LIVE: CCDev-2 Awards and Decision Discussion - April 18

[Robotbeat]

Another question I had was whether any of the optional milestones in the CCDev-2 space act agreements were picked up by NASA. I believe that none of the optional milestones were picked up but it's not entirely clear when reading the space act agreements.

They can be picked up later, if NASA so desires.

Cool, there are some pretty interesting ones.

[yg1968]

Another question I had was whether any of the optional milestones in the CCDev-2 space act agreements were picked up by NASA. I believe that none of the optional milestones were picked up but it's not entirely clear when reading the space act agreements.

They can be picked up later, if NASA so desires.

Thanks. I suppose that NASA would have to wait for FY2012 because I think that NASA is out of money for CCDev-2 for FY2011.

[Chris Bergin]

Here's my article on it all:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/04/four-companies-win-nasas-ccdev-2-awards

Great article, Chris!

I absolutely loved this:

"With an appearance of a baby shuttle orbiter, the Dream Chaser..."

Heh, thanks! I was thinking it looks a bit like an X-38, but when we're talking about news articles, a lot of people might of say "what's an X-38". So baby orbiter it was.

I do admit to a mental image of mothering Discovery flying side by side with Dream Chaser on orbit, showing it how to carry out burns, but I'll never admit to that in public.....whoops

[pathfinder_01]

Most of the launch pad options being bandied about here seem to treat cost as if it is almost no object. How much would they cost? Many of these sound incredibly expensive, not just for initial construction but for sustainment, too. If we don't want to kill the future commercial crew (non-NASA) market entirely, the most inexpensive and sustainable option(s) must be chosen, not the coolest or the one that uses our own favorite launch pad.

This is one of those complex decisions that can go many ways and isn't solely dependant on cost.

If you modify existing pads for crew the disruption can pose national security and other issues. This is the cheapest option. 

If you build new pads then the question becomes which rockets will use them? Can commercial crew share a pad with a manned HLV or not? Can one pad be built to accomidate multiple rockets(i.e. clean pad?)?

Does NASA benefit from having its own pad using commercial rockets (For its unmanned missions also?)? i.e. With a dedicated pad ISS crew rotation will not interfere with any other launches.
 
Not a simple decision.

[Norm Hartnett]

Another question I had was whether any of the optional milestones in the CCDev-2 space act agreements were picked up by NASA. I believe that none of the optional milestones were picked up but it's not entirely clear when reading the space act agreements.

They can be picked up later, if NASA so desires.

Thanks. I suppose that NASA would have to wait for FY2012 because I think that NASA is out of money for CCDev-2 for FY2011.

Not necessarily, CCDev-2 still has 43 million in the pot. How much is needed for administration and how much is reserved for options is not clear to me.

[Rocket Science]

Hi,
The X-38 was a follow on of the joint USAF/NASA X-24A program. A sub-scale entry vehicle was tested called the X-23 PRIME. It can be seen at the Wright Patterson A.F. museum. If you Look hard at the HL-20, you can see a lot of the HL-10 and X-24 combined. It was already wind tunnel tested with a lot of NASA know how behind it. No surprise it was picked... which pleases me.

[mr. mark]

One of the big winners has to be Virgin Galactic. They played this just right, picking two developers. Now that Orbital has not received funding, they now have Dreamchaser to use as a vehicle. That was good planning.

[yg1968]

One of the big winners has to be Virgin Galactic. They played this just right, picking two developers. Now that Orbital has not received funding, they now have Dreamchaser to use as a vehicle. That was good planning.

Yes but they are more of a client than an investor in Dream Chaser.

[Chris Bergin]

SpaceX:

SpaceX Wins NASA Contract to Complete Development of Successor to the Space Shuttle

First Astronaut Mission Expected in Three Years

 

WASHINGTON D.C. - NASA has awarded Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) $75 million to develop a revolutionary launch escape system that will enable the company’s Dragon spacecraft to carry astronauts.  The Congressionally mandated award is part of the agency's Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) initiative that started in 2009 to help private companies mature concepts and technologies for human spaceflight.

 

"This award will accelerate our efforts to develop the next-generation rockets and spacecraft for human transportation," said Elon Musk, SpaceX CEO and Chief Designer.  "With NASA’s support, SpaceX will be ready to fly its first manned mission in 2014."

 

Musk said the flight-proven Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft represent the safest and fastest path to American crew transportation capability.  With their historic successful flight on December 8th, 2010, many Falcon 9 and Dragon components that are needed to transport humans to low-Earth orbit have already been demonstrated in flight. Both vehicles were designed from the outset to fly people.

 

The announcement comes at a time when the United States has a critical need for American commercial human spaceflight. After the Space Shuttle retires in a few months, NASA will be totally dependent on the Russian Soyuz to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station (ISS) at a cost of more than $753 million a year -- about $63 million per seat.

 

Musk said Dragon – designed to carry seven astronauts at a time to the space station at a cost of $20 million a seat – offers a far better deal for the U.S. taxpayer.  While considerable flight testing remains, the critical-path technology Dragon needs for carrying humans to orbit is the launch escape system.

 

New Launch Abort System

 

SpaceX's integrated escape system will be superior to traditional solid rocket tractor escape towers used by other vehicles in the past.  Due to their extreme weight, tractor systems must be jettisoned within minutes of liftoff, but the SpaceX innovative design builds the escape engines into the side walls of Dragon, eliminating the danger of releasing a heavy solid rocket escape tower after launch.

 

The SpaceX design also provides crew with emergency escape capability throughout the entire flight, whereas the Space Shuttle has no escape system and even the Apollo moon program allowed escape only during the first few minutes of flight.  The result is that astronauts flying on Dragon will be considerably safer. 

 

Furthermore, the integrated escape system returns with the spacecraft, allowing for easy reuse and radical reductions in the cost of space transport.  Over time, the same escape thrusters will also provide the capability for Dragon to land almost anywhere on Earth or another planet with pinpoint accuracy, overcoming the limitation of a winged architecture that works only in Earth's atmosphere.

 

Under the award, SpaceX will modify Dragon to accommodate crew, with specific hardware milestones that will provide NASA with regular, demonstrated progress including:

 

·         Static fire testing of the launch escape system engines

·         Initial design of abort engine and crew accommodations

·         Prototype evaluations by NASA crew for seats, control panels and cabin

 

The December 8th, 2010, demonstration flight of Falcon 9 and Dragon was the first flight under NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, which was initiated to develop commercial cargo services to the International Space Station.  After the Space Shuttle retires, SpaceX will fly at least 12 missions to carry cargo to and from the International Space Station as part of the Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract for NASA.

 

[Chris Bergin]

PS Anyone feeling it's a bit odd to say "Successor to the Space Shuttle" (not just SpaceX, a lot of the media have said it too) when it's only the crew element?

Always thought of shuttles are much more than crew - because they are.

[robertross]

PS Anyone feeling it's a bit odd to say "Successor to the Space Shuttle" (not just SpaceX, a lot of the media have said it too) when it's only the crew element?

Always thought of shuttles are much more than crew - because they are.

That's just SpaceX's way of saying they are in the race to be first US craft to be going to the ISS with crew after the shuttle, and they intend to win. 

[Namechange User]

PS Anyone feeling it's a bit odd to say "Successor to the Space Shuttle" (not just SpaceX, a lot of the media have said it too) when it's only the crew element?

Always thought of shuttles are much more than crew - because they are.

Yes, it's simplistic but serves a purpose.  It allows for those who do not know any better to associate these other designs/vehicles as "more than they are" and is essentially increases general credibilility and better marketing to brand oneself as that. 

It also takes pot shots to say we are better because of "this".  Of course that is subjective but it is all driven by the ego.

Either way, there is room for all but unfortunately some feel it is important to bury something so that dancing on the grave can commence.

[Jason1701]

PS Anyone feeling it's a bit odd to say "Successor to the Space Shuttle" (not just SpaceX, a lot of the media have said it too) when it's only the crew element?

Always thought of shuttles are much more than crew - because they are.

Orion has been referred to as the Space Shuttle replacement since its inception. The media haven't just started doing it with the commercial spacecraft.

[vt_hokie]

PS Anyone feeling it's a bit odd to say "Successor to the Space Shuttle" (not just SpaceX, a lot of the media have said it too) when it's only the crew element?

Always thought of shuttles are much more than crew - because they are.

That's just SpaceX's way of saying they are in the race to be first US craft to be going to the ISS with crew after the shuttle, and they intend to win. 

It's kind of like replacing a Rolls Royce with a Yugo...I guess you can call it a successor.  Worthy successor is another matter entirely!

[robertross]

PS Anyone feeling it's a bit odd to say "Successor to the Space Shuttle" (not just SpaceX, a lot of the media have said it too) when it's only the crew element?

Always thought of shuttles are much more than crew - because they are.

That's just SpaceX's way of saying they are in the race to be first US craft to be going to the ISS with crew after the shuttle, and they intend to win. 

It's kind of like replacing a Rolls Royce with a Yugo...I guess you can call it a successor.  Worthy successor is another matter entirely!

I can't think of ANY worthy successor to shuttle based on its mission objectives & capabilities. But no matter, we have to accept the realities of the current situation. At least we're moving forward.

[Ronsmytheiii]

PS Anyone feeling it's a bit odd to say "Successor to the Space Shuttle" (not just SpaceX, a lot of the media have said it too) when it's only the crew element?

Always thought of shuttles are much more than crew - because they are.

Well if crew rotation is the true purpose of the shuttle, then hasnt the Soyuz already succeeded it? 

In truth, the combination of Dragon, Cygnus, Dreamchaser, CST-100, and their associated LV's will be necessary to replace most of what the shuttle provided for the ISS, but can never completely replace it (ie large downmass, see the failed pump module being returned on STS-135)

[simonbp]

Yes but they are more of a client than an investor in Dream Chaser.

Well, while it was more "brand investing" than money investing, VG's brand investment appears to have paid off in the form of real investors taking SNC and Dreamchaser more seriously...

[R.Simko]

PS Anyone feeling it's a bit odd to say "Successor to the Space Shuttle" (not just SpaceX, a lot of the media have said it too) when it's only the crew element?

Always thought of shuttles are much more than crew - because they are.

That's just SpaceX's way of saying they are in the race to be first US craft to be going to the ISS with crew after the shuttle, and they intend to win. 

It's kind of like replacing a Rolls Royce with a Yugo...I guess you can call it a successor.  Worthy successor is another matter entirely!

Perhaps another way of looking at it, is that SpaceX intends to offer coach prices rather than first class, allowing more people to fly.

[simonbp]

I can't think of ANY worthy successor to shuttle based on its mission objectives & capabilities. But no matter, we have to accept the realities of the current situation. At least we're moving forward.

Needs drive capabilities; what are the needs for a Saturn V-sized launch vehicle that can only deliver 24 tonnes to orbit?

The myriad orbital capsules plus Delta Heavy replace the functionality of Shuttle individually, while Falcon Heavy could do either a Shuttle-sized crew+cargo mission or launch two Shuttle's worth of cargo in a single go. What exactly can we not do now?

[vt_hokie]

The myriad orbital capsules plus Delta Heavy replace the functionality of Shuttle individually, while Falcon Heavy could do either a Shuttle-sized crew+cargo mission or launch two Shuttle's worth of cargo in a single go. What exactly can we not do now?

It's technically possible, but not currently on the horizon, to make up for lost shuttle capabilities with a combination of new systems.  But what would it take to enable replacement of, say, ISS solar arrays, SARJ units, etc?  The combination of cargo and crew, and the shuttle's remote manipulator system, add a unique capability.  Also, as mentioned, there is the downmass capability that's being lost.

It's a shame that we're retiring the shuttle in its prime just as ISS is being completed.  I suspect that maintenance and full utilization of ISS will prove difficult over the next few years in the wake of our foolhardy decision to trash our human spaceflight capability, with even a minimal replacement still several years off.