orion.

NASA had decided that a winged or lifting body crew vehicle was inferior for the CEV mission.  That is why all the designs were basically similar to Orion - Apollo-style capsules.

[HMXHMX]

so just finished is my 1/144 Atlas V 421 with HL-20

My first reaction to the looks of this configuraration is: interesting aerodynamics... 
Wings on the top of a rocket may give quite some side-load when moving through the atmosphere at high speed.

Just set it up at AOA which results in zero lift.

Any winds aloft then result in a new AoA.  Bending is a very serious problem for the chosen vehicle (Atlas 5).  Note the X-37 chose to solve the problem by using a fairing.  That is not an acceptable option for a crewed vehicle.

[HMXHMX]

Orbital had a CCDev proposal for a crewed Cygnus according to the article below.
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/orbital-plans-develop-cygnus-based-crew-capsule.html

Thanks, interesting article.  Relevant quote:

"Beneski said a crew variant of Orbital’s Cygnus pressurized cargo module capable of carrying three or four astronauts, along with a human-rated version of Taurus 2, could be developed at a cost of  $2 billion to $3 billion."

That seems like a *lot* of money compared to what everyone else is asking for, especially for a vehicle that only carries half the crew that the other proposals do.  And at a guess, I'd say they haven't done any work at all on a manned version of their launcher or their spacecraft, unlike the other competitors.  I wonder if they're just saying "oh sure, we can do that too... just give us $3 billion and we can do anything!".

Another relevant quote:

"One industry source identified Boeing as a potential partner in the effort, which would involve adding a new liquid-hydrogen second stage to the Taurus 2, giving it the thrust needed to carry around 8 metric tons to the space station."

Boeing's just showing up everywhere, aren't they?   :-)

Probably a smart move on their part.

However, even with the cryogenic second stage, an 8 metric ton payload would still make it the least-powerful of the launchers under consideration by a wide margin.  Falcon 9 and Atlas V 402 are both 12.5 mt, and Delta is 22.5mt.

It's hard to see how OSC can compete.

They said they need that amount of funding since the Augustine panel said NASA should spend that amount, and good business practice is to suck all the air out of the room (i..e., ask for all the money to sand bag competitors).

[clongton]

Any winds aloft then result in a new AoA.  Bending is a very serious problem for the chosen vehicle (Atlas 5).  Note the X-37 chose to solve the problem by using a fairing.  That is not an acceptable option for a crewed vehicle.

Why not? Orion was going to be covered during launch. Apollo was covered during launch. Soyuz is covered during launch. Regardless of their function, weren't these "coverings" just specialized "fairings"?

[Downix]

Any winds aloft then result in a new AoA.  Bending is a very serious problem for the chosen vehicle (Atlas 5).  Note the X-37 chose to solve the problem by using a fairing.  That is not an acceptable option for a crewed vehicle.

Why not? Orion was going to be covered during launch. Apollo was covered during launch. Soyuz is covered during launch. Regardless of their function, weren't these "coverings" just specialized "fairings"?

You could even push it one more, and use the fairing as part of the LAS, holding the rockets needed to lift the spacecraft away from the rocket in cases of emergency.  Would be space around it to work with after all.

[HMXHMX]

Any winds aloft then result in a new AoA.  Bending is a very serious problem for the chosen vehicle (Atlas 5).  Note the X-37 chose to solve the problem by using a fairing.  That is not an acceptable option for a crewed vehicle.

Why not? Orion was going to be covered during launch. Apollo was covered during launch. Soyuz is covered during launch. Regardless of their function, weren't these "coverings" just specialized "fairings"?

Apollo, Orion  and other capsules had or would have boost protective covers, but those are part of the launch escape systems.  They serve principally to attach the LES to the capsule, plus providing thermal and acoustic protection if the LES motor fires.

Dream Chaser has internal (integral) launch abort motors that also serve as their third stage and OMS.  A separate LES would be both redundant and unaffordable weight-wise.  Also, a boost protective cover for an HL-20 would be gigantic.  It would mass more than the HL-20 itself.  And the loads it would introduce into the Atlas 5 structure would be show stoppers.

[Downix]

Any winds aloft then result in a new AoA.  Bending is a very serious problem for the chosen vehicle (Atlas 5).  Note the X-37 chose to solve the problem by using a fairing.  That is not an acceptable option for a crewed vehicle.

Why not? Orion was going to be covered during launch. Apollo was covered during launch. Soyuz is covered during launch. Regardless of their function, weren't these "coverings" just specialized "fairings"?

Apollo, Orion  and other capsules had or would have boost protective covers, but those are part of the launch escape systems.  They serve principally to attach the LES to the capsule, plus providing thermal and acoustic protection if the LES motor fires.

Dream Chaser has internal (integral) launch abort motors that also serve as their third stage and OMS.  A separate LES would be both redundant and unaffordable weight-wise.  Also, a boost protective cover for an HL-20 would be gigantic.  It would mass more than the HL-20 itself.  And the loads it would introduce into the Atlas 5 structure would be show stoppers.

What if just a protective shroud over the base of the HL-20, which also would change the aerodynamics for the launch?

[HMXHMX]

Any winds aloft then result in a new AoA.  Bending is a very serious problem for the chosen vehicle (Atlas 5).  Note the X-37 chose to solve the problem by using a fairing.  That is not an acceptable option for a crewed vehicle.

Why not? Orion was going to be covered during launch. Apollo was covered during launch. Soyuz is covered during launch. Regardless of their function, weren't these "coverings" just specialized "fairings"?

Apollo, Orion  and other capsules had or would have boost protective covers, but those are part of the launch escape systems.  They serve principally to attach the LES to the capsule, plus providing thermal and acoustic protection if the LES motor fires.

Dream Chaser has internal (integral) launch abort motors that also serve as their third stage and OMS.  A separate LES would be both redundant and unaffordable weight-wise.  Also, a boost protective cover for an HL-20 would be gigantic.  It would mass more than the HL-20 itself.  And the loads it would introduce into the Atlas 5 structure would be show stoppers.

What if just a protective shroud over the base of the HL-20, which also would change the aerodynamics for the launch?

The problem then becomes getting rid of the shroud fast enough in an abort.  Also, the source of lift in a lifting body is both the body plus the wings.  It'd be nearly impossible to design a shroud that can cover up the wings.  And if it didn't cover the body, that element still creates lift.

[nooneofconsequence]

As  understand it, the Russian BOR's were launched without shrouds and with folding wings.

[mike robel]

My model does not totally accurately display the publicised launch configuration.  I used a simple cone to support the HL-20, but the actual vehicle appears to be using a more complex shroud to support the vehicle, as can be see here:

And, if I recall, both Boeing and the Northrop-Grumman/OSC space planes had airfoils in the airflow.

[HMXHMX]

As  understand it, the Russian BOR's were launched without shrouds and with folding wings.

They were launched inside a fairing as far as I know.  They were also subscale, and recovered by parachute in the Indian Ocean.  One was photographed in the 1970s by an RAAF P-3, and the photo appeared in AW&ST.

But here is the key point: the BOR was a reentry test article.  There was no need to build in variable geometry wings to study the reentry performance.  But the landing test article from which BOR was derived (the Spiral Spaceplane) has the rotating wings.  See for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-105

Quoting:  "Dyna-Soar was designed with a fixed, delta-wing planform, while Spiral featured an innovative variable-geometry wing. During launch and reentry, these were folded against the sides of the vehicle at a 60-degree angle, acting as vertical stabilizers. After dropping to subsonic speeds post-reenty, the pilot activated a set of electric actuators which lowered the wings into the horizontal position, giving the spaceplane better flight characteristics."

[agman25]

Is the requirement for Commercial Crew going to be just transport or transport+lifeboat. Can't find any information anywhere on this.

[clb22]

Is the requirement for Commercial Crew going to be just transport or transport+lifeboat. Can't find any information anywhere on this.

There is no information on that, but for the ISS to be useful a spacecraft needs to be able to function as a lifeboat as well. NASA isn't going to fund a separate program for lifeboat function only.

[clongton]

Is the requirement for Commercial Crew going to be just transport or transport+lifeboat. Can't find any information anywhere on this.

There is no information on that, but for the ISS to be useful a spacecraft needs to be able to function as a lifeboat as well. NASA isn't going to fund a separate program for lifeboat function only.

They already did; the X-38. And then they killed it just before it was ready.
That design "could" have morphed into a crew carrier spacecraft.

[kttopdad]

[snip]
However, even with the cryogenic second stage, an 8 metric ton payload would still make it the least-powerful of the launchers under consideration by a wide margin.  Falcon 9 and Atlas V 402 are both 12.5 mt, and Delta is 22.5mt.

It's hard to see how OSC can compete.

They can compete very nicely if 8mt is sufficient to loft the required payload.  More is not always better, and having to pay for a larger lift vehicle than one needs to accomplish set goals is expensive.  If OSC can put three astronauts in LEO for around the same cost per seat as their competitors, then they can better serve customers that only want to put a small number of people in orbit.

[ugordan]

If OSC can put three astronauts in LEO for around the same cost per seat as their competitors, then they can better serve customers that only want to put a small number of people in orbit.

The problem here is obviously if NASA commercial crew requirements turn out to be 6 or 7 people. That would mean OSC doesn't get to play this game. Are you really suggesting they'd develop a 3-crew capsule for 3rd party customers on their own dime? Especially since just a few months ago they weren't really enthusiastic about the whole commercial crew concept at all.

[Bernie Roehl]

They can compete very nicely if 8mt is sufficient to loft the required payload.  More is not always better, and having to pay for a larger lift vehicle than one needs to accomplish set goals is expensive.

I agree that cost per seat is the primary figure of merit for manned launches.

For COTS the quotes were $1.9B for 8 OSC cargo launhes vs $1.6B for 12 SpaceX launches, giving us $237M per launch for OSC vs $133M per launch for SpaceX.

OSC's proposed crew vehicle has 3 seats, vs 7 for Dragon.

So OSC's cost per seat is $79M, vs $19M for SpaceX.  For comparison, Russia is charging $50M per seat for Soyuz.  So SpaceX has a pretty big advantage.

For smaller crew sizes, OSC still loses, just not as badly.  For a single astronaut, it's $237M per seat vs $133M per seat for SpaceX.

[ugordan]

For COTS the quotes were $1.9B for 8 OSC cargo launhes vs $1.6B for 12 SpaceX launches, giving us $237M per launch for OSC vs $133M per launch for SpaceX.

OSC's proposed crew vehicle has 3 seats, vs 7 for Dragon.

So OSC's cost per seat is $79M, vs $19M for SpaceX.  For comparison, Russia is charging $50M per seat for Soyuz.  So SpaceX has a pretty big advantage.

CRS contract cannot be used to infer per-seat-prices. For one, OSC would need a liquid upper stage for T-II and that alone renders any considerations moot. Not to mention the actual costs per flight were result of bids, not any underlying basis. If OSC figured they could bid a higher price and get away with it, they'd do it. Doesn't mean it costs them that much more.

[William Barton]

For COTS the quotes were $1.9B for 8 OSC cargo launhes vs $1.6B for 12 SpaceX launches, giving us $237M per launch for OSC vs $133M per launch for SpaceX.

OSC's proposed crew vehicle has 3 seats, vs 7 for Dragon.

So OSC's cost per seat is $79M, vs $19M for SpaceX.  For comparison, Russia is charging $50M per seat for Soyuz.  So SpaceX has a pretty big advantage.

CRS contract cannot be used to infer per-seat-prices. For one, OSC would need a liquid upper stage for T-II and that alone renders any considerations moot. Not to mention the actual costs per flight were result of bids, not any underlying basis. If OSC figured they could bid a higher price and get away with it, they'd do it. Doesn't mean it costs them that much more.

I am under the impression OSC is switching over to a liquid fuel upper stage as of CRS flight #3. Sorry I don't have a link. I don't remember where I saw it. (Mind going fast. They call them the golden years because a golden haze is all you can remember...)

[William Barton]

Any price under $350mln/flt and Dragon beats Soyuz on a per-seat basis. Now "all" they have to do is get it working... (Yes, I know.)

[Bernie Roehl]

[quote author=ugordan link=topic=20203.msg540913#msg540913
CRS contract cannot be used to infer per-seat-prices. For one, OSC would need a liquid upper stage for T-II and that alone renders any considerations moot. Not to mention the actual costs per flight were result of bids, not any underlying basis. If OSC figured they could bid a higher price and get away with it, they'd do it. Doesn't mean it costs them that much more.
[/quote]

Fair enough, but I suspect that OSC's actual costs are higher.  They're purchasing third-party engines, subcontracting for stages, etc.

Of course, none of these birds are flying yet, so a lot could change.

[robertross]

Okay, question for you guys:

If say an Orion-lite is chosen, and it carries 7 persons, how many are commercial crew that stay with the capsule/pilots?

The reason I ask this is that there is still this need for a non-Soyuz lifeboat in my opinion, but if the capsule pilot is a commercial taxi driver, and not an ISS research scientist/astronaut, then what happens to him? If the capsule stays up there, he waits for the next flight rotation?

Not seeing how this closes, even if there is a secondary capsule. Only if it were automated to a greater extent and there is no actual taxi driver role, only the occupants sharing the tasks.

[Bernie Roehl]

If say an Orion-lite is chosen, and it carries 7 persons, how many are commercial crew that stay with the capsule/pilots?

I can't answer that exact question, but keep in mind that both Dragon and Cygnus are designed to be capable of autonomous docking with the ISS and that Dragon can return to Earth autonomously as well.  The Russians also do autonomous docking and cargo return.  So for all those commercial vehicles, the answer to your question is probably "zero".

Dream Chaser will require a pilot, since it lands on a runway.

Orion-lite... no idea.

I think that's what Bolden was referring to with the question of whether we'll still need astronauts.

[rklaehn]

Okay, question for you guys:

If say an Orion-lite is chosen, and it carries 7 persons, how many are commercial crew that stay with the capsule/pilots?

The reason I ask this is that there is still this need for a non-Soyuz lifeboat in my opinion, but if the capsule pilot is a commercial taxi driver, and not an ISS research scientist/astronaut, then what happens to him? If the capsule stays up there, he waits for the next flight rotation?

Not seeing how this closes, even if there is a secondary capsule. Only if it were automated to a greater extent and there is no actual taxi driver role, only the occupants sharing the tasks.

I think it is a given that you will want at least one professional pilot on board. There are many astronauts in the current astronaut corps that are both qualified as pilots and as scientists. And in any case, there are probably enough maintenance tasks on the ISS that don't require multiple PhDs, but can be done by a professional pilot.

[ugordan]

keep in mind that both Dragon and Cygnus are designed to be capable of autonomous docking with the ISS

Am I missing something, I thought they would not dock to ISS automatically, but be berthed via the robotic arm (like the HTV was).

[kch]

Any price under $350mln/flt and Dragon beats Soyuz on a per-seat basis. Now "all" they have to do is get it working... (Yes, I know.)

... and that's at *current* Russian pricing -- the "bar" will probably be double that by the time crewed-Dragon is available ...

[ugordan]

... and that's at *current* Russian pricing -- the "bar" will probably be double that by the time crewed-Dragon is available ...

And why do I get the feeling that bar will drop rapidly the moment a U.S. crewed vehicle is ready?

[Robotbeat]

... and that's at *current* Russian pricing -- the "bar" will probably be double that by the time crewed-Dragon is available ...

And why do I get the feeling that bar will drop rapidly the moment a U.S. crewed vehicle is ready?

...which would mean that the system is working.

[kch]

... and that's at *current* Russian pricing -- the "bar" will probably be double that by the time crewed-Dragon is available ...

And why do I get the feeling that bar will drop rapidly the moment a U.S. crewed vehicle is ready?

Bingo!  You've got it ...

[robertross]

Okay, question for you guys:

If say an Orion-lite is chosen, and it carries 7 persons, how many are commercial crew that stay with the capsule/pilots?

The reason I ask this is that there is still this need for a non-Soyuz lifeboat in my opinion, but if the capsule pilot is a commercial taxi driver, and not an ISS research scientist/astronaut, then what happens to him? If the capsule stays up there, he waits for the next flight rotation?

Not seeing how this closes, even if there is a secondary capsule. Only if it were automated to a greater extent and there is no actual taxi driver role, only the occupants sharing the tasks.

I think it is a given that you will want at least one professional pilot on board. There are many astronauts in the current astronaut corps that are both qualified as pilots and as scientists. And in any case, there are probably enough maintenance tasks on the ISS that don't require multiple PhDs, but can be done by a professional pilot.

Ah yes, but as Jim has pointed out in the past: If you are buying a 'service' to launch crew, you are hiring them as ISS crew to do experiments. Also, they would need to be trained for certain aspects of that, which I'm sure NASA would probably not be in a position to do. Why? Because it means that the people alloted from the various ISS partners have to give up a 'seat'.

[clb22]

Any price under $350mln/flt and Dragon beats Soyuz on a per-seat basis. Now "all" they have to do is get it working... (Yes, I know.)

... and that's at *current* Russian pricing -- the "bar" will probably be double that by the time crewed-Dragon is available ...

The 50 million includes a lot more than just the flight to the ISS and back. It includes training in Russia, coordination with RSA on the flight, the life-boat function etc. etc.

If you really want to compare Dragon to Soyuz for ISS duties, you need to look at what Dragon is supposed to do and look at what price and if it can do it. A Dragon needs to do crew rotation for 3 people and it needs to provide the life-boat function for the time of the expedition. Of course, if a Dragon really could hold 7 people, there would be up to 4 additional spots for short term flights (7 days), however they would probably not all be used due to programmatic reasons.

In essence, you need to look whether a 3-crew Dragon for crew rotation of 3 people can be cheaper than Soyuz. We are talking about 150 million here. If Dragon can not provide the lifeboat function, a Soyuz or another spacecraft needs to act as the back-up lifeboat, which would decrease the value of Dragon compared to Soyuz.

In any event, for NASA buying a US spacecraft will always be better than buying Soyuz, as NASA should create US jobs and not Russian jobs with US taxmoney. So, even if Dragon costs 300 million for crew rotation of 3 people, it's probably better for NASA than buying Soyuz seats.

[robertross]

If say an Orion-lite is chosen, and it carries 7 persons, how many are commercial crew that stay with the capsule/pilots?

I can't answer that exact question, but keep in mind that both Dragon and Cygnus are designed to be capable of autonomous docking with the ISS and that Dragon can return to Earth autonomously as well.  The Russians also do autonomous docking and cargo return.  So for all those commercial vehicles, the answer to your question is probably "zero".

Autonomous docking, yes. Autonomous flight though? Look at the Soyuz launches, and there is crew participation in control aspects. I see no problem with crew being trained to fly a capsule, but as indicated in my other post: if you are paying for a service, then NASA shouldn't have to expect an extra 'hand' to be floating around without purpose. Valuable resources are expended for each crew member, so it's not a simple 'just hang around for a few months' kind of thing.

[Lars_J]

Okay, question for you guys:

If say an Orion-lite is chosen, and it carries 7 persons, how many are commercial crew that stay with the capsule/pilots?

The reason I ask this is that there is still this need for a non-Soyuz lifeboat in my opinion, but if the capsule pilot is a commercial taxi driver, and not an ISS research scientist/astronaut, then what happens to him? If the capsule stays up there, he waits for the next flight rotation?

Not seeing how this closes, even if there is a secondary capsule. Only if it were automated to a greater extent and there is no actual taxi driver role, only the occupants sharing the tasks.

I think it is a given that you will want at least one professional pilot on board. There are many astronauts in the current astronaut corps that are both qualified as pilots and as scientists. And in any case, there are probably enough maintenance tasks on the ISS that don't require multiple PhDs, but can be done by a professional pilot.

Any Dragon or Orion-lite mission to ISS (or another space station) would always include one (or two) crew members trained in manual rendezvous and docking.

Would those pilots be be part of the commercial crew, or passengers given the same training - I suppose that depends on NASA or whomever the customer is.

[bad_astra]

It doesn't matter if Russia is giving the seats away for 30megarubles. Once American firms establish they can transport people to orbit, NASA is obligated to buy that service, instead.

[Jim]

[quote author=robertross link=topic=20203.msg540969#msg540969

The reason I ask this is that there is still this need for a non-Soyuz lifeboat in my opinion, but if the capsule pilot is a commercial taxi driver, and not an ISS research scientist/astronaut, then what happens to him? If the capsule stays up there, he waits for the next flight rotation?

[/quote]

No, he comes back with the rotation vehicle

[robertross]

The reason I ask this is that there is still this need for a non-Soyuz lifeboat in my opinion, but if the capsule pilot is a commercial taxi driver, and not an ISS research scientist/astronaut, then what happens to him? If the capsule stays up there, he waits for the next flight rotation?

No, he comes back with the rotation vehicle

Umm..and the first flight? He stays up until the next rotation vehicle?

[Ben the Space Brit]

This is a question for Jim or anyone else who knows the legal limits placed of of the 'oldspace' players.

I know that, by law, ULA is forbidden to develop a spacecraft.  However, is there any reason why USA (the Shuttle ops & maintenance company) could not offer a commercial crew vehicle for the commercial crew launch competition? It seems to me that, after Shuttle retirement, USA will be facing a very quick wind-up unless they have some 'plan-B'.  Something DreamChaser/HL-20-derived as 'Shuttle-2' perhaps?

[Jorge]

This is a question for Jim or anyone else who knows the legal limits placed of of the 'oldspace' players.

I know that, by law, ULA is forbidden to develop a spacecraft.  However, is there any reason why USA (the Shuttle ops & maintenance company) could not offer a commercial crew vehicle for the commercial crew launch competition?

The answer's right there in your parenthetical. USA was formed for a specific purpose and their workforce skillsets are geared for that. They've never done spacecraft development before, only ops.

It seems to me that, after Shuttle retirement, USA will be facing a very quick wind-up unless they have some 'plan-B'.  Something DreamChaser/HL-20-derived as 'Shuttle-2' perhaps?

Plan-B would not involve USA as a spacecraft developer. Instead they would team with a spacecraft developer as the spacecraft operator.

[William Barton]

The reason I ask this is that there is still this need for a non-Soyuz lifeboat in my opinion, but if the capsule pilot is a commercial taxi driver, and not an ISS research scientist/astronaut, then what happens to him? If the capsule stays up there, he waits for the next flight rotation?

No, he comes back with the rotation vehicle

Umm..and the first flight? He stays up until the next rotation vehicle?

I bet there'd be a volunteer or two.

[neilh]

(moved from the House hearing thread)

Why does everyone think commercial crew "taxis" are going to be so cheap?

Because they're essentially duplicating what the US and Russia did in the 1960s with Gemini and Soyuz, using already-existing rockets.

Yet, we want to "industry build" and get a redundant access, which of course means more than one.  Given the market cannot support even one really, it means government will be, at the multiple of however many ultimately end up being in operation, paying for that. So careful what you wish for because the day will come when folks on here, who talk about the evils of certain vehicles and projects, will be forced to say the exact same thing about why we cannot go anywhere because we are subsidizing a fleet of "taxis"

The thing to keep in mind that the crew taxis will be launched by rockets which already have an existing market, so the crew-specific infrastructure cost will be quite low. After the initial development cost, NASA will only need to expend funds on a per-flight basis.

How many people do you think SpaceX needs to refurbish a Dragon capsule? Quite a bit fewer than 10,000, I'm guessing.

[mmeijeri]

The thing to keep in mind that the crew taxis will be launched by rockets which already have an existing market, so the crew-specific infrastructure cost will be quite low. After the initial development cost, NASA will only need to expend funds on a per-flight basis.

A good point, but the cost will only be low by government space project standards. I hope it will be low enough to allow Bigelow to succeed. It might be, especially since he appears to be targeting governments at first. They might have the money, though not necessarily the willingness to spend it. If Bigelow does succeed this will lead to a secondary market for resupply, which could help drive down launch costs in general.

And launch costs are the real problem. Once you get those down by an order of magnitude, everything else will follow, including crew vehicles. In that sense the launch vehicles are much more important than the crew vehicles. It would even be more helpful if NASA built its own spacecraft and did exploration based around propellant transfer with commercially procured launch services. Of course there's every reason for NASA to procure at least the crew return / LEO vehicle commercially. It would help, but that by itself may not be enough to support a thriving commercial crew transport market. Just lowering launch costs and nothing else on the other hand would be.

[Namechange User]

(moved from the House hearing thread)

Why does everyone think commercial crew "taxis" are going to be so cheap?

Because they're essentially duplicating what the US and Russia did in the 1960s with Gemini and Soyuz, using already-existing rockets.

Yet, we want to "industry build" and get a redundant access, which of course means more than one.  Given the market cannot support even one really, it means government will be, at the multiple of however many ultimately end up being in operation, paying for that. So careful what you wish for because the day will come when folks on here, who talk about the evils of certain vehicles and projects, will be forced to say the exact same thing about why we cannot go anywhere because we are subsidizing a fleet of "taxis"

The thing to keep in mind that the crew taxis will be launched by rockets which already have an existing market, so the crew-specific infrastructure cost will be quite low. After the initial development cost, NASA will only need to expend funds on a per-flight basis.

How many people do you think SpaceX needs to refurbish a Dragon capsule? Quite a bit fewer than 10,000, I'm guessing.

Once again the rockets.  How many "existing rockets" will go to ISS or any other destination?  I love how people who refuse to acknowledge what this really means always fixate on the rocket only....

As for NASA only needing to expend funds on a per-flight basis?  How will this happen in the absence of any market?  What do you think goes on in-between flights?  Do you think there is not a workforce that will be required to work issues, engineer changes, parts to be ordered, facilities to be maintained, etc?  How will this fix cost, the dreaded "standing army" be funded?  Perhaps it will be translated over to the cost of the "per-flight basis" driving up what everyone *just thinks, hopes and assumes* it will cost?

Once again with the SpaceX and, I'm assuming, shuttle comparison.  Do Dragon and shuttle, even remotely have the same capability and function?  How many people does it take to turn a cessna?  How many people does it take to turn and then support a 747?  Should everyone be flying on cessnas only?

[gladiator1332]

(moved from the House hearing thread)

Why does everyone think commercial crew "taxis" are going to be so cheap?

I think competition will also keep taxi costs in check. If SpaceX, Boeing, and Orbital all have crew taxis to offer, they all need to cost around the same. If Boeing charges a few million more for their taxi, they will lose out to SpaceX and Orbital, or will have to have a very good reason to charge more.

[Namechange User]

I think competition will also keep taxi costs in check. If SpaceX, Boeing, and Orbital all have crew taxis to offer, they all need to cost around the same. If Boeing charges a few million more for their taxi, they will lose out to SpaceX and Orbital, or will have to have a very good reason to charge more.

Sometimes I feel like I'm just beating my head against the wall.

Competition implies a market.  Yet there is not one.  If a market cannot sustain all three of the companies you listed above, then what else sustains them?  The answer is government subsidies in some form, whether that be directly to them or increased or adjusted "price per seat". 

Supposedly NASA wants "robust and redundant" access to LEO so this is the situation NASA must deal with and they know it.  Why do you think General Bolden told Capt. Cernan about the "large bailout".  This is exactly what he was talking about. 

[jongoff]

Sometimes I feel like I'm just beating my head against the wall.

Competition implies a market.  Yet there is not one.  If a market cannot sustain all three of the companies you listed above, then what else sustains them?  The answer is government subsidies in some form, whether that be directly to them or increased or adjusted "price per seat". 

OV, aren't you the one always giving me crap about stating opinions as though they were facts?  Can I borrow the crystal ball that lets you know with such certainty what the market for commercial spaceflight is going to look like in 2015?  I'm not saying that I know you're wrong, because like most other mortals out there, I can't see the future with full certainty.  I do know that there are a lot of other smart and talented people like Bigelow who think there are real markets there (not just for tourism, but also for astronauts from non-space-launch-capable countries, private and government research, etc), and tourism groups like Space Adventures. 

There *is* definite uncertainty on the size of the market, especially at price points that SpaceX or Boeing are likely able to achieve.  And *if* none of these other markets can pan out at that price, then yes in the worst case government would end up subsidizing one or two companies...but that would still be far less money than they'd be spending on Ares-I/Orion or DIRECT/Orion or Shuttle Extension and EELV/Orion even in the worst case, because at least the boosters are useful for other commercial markets.

It is a gamble, but in my opinion a gamble where the best-case scenario is revolutionary, and the worst case option is still better than the best case option of the alternative doesn't seem like that bad of a gamble.

Supposedly NASA wants "robust and redundant" access to LEO so this is the situation NASA must deal with and they know it.  Why do you think General Bolden told Capt. Cernan about the "large bailout".  This is exactly what he was talking about. 

Yes, there is a chance those markets won't pan-out, in which case, government might be stuck in the situation they were with EELVs -- they still saved money over continuing their Titan IV program, but they did end up subsidizing things and paying more than they wanted.

Let's keep some perspectives here, and if you're going to take issue with me expressing opinions as though they were facts, please try to do so yourself.

~Jon

[neilh]

Once again with the SpaceX and, I'm assuming, shuttle comparison.  Do Dragon and shuttle, even remotely have the same capability and function?  How many people does it take to turn a cessna?  How many people does it take to turn and then support a 747?  Should everyone be flying on cessnas only?

Well yes, the fact that you need fewer people is much of the point.

As a side note, does anybody have an idea of what the fixed/per-launch costs are for a soyuz capsule (not including the cost of the launch itself, just the capsule-specific costs), and how many people are required for building/maintaining each capsule? That seems like the closest comparison to what the commercial crew providers are doing.