Spacecraft development

[Bernie Roehl]

At last count, there may be as many as a dozen new spacecraft in development that will be capable of taking a crew into low earth orbit.

Leaving aside the question of how many of these efforts will be successful, it seems clear that developing such a craft is much, much simpler than developing a launch vehicle.

So... what's involved?

Obviously you need the pressure vessel itself, with windows and hatches and (for most vehicles) a docking adapter.  You need a temperature control system, with external radiators.  You need an air purification system to remove CO2 and water vapor and replenish the oxygen.  You need some sort of RCS.  You need communications gear, telemetry, control systems and miscellaneous avionics.  You need a parachute recovery system (unless you're using a lifting body).  You need a power source (fuel cells, batteries or solar cells).  You need acceleration couches for the crew.  You need a launch abort system.

For orbital flight, you just need to add a TPS, including a heat shield (typically Avcoat or PICA).

To be perfectly honest... none of that seems like rocket science.  :-)

The hardest part would be the aerodynamic modeling, and most of that work has already been done for the basic shapes.

Of course, this isn't really my field, so it's entirely possible I'm missing something.  I'd be interested in hearing from people who have actually done this sort of work.

P.S. For those who are wondering about the dozen vehicles in development, here are the ones I'm thinking of: Dragon, Dream Chaser, "Orion Lite" (Boeing/Bigelow), Orion (Lockheed-Martin), Blue Origin's orbital spacecraft, Gemini IR (AIO-50), Excalibur Almaz, Interorbital's CM-2 and CM-6, India's OV (possibly to be Soyuz-based), Rus, and whatever Iran claims to be working on.

[William Barton]

Something that gets overlooked in discussions of manned capsule-type spacecraft is that much of the sophistication and complexity of design we see is just that. Going back to basics, we should remember that the USSR based its initial manned reentry capsule on the well-known aerodynamics of a sphere. The Vostok spacecraft, however "primitive," conducted a program of 8 manned flights (the two Voskhod vehicles were modified Vostoks) that included the first EVA, and had numerous follow-on unmanned derivitives that have flown a very large number of missions (e.g, the Foton series, which has flown as recently as the past few years). In principle, it would be fairly straightforward to develop a manned spacecraft with a spherical reentry vehicle, using modified standard satellite bus as a service module. Think in terms of the OSC Cygus, with the pressurized "can" replaced by a big ball. Or for that matter, since Foton M-3 flew in 2007, simply buying new ones from Kozlov and re-adapting them for human crew.

[Jim]

To be perfectly honest... none of that seems like rocket science.  :-)

The integration and system engineering of all that is "rocket science"


PS.  You forgot rendezvous sensors.

[Swatch]

Awww c'mon Jim.... that's why we have eyeballs right?   

[Antares]

Software. I'm continually amazed at how it's the laggard in many developments. Because ALL of the other active systems must have it, they're usually understaffed and they have to wait for the other systems to be somewhat designed before the software can be designed. Coding is the easy part. It's the algorithms and interfaces that take time.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

At last count, there may be as many as a dozen new spacecraft in development that will be capable of taking a crew into low earth orbit.

Leaving aside the question of how many of these efforts will be successful, it seems clear that developing such a craft is much, much simpler than developing a launch vehicle.

Perhaps it is simpler, but if that's so then the hard part is developing a launch vehicle, meaning that everything hinges on that. As far as private companies go SpaceX is closest to having a LEO capable vehicle and everyone knows about them, but what will the other companies use?

[Rabidpanda]

At last count, there may be as many as a dozen new spacecraft in development that will be capable of taking a crew into low earth orbit.

Leaving aside the question of how many of these efforts will be successful, it seems clear that developing such a craft is much, much simpler than developing a launch vehicle.

Perhaps it is simpler, but if that's so then the hard part is developing a launch vehicle, meaning that everything hinges on that. As far as private companies go SpaceX is closest to having a LEO capable vehicle and everyone knows about them, but what will the other companies use?

Atlas or Delta.  Not every commercial company has to be like SpaceX and build every single piece of hardware including the launch vehicle.  It's perfectly acceptable for them to buy launches for their spacecraft from ULA.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

Atlas or Delta.  Not every commercial company has to be like SpaceX and build every single piece of hardware including the launch vehicle.  It's perfectly acceptable for them to buy launches for their spacecraft from ULA.

I thought so. That's good news, cause ULA will start getting more orders coming in. I guess the reason SpaceX sticks out is precisely because they did develop everything they use, but it will probably be a while before another company does the same.

[mr. mark]

It's my person opinion that Dreamchaser is a money pit and will never fly. The vehicle is too heavy for most of the commercial launchers, it must have very advanced flight systems compared to a capsule design and must use a push type LAS which will not be off the shelf similar to Orbital's LAS system. If it ever does fly, It won't be able to come online until well after 2020,long after Spacex, Boeing or LM are already flying. Blue Orgin is a CIA front (which everybody in the industry knows about. It seems the only people who won't admit it's true is the government, the worst kept secret in CIA history) and will never fly anything at least to orbital, another money pit. The only realistic flight vehicles are Dragon (falcon 9), Boeing or Lockheed Martin based capsule designs.   

[mmeijeri]

Regarding Dream Chaser: its hybrid propulsion system could see double duty as a LAS, as this is what was planned for HL-20 on which it is based. Buzz Aldrin has claimed HL-20 could be ready sooner than Orion. Just reporting, not necessarily agreeing.

[mmeijeri]

The now out of date NSTS 1988 News Reference Manual gives a nice hyperlinked overview of all Orbiter systems. It may be useful for comparison.

[Jim]

1.  It's my person opinion that Dreamchaser is a money pit and will never fly. The vehicle is too heavy for most of the commercial launchers, it must have very advanced flight systems compared to a capsule design

2.  and must use a push type LAS which will not be off the shelf similar to Orbital's LAS system.

3.  If it ever does fly, It won't be able to come online until well after 2020,long after Spacex, Boeing or LM are already flying.

4. Blue Orgin is a CIA front (which everybody in the industry knows about. It seems the only people who won't admit it's true is the government, the worst kept secret in CIA history) and will never fly anything at least to orbital, another money pit. The only realistic flight vehicles are Dragon (falcon 9), Boeing or Lockheed Martin based capsule designs.   

Uninformed opinion, again.

1.  It is not too heavy.  It can fly on an Atlas 402 or 431

2.  It is doubtful that anyone can use OSC LAS as off the shelf.  Anyways, Dreamchaser uses motors similar to Spaceship one for pusher LAS.  The SpaceDev is the Dreamchaser and Spaceship one propulsion developer

3.  Based on what info?

4.  Huh?  What people in the industry?  State your sources. You are the only one I have heard this from.  Nothing but tinfoil hat speculation.

Your posts are nothing but disjointed unbased opinion

[FinalFrontier]

1.  It's my person opinion that Dreamchaser is a money pit and will never fly. The vehicle is too heavy for most of the commercial launchers, it must have very advanced flight systems compared to a capsule design

2.  and must use a push type LAS which will not be off the shelf similar to Orbital's LAS system.

3.  If it ever does fly, It won't be able to come online until well after 2020,long after Spacex, Boeing or LM are already flying.

4. Blue Orgin is a CIA front (which everybody in the industry knows about. It seems the only people who won't admit it's true is the government, the worst kept secret in CIA history) and will never fly anything at least to orbital, another money pit. The only realistic flight vehicles are Dragon (falcon 9), Boeing or Lockheed Martin based capsule designs.   

Uninformed opinion, again.

1.  It is not too heavy.  It can fly on an Atlas 402 or 431

2.  It is doubtful that anyone can use OSC LAS as off the shelf.  Anyways, Dreamchaser uses motors similar to Spaceship one for pusher LAS.  The SpaceDev is the Dreamchaser and Spaceship one propulsion developer

3.  Based on what info?

4.  Huh?  What people in the industry?  State your sources. You are the only one I have heard this from.  Nothing but tinfoil hat speculation.

Your posts are nothing but disjointed unbased opinion

I agree jim. "Blue Orgin is a CIA front (which everybody in the industry knows about. It seems the only people who won't admit it's true is the government, the worst kept secret in CIA history) and will never fly anything at least to orbital, another money pit. The only realistic flight vehicles are Dragon (falcon 9), Boeing or Lockheed Martin based capsule designs."

Than by that logic the lori garver is an alien sent from jupiter to reck our BEO plan so that we can be invaded!!!
ROFLMAO. 

[mr. mark]

Laugh all you want, the day dreamchaser flies and is competative pricewise against companies like Spacex, or Boeing or LM is the day I shut up about it. The dreamchaser program has the potential to be nothing but a money pit. I believe it's not a competative design and should not have been funded in CCDEV. As far as Blue Orgin there is a variety of sources stating that intelligence services are very interested in their suborbital space systems and that's why they were funded. I'll do some checking for you guys, it's not really off the main track. 

[Jim]

As far as Blue Orgin there is a variety of sources

Not valid or reliable ones.

[Jim]

Laugh all you want, the day dreamchaser flies and is competative pricewise against companies like Spacex, or Boeing or LM is the day I shut up about it.

Dreamchaser is in second place when it comes to development.  Spacex being first and every else a distance 3rd. 

Also Dreamchaser has Boeing as a subcontractor

[mmeijeri]

Dreamchaser is in second place when it comes to development.  Spacex being first and every else a distance 3rd. 

Is that because of prior work on HL-20?

Also Dreamchaser has Boeing as a subcontractor

According to this Aviation Week article SNC has some more heavyweight subcontractors: Draper Labs, Aerojet, MDA and maybe Oceaneering.

Sierra Nevada Building On NASA Design

[FinalFrontier]

Laugh all you want, the day dreamchaser flies and is competative pricewise against companies like Spacex, or Boeing or LM is the day I shut up about it. The dreamchaser program has the potential to be nothing but a money pit. I believe it's not a competative design and should not have been funded in CCDEV. As far as Blue Orgin there is a variety of sources stating that intelligence services are very interested in their suborbital space systems and that's why they were funded. I'll do some checking for you guys, it's not really off the main track. 

Oh excuse me I should have asked:
Are you Sarah Palin?
Are you Micheal Griffin?
Are you an Alien?

[Nascent Ascent]

Dreamchaser is very close to flying a manned crew.  It's already flown chimps!

[Bernie Roehl]

Software.

Well, yes... but how much software was there in the Mercury capsule, or Gemini for that matter?  Some of that code is available online, and it's relatively small.  Hard to read, because it's written in assembly language for a fairly strange processor architecture, but the algorithms themselves are not that complex.

Launch vehicle software is a different matter (though it too should reallyl be reusable, as discussed in another thread), but the software for a LEO spacecraft should be relatively straightforward.

[Bernie Roehl]

It's my person opinion that Dreamchaser is a money pit and will never fly.

Well, that's your personal opinion.  Mine is quite different.

The vehicle is too heavy for most of the commercial launchers

What commercial launchers are you talking about?  It's initially targeting the Atlas V, and could certainly be lifted by a Delta IV or for that matter a Falcon 9 (similar payload capability to the Atlas V).

If you're just looking at payload mass (which it appears you are, from your claim that it's "too heavy"), it could also be launched by Ariane V,  H-IIB... in fact the only commecial launcher that couldn't put a Dream Chaser in orbit is the Taurus II.  So I dispute your claim of it being "too heavy for most of the commercial launchers".

it must have very advanced flight systems compared to a capsule design

True enough, but they're contracting a lot of that out to some very experienced companies.

and must use a push type LAS which will not be off the shelf similar to Orbital's LAS system.

It has it's own propulsion system which doubles as both LAS and the main orbital propulsion system.  That's one of its (many) advantages over a capsule design.

Blue Orgin is a CIA front [...]

If I'd read that statement first, I probably wouldn't have bothered replying to the rest of your message.

[mr. mark]

Something going on with Blue Origin and yes I know this is a little outside the norm.... http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html

[Jim]

Something going on with Blue Origin and yes I know this is a little outside the norm.... http://n5lp.net/Saltflatmystery.html

So what?  It doesn't show that the two operations are related. 

You said "everybody in the industry knows about" .  You have yet provide info that one person knows it, except you.   I am in the industry, I haven't heard this bunk.

[Nate_Trost]

Blue Origin is the private company of a tech billionaire space enthusiast who has the money to adequately fund it, the patience to develop things properly, and doesn't require ego boosts from constantly showing things off behind the scenes. Are you suggesting perhaps that Amazon is a CIA front company? Perhaps they are inserting mind control strips in copies of Catcher in the Rye.

If nothing happens to Bezos or his finances, I'm not sure I'd bet against Blue Origin having an orbital TSTO RLV by the end of the decade.

[spacenut]

Which spacecraft do you guys think will be developed first, Dragon or Dreamchaser?  When do you think they will have their maiden flight with humans?

[Bernie Roehl]

Which spacecraft do you guys think will be developed first, Dragon or Dreamchaser?  When do you think they will have their maiden flight with humans?

Dragon, then Dream Chaser.

My guesses would be...

Dragon: 2011 (cargo), 2013 (crew)
Dream Chaster: 2014

[ChuckC]

Which spacecraft do you guys think will be developed first, Dragon or Dreamchaser?  When do you think they will have their maiden flight with humans?

I would say Space X, but mainly because with them I see actual hardware. In particular, I see their Falcon 9 currently on the pad with a Dragon test article on top.

I have yet to see any pictures of even a bolt of Dream chaser hardware.

[Comga]

I have yet to see any pictures of even a bolt of Dream chaser headwear.

You want a Dream chaser cap? 
Can we assume you meant "hardware"?

[Bernie Roehl]

I have yet to see any pictures of even a bolt of Dream chaser headwear.

You want a Dream chaser cap? 

Hey, if they're making Dream Chaser merchandise, sign me up!  :-)

I'll take a cap, a t-shirt and a bumper sticker that says "my other car is a Dream Chaser".

Whether it flies or not, it's one cool-looking spacecraft.

[spacenut]

I like Dream Chaser better than a capsule.  I think we need a transfer vehicle between earth orbit and L1 or L2 using air breaking coming back from the moon and then dock at a refueling station for new crew transfer and return to the moon.  Dream Chaser to and from orbit at a refueling station.  Then transfer to a moon bus.  Then from L1 or L2 transfer to a reuseable lunar lander.  Have several in place for constant transfer of equipment and personel.  Transfer hydrogen or some other fuel from earth and lox from the moon.  We could probably keep a moon base going like for about the same operating costs as the space station.   

[yg1968]

Blue Origin is the private company of a tech billionaire space enthusiast who has the money to adequately fund it, the patience to develop things properly, and doesn't require ego boosts from constantly showing things off behind the scenes. Are you suggesting perhaps that Amazon is a CIA front company? Perhaps they are inserting mind control strips in copies of Catcher in the Rye.

If nothing happens to Bezos or his finances, I'm not sure I'd bet against Blue Origin having an orbital TSTO RLV by the end of the decade.

Yes but everybody in the book industry knows that Amazon is actually owned by Specter! And Bezos has been seen traveling in his private jet with his white cat.

[yg1968]

One of the details that came up in the 2011 NASA Budget yesterday is that the commercial crew initiative would be limited to a maximum of 4 companies and would be a mix of old and newer companies. So it's possible that either Boeing or the Dream Chaser would not make the cut in the next round.

If I had ot guess, I would say that the following companies could be selected for commercial crew development:

1- SpaceX
2- Boeing or LM's capsule
3- Dream Chaser
4- ULA (in order to manrate its rockets).

[Jim]

It would be more like this

1- SpaceX
2- Boeing or LM's capsule solution
3- LM or Boeing's capsule solution
4- Dream Chaser


Manrating ULA's rockets would be done via the contracts with 2, 3 &4. 

NASA contracting for a service, they won't be dictating a solution, they will just provide requirements.

[yg1968]

That makes more sense.

For CCDev, ULA had a separate agreement. But as you say, it could be different for the new commercial crew initiative as this will be a more of an integrated program that will exist for a number of years (as opposed to CCDev which is a one year program that will end on September 30th 2010).

[Ronsmytheiii]

It would be more like this

1- SpaceX
2- Boeing or LM's capsule solution
3- LM or Boeing's capsule solution
4- Dream Chaser


Manrating ULA's rockets would be done via the contracts with 2, 3 &4. 

NASA contracting for a service, they won't be dictating a solution, they will just provide requirements.

So, Orbital completely left out?  I would imagine a manned Cygnus on a HESS would be more likely than Dream Chaser.

[William Barton]

Blue Origin is the private company of a tech billionaire space enthusiast who has the money to adequately fund it, the patience to develop things properly, and doesn't require ego boosts from constantly showing things off behind the scenes. Are you suggesting perhaps that Amazon is a CIA front company? Perhaps they are inserting mind control strips in copies of Catcher in the Rye.

If nothing happens to Bezos or his finances, I'm not sure I'd bet against Blue Origin having an orbital TSTO RLV by the end of the decade.

Yes but everybody in the book industry knows that Amazon is actually owned by Specter! And Bezos has been seen traveling in his private jet with his white cat.

Actually, SPECTRE went bankrupt and, being too big to fail, took bailout money. Amazon is owned by KAOS, whereas Google is own by SMERSH.  Yes, I am in the book industry.

[William Barton]

It would be more like this

1- SpaceX
2- Boeing or LM's capsule solution
3- LM or Boeing's capsule solution
4- Dream Chaser


Manrating ULA's rockets would be done via the contracts with 2, 3 &4. 

NASA contracting for a service, they won't be dictating a solution, they will just provide requirements.

Just out of idle curiosity, why are you listing "Boeing or LM" and "LM or Boeing," and in that particular order? Why not just:

2 - Boeing's Capsule Solution
3 - LM's Capsule Solution

[William Barton]

It would be more like this

1- SpaceX
2- Boeing or LM's capsule solution
3- LM or Boeing's capsule solution
4- Dream Chaser


Manrating ULA's rockets would be done via the contracts with 2, 3 &4. 

NASA contracting for a service, they won't be dictating a solution, they will just provide requirements.

So, Orbital completely left out?  I would imagine a manned Cygnus on a HESS would be more likely than Dream Chaser.

Too small? The last I heard, it was max 3 crew, while the others named are 6-7 crew. Is there anyone else with the slightest chance of making the list?

[mmeijeri]

It could still be useful as a backup solution.

[William Barton]

I like Dream Chaser better than a capsule.  I think we need a transfer vehicle between earth orbit and L1 or L2 using air breaking coming back from the moon and then dock at a refueling station for new crew transfer and return to the moon.  Dream Chaser to and from orbit at a refueling station.  Then transfer to a moon bus.  Then from L1 or L2 transfer to a reuseable lunar lander.  Have several in place for constant transfer of equipment and personel.  Transfer hydrogen or some other fuel from earth and lox from the moon.  We could probably keep a moon base going like for about the same operating costs as the space station.   

The t\Space CXV/CEV solution went in that direction, winged coolness factor aside. Then again, airlaunch seemed pretty cool too, in its own way.

[William Barton]

It could still be useful as a backup solution.

Didn't they say they needed ca. $3bln to make it work? That's almost half the available budget. Still, that's why I asked if there were any other realistic contenders.

[mmeijeri]

Yikes, that's a lot of money! Any ideas why it would be so enormously expensive?

[William Barton]

Yikes, that's a lot of money! Any ideas why it would be so enormously expensive?

Nobody at OSC ever owned PayPal, plus they've been in business long enough to know how much it really costs them to do stuff?

[bad_astra]

NG has stated they are waiting to see if the proposed changes to NASA go through. The NG/OSC capsule design for OSP is pretty close to the Orion Lite concept.

Since human rating requirements won't be out until the end of the year it's not at all unlikely they'll bid, at some point.

[Lars_J]

Dreamchaser just seems like vaporware to me. No hardware in sight. All we see it HL-20 and BOR-4 pictures.

Of course it is a doable project, but FAR behind where Dragon on F9 is and Orion 'lite' on a ULA rocket would be.

[Jim]

It would be more like this

1- SpaceX
2- Boeing or LM's capsule solution
3- LM or Boeing's capsule solution
4- Dream Chaser


Manrating ULA's rockets would be done via the contracts with 2, 3 &4. 

NASA contracting for a service, they won't be dictating a solution, they will just provide requirements.

Just out of idle curiosity, why are you listing "Boeing or LM" and "LM or Boeing," and in that particular order? Why not just:

As to not rank one over the other.

[Jim]

Dreamchaser just seems like vaporware to me. No hardware in sight. All we see it HL-20 and BOR-4 pictures.

No different than Boeing's proposal.

[clb22]

1- SpaceX
2- Boeing or LM's capsule solution
3- LM or Boeing's capsule solution
4- Dream Chaser

I am sceptical about DreamChaser, doesn't matter how far they are, reusable manned spacecraft have been extremely expensive to develop and all but one failed to fly with a crew.

I also doubt this COTS style program (yes, the NASA request specifically said it will be structured like COTS), will selected both an LM (Orion) and a Boeing capsule solution (Orion Lite).

At the end, I bet there will be at least one wild card in the program that nobody really expected and one proposal that was thought of as having a secure place will not be picked.

Hey, even SpaceX is in trouble if they were not to fly a Falcon 9 successfully until Q2 2011 (likely finalist downselect of the new commercial crew program).

[nooneofconsequence]

Software. I'm continually amazed at how it's the laggard in many developments. Because ALL of the other active systems must have it, they're usually understaffed and they have to wait for the other systems to be somewhat designed before the software can be designed. Coding is the easy part. It's the algorithms and interfaces that take time.

You're not even mentioning the software testing/regression, systems analysis, systems integration and test, prototype anomaly hunt, telemetry correlation with model, etc.

GNC software has always been tricky because of the unpredictable aspects. Often it is assembled to get something operational and then over time all the lessons and experience is lost. Then we start over almost from scratch again.

The long pole isn't the coding/algorithms. It's proving they are right in all cases all the time. And in mitigating complete disaster when it turns out you didn't.

[Bernie Roehl]

So, Orbital completely left out?  I would imagine a manned Cygnus on a HESS would be more likely than Dream Chaser.

I disagree.  As far as I know, Orbital hasn't even got a rough idea of how they would approach a manned spacecraft, and their launcher (even with the cryogenic stage upgrade) doesn't have the lift capability.

The only other contender might be Blue Origin.

My guess is that it will come down to:

1) SpaceX (Dragon) -- definitely in the lead at this point
2) Boeing/Bigelow (Orion Lite)  -- safest bet among OldSpace firms
3) SNC (Dream Chaser) -- best design, if it works out
4) either LM or Blue Origin

[ChuckC]

I have yet to see any pictures of even a bolt of Dream chaser headwear.

You want a Dream chaser cap? 
Can we assume you meant "hardware"?

Yes I did mean "hardware".

[clb22]

As far as I know, Orbital hasn't even got a rough idea of how they would approach a manned spacecraft, and their launcher (even with the cryogenic stage upgrade) doesn't have the lift capability.

Sorry, wrong on both accounts.

[ChuckC]

Dreamchaser just seems like vaporware to me. No hardware in sight. All we see it HL-20 and BOR-4 pictures.

Of course it is a doable project, but FAR behind where Dragon on F9 is and Orion 'lite' on a ULA rocket would be.

If we could just see a Dreamchaser test dummy under construction, it would seem a more likely competitor. But there is no hint of even a bolt. That gives Space X a clear advantage; they have hardware on the pad right now.

[Bernie Roehl]

As far as I know, Orbital hasn't even got a rough idea of how they would approach a manned spacecraft, and their launcher (even with the cryogenic stage upgrade) doesn't have the lift capability.

Sorry, wrong on both accounts.

What are you basing that on?

I've been following this pretty closely, including reading all of OSC's press releases, and I haven't seen any mention of them working on a manned Cygnus (other than to say it was possible, would seat 3 people and cost $3 billion to develop).

As to payload capacity... according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_II the Taurus II can put 5500 kg in LEO, and they're studying the possibility of a methane/oxygen second stage that would increase that to 7600 kg.  I remember something about a possible cryogenic second stage that would provide 8500 kg to LEO.

Compare even the highest of those figures with Falcon 9 or Atlas V.

If you have additional information, I'd love to hear it, but in the meantime I'll stand by my original comments.

[neilh]

If we could just see a Dreamchaser test dummy under construction, it would seem a more likely competitor. But there is no hint of even a bolt.

Not sure how much it counts for, but they did have a full-size mock-up back in 2006:

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060623_dreamchaser_cots.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceDev_Dream_Chaser

[clb22]

What are you basing that on?

I am basing this on a recent discussion with someone else and a quote by Dr. Elias, Executive Vice President at OSC. They have done work on how to modify Cygnus and Taurus II for manned launches, so your first claim that they have no idea how to do it is wrong. And Dr. Elias has confirmed that including their advanced upper stage, the payload capacity for a crewed launch with 3 passengers exists.

Here is the relevant recent post with links to the previous comments by Dr. Elias on the subject: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15457.msg545922#msg545922

[Bernie Roehl]

What are you basing that on?

They have done work on how to modify Cygnus and Taurus II for manned launches, so your first claim that they have no idea how to do it is wrong.

I think it comes down to what we mean by "having done work on".  I've  sketched out ideas for manned spacecraft myself, as I'm sure many people on these forums have.  That's a long way from actually designing one.

I haven't seen even a rough design of a crew capsule from OSC, unlike all their competitors.  The Cygnus pressurized module is contracted out to Thales Alenia, who have certainly never developed a re-entry vehicle of any kind and have no experience in that area.  If OSC's plan is to somehow modify that pressure vessel for re-entry, then I would say they have a very long way to go indeed.
 

Dr. Elias has confirmed that including their advanced upper stage, the payload capacity for a crewed launch with 3 passengers exists.

Yes, I've seen all of that.  Even with their HESS, their crew capacity is less than half of that proposed by any of their competitors.  And that's assuming they can develop a LAS with a mass just half that of their capsule, which itself would be quite an accomplishment.

Their most advanced Taurus II design (using the cryogenic HESS) still has only about 2/3 the payload of their competitors.  And human-rating a vehicle with three different propulsion systems and five different propellants is non-trivial.

Still, I wish them luck.  I personally believe that there has been far too much consolidation in the aerospace industry, and I would love to see someone competing with ULA and SpaceX in order to keep costs down.  If OSC can be an effective competitor, I'm all for it.

I'm just saying they have a long, difficult road ahead of them, and their competitors all have a pretty significant head start.

[HMXHMX]

If we could just see a Dreamchaser test dummy under construction, it would seem a more likely competitor. But there is no hint of even a bolt.

Not sure how much it counts for, but they did have a full-size mock-up back in 2006:

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/060623_dreamchaser_cots.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceDev_Dream_Chaser

I am not certain, but I believe that was the previous Langley-built mockup dressed in SpaceDev livery.

[HMXHMX]

What are you basing that on?

They have done work on how to modify Cygnus and Taurus II for manned launches, so your first claim that they have no idea how to do it is wrong.

I think it comes down to what we mean by "having done work on".  I've  sketched out ideas for manned spacecraft myself, as I'm sure many people on these forums have.  That's a long way from actually designing one.

I haven't seen even a rough design of a crew capsule from OSC, unlike all their competitors.  The Cygnus pressurized module is contracted out to Thales Alenia, who have certainly never developed a re-entry vehicle of any kind and have no experience in that area.  If OSC's plan is to somehow modify that pressure vessel for re-entry, then I would say they have a very long way to go indeed.
 

Dr. Elias has confirmed that including their advanced upper stage, the payload capacity for a crewed launch with 3 passengers exists.

Yes, I've seen all of that.  Even with their HESS, their crew capacity is less than half of that proposed by any of their competitors.  And that's assuming they can develop a LAS with a mass just half that of their capsule, which itself would be quite an accomplishment.

Their most advanced Taurus II design (using the cryogenic HESS) still has only about 2/3 the payload of their competitors.  And human-rating a vehicle with three different propulsion systems and five different propellants is non-trivial.

Still, I wish them luck.  I personally believe that there has been far too much consolidation in the aerospace industry, and I would love to see someone competing with ULA and SpaceX in order to keep costs down.  If OSC can be an effective competitor, I'm all for it.

I'm just saying they have a long, difficult road ahead of them, and their competitors all have a pretty significant head start.

Your point about Alenia is correct, but then again, SpaceX has no experience either in reentry or spacecraft whatever, and that doesn't seem to count against them.  Orbital has built dozens of spacecraft with a pretty high success rate. 

And I think that NASA will request a crew complement to match Soyuz, i.e., three.  I do expect Orbital has already discussed that issue with NASA or at least I'd be very surprised if they hadn't.

[Bernie Roehl]

Your point about Alenia is correct, but then again, SpaceX has no experience either in reentry or spacecraft whatever, and that doesn't seem to count against them.  Orbital has built dozens of spacecraft with a pretty high success rate. 
[/quote]

Fair enough, but it's clear that SpaceX is already building their Dragon spacecraft (which is designed for re-entry).  It's not flying yet, but that puts them well ahead of any other competitors.

And I think that NASA will request a crew complement to match Soyuz, i.e., three.  I do expect Orbital has already discussed that issue with NASA or at least I'd be very surprised if they hadn't.

Possibly, but if the requirement were for three, I'm surprised that SNC, SpaceX and I believe Boeing are all aiming for seven (which is the crew size for the shuttle).

Even if three does end up being the minimum, it would be more cost-effective to carry more crew on a single launch rather than requiring more launches.  And if the need arises to evacuate the station and return to earth, it would be useful if all six crew of the ISS could return in a single vehicle.

[Jorge]

Even if three does end up being the minimum, it would be more cost-effective to carry more crew on a single launch rather than requiring more launches.

No, it will not. Russia will not stop using Soyuz just because a larger US vehicle is available. The US vehicle would only carry the 3-4 USOS crewmembers.

  And if the need arises to evacuate the station and return to earth, it would be useful if all six crew of the ISS could return in a single vehicle.

You really think that in a medevac case it would be better to have to send home the entire crew and leave the station unmanned than it would be to just send home the wounded/sick crewmember and 2 crewmates, and allow manned station operations to continue?

[Bernie Roehl]

it would be more cost-effective to carry more crew on a single launch rather than requiring more launches.

The US vehicle would only carry the 3-4 USOS crewmembers.

Even if you only rotate four crew members at a time, that's still more than a single Cygnus would carry.  And if the Cygnus ends up carrying only two crew at a time (which would be the case if they don't go for the cryogenic stage and the super-efficient LAS) then you'd need twice as many launches to rotate the crew.  If each flight needs a pilot, a two-man vehicle would only be able to bring up one mission specialist at a time.

You really think that in a medevac case it would be better to have to send home the entire crew and leave the station unmanned than it would be to just send home the wounded/sick crewmember and 2 crewmates, and allow manned station operations to continue?

I wasn't talking about medevac, I was talking about a critical system failure in the station itself that renders it uninhabitable until repairs are completed.

For medevac, a Dream Chaser is obviously the best choice since it has the lowest acceleration during reentry and the softest landing.

[Robotbeat]

Besides, I think (based on some of the stuff Jim has said) the commercial spacecraft company would be providing the pilot for their spacecraft as part of the deal. That means four seats are needed for just for 3 "US" crew, and 5 seats for 4 "US" crew.

[Jorge]

You really think that in a medevac case it would be better to have to send home the entire crew and leave the station unmanned than it would be to just send home the wounded/sick crewmember and 2 crewmates, and allow manned station operations to continue?

I wasn't talking about medevac, I was talking about a critical system failure in the station itself that renders it uninhabitable until repairs are completed.

I know you weren't talking about it, but medevac is one of the scenarios a station CRV is required to support.

A single CRV might have an advantage in a total evac scenario, but IMO its disadvantages in the medevac case outweigh that.

[clb22]

Bernie, the minimum requirement under the commercial crew contracts will be 3, not 4. I actually doubt very much that the ISS permanent crew complement will be increased to 7 in the future. It might happen, but it is far from being a certainty.

That being said, 3 is not only the minimum required, for ISS operations it is likely to be the optimum. Also, provided Dr. Elias' numbers are correct regarding the advanced upper stage for Taurus II, it seems their crewed spacecraft may be able to carry a maximum of 4, not just 3 crewmembers (also from the Cygnus design this sounds reasonable).

Anyway, SpaceX isn't really further along than OSC at all. They will be further along IF two Falcon 9 flights have been successful with the second carrying a full-up Dragon. In contrast, if OSC is successful with their flight in Q2 2011 and SpaceX has an initial launch failure (followed by a 6-9 months standdown), OSC should be considered further along.

One thing people also seem to forget, OSC does right now have extensive knowledge of LAS and has a long history of how to do spaceflight, something that SpaceX engineers do have, but SpaceX as an institution does not.

[ugordan]

In contrast, if OSC is successful with their flight in Q2 2011 and SpaceX has an initial launch failure (followed by a 6-9 months standdown), OSC should be considered further along.

Well, sure, if you assume the next N Falcon 9s will blow up and OSC just breezes through their development. Why is that assumption any more valid than any other different assumption? Why assume F9 inaugural will fail, while T-II won't?

Also, are we talking about who's ahead of who w/ respect human spaceflight or just the COTS/CRS status? If the former is the case, SpaceX realistically have an upper hand if at nothing else than at the fact their capsule is designed to reenter and be recovered, whereas Cygnus does not have that capability.

One thing people also seem to forget, OSC does right now have extensive knowledge of LAS and has a long history of how to do spaceflight, something that SpaceX engineers do have, but SpaceX as an institution does not.

You mention a long history in OSC spaceflight, but on the other hand OSC has no experience with liquid vehicles.

[clb22]

In contrast, if OSC is successful with their flight in Q2 2011 and SpaceX has an initial launch failure (followed by a 6-9 months standdown), OSC should be considered further along.

Well, sure, if you assume the next N Falcon 9s will blow up and OSC just breezes through their development. Why is that assumption any more valid than any other different assumption? Why assume F9 inaugural will fail, while T-II won't?

Also, are we talking about who's ahead of who w/ respect human spaceflight or just the COTS/CRS status? If the former is the case, SpaceX realistically have an upper hand if at nothing else than at the fact their capsule is designed to reenter and be recovered, whereas Cygnus does not have that capability.

One thing people also seem to forget, OSC does right now have extensive knowledge of LAS and has a long history of how to do spaceflight, something that SpaceX engineers do have, but SpaceX as an institution does not.

You mention a long history in OSC spaceflight, but on the other hand OSC has no experience with liquid vehicles.

Ok, I was just providing a different perspective to the whole "who is further along" issue.

My point is:
1. right now, nobody is further along.
2. if SpaceX can launch 2 Falcon 9 as planned right now within this year, one of which is a NASA COTS Demo, SpaceX if further along.
3. if SpaceX does not do so, but has a launch failure, we can expect a rather long standdown (that's normal). If OSC only has a moderately delay (I assumed Q2 2011 vs. the currently expected Q1 2011 launch date) and the initial launch and mission is successful (this is a full-up demo mission to the ISS under COTS), then OSC is further along.

All theoretical. Right now we just don't know, so the best thing to say is nobody is further along, ULA (Boeing/LM) is the only company which has a head start because they got a functioning rocket.

[ugordan]

Ok, I was just providing a different perspective to the whole "who is further along" issue.

My point is:
1. right now, nobody is further along.

Agree. And this goes for Boeing/LM/Bigelow as well, even though they have working LVs at disposal, they don't have LEO capsules being built so it's irrelevant.

[Nomadd]

 I don't know what docking will look like, but it seems like a big reason for multiple return vehicles would be having a vehicle at each end of the complex to avoid the fox/hen/grain/orlan shuffle if the middle of the station was unpassable.

[mmeijeri]

the fox/hen/grain/orlan shuffle.

Also known as Astronauts of Hanoi.

[Bernie Roehl]

My point is:
1. right now, nobody is further along.

Launch vehicle: The Falcon 9 is on the pad right now, whereas it will be quite some time (months) before Taurus II reaches that point.

Spacecraft: The Dragon is designed for reentry, and to carry a crew.  The Cygnus is not.

You're quite right that it's still early days, and the lead could shift back and forth depending on launch failures and such.  But I have to disagree with you that "at this point, nobody is further along".  SpaceX clearly is.

Now, will SpaceX meet their milestones on time?  I doubt it, since they have a track record of failing to do so.  However, I think the same will be true of OSC, and that they'll slip just as much as SpaceX has.  This is, after all, rocket science.   :-)

I agree with you that OSC has considerable strength in LAS development, partly because of their background in solid fuel propulsion.  However, the LAS they're building right now is sized for a full-up Orion spacecraft.  I believe that the Taurus II could launch OSC's LAS into orbit, just not with a spacecraft under it.  :-)

ULA (Boeing/LM) is the only company which has a head start because they got a functioning rocket.

My understanding is that Boeing and LM are competing with each other for the spacecraft contract, and that they would "subcontract" the actual launch to ULA.  A bit incestuous, of course, but then again the entire aerospace industry is pretty inbred.  That's one reason I'm hoping that both SpaceX and OSC succeed.

In any case, Boeing is likely to launch on LM's Atlas V rather than their own Delta IV, and LM (assuming they enter the race at all) will have to launch on Boeing's Delta IV Heavy.

Both Atlas V and Delta IV still have to be human-rated, whereas the Falcon 9 was designed as HR'ed right from the outset.  Of course, not all the competitors are planning to build their own rockets (e.g. SNC and Blue Origin).

I would say that the standings in the race so far are:

1. SpaceX (LV on the pad, spacecraft actually being built)
2. LM (already bending metal on Orion)
3. Boeing (using existing Orion OML,  and have lots of experience)
4. SNC (using an existing design with extensive NASA analysis)
5. OSC (some good ideas, but no actual design yet that I'm aware of)
6. Blue Origin (hard to say, they've been secretive)

I know you would rank OSC first, or at least on par with all the other competitors.  It's entirely possible that you have knowledge about them that I don't, from sources I don't have access to.  I'm just going by what I've seen published so far.

I would love to see a chunk of NASA's upcoming HSF investment go to OSC, if only to keep the other players (ULA and SpaceX) on their toes.  That's what NASA did with the first round of COTS, and I think it's paid off.

[ugordan]

Both Atlas V and Delta IV still have to be human-rated, whereas the Falcon 9 was designed as HR'ed right from the outset.

That doesn't mean F9 is man-rated out of the box, though. Due to tight schedules, these first few flights may very well be missing EDS boxes and more avionics redundancy that they'd fly on crewed missions. It was always stated that either the vehicle will fulfill requirements right away or provisions for relatively straightforward additions later will be made, it was never stated the vehicle is human rated from the start.

[Bernie Roehl]

Both Atlas V and Delta IV still have to be human-rated, whereas the Falcon 9 was designed as HR'ed right from the outset.

That doesn't mean F9 is man-rated out of the box, though. Due to tight schedules, these first few flights may very well be missing EDS boxes and more avionics redundancy that they'd fly on crewed missions.

Absolutely.  All the companies have work to do, which is a good thing.

One interesting note related to EDS boxes... on page 8 of:

http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/presentations/Lindenmoyer_C3PO.pdf

... it says that ULA's EDS can be used with "Atlas V, Delta IV and other launch vehicles".  Now since ULA doesn't have any other LV's, presumably that means they'd be willing to license it even to their competitors.  And any EDS design that can accommodate both Atlas V and  Delta IV (which are actually quite different from each other) could theoretically be adapted to pretty much anything.

The same document mentions that Boeing's capsule is "compatible with Atlas V, Delta IV and Falcon 9".

And of course, Paragon is aiming to make their ECS compatible with pretty much every spacecraft being developed, and OSC has indicated they hope to be able to sell LAS's (presumably smaller than Orion's!) to any of the competitors.

That's the great thing about opening up the market... it forces everyone to actively look for opportunities to be part of the whatever the eventual mix is.

Exciting times.

[Robotbeat]

I agree, exciting times. SpaceX is clearly ahead of everyone except perhaps those working on Orion (Lockheed). It's good that Orbital is making progress, but Orbital's launch vehicle (Taurus II) and Cygnus spacecraft parts list seems like a random picking of a list of the world's aerospace companies, with Orbital providing hypergolic propulsion systems and the spacecraft bus. Almost everything is derived very closely from something already built.

This means Orbital can build their spacecraft with far less infrastructure investment than SpaceX, but it does mean that Orbital will have a harder time if they try to beat SpaceX on price/performance over the long term. I don't really expect Orbital to improve costs very much, although more competition generally lowers prices overall.

Orbital is a spacecraft manufacturer, not a launch vehicle manufacturer.

[bad_astra]

Orbital is a spacecraft manufacturer, not a launch vehicle manufacturer.

What?

[Lars_J]

In contrast, if OSC is successful with their flight in Q2 2011 and SpaceX has an initial launch failure (followed by a 6-9 months standdown), OSC should be considered further along.

Well, sure, if you assume the next N Falcon 9s will blow up and OSC just breezes through their development. Why is that assumption any more valid than any other different assumption? Why assume F9 inaugural will fail, while T-II won't?

Ok, I was just providing a different perspective to the whole "who is further along" issue.

My point is:
1. right now, nobody is further along.

Of course... I mean an actual launch vehicle being tested for launch at the pad doesn't count for anything, I guess? 
Nor does actual hardware existing for a cargo version (similar to crewed), right? 

Look at this PDF, then I dare you to make the same statement again: http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/presentations/Vozoff_SpaceX.pdf

There's a "different perspective", and then there is "just plain wrong".

[Robotbeat]

Orbital is a spacecraft manufacturer, not a launch vehicle manufacturer.

What?

I mean, sure, they integrate stages, but they don't actually manufacture them. Most of the _mass_ of the rocket is made by someone else, I believe. The Pegasus rocket is made of solid rocket motors manufactured by ATK (and the wing was designed by Burt Rutan and his Scaled Composites). The liquid first stage of the Taurus II is made by the people who brought you Zenit. The hypergolic third stage of the Taurus II is the only part of Taurus II Orbital is really making.

EDIT: That said, just being a systems integrator is an important job. Heck, that's what I'm doing right now. But it does mean you are tied to whatever you can buy out there.