Commercial Crew Launch Thread

[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 ...