Commercial Crew Launch Thread

[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).