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

[Space Pete]

I've been talking 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.

Yep, the CDA has been officially cancelled. The plan now is to attach a NASA Docking System (NDS) adaptor to PMA-2 and PMA-3. PMA-3 will be relocated from Node 3 Port to Node 2 Zenith.

NDS is NASA's version of the International Docking System Standard (IDSS) - which is a combination of the APAS docking collar and the LIDS capture ring.

[Danderman]

I've been talking 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.

Yep, the CDA has been officially cancelled. The plan now is to attach a NASA Docking System (NDS) adaptor to PMA-2 and PMA-3. PMA-3 will be relocated from Node 3 Port to Node 2 Zenith.

NDS is NASA's version of the International Docking System Standard (IDSS) - which is a combination of the APAS docking collar and the LIDS capture ring.

AFAIK, only Orion could carry this new ATLAS, so the implication is that Orion would have to fly to ISS before any of the commercial guys do.

Unless, of course, they could use CBM or APAS.

[baldusi]

Yep, the CDA has been officially cancelled. The plan now is to attach a NASA Docking System (NDS) adaptor to PMA-2 and PMA-3. PMA-3 will be relocated from Node 3 Port to Node 2 Zenith.

Is the internal diameter the same for both?

AFAIK, only Orion could carry this new ATLAS, so the implication is that Orion would have to fly to ISS before any of the commercial guys do.

Why only Orion could carry ATLAS? Couldn't they put it in the unpressurized trunk of a a Falcon 9 or HTV, for example?

[manboy]

I've been talking 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.

Yep, the CDA has been officially cancelled. The plan now is to attach a NASA Docking System (NDS) adaptor to PMA-2 and PMA-3. PMA-3 will be relocated from Node 3 Port to Node 2 Zenith.

NDS is NASA's version of the International Docking System Standard (IDSS) - which is a combination of the APAS docking collar and the LIDS capture ring.

AFAIK, only Orion could carry this new ATLAS, so the implication is that Orion would have to fly to ISS before any of the commercial guys do.

I don't think this is true, I don't see why the Dragon and HTV would be able to transport the CDA but not this.

[Robotbeat]

So... when are we going to hear about CCDev3 or whatever the successor to CCDev is?

[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.

See above.

[Robotbeat]

Thanks, yg1968.

[erioladastra]

Yep, the CDA has been officially cancelled. The plan now is to attach a NASA Docking System (NDS) adaptor to PMA-2 and PMA-3. PMA-3 will be relocated from Node 3 Port to Node 2 Zenith.

Is the internal diameter the same for both?

AFAIK, only Orion could carry this new ATLAS, so the implication is that Orion would have to fly to ISS before any of the commercial guys do.

Why only Orion could carry ATLAS? Couldn't they put it in the unpressurized trunk of a a Falcon 9 or HTV, for example?

it will likely go up on Dragon.  And the PMA3 might go to nadir - still be evaluated.

[yg1968]

This presentation isn't new (August 2010) but it has some interesting slides on the rental car versus taxi model for commercial crew:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/488114main_2010-09-13_Commerical_Crew_Vehicles(Whitson).pdf

[tobi453]

Some interesting presentations:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=26

CCP requirements:
http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=107

LOC:
The overall LOC probability distribution for an ISS mission shall have a mean value  no greater than 1 in 270.
The LOC probability distribution for the ascent phase of an ISS mission shall be no greater than 1 in 1000.
The LOC probability distribution for the entry phase of an ISS mission shall be no greater than 1 in 1000.

There is also this event:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=37725

[yg1968]

This article and video aren't new but I found this quote of interest for commercial crew:

"Ideally, we'd like to have multiple competitors who come down to at least two that we can use so that we always have an alternative should one falter or fail," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/30/future.of.space.travel/index.html

[docmordrid]

Hopefully a lesson well learned after the shuttle incidents.  Personally, I'd prefer seeing 3 - two capsules for most payloads and DC for delicate experiment return and medical or emergency evac.

[Cherokee43v6]

An interesting point that seems to be subvocalized in the article.

If we had an immediate replacement for the shuttle ready to go, would their be any impetus at all to even try to fly a commercial spacecraft, or would we continue down the same path of being satisfied with what we have?

[vt_hokie]

An interesting point that seems to be subvocalized in the article.

If we had an immediate replacement for the shuttle ready to go, would their be any impetus at all to even try to fly a commercial spacecraft, or would we continue down the same path of being satisfied with what we have?

By the same token, if we get a single commercial spacecraft operational, will there be any impetus to continue development of additional types of craft?

[pathfinder_01]

By the same token, if we get a single commercial spacecraft operational, will there be any impetus to continue development of additional types of craft?

Yes profit. Even if the govenment is the only customer. The companies would invest in ways to lower their costs(they might not hand the difference over to the government) but they would have a motive to improve the product or service(lower cost or make it more attractive to purchase ect...).

[Blackjax]

An interesting point that seems to be subvocalized in the article.

If we had an immediate replacement for the shuttle ready to go, would their be any impetus at all to even try to fly a commercial spacecraft, or would we continue down the same path of being satisfied with what we have?

By the same token, if we get a single commercial spacecraft operational, will there be any impetus to continue development of additional types of craft?

Yes, do you really think Bigelow wants to be hostage to a monopoly or have a single point of failure in his operations if a monopoly provider exits the market or has an accident?  Why do you think he has been bending over backwards to get Boeing to enter the market when he already has Musk on record saying they're they're in come hell or high water?  He needs at least two options to offer a trustworthy service to his clients.  Even if he was willing to accept the various risks of a single provider, I think it would make signing clients much harder because many of them might not be.  I think you'll see him deliberately opt to use multiple providers even if one is more expensive and/or later to market.

[Cherokee43v6]

By the same token, if we get a single commercial spacecraft operational, will there be any impetus to continue development of additional types of craft?

Yes profit. Even if the govenment is the only customer. The companies would invest in ways to lower their costs(they might not hand the difference over to the government) but they would have a motive to improve the product or service(lower cost or make it more attractive to purchase ect...).

I agree, with a commercial provider the laws of economics will promote competition. 

My original comment was based in the idea that government would have no incentive to purchase a commercial ride so long as it has its own vehicle available.  Why spend money to take a cab when you own your own car?  Once NASA is buying rides however, then someone offering a ride that all else being equal is cheaper, should have an easier time selling seats.

[go4mars]

My original comment was based in the idea that government would have no incentive to purchase a commercial ride so long as it has its own vehicle available.  Why spend money to take a cab when you own your own car? 

I don't know how much it would cost SLS/MPCV per trip, but suspect that on the basis of cargo/dollar or people/dollar, that commercial will end up being cheaper. 

I use a pick-up truck only infrequently.  When I need one, I rent one.  Overall, it saves me a lot of money (depreciation, maintenance, storage, etc.).  I know some people who only rent cars once in a while (It's very convenient and economical to do this in San Francisco apparently). 
If it came down to designing and building my own car vs. renting one that works, or hiring a taxi that works, and my track-record for building cars demonstrates that I spend a lot more than my neighbour Joe (who owns a small taxi company that is almost ready to begin economical service) I would not be likely to design and build my own car.  Especially if I had lots of other stuff to do (like build telescopes and planetary missions).  Until Joe's ready, I'll just keep paying through the nose for Vladimir's taxi service since it's the only option right now.   

[clongton]

My original comment was based in the idea that government would have no incentive to purchase a commercial ride so long as it has its own vehicle available.  Why spend money to take a cab when you own your own car? 

I don't know how much it would cost SLS/MPCV per trip, but suspect that on the basis of cargo/dollar or people/dollar, that commercial will end up being cheaper. 

I use a pick-up truck only infrequently.  When I need one, I rent one.  Overall, it saves me a lot of money (depreciation, maintenance, storage, etc.).  I know some people who only rent cars once in a while (It's very convenient and economical to do this in San Francisco apparently). 
If it came down to designing and building my own car vs. renting one that works, or hiring a taxi that works, and my track-record for building cars demonstrates that I spend a lot more than my neighbour Joe (who owns a small taxi company that is almost ready to begin economical service) I would not be likely to design and build my own car.  Especially if I had lots of other stuff to do (like build telescopes and planetary missions).  Until Joe's ready, I'll just keep paying through the nose for Vladimir's taxi service since it's the only option right now.   

The incentive is the law. NASA is required by law to use commercial services if they are available.

[Danderman]

My original comment was based in the idea that government would have no incentive to purchase a commercial ride so long as it has its own vehicle available. 

You must remember that NASA doesn't really care about costs, so if a commercial provider is cheaper than the NASA owned system, NASA will always choose its own system. The only solution is for NASA not to own transportation systems to orbit.