CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[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.

It seems like you can easily afford 2 if CRS and Commercial Crew use the same systems.

They won't be able to have two spacecraft systems each doing both roles. Dragon is volume constrained and ISS cargo tends to be bulky: the last three Dragon missions carried only 3.1 t in pressurized cargo, total. The other manned candidates have the same problem. You can use something like the Dragon for part of the cargo mission as long as you have something roomier like Cygnus to carry the rest, or visits become more frequent than is good for the microgravity research role of ISS. Or better yet, something like an HTV with a stretched propulsion module, launched on an Atlas.

But that, or any of the optimized ISS cargo spacecraft, is not going to share a lot of commonality with any of the Commercial Crew Vehicle Candidates.

[edkyle99]

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?

By that argument, NASA should be building two SLS/Orion systems, two JWST's, and two International Space Stations.

The long used method is to study the options - even to a "fly off" phase if needed, then down-select to the best.

 - Ed Kyle

[Space Ghost 1962]

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?

By that argument, NASA should be building two SLS/Orion systems, two JWST's, and two International Space Stations.

The long used method is to study the options - even to a "fly off" phase if needed, then down-select to the best.

 - Ed Kyle

None of these were competitively bid, so that's silly.

Back to the JSF analogy you suggested, "fly off" clearly did not allow enough study to assess.

In this age, we have enough data to do a better assessment and control the engagement differently.

Point still stands.

[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.

They won't be able to have two spacecraft systems each doing both roles. Dragon is volume constrained and ISS cargo tends to be bulky: the last three Dragon missions carried only 3.1 t in pressurized cargo, total. The other manned candidates have the same problem. You can use something like the Dragon for part of the cargo mission as long as you have something roomier like Cygnus to carry the rest, or visits become more frequent than is good for the microgravity research role of ISS. Or better yet, something like an HTV with a stretched propulsion module, launched on an Atlas.

But that, or any of the optimized ISS cargo spacecraft, is not going to share a lot of commonality with any of the Commercial Crew Vehicle Candidates.

Cygnus ORB-D1: 700 kg
Cygnus ORB-1: 1261 kg
Cygnus ORB-2: 1650 kg

total: 3611 kg
average: 1203 kg
max:1650 kg

COTS Demo Flight 2: 525 kg
SpaceX CRS-1: 905 kg
SpaceX CRS-2: 677 kg
SpaceX CRS-3: 1430 kg

total: 3,537 kg
average: 884 kg
max: 1430 kg

Based on the operational history, it would require 50% more flights which is significant but the max payload demonstrated is similar to Cygnus' upcoming ORB-2 mission(15% difference). This was presumeably enabled by the Falcon 9 v1.1 upgrade of which Cygnus is getting an upgrade as well(ORB-3?). A recoverable capsule of a certain mass will of course be smaller than one that is not restrained by recoverability. Therefore, I would propose the following scenario to maintain competition, minimize redundant systems, not interfere with the current competition's requirements and allow for optimized systems.

CRS-2: continues as is but down-selects to 1 provider/system for cargo. No requirement for recoverable downmass. Gets ~2/3 of cargo work.

CCDev: continues as is but down-selects to 1 provider/system for crew. Gets ~2/3 of crew work.

CCCDev(Commercial Crew/Cargo Dev): a competition for a unified system able to transport both crew and cargo in a manned operating mode and an unmanned operating mode. To maintain competition and redundancy, this is not open to the CCDev winner or CRS-2 winner. It will do roughly 1/3 of the crew work and 1/3 of the cargo work(including downmass).

There is two possibilities. 2 systems are awarded because one system won both CCDev and CRS-2 on merit with regards to their respective requirements and another system won CCCDev. Either that or 3 systems are awarded with each system winning a different competition.

[JBF]

Down mass is vital for certain science experiments. You will not see that requirement going away.

[ncb1397]

Down mass is vital for certain science experiments. You will not see that requirement going away.

Down mass is covered by the Crew/Cargo hybrid vehicle that can be recovered in its cargo variant and by crew flights with spare space on the downhill. It simply wouldn't be a requirement for a CRS cargo dedicated vehicle to allow for better optimized up-mass as is currently the case with Cygnus.

[guckyfan]

I noticed how big that trunk was in the Dragon V2 animation. It could carry a secondary pressurized cargo pod. This would give the best of two worlds. Only one version of Dragon V2 for cargo and crew, except the interior. Return capability and large volume with one vehicle. Docking port on the cargo version would not be a problem. Larger payloads can be stored in the secondary payload pod that has a berthing port. Also a crew flight can have significant pressurized upmass when needed. Only when there is need for large unpressurized cargo there would be no secondary pressurized cargo pod.

[MP99]

I noticed how big that trunk was in the Dragon V2 animation. It could carry a secondary pressurized cargo pod. This would give the best of two worlds. Only one version of Dragon V2 for cargo and crew, except the interior. Return capability and large volume with one vehicle. Docking port on the cargo version would not be a problem. Larger payloads can be stored in the secondary payload pod that has a berthing port. Also a crew flight can have significant pressurized upmass when needed. Only when there is need for large unpressurized cargo there would be no secondary pressurized cargo pod.

I was thinking that, as well. However, such a pod needs to be human rated, but also disposable.

Doesn't seem to fit SpaceX's MO.

Cheers, Martin

[InfraNut2]

I noticed how big that trunk was in the Dragon V2 animation. It could carry a secondary pressurized cargo pod. This would give the best of two worlds. Only one version of Dragon V2 for cargo and crew, except the interior. Return capability and large volume with one vehicle. Docking port on the cargo version would not be a problem. Larger payloads can be stored in the secondary payload pod that has a berthing port. Also a crew flight can have significant pressurized upmass when needed. Only when there is need for large unpressurized cargo there would be no secondary pressurized cargo pod.

I was thinking that, as well. However, such a pod needs to be human rated, but also disposable.

Doesn't seem to fit SpaceX's MO.

Cheers, Martin

I have advocated it too as a very good way to adapt dragon to ISS logistics needs. But to give a different version of Martins SpaceX MO argument: The SpaceX development plan already contains several big higher prioriy tasks so it will be hard to fit it in internally, especially wrt manpower, but also cost.

I think what is needed here is a partnered company developing, manufacturing and supporting the cargo pod. Kind of what SpaceHab was for the shuttle. This frees up SpaceX resources while still providing an excellent logistics solution, albeit likely at a higher price point depending on what company is the partner and the way it is procured. The alternative is likely no pod in the ISS lifetime. BTW: you can build on the partnership to provide mission modules for for example cis-lunar use, alternative logistics carriers and similar things that there are not enough of a market for yet to justify allocating in-house resources to.

An even better solution would be a cargo pod + reusable tug solution a la parom, but that would require the more extensive developoment of the tug. To gain some initial experience with such a solution without a full tug development, one could modify a (flown) dragon by putting a second docking port with rendezvous sensors on the bottom, plus optionally but preferably a fuel transfer system prototype and/or extra fuel tanks. A new purpose-made tug could be based on the subsystems of any existing cargo carrier, but put together in a new way with a few things added. See the parom for a good example of what is needed. The only significant things I have thought of so far I would like to change about the parom is to put the thrusters out on booms to avoid pluming payloads or station and to give extra RCS leverage for roll control and such -- and use international standard docking ports and  more modern subsystems where applicable.

Importantly: a tug can serve many additional uses beyond cargo transfer.  It could also be an additional propulsion solution for ISS, but you might have to add a bit more thrusters and fuel tanks to better serve that use. It could also fetch launched modules for adding on to ISS, fetch fuel pods for any kind of refueling or fetch modules+stages for assembling deep space spaceships, gateways etc.  It also makes it easy to add launch providers or partners to international and other cooperative projects: Anyone that has or can add can add a 3-axis stabilization kit to their upper stage can participate. Also the cargo capacity for each launch is much increased by eliminating the need to launch an integrated tug with each and every delivery. This is especially vitally important for introducing small/medium reusable launchers into the market, one of which could evolve to become a second source for really affordable launches besides SpaceX in the long term, which is vital and unlikely to be provided by any traditional launch provider.

But: there is a chicken and egg problem here: A sustainable space infrastructure is far from optimal without this kind of reusable "proximity" tugs, but it is hard to justify development based on any single first use. It can be overcome with a combination of reuse of existing technology from existing logistics carriers end other relevant sources to reduce costs plus some cash infusion from either a visionary angel investor like Bigelow (*) or a government agency like NASA.

(*) Bigelow has actually started developing tugs, but the preliminary designs are neither as general-purpose nor as reusable as such tugs should be to fit into a wider sustainable space infrastructure.

edit: added much stuff about tugs

[Prober]

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?

By that argument, NASA should be building two SLS/Orion systems, two JWST's, and two International Space Stations.

The long used method is to study the options - even to a "fly off" phase if needed, then down-select to the best.

 - Ed Kyle

or just do like the last down select the 2.5

This time do a 1.5 with the 1/2 as a backup.    Lock in some milestones with "time" as the driver. If the first (full share) doesn't make the time milestone, at that point the program increases funding to the backup. 

That is real competition and the program should be strong enough at this point to make this call.

[docmordrid]

I noticed how big that trunk was in the Dragon V2 animation. It could carry a secondary pressurized cargo pod. This would give the best of two worlds. Only one version of Dragon V2 for cargo and crew, except the interior. Return capability and large volume with one vehicle. Docking port on the cargo version would not be a problem. Larger payloads can be stored in the secondary payload pod that has a berthing port. Also a crew flight can have significant pressurized upmass when needed. Only when there is need for large unpressurized cargo there would be no secondary pressurized cargo pod.

I was thinking that, as well. However, such a pod needs to be human rated, but also disposable.

Doesn't seem to fit SpaceX's MO.

Cheers, Martin

The Cygnus PCM is 3.07m. Could it fit inside the trunk for this purpose? Ditch the service module and add a battery pack if needed.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I think they should continue funding all 3.

[A_M_Swallow]

I noticed how big that trunk was in the Dragon V2 animation. It could carry a secondary pressurized cargo pod. This would give the best of two worlds. Only one version of Dragon V2 for cargo and crew, except the interior. Return capability and large volume with one vehicle. Docking port on the cargo version would not be a problem. Larger payloads can be stored in the secondary payload pod that has a berthing port. Also a crew flight can have significant pressurized upmass when needed. Only when there is need for large unpressurized cargo there would be no secondary pressurized cargo pod.

Good idea.  The secondary payload pod is basically a box with lights, fan, connectors and a door.  (The Dragon does the flying.)  Two versions can be made.  Version one has a docking port.  Version two has a berthing port.  The customer buys and uses which ever pod the mission needs.

[clongton]

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.

Because these were partnerships, not traditional contracts, NASA leveraged its $800M COTS program budget with partner funds. This resulted in two new U.S. medium-class launch vehicles and two automated cargo spacecraft and demonstrated the efficiency of such partnerships.

This statement implies that government funds were used in the development of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, which is patently false. Musk is on record as stating that roughly 50% of the launch "system" costs was funded by NASA funds, but when you break it apart to launch vehicle and spacecraft he states that the launch vehicle funding is 100% SpaceX and zero% USGov funds, while 70% to 75% USGov funds were for the spacecraft.

[Zed_Noir]

I noticed how big that trunk was in the Dragon V2 animation. It could carry a secondary pressurized cargo pod. This would give the best of two worlds. Only one version of Dragon V2 for cargo and crew, except the interior. Return capability and large volume with one vehicle. Docking port on the cargo version would not be a problem. Larger payloads can be stored in the secondary payload pod that has a berthing port. Also a crew flight can have significant pressurized upmass when needed. Only when there is need for large unpressurized cargo there would be no secondary pressurized cargo pod.

I was thinking that, as well. However, such a pod needs to be human rated, but also disposable.

Doesn't seem to fit SpaceX's MO.

Cheers, Martin

The Cygnus PCM is 3.07m. Could it fit inside the trunk for this purpose? Ditch the service module and add a battery pack if needed.

It was discuss on some of the Inspiration Mars threads. The original Cygnus PCM will fitted in an extended Dragon trunk. The service module is not required, as the PCM will be powered by the Dragon and batteries aboard. Think of the PCM as unpresurized cargo to be retrieved from the trunk to the ISS with the SSRMS.

[A_M_Swallow]

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.

Because these were partnerships, not traditional contracts, NASA leveraged its $800M COTS program budget with partner funds. This resulted in two new U.S. medium-class launch vehicles and two automated cargo spacecraft and demonstrated the efficiency of such partnerships.

This statement implies that government funds were used in the development of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, which is patently false. Musk is on record as stating that roughly 50% of the launch "system" costs was funded by NASA funds, but when you break it apart to launch vehicle and spacecraft he states that the launch vehicle funding is 100% SpaceX and zero% USGov funds, while 70% to 75% USGov funds were for the spacecraft.

In the COTS report there is a diagram showing how much the US Government paid and how much the companies put in.  See "Commercial Orbital Transportation Services - A New Era in Spaceflight". NASA/SP-2014-617 Chapter 8 page 95.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf

[JBF]

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.

Because these were partnerships, not traditional contracts, NASA leveraged its $800M COTS program budget with partner funds. This resulted in two new U.S. medium-class launch vehicles and two automated cargo spacecraft and demonstrated the efficiency of such partnerships.

This statement implies that government funds were used in the development of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle, which is patently false. Musk is on record as stating that roughly 50% of the launch "system" costs was funded by NASA funds, but when you break it apart to launch vehicle and spacecraft he states that the launch vehicle funding is 100% SpaceX and zero% USGov funds, while 70% to 75% USGov funds were for the spacecraft.

In the COTS report there is a diagram showing how much the US Government paid and how much the companies put in.  See "Commercial Orbital Transportation Services - A New Era in Spaceflight". NASA/SP-2014-617 Chapter 8 page 95.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf

You are both probably correct.  At this point only an internal audit could determine exactly where the COTS funds were spent.  But I could easily see directing all of one source of funding to one specific project to keep the accounting simple.

[woods170]

In the COTS report there is a diagram showing how much the US Government paid and how much the companies put in.  See "Commercial Orbital Transportation Services - A New Era in Spaceflight". NASA/SP-2014-617 Chapter 8 page 95.
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SP-2014-617.pdf

It also shows that the total COTS cost for the Dragon/Falcon9 'launch system'  was US$ 850 million and the total COTS cost for the Antares/Cygnus 'launch system'  was US$ 1015 million. So, the more 'established'  company (Orbital) was 19% more expensive than the less 'established' company.
Note: COTS relates to the development of the vehicles AND flying the demo missions. All CRS-labeled missions fall under the CRS contract, which is not a part of COTS.

On the one hand we have Orbital that develops a launcher and upmass-only cargo spacecraft with two demo-launches including one demo mission of the spacecraft, berthing to the ISS.
On the other hand we have SpaceX that develops a launcher and upmass-and-downmass cargo spacecraft with three demo launches including two demo missions of the spacecraft with the latter of those two missions berthing to ISS.

Which is better value for money? I have a personal preference but since this is not a - insert name from a certain Hawthorne company here - thread. Whoops... gotta run 

[baldusi]

You have to admit that OSC was late in the game, and the "savings" from the Wallops subsidy wasn't. Personally, when you look at the amount of anomalies and LV+Spacecraft attributable delays, OSC has had a better performance than SPX. But I believe the particular combo of OSC amazing integration and rationality with SPX disruptive innovation, have gotten the best of both world. Even if you look at later proposals, Cygnus is proposed for lots of missions. I'm just afraid that CCtCap will lose this with a down select to one.

[woods170]

You have to admit that OSC was late in the game, and the "savings" from the Wallops subsidy wasn't. Personally, when you look at the amount of anomalies and LV+Spacecraft attributable delays, OSC has had a better performance than SPX.

Orbital already had very substantial experience in building both spacecraft AND launchers. SpaceX had only Falcon 1 experience for launchers and NO experience building spacecraft. Thus, SpaceX having more anomalies of LV and spacecraft comes as really no surprise as their learning curve was significantly steeper in the COTS period than it was for Orbital.

Even if you look at later proposals, Cygnus is proposed for lots of missions.

Correct. But alternative missions are proposed for Dragon as well: Red Dragon, DragonLab, CRS Dragon.