Commercial Crew Booster Strategy

[CitabriaFlyer]

Assuming NASA is able to sustain two commercial crew providers

Which is the better for NASA?

1)  Dragon/F9 and something else/Atlas V in order to have multiple booster rockets so if one booster is grounded another is available.

OR

2) Two different commercial crew providers both of which use Atlas V in order to keep A5 acquisition costs lower

Interested in the opinion of some of the professional rocket scientists

[Robotbeat]

Remember that NASA is interested in lowering Falcon 9 acquisition costs, too (because of commercial cargo and Delta II-class science missions which would want Falcon 9's lower costs).

The whole point of two providers is higher redundancy and ability to play the two providers off of each other for a better deal. Can't do that with just one launch vehicle.

[SpacexULA]

Assuming NASA is able to sustain two commercial crew providers

Which is the better for NASA?

1)  Dragon/F9 and something else/Atlas V in order to have multiple booster rockets so if one booster is grounded another is available.

OR

2) Two different commercial crew providers both of which use Atlas V in order to keep A5 acquisition costs lower

Interested in the opinion of some of the professional rocket scientists

With 2 commercial crew vendors, each will be purchasing the launcher separately, so I seriously doubt that having both vendors relying on the same rocket will present any purchase cost reduction for NASA.

IMHO 2 rockets for unmanned logistics, Antares and Falcon, and 2 for Crew, Falcon and Atlas 5 will be the best situation for NASA.

On the other hand I expect NASA will continue to prefer Atlas 5 for unmanned science missions because of it's freakishly long track record of flawless flights.

[simonbp]

There is plenty of market for three commercial crew providers, especially if they can keep the costs down.

SpaceX has a booster designed from the ground-up to be both low-cost and Human-Rated, so they will be able to cost-compete with Atlas, despite having to cover the entire development cost of F9 themselves. Atlas, on the other hand, effectively shares the cost Human-Rating across a couple of spacecraft (almost definitely CST-100 and Dreamchaser). So, assuming both CST and DC can use the same crew-access system, Atlas shouldn't be too far behind F9 on launch costs. So really, NASA decided on the booster strategy when they picked the CCDEV2 companies, and it's not that bad.

It's quite possible that by 2018-or-so, we have a situation with lots of short-term science/engineering visitors to ISS, effectively filling the roles that mission and payload specialists did on pre-Station Shuttle. If the concept of "ISS as a national laboratory" is going to work, that's the way to do it.

[Prober]

Assuming NASA is able to sustain two commercial crew providers

Which is the better for NASA?

1)  Dragon/F9 and something else/Atlas V in order to have multiple booster rockets so if one booster is grounded another is available.

OR

2) Two different commercial crew providers both of which use Atlas V in order to keep A5 acquisition costs lower

Interested in the opinion of some of the professional rocket scientists

With 2 commercial crew vendors, each will be purchasing the launcher separately, so I seriously doubt that having both vendors relying on the same rocket will present any purchase cost reduction for NASA.

IMHO 2 rockets for unmanned logistics, Antares and Falcon, and 2 for Crew, Falcon and Atlas 5 will be the best situation for NASA.

On the other hand I expect NASA will continue to prefer Atlas 5 for unmanned science missions because of it's freakishly long track record of flawless flights.

You forgot about the "sleeper" the Delta IV.   Don't foget about the Delta.

[Jim]

You forgot about the "sleeper" the Delta IV.   Don't foget about the Delta.

ULA isn't working it, so it can be forgotten

[douglas100]

On the other hand I expect NASA will continue to prefer Atlas 5 for unmanned science missions because of it's freakishly long track record of flawless flights.

"Freakish" is a strange way to describe success. I would prefer "excellent" myself. And success suggests, just possibly, that ULA might be doing something right...

[simonbp]

ULA isn't working it, so it can be forgotten

Not forgotten, but put to the back of the mind. If something were to happen to cause Atlas to be grounded, CST (and probably DC) could launch on Delta. It's not there are a primary option at the moment, but rather a contingency so that ULA can fulfill their contracts.

[Prober]

You forgot about the "sleeper" the Delta IV.   Don't foget about the Delta.

ULA isn't working it, so it can be forgotten

Give us six months and we can revisit this.

[Jim]

You forgot about the "sleeper" the Delta IV.   Don't foget about the Delta.

ULA isn't working it, so it can be forgotten

Give us six months and we can revisit this.

No need and I can give you a year.  ULA isn't going to be working.  That isn't a prediction.  Do you know what ULA plans are?

[manboy]

Assuming NASA is able to sustain two commercial crew providers

I don't think they are, they just want to get two certified but will only purchase flights from one.

[simonbp]

I don't think they are, they just want to get two certified but will only purchase flights from one.

That's far from given. There are some in Congress pushing for that, but if the commercial providers are able to get anywhere close to the prices they're claiming, NASA will have sufficient budget authority to support at least two.

[manboy]

I don't think they are, they just want to get two certified but will only purchase flights from one.

That's far from given. There are some in Congress pushing for that, but if the commercial providers are able to get anywhere close to the prices they're claiming, NASA will have sufficient budget authority to support at least two.

There's many in Congress wanting to downselect to one for CCiCap, which you probably know is prior to even certification. Can't Boeing and SpaceX only beat Souyz's prices if they're launching a crew of seven? And doesn't NASA only plan to launch four USOS crew members twice a year?

[Zed_Noir]

ULA isn't working it, so it can be forgotten

Not forgotten, but put to the back of the mind. If something were to happen to cause Atlas to be grounded, CST (and probably DC) could launch on Delta. It's not there are a primary option at the moment, but rather a contingency so that ULA can fulfill their contracts.

As Jim pointed out upthread. ULA isn't getting the Delta IV man-rated anytime soon. If something grounds the Atlas V, then the quickest and cheapest option is to adopted the F9 as interim LV.

[Robotbeat]

Assuming NASA is able to sustain two commercial crew providers

Which is the better for NASA?

My opinion is that NASA should down-select to one commercial crew provider.  It should be whichever proves to be safest.

 - Ed Kyle

Gets us back in the same situation as during Shuttle. Also, no competition after down-select.

[peter-b]

My opinion is that NASA should down-select to one commercial crew provider.  It should be whichever proves to be safest.

Sorry, but "safety at any price" is no way to run a railroad (literally). The correct approach is choose the most cost-effective supplier, where one of the selection criteria is whether the level of risk is acceptable.

[Lurker Steve]

Assuming NASA is able to sustain two commercial crew providers

Which is the better for NASA?

My opinion is that NASA should down-select to one commercial crew provider.  It should be whichever proves to be safest.

 - Ed Kyle

Gets us back in the same situation as during Shuttle. Also, no competition after down-select.

The down selection process is the competition. Once NASA selects a provider, I would expect a nice long term contract (3-5 years, 6-10 flights with an option to add 1 or more flights per year). The CRS awards were given way ahead of when the COTS milestones will finally be completed. Why can't crew be the same way ? Choose 1 or 2 vendors, I don't care how many. Now that each company knows there is an assured business case based on the NASA revenue, they should not have any concerns about investing their own, or raising additional capital for completing development and certification. 

[simonbp]

Can't Boeing and SpaceX only beat Souyz's prices if they're launching a crew of seven? And doesn't NASA only plan to launch four USOS crew members twice a year?

That's not so much the plan as much as their minimum obligation from the ISS agreement (as US astronauts help run ESA/JAXA/CSA experiments), and thus the number of Soyuz seats they are buying. Once US options are available, they'll be free to buy much more at a cheaper price. Considering Shuttle rarely went to ISS with fewer than 7 crew, I think that will happen.

And, considering that the reported minimum cost of a Falcon 9 is less than what we're currently paying for a single seat on Soyuz, it won't hard at all for the commercial providers to beat Soyuz on price...

[manboy]

Can't Boeing and SpaceX only beat Souyz's prices if they're launching a crew of seven? And doesn't NASA only plan to launch four USOS crew members twice a year?

That's not so much the plan as much as their minimum obligation from the ISS agreement (as US astronauts help run ESA/JAXA/CSA experiments), and thus the number of Soyuz seats they are buying. Once US options are available, they'll be free to buy much more at a cheaper price. Considering Shuttle rarely went to ISS with fewer than 7 crew, I think that will happen.

And, considering that the reported minimum cost of a Falcon 9 is less than what we're currently paying for a single seat on Soyuz, it won't hard at all for the commercial providers to beat Soyuz on price...

The Space Shuttle launched with a large crew because they had a lot of work to do in a very short time. The only the reason why I think you would want to fly more then four USOS members in the post-assembly phase would be because you're flying tourists and we don't know yet if NASA will allow they to do so.[1] And remember the ISS will be competing with funding with the BLEO program (especially with MPCV and SLS), so if CCP turns out to be cheaper then Soyuz then that money might very well go into a different program.

[QuantumG]

The only the reason why I think you would want to fly more then four USOS members in the post-assembly phase would be because you're flying tourists

Or, ya know, payload specialists.. especially those that pay their own way. National laboratory, full utilization, that sort of thing.

[manboy]

The only the reason why I think you would want to fly more then four USOS members in the post-assembly phase would be because you're flying tourists

Or, ya know, payload specialists.. especially those that pay their own way. National laboratory, full utilization, that sort of thing.

Why would a company pay the + 20 million just to set up an experiment?

We should probably take this to a different topic.

[Prober]

Assuming NASA is able to sustain two commercial crew providers

Which is the better for NASA?

My opinion is that NASA should down-select to one commercial crew provider.  It should be whichever proves to be safest.

 - Ed Kyle

How about 1 Billion dollars tax free competition to close the gap.  NASA can set the guidelines.  Goal 3-4 seats to the ISS operational by 20xx.

If Bolden is right, and the US has to buy more seats @ 460 million (each year) to cover 2016 & 2017, then lets open up a NASA prize and get this done.

[Will]

Assuming NASA is able to sustain two commercial crew providers

Which is the better for NASA?

My opinion is that NASA should down-select to one commercial crew provider.  It should be whichever proves to be safest.

 - Ed Kyle

Yes. There's something to be said for funding two to the flight test stage. That will give some of the benefits of competition: the selected provider knows that if they don't give satisfactory value, they can be replaced by the runner up as soon as it can be put into production.