Commercial Crew Launch Thread

[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.