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

[Namechange User]

In an infinite market where skills are interchangeable, yeah jobs don't matter. But Mike has a point that destruction of the workforce in a strategic area important to national security like aerospace needs special consideration. It needs to be addressed, in my opinion.

Everyone talks like the ending of the Shuttle workforce is the death of the aerospace industry.

After the silliness of consolidations through the 70's and 80's the sector is growing again.  There are now more companies doing legitimate, space targeted, human spaceflight programs than at any time since Apollo.  Did not over 20 companies submitted legitimate proposals to CCDev2.  These companies are using a mix of historical and new methods utilizing the 50+ years of hard-earned knowledge that our tax dollars have paid for.

What specialized skills from shuttle are not duplicated in other human and non-human programs?  Are these skills critical to some future endeavor?

I have a hard time equating the shuttle's ceramic tile TPS system to the Cobol programming language.  Somehow I don't see us dragging a bunch of those folks out of retirement in 20 years to solve a y2k crisis.

As I indicated above.  COTS should have been run in the 1990's so as it came online with the station.  Shuttle would then have been solely used to haul up the major pieces, meaning that fewer expensive shuttle flights for resupply would have enabled the launch of the hab and centrifuge modules.  Perhaps even the OSP lifeboat.  Then, when this inevitable day came and the shuttle was retired, there would already be a robust and proven private sector to help absorb those employees as their flight rates were increased. 

Instead the resupply and commercial crew options remain unproven.  We stand at the precipice of a canyon taking a blind leap, knowing that we've got a long climb ahead of us once we survive the drop.

I believe people are being a bit naive if one thinks there will be no impact.  Where is the bulk of this nation's HSF experience?  It's currently placed in STS, ISS and CxP.  Two of three of them are ending and unfortunately the majority will go elsewhere, likely not to return. 

Nobody credible has ever suggested that *every* person currently employed must remain employed.  However, is that strategically wise to discard the majority when eventually you will want those skills and experience back, for something, and they have to be re-built? 

I really don't require an answer to that, because I don't care or require to get into some ideologic battle with whoever on the internet, but is intended for one to ponder to themselves. 

[pathfinder_01]

OSP was designed to lower the flight rate when station was operational and shuttle would have done cargo flights. COTS was only started to replace the shuttle cargo lifting for an operational station, so would not have made sense in the 90's. Also, OSP would have used EELV's, not in the shuttle's cargo bay.

COTS vehicles  could not have lifted station modules, nor are they intended to.

No that is not what was intended in that post. The shuttle would have gone on. OSP would not have mattered. Cargo(food, water, stuff) would have been lifted by the private sector from day 1 instead of trying to get it on line now. The role for the shuttle would have been more strictly station building and maybe crew transport(assuming OSP had not been built). When the shuttle retired then private industry would have been in a stronger position to pick up more people(say for an HLV or LEO crew transports).

[savuporo]

As I indicated above.  COTS should have been run in the 1990's so as it came online with the station. 

It was. Some claim the AAS program was deliberately run to the ground, though ..

[pathfinder_01]

I believe people are being a bit naive if one thinks there will be no impact.  Where is the bulk of this nation's HSF experience?  It's currently placed in STS, ISS and CxP.  Two of three of them are ending and unfortunately the majority will go elsewhere, likely not to return. 

Ah I say this with as much respect as I can. HSF is not critical, repeat not critical to the functioning of 99% of this nation. I love NASA, love the shuttle, love space and the space program but if the ISS were to suffer a malfunction that cause the crew to abandon ship permanently and the shuttle be unable to fly nobody's lives would be affected.

The COBAL code that needed to be changed for y2k is more important than that. Maybe one day spaceflight will be as important as air travel but that day is not here yet.  The shuttle's workforce may be experienced and some of the experience will be transfered but in the larger scale of things no where near as important as many other things.

[OpsAnalyst]

I believe people are being a bit naive if one thinks there will be no impact.  Where is the bulk of this nation's HSF experience?  It's currently placed in STS, ISS and CxP.  Two of three of them are ending and unfortunately the majority will go elsewhere, likely not to return. 

Ah I say this with as much respect as I can. HSF is not critical, repeat not critical to the functioning of 99% of this nation. I love NASA, love the shuttle, love space and the space program but if the ISS were to suffer a malfunction that cause the crew to abandon ship permanently and the shuttle be unable to fly nobody's lives would be affected.

The COBAL code that needed to be changed for y2k is more important than that. Maybe one day spaceflight will be as important as air travel but that day is not here yet.  The shuttle's workforce may be experienced and some of the experience will be transfered but in the larger scale of things no where near as important as many other things.

I for one appreciate that you couched this in terms of your respect for the space program - a far different context than most.

All due respect, however, I must disagree.  In particular, I think there is a tendency to view things as "important" when they have immediacy and/or when a straight line can be mapped between a capability/activity/technology and a visible outcome - and to assume that they are "not as important" when those conditions aren't met.

On the contrary, there are plenty of "important" things that take years - even decades - to harvest.  Many important things are played out in arenas that aren't visible to 99% of the country because 99% of the country is uninformed, either by choice or by lack of access to education & information, and/or because those things are by nature not visible on the surface (and may even be purposely obfuscated.)  I'd argue that these include the role(s) of the space program - developed, implemented and operated by folks with those skillsets that are indeed national assets - in foreign policy, in science policy, in economic policy, to name a few.  ISS is a brilliant example because it was a HUGE instrument of foreign policy, utilized to bring Russia into closer correspondence with the U.S. after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting disenfranchisement of large communities of Soviet scientists.  We were plenty worried about that and the ISS was one mechanism used by the Clinton Administration to engage (employ) members of that community lest they migrate to other less desirable pursuits.

All these things may be viewed as "secondary" to the pursuits of the HSF program - e.g., putting humans in space.  But history tells us that nations that explore, that push boundaries, that set challenges and accept them in an international context, are those nations that are looked to as leaders.  That's political capital that takes a long time to acquire.  It can be deployed in any number of ways, but once it's gone, it's gone.  You have to start all over again to get it back.

I know that many folks disagree with any or all of this, and that's cool.  My intent is not to make yet another argument about "value" of the space program and by extension the workforce.  What I am trying to say is that most of us are not in a position to know all of the ways in which HSF impacts U.S. citizenry. Simply because it isn't immediate or visible does NOT mean that it isn't important.

Finally, IMHO it makes absolutely no sense to spend 50 years developing technical and tribal expertise pertaining to HSF and then gut it without first developing criteria for weighing what of it should be retained & why, and then developing a plan to do so. We are simply squandering resources under the current "plan" - tantamount to throwing away many $B of taxpayer money spent to develop those assets on behalf of the nation.

[neilh]

Some very interesting discussion here, but perhaps the last page or so would be better suited for the "Where does NASA go after ISS" thread?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24192.msg732305;topicseen#msg732305

[gladiator1332]

Commercial crew is essentially a continuation of the work done on Apollo and on the Shuttle which kept the United States at the forefront of space exploration. 

Indeed. With Boeing's NAA inheritance, they could almost have gotten away with calling it Apollo II. As it is, CST-100 is as similar to Apollo as a Soyuz TMA-M is to Soyuz 1. And DreamChaser obviously has real heritage in not just Shuttle and HL-42, but in all the various lifting body projects right back to the late 1950s.

US Spaceflight is continuing. We're just doing it in a more American (capitalist) way...

Agreed! Nicely put

[yg1968]

Here is a recent presentation by Phil McAlister on CCDev-2. It also talks a little about CCDev-3 on slide 5:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/540618main_NAC_Meeting_-_Commercial_Status_-_April_26.pdf

Here is an article that discusses CCDev-3:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1105/10ccdevrockets/

The space agency expects to solicit more proposals for the third round of the CCDev program before the end of 2011. Awards could be announced in early 2012.

[yg1968]

Lots of info on CCDev-2 in this document:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/553714main_Space%20Ops%20Meeting%20Minutes%20May%203%202011.pdf

Mr. Mango thought the budget would dictate a single survivor although he would like more than one. All NASA needs today is one or two missions per year.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

They too think differently
from NASA, but not as differently as Blue Origin.

This was interesting. Just how unorthodox are their methods?

[yg1968]

Here is a good CCDev presentation.

[yg1968]

Some interesting comments by ASAP on commercial crew are found in the minutes to their May 24th 2011 meeting:
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/ASAP_Public_Meeting_Minutes_5-24-2011.pdf

[Chris Bergin]

NASA's Partners Meet Milestones for Developing Future Commercial Spacecraft
PR Newswire

June 29

NASA's industry partners have met all their initial milestones in developing commercial crew transportation capabilities to reduce the gap in U.S. human spaceflight capability.

NASA has posted its first status report on the agency's Commercial Crew Development 2 (CCDev2) program to its website. The report highlights the progress and accomplishments for the agency's commercial spaceflight development efforts. Designed to be a bi-monthly report, it is targeted toward the interested layperson and other non-technical stakeholders in order to keep them informed of our achievements.

"We're only 60 days into CCDev2, and their progress is right on schedule," said Phil McAlister, NASA's acting director, commercial spaceflight development.

NASA's Commercial Crew Development program is investing financial and technical resources to stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop and demonstrate safe, reliable, and cost-effective space transportation capabilities.

For the report and more information about CCDev2, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial

[Danderman]

I am attaching a medium res version of the 60 day report found on the web site above. If you want the full res version, you can follow the link in the previous message.

[manboy]

Whats weird to me is that the Dragon Crew capsule shown is using a Common Berthing Adapter but when it actually flies it will use the Nasa Docking System. And DreamChaser is attached to the Station by a Pressurized Mating Adapter but when it flies the PMA, will have been replaced by a Common Docking Adapter (http://dockingstandard.nasa.gov/Meetings/TIM_%28Nov-17-2010%29/Docking_TIM_Questions_Hatfield.pdf) which has a lot less clearance.

[docmordrid]

Doesn't CCDev require CDA/NDS?

NDS pdf....

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/jscfeatures/articles/000000914.html

Docking made easier

The DCA passive docking ring prototype has been manufactured and is ready for integration with an APAS assembly.

The International Space Station (ISS) Common Docking Adapter (CDA) will host the next generation in advanced docking systems for human spaceflight.
>
The initial CDA will be launched to station aboard a Japanese HII Transfer Vehicle cargo in 2014, Hatfield said. The second CDA will follow in 2016. In parallel, the NASA Standard Docking System is being developed and qualified to allow use by multiple visiting vehicles.
>

[pathfinder_01]

Doesn't CCDev require CDA?

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/jscfeatures/articles/000000914.html

Not quite.  The CDA is the planned common docking adapter for commercail crew, but CST 100 is planning to use APAS(the shuttle docking port) at first. My guess is that Boeing wants to make sure that their craft can dock with the ISS and it thinks the change in docking systems trivial. The CDA is planned to go on HTV in 2013(I think).

[manboy]

Doesn't CCDev require CDA?

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/jscfeatures/articles/000000914.html

Not quite.  The CDA is the planned common docking adapter for commercail crew, but CST 100 is planning to use APAS(the shuttle docking port) at first. My guess is that Boeing wants to make sure that their craft can dock with the ISS and it thinks the change in docking systems trivial. The CDA is planned to go on HTV in 2013(I think).

Dragon can also use APAS (according to the SpaceX website).

I'm still not sure how DreamChaser would dock if a CDA is installed.

[Jason1701]

Maybe the new airfoils they're selecting for DC will require less clearance.

[manboy]

Maybe the new airfoils they're selecting for DC will require less clearance.

Even if that's the case the engines are still in the way.

I've been talking to erioladastra and he seems to be saying they're moving away from the CDA and going back to an ATLAS type of plan. Which means instead of replacing the PMA, they're going to add an APAS to iLIDS/NDS adapter onto it. Which would solve the clearance problems.