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

[mmeijeri]

LAS is not part of the launch vehicle.

Is it specific to the spacecraft or to the combination of the spacecraft and launch vehicle?

[Jim]

 Saying CCDev has nothing to do with BEO is like saying that getting a child to walk has nothing to do with him running.

No, CCDev is only for LEO.  Commuter planes vs transoceanic airliners

[clongton]

Saying CCDev has nothing to do with BEO is like saying that getting a child to walk has nothing to do with him running.

Incorrect. After a child learns to walk the child can then learn to run. It is a capability the child is born with.

Spacecraft developed under CCDev2 can not *ever* go BEO - ever! They are limited - by design - to LEO only. They will never go BEO.

[Joris]

Saying CCDev has nothing to do with BEO is like saying that getting a child to walk has nothing to do with him running.

Incorrect. After a child learns to walk the child can then learn to run. It is a capability the child is born with.

Spacecraft developed under CCDev2 can not *ever* go BEO - ever! They are limited - by design - to LEO only. They will never go BEO.

Dragon?

[neilh]

Saying CCDev has nothing to do with BEO is like saying that getting a child to walk has nothing to do with him running.

Incorrect. After a child learns to walk the child can then learn to run. It is a capability the child is born with.

Spacecraft developed under CCDev2 can not *ever* go BEO - ever! They are limited - by design - to LEO only. They will never go BEO.

I suspect Elon Musk (and potentially Jeff Bezos) would disagree heartily with this assertion.

[clongton]

Joris & neilh
SpaceX did not get a CCDev2 award for a spacecraft because they already have an operational spacecraft. The SpaceX award was to develop a LAS. All the others got awarded money to develop spacecraft - that's the difference.

I repeat my assertion. None of the spacecraft developed under CCDev2 can go BEO. By definition, Dragon is excluded from that list because it already exists.

[ugordan]

Joris & neilh
SpaceX did not get a CCDev2 award for a spacecraft because they already have an operational spacecraft. The SpaceX award was to develop a LAS.

That's not correct. Although the large majority of funds will go toward developing a LAS, there are also milestones for seats, displays & IIRC ECLSS. Dragon has flown, but it's still not an operational spacecraft, let alone an operational crew-capable spacecraft.

[clongton]

Joris & neilh
SpaceX did not get a CCDev2 award for a spacecraft because they already have an operational spacecraft. The SpaceX award was to develop a LAS.

That's not correct. Although the large majority of funds will go toward developing a LAS, there are also milestones for seats, displays & IIRC ECLSS. Dragon has flown, but it's still not an operational spacecraft, let alone an operational crew-capable spacecraft.

I never said crew capable. But it is Elon that said the Dragon was now operational; capable of delivering cargo to the ISS. He even went so far as asking NASA to consider combining the COTS 2 & 3 flights to allow cargo delivery on the next Dragon instead of the 3rd one. As far as Elon and SpaceX is concerned, Dragon, as a Cargo delivery spacecraft, is operational. That is Elon's assessment of Dragon, not mine. If you disagree then your quarrel is with him.

[ugordan]

As far as Elon and SpaceX is concerned, Dragon, as a Cargo delivery spacecraft, is operational. That is Elon's assessment of Dragon, not mine. If you disagree then your quarrel is with him.

CCDev is not interested in cargo spacecraft, operational or not. You said SpaceX didn't get CCDev2 money because the spacecraft was operational. It may be operational, but in a sense irrelevant for commercial crew.

SpaceX got the money precisely for a crew spacecraft and the money was not for a LAS alone, but for a wider development scope just as all other proposals. Don't make it sound like I'm quarreling with Musk's words, I'm pointing out your rationale was wrong.

[Ronsmytheiii]

By definition, Dragon is excluded from that list because it already exists.

Just because it has a heat shield that can return from BEO doesnt mean Dragon can.  It lacks radiation shielding, return burn capabilities, more robust ECLSS systems ect.  The only crewed spacecraft with those abilities in development is Orion, and probably will continue to be so for awhile.

[RocketEconomist327]

Saying CCDev has nothing to do with BEO is like saying that getting a child to walk has nothing to do with him running.

Incorrect. After a child learns to walk the child can then learn to run. It is a capability the child is born with.

Spacecraft developed under CCDev2 can not *ever* go BEO - ever! They are limited - by design - to LEO only. They will never go BEO.

You know better than that. 

20 Bucks Dragon goes BEO before Orion.  Deal?

VR
TEA
RE327

[Downix]

Saying CCDev has nothing to do with BEO is like saying that getting a child to walk has nothing to do with him running.

Incorrect. After a child learns to walk the child can then learn to run. It is a capability the child is born with.

Spacecraft developed under CCDev2 can not *ever* go BEO - ever! They are limited - by design - to LEO only. They will never go BEO.

You know better than that. 

20 Bucks Dragon goes BEO before Orion.  Deal?

VR
TEA
RE327

A bit off topic, as Dragon was developed before CCDev2.

[Nomadd]

 I think we might be debating semantics here. Some folks probably consider that changing the design of an existing spacecraft enough to make it BEO capable makes it a different spacecraft.
 But, some things, like radiation shielding might not be a good reason to dismiss a vehicle. It's possible that the Dragon, or whatever craft would be accompanied by some sort of habitat or add on module, and be used mainly for launch, propulsion, re-entry. The capsule itself wouldn't have to be capable of sheltering or sustaining the crew for the entire mission.

[Robotbeat]

Radiation shielding = water wall. Seriously, it's not that difficult. You just need mass. If you have enough to spare in your mass budget, it's not a difficult design problem.

The two leaders of CCDev2, CST-100 and Dragon, could both be used for BLEO. CST-100 may need a slightly thicker heat shield (and maybe it doesn't), but that's not at all a problem, considering it's an ablative heat shield. CST-100 uses the same shape as the Apollo capsule. There's absolutely nothing inherent in the design that means you couldn't use it for BLEO. And same thing with Dragon crew... And I should note that the LAS for Dragon Crew is integrated, meaning it's part of the spacecraft.

Even DreamChaser could be used for BLEO (with beefed up TPS); I could give you a link to where this is studied, if you're interested.

We don't know enough about BlueOrigin's spacecraft to know one way or the other.

The point is that virtually all the money being spent on CCDev2 is for spacecraft that could be used for BLEO, and probably one will end up being used in that capacity someday (IMHO).

Why is there this idea that the CCDev2 spacecraft couldn't ever be used for BLEO?


Even Orion won't at first be able to be used for BLEO; it will need modifications to the Block 0 version before it could be used in that capacity (though, IMO, we should skip the Block 0 version and go straight to one that could be used for cislunar or interplanetary return velocities).

As far as expanded ECLSS capability, most likely you want to put the ECLSS machinery on the mission module, anyways. The only time you wouldn't do that would likely be for a cislunar mission, which really has rather minor requirements compared to the other flexible path destinations. Apollo didn't have a closed-loop life support system, and it wouldn't be that difficult to upgrade any of the CCDev2 spacecraft to support it, or rather you certainly wouldn't need to completely (or largely) redesign the spacecraft.

EDIT:I'm not arguing we should get rid of Orion, just that there's nothing inherent in the design of the CCDev2 vehicles (other than the mystery Blue Origin vehicle) that makes using them for BLEO impossible. The two leaders, Dragon Crew and CST-100, are both quite well inherently suited for it, actually.

[yg1968]

Article on a study on the space tourism market:
http://www.space.com/11476-space-tourism-orbit-business-case.html

[...] things could change dramatically if prices drop significantly -- down to about $500,000 per seat or so. That reduced rate could lure in hundreds of thousands of customers for orbital tourist trips, potentially generating revenues in excess of $100 billion per year, according to the study.

"This is the first time in the theoretical realm that we are at a closed business case," said study lead author Ajay Kothari, president and CEO of the aerospace engineering firm Astrox Corporation. "So that, to me, is very exciting."

Kothari and his colleagues have also mapped out a rough plan for dropping the cost to $500,000 per seat or less -- and it involves developing fully reusable, two-stage-to-orbit spaceships.

[Downix]

Any capsule with the ability for long term docking and sufficient heat shield can be used BEO with a craft like Nautilus.

[Robotbeat]

Any capsule with the ability for long term docking and sufficient heat shield can be used BEO with a craft like Nautilus.

Precisely.

Physics says that you generally want as small of a return spacecraft as you can get away with.

[baldusi]

Any capsule with the ability for long term docking and sufficient heat shield can be used BEO with a craft like Nautilus.

Precisely.
Physics says that you generally want as small of a return spacecraft as you can get away with.

I've always wondered, how much are the electronics and such. Or, in other words, if you can have some 1500kg of equipment downmass, wouldn't you want to put as many of the electronics and equipment as you can to reuse them?

[Robotbeat]

Any capsule with the ability for long term docking and sufficient heat shield can be used BEO with a craft like Nautilus.

Precisely.
Physics says that you generally want as small of a return spacecraft as you can get away with.

I've always wondered, how much are the electronics and such. Or, in other words, if you can have some 1500kg of equipment downmass, wouldn't you want to put as many of the electronics and equipment as you can to reuse them?

That's true. If you're comparing reusing it with throwing it away. Reuse is much more likely for LEO missions than for BEO. Cislunar missions are sort of in between. They can happen often enough that reusability starts to make more sense.

But reuse is generally easier if you don't have to return the whole mass through the blast furnace of reentry and the large expense of payload integration and launch. ISS is reused for many, many expeditions, for instance.

Good thing both CST-100 and Dragon Crew are being designed to be reused.

[corrodedNut]

CCDev2 Briefing tomorrow, via SpaceXer:

http://twitter.com/SpaceXer

"Interested in the future of human spaceflight? SpaceX is joining a NASA press briefing on CCDev Thursday"

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/news/134_hours_events.html