CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[edkyle99]

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,

It's not for "a" system, it's for 3 different systems. And the lifting capability is irrelevant if the mission doesn't need it.

NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.  The lifting capability is relevant if someone is trying to compare commercial crew with SLS/Orion, which happens far too often on these forums.

never mind that SLS/Orion is going to deep space which commercial crew will not. 

No, it's not going to deep space, it's going to lunar orbit. For deep space missions you'll need a habitat module and in space propulsion, it's a complete different set of technologies from SLS/Orion, and it's not being worked on, so deep space is a pipe dream.

For the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth.  Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too.  Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".

If you really want to do deep space, you'll want to reuse the deep space hardware to keep the cost down, which means the deep space ship needs to go back to Earth orbit after the mission is done, at which point any commercial crew spacecraft can be used to ferry the crew, this makes Orion redundant.

Sit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described. 

 - Ed Kyle

[docmordrid]

And if BFR is available? Then that becomes the (insert tonnage) gorilla in the room.

[A_M_Swallow]

Wouldn't it be interesting to have an ISS that was a busy transport hub, with visiting scientists coming and going every week, rather than a lonely outpost that only had a ship visit every six months?

I have had the same thought!  You'd think that would be what we want to move toward as we build on our presence in low Earth orbit. 

As the other posts are saying science research and gateway activities are best done at different spacestations.

For a LEO to space gateway spacestation try orbiting a Bigelow spacestation as the habitat module.  Attach a docking module with six docking ports.  One to the habitat module, one for the escape capsule, two for visiting vehicles from Earth and two for space transfer vehicles.  A robotic arm to move cargo from the Earth vehicles to the transfer vehicles will be useful.

As trade improves the gateway can provide its customers with electrical power whilst they are docked, say 3kW each.  The transfer vehicles will soon require refuelling, for a suitable price.  Food, water and air may also be purchased.

[ChrisWilson68]

Wouldn't it be interesting to have an ISS that was a busy transport hub, with visiting scientists coming and going every week, rather than a lonely outpost that only had a ship visit every six months?

I have had the same thought!  You'd think that would be what we want to move toward as we build on our presence in low Earth orbit.

Small tip: think of what each visiting vehicle requires in attitude changes, orbital boosts, actual vehicle i pact, etc. Now think of the effects on microgravity. Now add that each VV eats about two to three days crew. And you'd see why they don't want many visits and also why they'd rather increase CRS-2 payload requirement per launch rather than allow more launches.

And then the microgravity environment of the station would be appalling.  Remember that every-time a vehicle docks, the entire structure of the station shakes, and you have to orient it in certain ways.  That effects experiments that need to be left alone, just adding flights to station to drive up the flight rates will diminish ISS science returns.

1.The fact that each visiting vehicle requires two to three days of ISS crew time just says ISS hasn't developed a system that scales for handling visiting vehicles.  There's no fundamental reason they couldn't do so.

2.As to the ISS having to be re-oriented for visiting vehicles, that also sounds like a solvable problem.

3.About vibrations: with vehicles docking rather than berthing, vibrations could be diminished.  There's no lower limit on how much they could be diminished.  And experiments could be isolated from the vibrations of the station itself.

4.It comes down to a question of what the purpose of the ISS is.  Is it just a dead-end outpost for zero-gravity experiments that cannot stand vibrations?  Or is it also meant as a step toward more routine human presence in space?  Can we not find a way to grow our presence in space without sacrificing all microgravity research?

0) Fix your quotes, second one is from Ronsmitheiii.

You're confused.  My quotes already show the second one is from Ronsmytheiii.  No fix needed.

1) some of the thing they need time for is practice for procedures and contingencies, loading and unloading, checking comm and VV performance, etc. ISS is a very expensive lab. Not a VV hub, and it was too expensive as it is, adding more capabilities and automation is beyond current budgets and expected life.

If lots of vehicles are visiting, they don't need to practice procedures for every one.  They can be standardized.  And if the vehicles are carrying mainly crew, there's not much loading or unloading to do.  Checking comm and vehicle performance can easily be automated, and in any event shouldn't make more than a few minutes.

I still see no reason this problem couldn't be fixed fairly inexpensively.

2) you clearly don't understand orbital mechanics. Each orbit takes some 90min. So, you have to come exactly on se same plane. Even a few meters of difference would mean that if you were coming slightly to port, then 20minutes later you'd be on the same line, which might intersect the station (i.e. Crash). And you can only go from below to catch or above is you were further ahead.
But then there's the issue of the station's attitude. If you let an orbiting object to itself, and let's say that at a certain time there's a fore side, and a nadir side, 1/4 of and orbit later, fore would be pointing to nadir, the former nadir would be now fore. That's because while you orbit there's no force to change your attitude.
Now, once you mix this problems, you'll see why  VV have to come from either from fore and slightly above or from aft and slightly below. And the station has to keep doing active attitude adjustments and keepings. So it can be solved.

The incoming vehicle could ignore the ISS attitude as it makes its approach.  Then, once it's 10 meters away, it could stop and from there maneuver around to the docking hatch.  Before the 10 meter point, the station attitude doesn't matter.  After the 10 meter point, it doesn't matter how the vehicle arrived there, the vicinity of the station is effectively an intertial frame.

3) yes there is and you're mixing concepts. Berthing is done with the arm, and is as gentle as possible. And yet it shakes (slightly) the station. For docking, you basically have to ram the vehicle in the station. Even LIDS was worse than berthing. And as long as you have the Russians with their drogue and probe, the US side is the "gentle" side.

No, I'm not mixing concepts.  Berthing requires moving the arm, and that can't help but move the rest of the station in reaction.  So berthing has a fundamental amount of station movement that can't be avoided.  Docking has no lower limit of how much effect it has on the station.  By coming in arbitrarily slowly, you can have an arbitrarily low impact on the station.

I'm not claiming that current berthing procedures are worse that current docking procedures, just that docking in principle could be made to have arbitrarily little effect on the station.

4) go read about the ISS, is a microgravity laboratory. Period. There's no discussion about it.

That's just silly.  Of course it can be discussed.

[MP99]

For NASA's use, i.e. 2 flights to the ISS a year

Just to pick nits, wouldn't it be closer to 4 flights a year? They're 6 month expeditions but they overlap quite a bit.

The current arrangement with expeditions staggered quarterly seems to work well.

It would make sense for Russia and the US to make a quid pro quo exchange, so that CC carries up one Russian, with the Soyuz in the following quarter carrying up one American or American partner.

Alternative is that both US & Russia will need to switch to switching their whole crew of three / four every six months (or to make more than two flights per year).

Cheers, Martin

That's pretty much what we did when STS was still flying.

Yup, part of why I think this is realistic and practical for both parties.

On a background note, if they're going to bar the junction between Russian & US segments, and stop cooperating on vehicle attitude, etc, then this would be unworkable. But then the station itself will become unworkable.

Short of splitting the station up, they can't stop working together.

Cheers, Martin

[Oli]

If you really want to do deep space, you'll want to reuse the deep space hardware to keep the cost down, which means the deep space ship needs to go back to Earth orbit after the mission is done, at which point any commercial crew spacecraft can be used to ferry the crew, this makes Orion redundant.

If at all it will go back to EML-2. Direct reentry from there or BEO in general makes sense,  you safe lots of fuel.

Edit: Although compared to the fuel you need for the rest of the mission its probably peanuts.

You can still do aerobraking, but brake to help establish orbit.  Then you don't need much propellent and you still get to keep your spaceship for your next mission.  And you don't have to optimize your spaceship to survive re-entry and landing.

Aerobraking, in particular for human missions, comes with its own problems. A fuel depot at EML-2 with a crew transfer vehicle between LEO and EML-2 could be an alternative to direct reentry, but all exploration architectures I've seen so far use Orion, with or without SLS.

[savuporo]

All this fuel depot, SLS, LEO gateway etc stuff is relevant to CCiCAP topic how?

[A_M_Swallow]

All this fuel depot, SLS, LEO gateway etc stuff is relevant to CCiCAP topic how?

With the cancelling of the ISS the Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo craft will be flying fuel to the propellant depot and people to the LEO gateway.

I wonder, does NASA need to add an extra milestone to each of the CCiCap SAA to cover producing high plans to fly
a. propellant to a propellant depot?
b. cargo to one or more new spacestations?
c. people to one or more new spacestations?

If the spacestations are in a different orbit then say the maximum mass of cargo may change.  Extra handling equipment may be needed at the launch pad or adding to the spacecraft.

It does not matter if NASA owns the spacestations or leases time on them.  It will still have to get the astronauts there.

[Jim]

With the cancelling of the ISS the Commercial Crew and Commercial Cargo craft will be flying fuel to the propellant depot and people to the LEO gateway.

I wonder, does NASA need to add an extra milestone to each of the CCiCap SAA to cover producing high plans to fly
a. propellant to a propellant depot?
b. cargo to one or more new spacestations?
c. people to one or more new spacestations?

no, without ISS, there is no need for commercial crew or cargo.  And there is no LEO gateway in the plans

There is no need for add an extra milestone such:
a.  there are no new spacestations
b.  NASA isn't doing a depot
c.  Anyways, flying to crew or cargo to the ISS is enough to demonstrate capabilities to do it to other stations

To answer savuporo, fuel depot, SLS, LEO gateway etc stuff is not relevant to CCiCAP.

[A_M_Swallow]

no, without ISS, there is no need for commercial crew or cargo.  And there is no LEO gateway in the plans

{snip}

The SLS is too small to go to Mars by itself, you have admitted the Russians are killing off the ISS so that combination only makes sense if the US Government is shutting down human space flight.

[su27k]

NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.

Says who? Elon Musk already went on record to say they only need $500 million to complete Dragon V2, if this is true then there's more than enough funding left to fund another system to completion.

For the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth.  Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too.  Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".

Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.

Sit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described. 

It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.

[QuantumG]

Says who? Elon Musk already went on record to say they only need $500 million to complete Dragon V2, if this is true then there's more than enough funding left to fund another system to completion.

Less even.

So far, it's probably been $400M or $500M and it'll probably be that amount more to get through first flight. Something on the order of a billion dollars.

For the spacecraft itself, it's going to be probably something on the order of 70% to 80% NASA funded, but for the rocket it's not NASA funded at all. The development of Falcon 1 and Falcon 9, all of that, that's 100% private. If you say, what's the total cost of development has been, including the rocket and the spacecraft, it's probably something closer to 50/50 NASA and private. - transcript.

Not too shabby.

[edkyle99]

NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.

Says who?

Several Congressmen have been calling for a down-select to one, to speed up the program and save money.  Even those who support multiple contracts, such as the National Space Society, have called for a down-select to two.  In my mind, it only makes sense for NASA to buy what it needs, which is one crew carrying system to ISS.  The Air Force doesn't have F-35 and F-32.  It eliminated "Monica" through a down select.

For the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth.  Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too.  Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".

Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.

Captured asteroid rendezvous is the current plan.  An EML space station is contemplated for the future.  EML is a lot closer than 1% to Mars in terms of delta-v.  It's closer to escape velocity than it is to lunar orbit. 

Sit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described. 

It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.

Where will this high ISP method come from?  If it is an LH2/LOX stage, it will require a more than doubling of the upper stage propellant mass initially lifted out of LEO.  In other words, it will require doubling the number of SLS launches.

 - Ed Kyle

[yg1968]

The Senate CJS Appropriations subcommittee just passed today its own appropriation bill which proposes $805M for commercial crew. Shelby says that there is language requiring more transparency from the commercial crew and cargo programs but he didn't say anything about downselection. We will have to wait to see what kind of language is in the report to the Senate's CJS Appropriation bill. But I would be very surprised if the Senate's report calls for a downselection.

See this thread for more info:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34827.msg1208984#msg1208984

[Will]

NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.

Says who?

Several Congressmen have been calling for a down-select to one, to speed up the program and save money.  Even those who support multiple contracts, such as the National Space Society, have called for a down-select to two.  In my mind, it only makes sense for NASA to buy what it needs, which is one crew carrying system to ISS.  The Air Force doesn't have F-35 and F-32.  It eliminated "Monica" through a down select.

For the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth.  Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too.  Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".

Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.

Captured asteroid rendezvous is the current plan.  An EML space station is contemplated for the future.  EML is a lot closer than 1% to Mars in terms of delta-v.  It's closer to escape velocity than it is to lunar orbit. 

Sit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described. 

It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.

Where will this high ISP method come from?  If it is an LH2/LOX stage, it will require a more than doubling of the upper stage propellant mass initially lifted out of LEO.  In other words, it will require doubling the number of SLS launches.

 - Ed Kyle

The most we could afford is funding two companies up to the first unmanned flight, and then mothballing the loser in case the winner is grounded by an operational failure, or gets unreasonable when it's time to renew their contract.

[ncb1397]

NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.

Says who?

Several Congressmen have been calling for a down-select to one, to speed up the program and save money.  Even those who support multiple contracts, such as the National Space Society, have called for a down-select to two.  In my mind, it only makes sense for NASA to buy what it needs, which is one crew carrying system to ISS.  The Air Force doesn't have F-35 and F-32.  It eliminated "Monica" through a down select.

For the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth.  Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too.  Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".

Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.

Captured asteroid rendezvous is the current plan.  An EML space station is contemplated for the future.  EML is a lot closer than 1% to Mars in terms of delta-v.  It's closer to escape velocity than it is to lunar orbit. 

Sit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described. 

It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.

Where will this high ISP method come from?  If it is an LH2/LOX stage, it will require a more than doubling of the upper stage propellant mass initially lifted out of LEO.  In other words, it will require doubling the number of SLS launches.

 - Ed Kyle

The most we could afford is funding two companies up to the first unmanned flight, and then mothballing the loser in case the winner is grounded by an operational failure, or gets unreasonable when it's time to renew their contract.

It seems like you can easily afford 2 if CRS and Commercial Crew use the same systems. It seems like the manned systems can double for unmanned cargo pretty easily. You get the added benefit of Cargo doing downmass as well, not just trash disposal. The manned systems, being recovered, are potentially reusable. CRS and Commercial Crew should just be combined with combined budget used to fund 2 Crew/Cargo vehicles. This of course introduces the problem of shifting parameters in an open competition. You can leave the existing Crew competition alone while modifying CRS2 to be a Cargo vehicle with backup Crew capability. If CRS + CC is potentially 3 systems with 2 Cargo vehicles and 1 CC vehicle, you can maintain the same number of systems and associated costs by shifting to 1 Cargo vehicle and 2 CC vehicles. This maintains 2 way competition for crew flights and 3 way competition for cargo flights as CC vehicles will carry some cargo regardless(even without a dedicated unmanned version).

[savuporo]

Really have to apologize for off topic here, but

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/

Well worth reading for all the commenters here, especially the "Lessons learned" parts. Some lessons appear to be promptly forgotten in the CCiCAP.

[Space Ghost 1962]

NASA is only going to end up funding one of these systems to full development.

Says who?

Several Congressmen have been calling for a down-select to one, to speed up the program and save money.  Even those who support multiple contracts, such as the National Space Society, have called for a down-select to two.  In my mind, it only makes sense for NASA to buy what it needs, which is one crew carrying system to ISS.  The Air Force doesn't have F-35 and F-32.  It eliminated "Monica" through a down select.

Unlike EELV, where both were kept.

Now, for the moment ... what if both JSF were kept. Say like one "hot", the other "standby". It would cost more right? Like Atlas V and Delta IV.

So when F-35 goes hideously overbudget, or has ... other issues ... one could give Monica a second thought.

Now, which is waste, and which is proper policy? How about "second engine" for JSF in a certain key congressional district?
Or RD-180 and Russian imperialism screwing up a Atlas V "perfect world", which they are still trying to wait out.

What is the value of an option? When do you exercise/foreclose on them? Are we as much fooling ourselves by not having options as by having them?

Perhaps the better question is even larger - markets and bootstrapping them. Even if there isn't a viable "second" market beyond govt for HSF, the presence of so much potential (Bigelow, DragonLab, ISS research projects, F9R, cubesat volume, ...) for forward financing such in place, that the government "overbuy" of more CC providers than one isn't such a big deal.

In terms of "over buy", there are annually many billions in every sector much less justified by either side in government for decades. One man's security is another man's waste. Or pork.

BTW, its usually the case that government is supposed to "forward finance" such regardless of ROI, unlike businesses ... because economics predicts at least an acceptable GDP growth indirectly from such. Retrograde governments typically shrink when they avoid taking these kind of risks, as they cede markets to other less moronic governments that snap them up.

By the way, China has an overwhelming grasp on photovoltaics - the problem with the US wasn't Solyndra but being lobbied for decades in the energy sector by big oil to not more slowly, wisely, prudently, incrementally invest as a hedge to oil/other energy sources, to always preserve dominance in an emerging market. Net effect either way to big oil was the same. By losing the option, we ceded the game.

More options is wiser for that reason. However, the so-called "old space" needs to act as rational players and likewise "buy in" to hedge here. Unlike big oil. Govts have to think longer term than next fiscal quarter. Or next Russian aggression. Policy.

For the initial missions, the plan is to go to a Distant Retrograde Lunar Orbit that will reach 70,000 km from the lunar far side, far further than any human has ever been from Earth.  Two SM burns and 10 days from Earth too.  Tell those astronauts they're not going to "deep space".

Far further than any human has ever been from Earth, yet less than 1% of the distance between Earth and Mars. What can you actually do with two SM burns and 10 days from Earth? As far as I can see, nothing.

Captured asteroid rendezvous is the current plan.  An EML space station is contemplated for the future.  EML is a lot closer than 1% to Mars in terms of delta-v.  It's closer to escape velocity than it is to lunar orbit. 

Which will doubtlessly require logistics like ISS currently does, and not sortie like Apollo/Saturn. Extending outward.

Sit down with the rocket equation some time and figure out what it would take, in terms of mass launched to orbit, to do what you've just described. 

It would depend on your in space propulsion method, if you assume a high Isp, then the mass is not a huge number.

Where will this high ISP method come from?  If it is an LH2/LOX stage, it will require a more than doubling of the upper stage propellant mass initially lifted out of LEO.  In other words, it will require doubling the number of SLS launches.

The ROI for any US like this is really hard for any commercial provider. You have DCSS, Centaur, and foreign options, most recently India finally. Am not surprised SpaceX didn't go that way, their economics are dominated by a common engine/propellant approach thus CH4 not LH2.

Russia sold off KVD to india with the intent that India would be the "low price" leader - is there any sense in vending an on orbit high deltaV follow-on propulsion to a already present payload previously launched by a reusable kerolox vehicle? Best of both worlds so to speak?

[Space Ghost 1962]

Really have to apologize for off topic here, but

http://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-releases-cots-final-report/

Well worth reading for all the commenters here, especially the "Lessons learned" parts. Some lessons appear to be promptly forgotten in the CCiCAP.

From "Conclusions", page 107

With this initial success achieved, the direction of commercial enterprise in space still contains unforeseen market potential. As Harvard Business School professor Clayton M. Christensen observed in his book The Innovator’s Dilemma, “Not only are the market applications for disruptive technologies unknown at the time of their development, they are unknowable.” What is known
at this stage is that COTS has played an important and demonstrable role in the burgeoning commercial space transportation market.

How do traditional primes deal with the "unknowable"?  What do we budget for this vs "knowable"? Trades?

Is IVF an "unknowable"? Or just typical IRD? Boundary?

In its 2013 Annual Report, the NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) led by Vice Admiral Joseph W. Dyer, USN (Ret.) included statements emphasizing the success of the COTS program. The report pointed out that it “was not simply the use of fixed-price Space Act Agreements that led to the Program’s success, although that helped to enable the successful outcome. Rather, NASA did a number of things right along the way, such as maintaining excellent program management, appointing well-qualified technical representatives [as project executives], providing the right amount of insight, requesting the right amount of information, and having the right number of Government attendees at
industry meetings.”

Didn't Jim say there was too many NASA attendees at these meetings?

Page 45, "Augmentation"
Good read of the "incentivization" of COTS that came out of the Augustine Committee. It seems that it was essential to keep from slipping schedule. This is the item that the House Science reps bludgeon Commercial Crew about as being a mistake with COTS.

Looks otherwise. Remembering much of the bitter words exchanged over this, that weren't recorded for posterity. At a time when we have a greater incentive to  launch astros from US, I cannot imagine with this coming out now that it will be easy from the joint markup of Congress to not fully fund commercial crew.

All you have to do is reference this, go back to the COTS discussions, read them their own words. Ouch!

Add:
And I wonder if there was a missed opportunity here as well. Perhaps COTS-D could have been funded for a fraction of the cost and ahead of the Crimean crisis become operational. It probably would have missed the "recoverable" aspects of F9R and Dragon 2 - my guess would have been a disposable LAS more like HMX suggested for Dragon 1 given timing.

But they would have had to shell out a 0.5B more, even though it would have net saved $1.3B end-to-end accumulative in the total trade. And no SpaceX vs ULA battle. How dumb!

[Lar]

not sure about CCSC but CATALYST has multiple threads here.

This is midthread but should get you started?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33840.msg1201009#msg1201009