CCDev-2 Finalists

[Jim]

1,  I wasn't talking about cargo transportation. I was talking about crew transportation. Also, I'm not sure how your math came to those figure

2,  $1.6billion for 240,000KG over 5 years through 12 flights.

1.  Shuttle does both. 

2.  too many zeros and therefore your point is wrong

[Calorspace]

1,  I wasn't talking about cargo transportation. I was talking about crew transportation. Also, I'm not sure how your math came to those figure

2,  $1.6billion for 240,000KG over 5 years through 12 flights.

1.  Shuttle does both. 

2.  too many zeros and therefore your point is wrong

Hmmm, I'm all for accepting I'm wrong if you could indicate where I'm adding too many zeroes.

20,000KG * 12 = 240000KG at a cost of 1.6billion dollars = 6666 per KG...

[ugordan]

20,000KG * 12 = 240000KG at a cost of 1.6billion dollars = 6666 per KG...

This indicated that you don't have quite a good enough handle on this issue.

Each CRS contract calls for 20 000 kg minimum in total after 12 flights for SpaceX and 8 flights for Orbital. Not 20 tons per flight.

[Calorspace]

20,000KG * 12 = 240000KG at a cost of 1.6billion dollars = 6666 per KG...

This indicated that you don't have quite a good enough handle on this issue.

Each CRS contract calls for 20 000 kg minimum in total after 12 flights for SpaceX and 8 flights for Orbital. Not 20 tons per flight.

Thanks that clears it up, I was beginning to think I was losing my mind with those figures.

That said, 12 flights will surely deliver a great deal more than 20,000KG

[kkattula]

Dragon is maximum 6,000 kg (13,000 lb) of combined pressurized (10 m3) and unpressurized cargo (14 m3 - 34 m3 with trunk extension)

So the max for 12 flights is 72,000kg.  At $1.6B that's $22,222/kg

Unlikely they'll can take anywhere near the full 6,000kg to ISS orbit, especially on the early flights.

Given they've contracted for 12 flights for a minumum 20,000kg and they  probably wanted both decent margin and a premium offer, my guess is arounfd 3,000 kg per flight. Which is around the same cost as commercial Shuttle, but without the handy crew.

[TerryNaylor]

...
There are the financial resources availabe.  It is commitment that is required. 

Care to share where those financial resources are?

We have already discussed this in the commercial Shuttle thread. In any event, I am not sure there is any point in debating this since the decision has already been made to not extend Shuttle. Neither Congress nor Bolden supports extending the Shuttle.

Agreed and without the massive capability.

We heard it in the inflight interviews. We're not just losing beloved vehicles, we're losing capability, capability we're not getting back with the new vehicles.

These new vehicles are great, but despite their pretty wings and personalities, orbiters are beasts when it requires getting so many things done in one go.

[yg1968]

Gerst was talking about USA's CCDev-2 proposal. He expects the decision on CCDev-2 to be made in a month. A CCDev-2 announcement is unlikely to be made until the FY 2011 appropriation process is settled. In any event, even if USA was selected for CCDev-2, it doesn't mean Shuttle extension will happen. The opposite is also true. Even if USA isn't selected for CCDev-2 doesn't mean that commercial Shuttle cannot happen.

But as some point a decision has to be made. My personal view is that this time has already passed as it would have had to be included in the NASA Authorization bill. Extending Shuttle at this point would mean amending the NASA Authorization bill. Not impossible but not very likely. I am sure that some in Congress (perhaps Senator Hutchison) are favourable to such an amendment but I doubt that they will be able to convince other Senators and Representatives to go along with this. 

Again, this is not a NASA extension.

Does the Authorization bill talk about Boeing?  Does it talk about SpaceX?  Does it talk about Sierra Nevada?  Does it talk about ULA?  Does it talk about Orbital?  Does it talk about Blue Orign?  Does it talk about ATK?

Commercial crew includes all these companies. I am not convinced that commercial crew includes commercial Shuttle. It would be a stretch to include Shuttle with the rest of the commercial crew providers. In any event USA's CCDev-2 proposal is only for a study. 

I see.....so different rules for different proposals?  Why exactly would it be a stretch? 

Nobody has said any differently about it being just a "study", which is exactly why the requested amount is rather small. 

The rules would indeed have to be different for Shuttle. For one thing the Shuttle doesn't meet the proposed safety rules for commercial crew unless you have a different certification process for legacy spacecrafts.

Secondly, Shuttle is as much a cargo spacecraft as it is a crewed one. So Shuttle would be competing with SpaceX and Orbital for cargo. I am not sure if there is a need for extra ISS cargo but if there is, it would seem more logical to get that extra cargo from SpaceX and Orbital.

Although I suspect that participants other than SpaceX and Orbital could get chosen in the next CRS round. For example, Boeing and Sierra Nevada may try to compete for the next CRS round. Both companies had submitted COTS proposals in the past for cargo spacecrafts that ressembled their proposed crewed spacecrafts.

But in the end, IMO Shuttle probably will not get chosen because there is not enough money for both commercial Shuttle and (other) commercial crew and cargo to coexist. Commercial Shuttle has a limited lifespan (12 flights) and would not be a long term solution for commercial cargo and crew.

[Namechange User]

The rules would indeed have to be different for Shuttle. For one thing the Shuttle doesn't meet the proposed safety rules for commercial crew unless you have a different certification process for legacy spacecrafts.

Secondly, Shuttle is as much a cargo spacecraft as it is a crewed one. So Shuttle would be competing with SpaceX and Orbital for cargo. I am not sure if there is a need for extra ISS cargo but if there is, it would seem more logical to get that extra cargo from SpaceX and Orbital.

Although I suspect that participants other than SpaceX and Orbital could get chosen in the next CRS round. For example, Boeing and Sierra Nevada may try to compete for the next CRS round. Both companies had submitted COTS proposals in the past for cargo spacecrafts that ressembled their proposed crewed spacecrafts.

But in the end, Shuttle probably will not get chosen because there is not enough money for both commercial Shuttle and (other) commercial crew and cargo to coexist. Commercial Shuttle has a limited lifespan (12 flights) and would not be a long term solution for commercial cargo and crew.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24010.msg706766#msg706766

[Robotbeat]

So, CCDev 2 awards are supposed to be announced in March. We are now about half-way through March. When will they be announced?

[yg1968]

So, CCDev 2 awards are supposed to be announced in March. We are now about half-way through March. When will they be announced?

Gerst said next month at the Shuttle STS-133 post-landing conference. But the winners of CCDev-2 will likely not be announced until the appropriation process is settled since this will determine how much money can be allocated to CCDev-2.

[MP99]

Opinion by Alan Stern and Owen Garriott:
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/110307-commercial-human-spaceflight-safer.html

It reads like they are trying to convince themselves. 

They are seriously fooling themselves on LAS reliability. There is no realistic system that could achieve 0.99 reliability. 0.8-0.9 is far more realistic.

If the new commercial vehicles achieve 133 flights with only 2 catastrophic failures, I will be amazed.

A rocket which explodes 1 in 40 times, and has a LAS with a probability of 0.9. It will be 6 times as safe for crew

Two times maybe, in theory, over the launch phase. But less in practice until the launcher has demonstrated close to 40 consecutive fault-free launches.

But that doesn't cover the on-orbit and reentry phases, where Shuttle is way more mature then any new system.

cheers, Martin

[baldusi]

Yep, it was 1 in 133 launch failures plus 1 in 133 return failure. 53 was a partial failure or the mission completed successfully?

[yg1968]

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/mar/HQ_C11-013_Soyuz_Contract.html

On a related note, NASA signed an agreement for Soyuz in 2014 and 2015 for six astronauts per year. Price per seat is $62.75M. The business case for commercial crew is getting better and better. At this price, being cheaper than the Russians shouldn't be too hard.

At the post-landing conference, Gerst said that there would likely be an overlap between commercial crew and Soyuz. I guess that this is what he meant. 

Does this agreement mean that commercial Shuttle is no longer needed to ferry astronauts during these years?

[MP99]

On a related note, NASA signed an agreement for Soyuz in 2014 and 2015 for six astronauts per year. Price per seat is $62.75M. The business case for commercial crew is getting better and better. At this price, being cheaper than the Russians shouldn't be too hard.

...

Does this agreement mean that commercial Shuttle is no longer needed to ferry astronauts during these years?

Certainly seems to make it difficult for NASA to switch to Shuttle for crew rotation over those years, which would have been a nice synergy with carrying cargo.

cheers, Martin

[Lars_J]

On a related note, NASA signed an agreement for Soyuz in 2014 and 2015 for six astronauts per year. Price per seat is $62.75M. The business case for commercial crew is getting better and better. At this price, being cheaper than the Russians shouldn't be too hard.

...

Does this agreement mean that commercial Shuttle is no longer needed to ferry astronauts during these years?

Certainly seems to make it difficult for NASA to switch to Shuttle for crew rotation over those years, which would have been a nice synergy with carrying cargo.

cheers, Martin

Why would they? Shuttle hasn't been used for crew rotations in the last couple of years, even. (for the majority of station crew)

[Namechange User]

On a related note, NASA signed an agreement for Soyuz in 2014 and 2015 for six astronauts per year. Price per seat is $62.75M. The business case for commercial crew is getting better and better. At this price, being cheaper than the Russians shouldn't be too hard.

...

Does this agreement mean that commercial Shuttle is no longer needed to ferry astronauts during these years?

Certainly seems to make it difficult for NASA to switch to Shuttle for crew rotation over those years, which would have been a nice synergy with carrying cargo.

cheers, Martin

Why would they? Shuttle hasn't been used for crew rotations in the last couple of years, even. (for the majority of station crew)

That was just a function of the times.  Shuttle was always going to rotate crew, still very much could and we would get much more bang for the buck using our own capability than sending that money to Russia. 

[Lars_J]

Certainly seems to make it difficult for NASA to switch to Shuttle for crew rotation over those years, which would have been a nice synergy with carrying cargo.

cheers, Martin

Why would they? Shuttle hasn't been used for crew rotations in the last couple of years, even. (for the majority of station crew)

That was just a function of the times.  Shuttle was always going to rotate crew, still very much could and we would get much more bang for the buck using our own capability than sending that money to Russia. 

... Which we still need to send, since we are essentially "buying" two Soyuz per year for crew escape capability for the non-russian crew.

Again, as I and others have said, the *only* way of avoiding sending money to Russia for Soyuz is to develop domestic alternatives to Soyuz - commercial crew or Orion.

Shuttle extension is completely orthogonal to this issue. It doesn't matter. I'm not sure why you keep asserting that it is in any way linked to the need to send money to Russia.

[mlorrey]

But that doesn't cover the on-orbit and reentry phases, where Shuttle is way more mature then any new system.

cheers, Martin

I LOL'd so hard at this statement. Since when is the shuttle TPS "more mature" than a capsule?

[Namechange User]

Certainly seems to make it difficult for NASA to switch to Shuttle for crew rotation over those years, which would have been a nice synergy with carrying cargo.

cheers, Martin

Why would they? Shuttle hasn't been used for crew rotations in the last couple of years, even. (for the majority of station crew)

That was just a function of the times.  Shuttle was always going to rotate crew, still very much could and we would get much more bang for the buck using our own capability than sending that money to Russia. 

... Which we still need to send, since we are essentially "buying" two Soyuz per year for crew escape capability for the non-russian crew.

Again, as I and others have said, the *only* way of avoiding sending money to Russia for Soyuz is to develop domestic alternatives to Soyuz - commercial crew or Orion.

Shuttle extension is completely orthogonal to this issue. It doesn't matter. I'm not sure why you keep asserting that it is in any way linked to the need to send money to Russia.

I guess you just don't get it.  Not sure how I could have been much more clear.  Oh well. 

[Namechange User]

But that doesn't cover the on-orbit and reentry phases, where Shuttle is way more mature then any new system.

cheers, Martin

I LOL'd so hard at this statement. Since when is the shuttle TPS "more mature" than a capsule?

You seem to have quite the misunderstanding of orbiter TPS and want to blame it as the root of everything, even when the statement you responded to didn't even mention TPS.