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

[yg1968]

Is a lifting body a "winged" vehicle?

Good question, but regardless, I agree with the previous post.  There's something more dignified about a runway landing than fishing a capsule out of the ocean. 

The CST-100 will land on land (with air bags) and Dragon will eventually land on land. But I also like Dream Chaser.

[Bernie Roehl]

Is a lifting body a "winged" vehicle?

Good question, but regardless, I agree with the previous post.  There's something more dignified about a runway landing than fishing a capsule out of the ocean. 

The CST-100 will land on land (with air bags) and Dragon will eventually land on land. But I also like Dream Chaser.

The Blue Origin capsule is also supposed to land on land.

But yes, I'm another person who really likes Dream Chaser.

[mr. mark]

Dreamchaser is part of the past along with runways. With LAS Dragon, Spacex can land on any flat surface such as a helipad or even on the Moon with pinpoint accuracy. Of course, that has yet to be seen but so is Dreamchaser.

[savuporo]

There's something more dignified about a runway landing than fishing a capsule out of the ocean. 

There is something even more dignified about "landing on a tail of fire just as God and Robert Heinlein intended"

[Rifleman]

There's something more dignified about a runway landing than fishing a capsule out of the ocean. 

There is something even more dignified about "landing on a tail of fire just as God and Robert Heinlein intended"

While I will take any landing system that brings the crew and cargo safely back to earth, there is nothing that has the style of vertical rocket powered landing. Style has to count for something, right?

[Bernie Roehl]

While I will take any landing system that brings the crew and cargo safely back to earth, there is nothing that has the style of vertical rocket powered landing. Style has to count for something, right?

I agree with you about getting crew safely back to earth being the priority.

Vertical rocket powered landings may look cool, but if your descent/landing propulsion system fails, you're looking at loss of crew.  And even if everything does work perfectly, you're looking at much higher g forces during entry with a capsule than with a lifting body.

I'll take a nice glider-like landing over a sudden deadly plummet any time.

[Proponent]

Is the CCDev-2 press conference archived anywhere?

Yes, see here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24855.msg725890#msg725890

Thanks much!

[Proponent]

While I will take any landing system that brings the crew and cargo safely back to earth, there is nothing that has the style of vertical rocket powered landing. Style has to count for something, right?

I agree with you about getting crew safely back to earth being the priority.

Vertical rocket powered landings may look cool, but if your descent/landing propulsion system fails, you're looking at loss of crew.  And even if everything does work perfectly, you're looking at much higher g forces during entry with a capsule than with a lifting body.

I'll take a nice glider-like landing over a sudden deadly plummet any time.

To my mind, vertical landing looks more attractive than horizontal on balance.  But the best thing is that both approaches are now being seriously pursued.

[Namechange User]

Dreamchaser is part of the past along with runways. With LAS Dragon, Spacex can land on any flat surface such as a helipad or even on the Moon with pinpoint accuracy. Of course, that has yet to be seen but so is Dreamchaser.

http://www.wattpad.com/26359-some-funny-and-totally-wrong-predictions-of-the

[jongoff]

There's something more dignified about a runway landing than fishing a capsule out of the ocean. 

There is something even more dignified about "landing on a tail of fire just as God and Robert Heinlein intended"

:-)  Agreed, but you all know I'm biased on that count...

~Jon

[MP99]

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.

To be fair, CRS will deliver elements of the cargo capability of Shuttle, too. This is to add crew to the Dragon's cargo capabilities.

cheers, Martin

[yg1968]

Here's my article on it all:

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

More rounds will follow, with one managerial memo speaking of the build-up towards CCDEV-3.

One thing that I am still confused about is whether CCDev-3 will be a one year program or a multiple years program. I had assumed that it would be for multiple years but now I am not so sure.

Answering my own question but it seems that NASA is considering CCDev3 and perhaps even a CCDev4 (see page 5):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516609main_NACMInutes_Final_20110111.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/about/explorationcommittee.html

[Ronsmytheiii]

Answering my own question but it seems that NASA is considering CCDev3 and perhaps even a CCDev4 (see page 5):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516609main_NACMInutes_Final_20110111.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/about/explorationcommittee.html

Interesting notes:

The Exploration Committee does not fully understand the multiple implications of the new commercial crew transportation requirements for NASA. The change from a human rating plan to a certification is primarily a change in how NASA treats the issue from a process standpoint.  NASA’s responsibility will be to certify that requirements are met to fly NASA and partner crews.

[Ronsmytheiii]

All major points:

-NASA envisions the need for CCDev 3 or 4.  Once round 2 is completed, and with Congressional approval it is possible to get started on a big commercial crew program
-NASA has not made a final determination regarding the acquisition strategy for commercial crew beyond CCDev 2
-NASA does not know yet if three crew flights a year is sufficient to meet International Space Station (ISS) requirements, or whether commercial companies can make a business case for it.
-NASA is releasing a Request for Proposal (RFP) or an Announcement for Proposal (AFP) for commercial crew services in late summer 2011 and will be choosing 4-6 companies for the first round of efforts.  RFP is for a contract and AFP is for Space Act Agreements. 

Edit:  I dont understand from the wording if CCDEV 3/4 will be the " big commercial crew program" or if it is separate.

[yg1968]

Some other interesting notes from the September 2010 NAC Exploration committee meeting on the market for commercial crew:

A business case analysis would be too specific. We can say there is a definite demand for human space flight in LEO, which has existed for the last 30 years. No one knows how big the market will be, because it is price point dependent. Studies suggest that demand might be 60 passengers per year by 2020.

We are still assessing whether the Crew Rescue Vehicle will be done by commercial providers.

See pages 5 and 6:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/507096main_NAC%20EC%20Minutes_2010_09_21_FACA%20_Final.pdf

[simonbp]

There's something more dignified about a runway landing than fishing a capsule out of the ocean. 

There is something even more dignified about "landing on a tail of fire just as God and Robert Heinlein intended"

Indeed. Spaceships don't need more wings; they need more rockets!

[Rocket Science]

Here is the press release from SNC. My question is...what took so long?
Maybe they were still in shock or better yet out celebrating! lol

http://www.sncorp.com/news/press/pr11/snc_ccdev_award.shtml

[yg1968]

All major points:

-NASA envisions the need for CCDev 3 or 4.  Once round 2 is completed, and with Congressional approval it is possible to get started on a big commercial crew program
-NASA has not made a final determination regarding the acquisition strategy for commercial crew beyond CCDev 2
-NASA does not know yet if three crew flights a year is sufficient to meet International Space Station (ISS) requirements, or whether commercial companies can make a business case for it.
-NASA is releasing a Request for Proposal (RFP) or an Announcement for Proposal (AFP) for commercial crew services in late summer 2011 and will be choosing 4-6 companies for the first round of efforts.  RFP is for a contract and AFP is for Space Act Agreements. 

Edit:  I dont understand from the wording if CCDEV 3/4 will be the " big commercial crew program" or if it is separate.

I am pretty sure that CCDev-3 will be a big commercial crew program (from end to end systems). But it may have to be split in more than one program because of the uncertainty in the funding.

[Namechange User]

There's something more dignified about a runway landing than fishing a capsule out of the ocean. 

There is something even more dignified about "landing on a tail of fire just as God and Robert Heinlein intended"

Indeed. Spaceships don't need more wings; they need more rockets!

I think there is room for both and the vehicles intended function and capabilities and a host of other desires/requirements will guide the engineering trade. 

[Rocket Science]

Totally agree!! I'm looking forward to the propulsive landing tests and all applications from it.
Regards
Robert