Commercial Crew Launch Thread

[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.