Commercial Crew Launch Thread

[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