NASA Selects Commercial Firms to Begin Development of Crew Transportation

[vt_hokie]

That's an awfully short time for design, integration, test, etc.  Even if HL-20 has some heritage, it's not as if you've got off-the-shelf avionics hardware and software, etc. Not to mention, there's a lot of supporting infrastructure required to operate and maintain such a vehicle.  Heck, if a satellite operator buys a comparatively simple comsat based on a proven bus today, it'll take longer that that to get it built and launched!  I'll be amazed if DreamChaser or anything like it appears before ISS retirement.

[mmeijeri]

Could it be helpful to start with the X-38 avionics?

[mmeijeri]

I'll be amazed if DreamChaser or anything like it appears before ISS retirement.

If it's extended to 2028...

[vt_hokie]

If it's extended to 2028...

If it survives that long without any catastrophic orbital debris impacts or system failures, we'd still better have a way of replacing large ORU's if we plan to keep it going that long.  Storing a couple of spare CMG's along the station's truss prior to shuttle retirement ain't gonna cut it!

[neilh]

(The other thread closed as I was typing up my reply, but it seemed it would also be appropriate for this thread)

With lack of any other customers, the arrangement that is being proposed, is not "commercial" really but firm-fixed-price contract arrangements for a particular service, etc.  If said company wants to sell to others this same service and if the market supports, that is their business, quite literally, and independent of NASA. 

There seem to be multiple important aspects of the new commercial arrangement:

* fixed-price instead of cost-plus (as you noted): helps prevent project cost bloat and discourages schedule drifting. Also, reduces paperwork and related costs significantly.
* non-government customers (as you also noted): Helps ensure entire cost isn't carried by NASA, and helps companies increase their capabilities on their own. I'm not sure what OV-106 meant by a lack of other customers, as even the Soyuz seems to have non-government customers at the current exorbitant prices. Also, companies are encouraged to seek (and have gotten) private investment, leveraging NASA's own investment.
* having defined requirements at the beginning of the project instead of NASA changing requirements mid-way or near the end: my understanding is that this is a big contributor to project bloat
* competitive instead of single-supplier: Competition keeps costs down and if one company underperforms severely (e.g. Rocketplane-Kistler) NASA can dump them and switch to somebody else
* contracts based on performance and track record rather than Congressional district
* flexibility to pursue riskier/novel projects because there are other options if they don't work, e.g. Blue Origin's pusher escape system
* instead of NASA acting as system integrator, companies determine configurations and integration amongst themselves

[Bernie Roehl]

I'm definitely a fan of the DreamChaser concept, but is there any realistic way of getting it operational within, say, 5 years?

Looking at other projects, I would say yes.  Mercury took significantly less time than that, even though no one had ever flown in space before and everything had to be developed completely from scratch.  Apollo took about five years from the goal being set to first orbital test flights of the CSM.  And again, they were starting from scratch and learning as they went.  Using much more primitive technology than we have today.

The HL-20 design on which Dream Chaser is based has been well-tested by NASA, which helps a lot.  The vehicle is not expected to do a lunar return, which helps too.  And it appears they will have the option of purchasing a life-support system instead of having to develop one themselves or contract it out and pay for all the development work.

I think five years if very realistic, if they get sufficient funding.

Would there be an atmospheric landing test vehicle for DreamChaser prior to building the orbital version

I assume so.  I know they did extensive wind-tunnel testing of models, did a flight simulation of a landing, and built a full-sized mockup to study the human factors aspects.

I just don't see how the development of this vehicle, even with unlimited funding, is somehow going to happen on a much shorter timescale than any similar vehicle development project in history. 

It's actually about the same timescale as similar vehicles, and a lot of the initial work has already been done.

Of course, the same is true of the Boeing/Bigelow capsule design, assuming it's based on the Orion CSM OML.

The question is whether they really will be adequately funded.

[Bernie Roehl]

That's an awfully short time for design, integration, test, etc.  Even if HL-20 has some heritage, it's not as if you've got off-the-shelf avionics hardware and software, etc.

Avionics software (as we've discussed in another thread) is something that has traditionally been a "long pole" in development, but there are a number of people who are convinced it doesn't have to be that way.

Not to mention, there's a lot of supporting infrastructure required to operate and maintain such a vehicle.

Much less than with its competitors.  Dream Chaser lands on a runway, and is designed from the very beginning to be easily maintained (assuming it sticks close to the HL-20 and PLS design, and I can't see why they wouldn't).  It's serviced the way an airplane is, horizontally, and then simply raised and attached to the launch vehicle.  I don't know what they're doing for TPS, but even if they're using shuttle-like tiles, they'll be much easier to replace simply because the vehicle itself is much smaller.

The only thing I don't like about Dream Chaser is that it's not as well-suited to lunar return, which means we'd need to have a separate vehicle for BEO missions (which pushes them even farther into the future).

That is, unless there are ways of doing "skip" re-entries.  The lifting body shape would be very useful there, I would think.  Not my area of expertise, though, so I can't really speak to that.

And if NASA does go with more than one spacecraft, as they're saying they will, then it's not necessary for all of them to be upgradeable to lunar return.  And either Dragon or Boeing's capsule should be suitable for that.

[douglas100]

I just wonder about the stresses put on a launch vehicle due to having a lifting body on top. It seems to me that aerodynamic lift produced by Dreamchaser's shape during ascent might make the launch vehicle hard to control. I'm assuming that this has been studied already by Lockheed Martin. Does anyone know if this is true?

[bad_astra]

It was studied for some of the concepts during OSP. It was an issue of concern, and at least one of the lifting body/stubby wing shaped vehicles would have had a shroud. Every image I've seen of a DreamChaser launch (see avatar) has been without one.

[zaitcev]

If it survives that long without any catastrophic orbital debris impacts or system failures, we'd still better have a way of replacing large ORU's if we plan to keep it going that long.  Storing a couple of spare CMG's along the station's truss prior to shuttle retirement ain't gonna cut it!

If it's too big to fit into HTV, it may be possible to create something like a custom trunk for Dragon or Cygnus and place an arbitrarily large ORU in there. You'll also need an arbitrarily large booster, but since it's a one-off, perhaps it can be integrated on top of one of ULAs offerings. In any case it's quite a while away.
-- Pete

[mmeijeri]

Avionics software (as we've discussed in another thread) is something that has traditionally been a "long pole" in development, but there are a number of people who are convinced it doesn't have to be that way.

That applies only after you've first built a modular reusable system, so that seems to be out of the question in the short term. Unless the X-38 software could be modified. ESA/DLR were apparently very proud of the fact that it was OO and portable, but the portability may have referred to portability across CPUs/OSs, not across vehicles. How similar would X-38 and HL-20/Dream Chaser be from an avionics point of view?

[nooneofconsequence]

Avionics software (as we've discussed in another thread) is something that has traditionally been a "long pole" in development, but there are a number of people who are convinced it doesn't have to be that way.

That applies only after you've first built a modular reusable system, so that seems to be out of the question in the short term. Unless the X-38 software could be modified. ESA/DLR were apparently very proud of the fact that it was OO and portable, but the portability may have referred to portability across CPUs/OSs, not across vehicles. How similar would X-38 and HL-20/Dream Chaser be from an avionics point of view?

What you say matches my recollection, but Jorge said (I think) that there was a lot of development/integration of X-38 software to be done. I think this came up mid last year when they were carting it off to some museum.

Portable meant not machine/architecture specific. All such software is very dependent on vehicle specifics.

You could also contact John Muratore:
http://www.utsi.edu/faculty/jmuratore/muratore.htm

[docmordrid]

Doesn't Sierra Nevada have avionics in their kit?  At least they claim to;

About Sierra Nevada Corporation

Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) is known for its rapid, innovative, and agile technology solutions in electronics, aerospace, avionics, space, propulsion, micro-satellite, aircraft and communications systems for both the private and public sectors.
>

Seems they'd have already started down this path as soon as CCDev began, using the NASA data as a jumping off point.

[Bernie Roehl]

That applies only after you've first built a modular reusable system, so that seems to be out of the question in the short term. Unless the X-38 software could be modified. ESA/DLR were apparently very proud of the fact that it was OO and portable, but the portability may have referred to portability across CPUs/OSs, not across vehicles. How similar would X-38 and HL-20/Dream Chaser be from an avionics point of view?

Well, as you know, any modern software will be portable across computing platforms.  And the fact that the code is object-oriented means that it would also be easy to adapt it to a different vehicle's sensors and effectors.

The underlying algorithms would be similar as well, though obviously the parameters would be completely different since it's a different vehicle and therefore has different aerodynamic properties.  But it's still a lifting body.

If SpaceDev (sorry, Sierra Nevada) do have access to the X-38 codebase, I suspect it would give them a serious head start on their GNC software.  And they already know how to build avionics hardware, according to their website.

Was the code for X-38 paid for by somebody's government?  I can't see how it wouldn't have been, so in principal it's owned either by NASA or ESA.  It therefore ought to be available to the public.

And if it is... I wouldn't mind looking it over myself, just out of curiosity.  :-)

[mmeijeri]

And if it is... I wouldn't mind looking it over myself, just out of curiosity.  :-)

Me too!

[Downix]

And if it is... I wouldn't mind looking it over myself, just out of curiosity.  :-)

Me too!

Sign me up!  Throw in a copy of the Saturn IB schematics too while we're at it, would make a killer way to wallpaper my sons bedroom.  (The kid absolutely loves that rocket)

[yg1968]

I know this thread is about the February 2010 CCDev award but in the next round of commercial crew development awards, I imagine that LM could also make a proposal.

If LM were to be selected in the next round, it is not impossible that Boeing's capsule or the Dream Chaser may not be selected for funding in the next round.  But I can't imagine NASA funding four spacecrafts: Boeing, LM, the Dream Chaser and the Dragon. That seems like a lot of spacecrafts to fund!

[Bernie Roehl]

If LM were to be selected in the next round, it is not impossible that Boeing's capsule or the Dream Chaser may not be selected for funding in the next round.  But I can't imagine NASA funding four spacecrafts: Boeing, LM, the Dream Chaser and the Dragon. That seems like a lot of spacecrafts to fund!

Well, the Dragon is closer than any of them.  And by the next round, they'll have had a chance to launch the Falcon 9 and possibly even a cargo Dragon.  If they're successful, and are only asking for (say) $300m, they'll probably get it.

I'm hoping the Dream Chaser makes the cut -- lots of nice things about it, and it's probably the most marketable outside of NASA (which allows cost-sharing for its development).

I suspect Boeing's and LM's proposals to be very similar (Orion-derived design, flown on both Atlas V and Delta IV), and I doubt NASA would go for both.

I'm hoping they go for one of those two, plus Dream Chaser, and use Dragon for cargo to ISS and as a backup for crew.  Then do (as someone else suggested) a "COTS-L" for lunar-capable derivatives.

[Downix]

I know this thread is about the February 2010 CCDev award but in the next round of commercial crew development awards, I imagine that LM could also make a proposal.

If LM were to be selected in the next round, it is not impossible that Boeing's capsule or the Dream Chaser may not be selected for funding in the next round.  But I can't imagine NASA funding four spacecrafts: Boeing, LM, the Dream Chaser and the Dragon. That seems like a lot of spacecrafts to fund!

All four craft are already funded, all NASA is doing is rating them for NASA use and funding this rating task, much like how the military rates/tweaks civilian craft for it's own purposes.

[Robotbeat]

I totally like the idea of COTS-M/L. Most of the proposed crew spacecraft can probably be modified for lunar (or interplanetary) return velocities and long-duration flight with a reduced crew.

As far as radiation goes, you're looking at about 460mSv/year for a Mars trip (in orbit, not the surface) which is subclinical, so the big issue is shielding from the rare intense SPEs, which (if you have an early warning, perhaps from a spacecraft like SDO) only need to be shielded on one side of the spacecraft. Some research needs to go in to this, but your mission hardware (EDS, fuel, consumables, etc) could probably effectively serve double-duty as SPE-shielding. So, if you are doing EOR, SPEs can probably be effectively shielded without adding much at all to your mass.