Spacecraft development

[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.