Spacecraft development

[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.