CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[bad_astra]

Dragon 2's ability to land anywhere restores the medical evac function that was useful for X-38's planned ability to also essentially land anywhere. I like all three spaceships. Hell, I like all spaceships, who doesn't, but Dragon 2 just has it all, from what I see.

[Will]

Now that we've seen Dragon V2, or whatever its called, and have previously seen a CST-100 type mockup and clues about Dream Chaser, which one wins?

I'm left wondering about Dragon V2, which seems full of risky elements like propulsive landing and non-standard crew flight controls.  I would have been happier to see something closer to a stock Dragon cargo capsule outfitted with seats and an LAS.  Why didn't SpaceX go with what it has already proven in flight?

I personally don't like Dream Chaser right now, but it has nothing to do with the basic design (which actually seems quite strong, especially if they are using Lockheed Martin avionics).  It has to do with ridiculous secrecy about the crash landing, etc.

CST-100 seems to me to potentially look like a safer bet than Dragon to a risk-averse NASA.  But doesn't Boeing already have enough NASA contracts with the SLS core and the SLS upper stages?

 - Ed Kyle

I think SNC is the least likely survivor. The prime contractor has the least relevant experience, horizontal landing adds complexity and limits where you can land, and hybrid propulsion is evidently riskier than it might appear at first glance.

Propulsive landing is relatively new, but SpaceX can retire a lot of that risk with Dragonfly. It can retire abort risk more easily than Boeing, because it can run more tests of pad abort and max-q abort at lower marginal cost. And at the moment, SpaceX seems closer to flight on their abort tests.

The big advantage that Boeing has over SpaceX is their heritage experience and the greater demonstrated reliability of the Atlas V.

It's a tough call. At the moment, I think SpaceX has the advantage, but it could easily change if they fall behind in their launch rate or lose even one launcher.

[savuporo]

It's a tough call. At the moment, I think SpaceX has the advantage, but it could easily change if they fall behind in their launch rate or lose even one launcher.

Which is another way of saying that downselect or picking a winner at this stage would be statistically and scientifically about as solid as and excercise in tasseography.

[ChrisWilson68]

The big advantage that Boeing has over SpaceX is their heritage experience and the greater demonstrated reliability of the Atlas V.

I think Ukraine turned Atlas V from an asset to a liability as far as commercial crew is concerned.  Whether or not engine supply from Russia is ever disrupted, it has suddenly become a big doubt in everyone's mind.  If the downselect is to one supplier, it's hard to see NASA wanting to have that one supplier dependent on engines that might stop coming because of some future crisis.

Also, by 2017 when the first commercial flights of NASA astronauts are to begin, there very likely will have been quite a few more Falcon 9 flights.  That greatly reduces the edge of Atlas V in terms of its track record.

[ChrisWilson68]

It's a tough call. At the moment, I think SpaceX has the advantage, but it could easily change if they fall behind in their launch rate or lose even one launcher.

Which is another way of saying that downselect or picking a winner at this stage would be statistically and scientifically about as solid as and excercise in tasseography.

It has nothing to with statistics or science, but that doesn't mean we can't reasonable judge the odds at something other than even.

I'd give five-to-one odds that if there's a downselect to one provider that one is SpaceX.

[vt_hokie]

The only thing that's clear to me at this point is that all three contenders are producing a lot more "bang for the buck" than SLS/Orion, and all three have more potential to open up access to space for a reasonable cost than the budget busting SLS program.  As a US taxpayer who believes that human spaceflight is a worthwhile investment, I'd be happy to see all of the above survive but if it comes down to tough choices, I hope we don't sacrifice the great potential of all three commercial crew systems in order to preserve an enormously expensive legacy jobs program that has no clearly defined mission.

[Will]

The big advantage that Boeing has over SpaceX is their heritage experience and the greater demonstrated reliability of the Atlas V.

I think Ukraine turned Atlas V from an asset to a liability as far as commercial crew is concerned.  Whether or not engine supply from Russia is ever disrupted, it has suddenly become a big doubt in everyone's mind.  If the downselect is to one supplier, it's hard to see NASA wanting to have that one supplier dependent on engines that might stop coming because of some future crisis.

Also, by 2017 when the first commercial flights of NASA astronauts are to begin, there very likely will have been quite a few more Falcon 9 flights.  That greatly reduces the edge of Atlas V in terms of its track record.

Right. But to launch in 2017, you need to sign a contact earlier than that. I gather that normally if you want to launch in 2017, you need to select a launcher no later than 2015, to be able to make sure that payload and launcher will play nicely together, unless an identical spacecraft has already been integrated with that launcher.

More Falcon 9 flights will narrow the edge in favor of Atlas V, as long as fewer of them fail than Atlas Vs. If not, not.

[docmordrid]

As regards the fully propulsive landings, those are way down the road. Remember the CC video presentation showing a Crew Dragon chutes and rockets landing?

[ChrisWilson68]

The only thing that's clear to me at this point is that all three contenders are producing a lot more "bang for the buck" than SLS/Orion, and all three have more potential to open up access to space for a reasonable cost than the budget busting SLS program.  As a US taxpayer who believes that human spaceflight is a worthwhile investment, I'd be happy to see all of the above survive but if it comes down to tough choices, I hope we don't sacrifice the great potential of all three commercial crew systems in order to preserve an enormously expensive legacy jobs program that has no clearly defined mission.

I completely agree.  We could have all three of the commercial contenders plus lots of money for BEO exploration if we would just cut SLS and Orion.  That's the downselect I'd like to see.

It's not going to happen, though.  SLS may eventually be cancelled before it flies, but not before one, and probably two, of the commercial crew options is cut.

[Oli]

For NASA's use, i.e. 2 flights to the ISS a year, CST-100 looks like the safest bet. The more accurate propulsive landing and the reusability of the LAS are things that probably only pay off if you fly more regularily. But isn't one goal of commercial crew to kick-start new markets for HSF?

Propulsive landing is just an added option.

It's gonna be a hard landing on land without it, but I guess survivable.

..horizontal landing limits where you can land..

Well yes and no. You cannot land on water but on land you have far more options.

I hope we don't sacrifice the great potential of all three commercial crew systems in order to preserve an enormously expensive legacy jobs program that has no clearly defined mission.

If the ISS ends in 2020, where's NASA's mission for commercial crew?

Orion is the only program I'm certain will survive the next 5 years.

But I agree of course, if there is a slight chance any of the 3 programs will live on after the ISS, it should be funded before anything else in HSF.

[Coastal Ron]

The big advantage that Boeing has over SpaceX is their heritage experience and the greater demonstrated reliability of the Atlas V.

I think the word you really mean is "legacy", not "heritage", since the CST-100 is a completely new spacecraft design - there is no "heritage" at all.  At least SpaceX can point to the Dragon V2 commonality with the current and former cargo-only versions, which does provide "heritage".

What Boeing does have is a "legacy" of building good space hardware, but since so much of that depends on people, and not buildings, there is not much direct "legacy" that could be applied to the CST-100.  And people can be hired away, as SpaceX has been doing (Sierra Nevada too no doubt), so "legacy" to a certain degree can be bought and moved around within the aerospace community.

It's a tough call. At the moment, I think SpaceX has the advantage, but it could easily change if they fall behind in their launch rate or lose even one launcher.

To me it's pretty clear that SpaceX is so very far ahead of both Boeing and Sierra Nevada that they could have a test failure and not be worried.  And NASA won't be awarding the winners based on a fully tested vehicle, but on a evaluation process that is likely looking at the probability that the designs are safe and the companies have the ability to certify the vehicles and perform the contracted services.  I think SpaceX will do well in that evaluation, as they have current operational experience that NASA can reference.

So assuming SpaceX is a lock for #1 position, who for #2?

Just based on the progress Boeing and Sierra Nevada have been making in public, it would have to be Sierra Nevada - they are already flying hardware, whereas Boeing has only revealed how nice it will be to sit inside of the CST-100.  Sierra Nevada has already contracted for a Atlas V flight in 2016, but I don't think Boeing has, so yet more reason to see that Sierra Nevada has more program momentum than Boeing does.

However Boeing is a big company, and if they decide to put resources on the CST-100 to ensure it wins then they will be a formidable opponent.  The question is whether they are putting enough resources to win over Sierra Nevada... and if they are, it's not very apparent.

[edkyle99]

The only thing that's clear to me at this point is that all three contenders are producing a lot more "bang for the buck" than SLS/Orion, and all three have more potential to open up access to space for a reasonable cost than the budget busting SLS program.  As a US taxpayer who believes that human spaceflight is a worthwhile investment, I'd be happy to see all of the above survive but if it comes down to tough choices, I hope we don't sacrifice the great potential of all three commercial crew systems in order to preserve an enormously expensive legacy jobs program that has no clearly defined mission.

I don't see it as a budget buster, because NASA is spending less per year for SLS/Orion than it spent for Shuttle.  It is spending 35% of that total for commercial crew annually, but that is for a system that will only weigh about 10% as much as the SLS lifting capability to LEO, never mind that SLS/Orion is going to deep space which commercial crew will not.  By these measures, SLS/Orion is actually more bang for the buck.  But I support both endeavors, because both are different animals meant for different missions.

 - Ed Kyle

[Darkseraph]

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that down-select would favor SpaceX. That's more to do with the internet's bias towards that company and its marketing than what NASA will actually pick. They weren't even awarded the highest amount last round. It would be great if they were picked because precision landed pods sounds cool but I'm not counting on it.

[vt_hokie]

... never mind that SLS/Orion is going to deep space which commercial crew will not.  By these measures, SLS/Orion is actually more bang for the buck.

Provided there's some money to be found for payloads and missions, so we can actually operate the thing. 

But I support both endeavors, because both are different animals meant for different missions.

Half the problem is that NASA doesn't have a clearly defined mission beyond servicing ISS for the next 10 years or so.

[ChrisWilson68]

If the ISS ends in 2020, where's NASA's mission for commercial crew?

If there's any human spaceflight program at all by NASA, it will need to get crew to and from orbit.  That's the mission for commercial crew.  I hope we can finally get past the old idea that docking in orbit is somehow bad so we have to put our crew on mega-launchers that only rarely fly just to avoid docking in orbit.

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that down-select would favor SpaceX. That's more to do with the internet's bias towards that company and its marketing than what NASA will actually pick. They weren't even awarded the highest amount last round. It would be great if they were picked because precision landed pods sounds cool but I'm not counting on it.

SpaceX wasn't awarded the highest amount because they didn't ask for as much in their proposal as Boeing did.  SpaceX can do more with less.  That's a point in favor of SpaceX winning the downselect, not a point against it.

[Darkseraph]

SpaceX wasn't awarded the highest amount because they didn't ask for as much in their proposal as Boeing did.  SpaceX can do more with less.  That's a point in favor of SpaceX winning the downselect, not a point against it.

I kinda feel that statement falls into Space X has a secret sauce territory. I haven't seen any evidence of them doing "more with less" or that they've any magical powers that other have escaped other aerospace companies. They may have just low balled their request because they didn't think they would get any more than that amount when competing with a company that's been involved with human spaceflight for decades. We're not privy to the total amount invested in any of the vehicles as I understand the company is required to partially pay for the developments.

[ChrisWilson68]

SpaceX wasn't awarded the highest amount because they didn't ask for as much in their proposal as Boeing did.  SpaceX can do more with less.  That's a point in favor of SpaceX winning the downselect, not a point against it.

I kinda feel that statement falls into Space X has a secret sauce territory. I haven't seen any evidence of them doing "more with less" or that they've any magical powers that other have escaped other aerospace companies. They may have just low balled their request because they didn't think they would get any more than that amount when competing with a company that's been involved with human spaceflight for decades. We're not privy to the total amount invested in any of the vehicles as I understand the company is required to partially pay for the developments.

Well, SpaceX is getting less money from CCiCap, but they're doing both a launch abort test and an in-flight max-Q abort test, neither of which Boeing is doing with their CST-100.

Maybe that's because Boeing is making more profit or because SpaceX is sinking a bunch of their own money into it, but from NASA's point of view, they're paying less and getting more.  That's a point in favor of SpaceX in the downselect decision, regardless of why it's the case.

[MP99]

I agree that propulsive landing is a new feature, and there is potential risk there.  It's really the only area where there's potentially more risk than CST-100, in my opinion.  But SpaceX is going to be doing a lot of testing with Dragonfly to retire that risk.  And they still carry the parachute system from Dragon V1.  Propulsive landing is just an added option.  And parachutes aren't without risk either.  They can fail to deploy properly.  With parachutes, there's less control over exactly where the vessel lands.  With water landing, it doesn't matter so much exactly where it sets down, but then you have the risk of being in the water, where there's the potential to flip over, fill with water, or even sink.  With proper testing with Dragonfly, by the time Dragon V2 actually carries crew to and from orbit, I just can't see it as being riskier than the parachutes of CST-100.

For the dangers of water landings, just look at SpaceX CRS-3, which reportedly took 11 hours to be recovered.

Cheers, Martin

[MP99]

I think SNC is the least likely survivor. The prime contractor has the least relevant experience, horizontal landing adds complexity and limits where you can land, and hybrid propulsion is evidently riskier than it might appear at first glance.

Yeah, but if VG/SS2 ever finally get to flying passengers, the experience with that will go up extremely quickly. Much faster than spaceflight rates.

Cheers, Martin

[clongton]

The only thing that's clear to me at this point is that all three contenders are producing a lot more "bang for the buck" than SLS/Orion, and all three have more potential to open up access to space for a reasonable cost than the budget busting SLS program.  As a US taxpayer who believes that human spaceflight is a worthwhile investment, I'd be happy to see all of the above survive but if it comes down to tough choices, I hope we don't sacrifice the great potential of all three commercial crew systems in order to preserve an enormously expensive legacy jobs program that has no clearly defined mission.

I'd prefer to see all 3 survive, even if it meant the cancellation of SLS/Orion.
This is not the thread to discuss the details, but the enormous costs associated with SLS are too huge to preserve at the expense of the 3 contending spacecraft providers, especially when 1 of them will also provide a heavy and super heavy LV.