CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[yg1968]

Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.

I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN.  Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.

I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.

Does CST-100 have trunk space? I think it would interfere with the abort engine placement.

Good point. Although the CST-100 can carry a maximum of 10 persons whereas Dargon V2 can only carry 7 persons. NASA will only be using 4 seats but the empty seats can be replaced by cargo. 

[yg1968]

Does CST-100 have trunk space? I think it would interfere with the abort engine placement.

Has no bearing on the matter, it is crew transport and not unpressurized cargo.

Perhaps but it could explain his twice as much claim. Although, it is obviously an exaggeration.

[GalacticIntruder]

Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.

I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN.  Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.

I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.

You should know by now how EM speaks to the clueless MSM. That is with generalities and theoretical capabilities. This what not a tech conference. Not to mention Musk is always selling his company.

They both do the same things for NASA ISS, but DV2 is designed to do more things beyond this one NASA contract.

I will dare to suggest that we will never see CST being used for anything other than official NASA ISS, but we will see DV2.

[jongoff]

We don't know if it can be reused or how much.

The 1st stage of F9v1.1 has been designed with re-usability in mind.  The Merlin 1D engines have been tested through multiple cycles of firing.  If they get the 1st stage to land vertically on land there is a high degree of confidence it can be re-used as it was designed to do.  I don't know how much more excitement you want.  You have a private company  trying to do what NASA has never done before in spaceflight.

I'm super excited for them, but as a former VTVLer I wouldn't recommend underestimating the number of unknown unknowns left to retire before they get there. Do I think they'll get there? Yeah, I give them pretty good odds of eventually getting to the point where they can reuse their stage a few times. Enough to make a noticeable economic difference.

Cautiously excited for my friends at SpaceX,

~Jon

[ncb1397]

Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.

I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN.  Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.

I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.

Does CST-100 have trunk space? I think it would interfere with the abort engine placement.

Good point. Although the CST-100 can carry a maximum of 10 persons whereas Dargon V2 can only carry 7 persons. NASA will only be using 4 seats but the empty seats can be replaced by cargo. 

10 people in coach vs 7 people first class? What is the internal volume of each? I have always heard CST-100 had a crew of 7.

[LouScheffer]

With this type of US tax dollar investment, true competition should include an orbital and sucessful return fly-off... Then decide from there... My morning 2 cents...

In the big picture, that's exactly what this is.  Both companies will build their spacecraft and try a few (<=6) missions.  Then the next contract can be based on the cost, results, schedules, etc. achieved on these efforts.

[vt_hokie]

With this type of US tax dollar investment, true competition should include an orbital and sucessful return fly-off... Then decide from there... My morning 2 cents...

In the big picture, that's exactly what this is.  Both companies will build their spacecraft and try a few (<=6) missions.  Then the next contract can be based on the cost, results, schedules, etc. achieved on these efforts.

Kind of defeats the purpose of "commercial crew" though to eliminate one of the innovators and then give the least innovative proposal a significantly higher amount of funding.  But really, I'd rather see CST-100 replace Orion which is the real waste of money (along with the white elephant SLS), and the two "newspace" innovators allowed to proceed on commercial crew.

[arachnitect]

Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.

I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN.  Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.

I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.

Does CST-100 have trunk space? I think it would interfere with the abort engine placement.

Good point. Although the CST-100 can carry a maximum of 10 persons whereas Dargon V2 can only carry 7 persons. NASA will only be using 4 seats but the empty seats can be replaced by cargo. 

10 people in coach vs 7 people first class? What is the internal volume of each? I have always heard CST-100 had a crew of 7.

ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.

The 10 seat configuration is a proposed derivative for tourism flights.

[Coastal Ron]

ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.

At the press conference NASA said they only wanted 4 seats, and that supports the previously announced plans to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7 once Commercial Crew becomes operational (3 from Soyuz, 4 from CC).

Somewhere else on NSF there was a discussion about comments Garrett Reisman of SpaceX had made about the number of people going to the ISS, and that NASA was not interested in extra passengers at this time.

Has that changed?

[Rocket Science]

With this type of US tax dollar investment, true competition should include an orbital and sucessful return fly-off... Then decide from there... My morning 2 cents...

In the big picture, that's exactly what this is.  Both companies will build their spacecraft and try a few (<=6) missions.  Then the next contract can be based on the cost, results, schedules, etc. achieved on these efforts.

I'm sorry Lou I should had stated in a clearer way, I mean all three companies are in the fly-off, then selection is made...

[arachnitect]

ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.

At the press conference NASA said they only wanted 4 seats, and that supports the previously announced plans to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7 once Commercial Crew becomes operational (3 from Soyuz, 4 from CC).

Somewhere else on NSF there was a discussion about comments Garrett Reisman of SpaceX had made about the number of people going to the ISS, and that NASA was not interested in extra passengers at this time.

Has that changed?

Boeing wants to sell the 5th seat via Space Adventures.

We'll see if they can convince NASA to let them.

[JasonAW3]

Out of curiosity, assuming the Russians do decide to pull out of the ISS program, and not deorbit the rig, how soon, realistically, could we have a man rated craft available for both Taxi service and reboost?

I know that NASA has set a deadline of December 2017, but I get the impression that at least one company is far enough along that they may be able to beat this by a year or more.

Anybody got any ideas?

[jimvela]

Boeing wants to sell the 5th seat via Space Adventures.
We'll see if they can convince NASA to let them.

Boeing also has the one thing likely to be able to convince NASA:  The ears of congress...

[Patchouli]

I knew Spacex pretty much had this in the bag as they had a reentry vehicle flying.

But I'm rather surprised and disappointed SNC lost out to Boeing when Dream Chaser is clearly a more capable and innovative then the CST-100.

Boeing also has the one thing likely to be able to convince NASA:  The ears of congress...

I suspect the same since SNC's vehicle was clearly a better vehicle and seemed to have been farther along.
Plus cheaper per flight and possible safer due to less configuration changes during a nominal flight.
It's only big negative is it cannot provide significant reboost for ISS.
I think DC probably could have given Dragon some real competition as the reoccurring cost for the in space hardware likely would have been similar since it like Dragon needs little in the way of new parts between flights.
No service module, and the heat shield can be reused.
As for being tied to Atlas 5 so is the CST-100 as there doesn't seem to be any plans to man rate the Delta IV.
The only reasons I can think up outside of politics or confidence to meet the deadline or NASA wants a new vehicle for each commercial crew mission.
DC's vehicle would likely be more expensive to build per unit.

Kind of defeats the purpose of "commercial crew" though to eliminate one of the innovators and then give the least innovative proposal a significantly higher amount of funding.  But really, I'd rather see CST-100 replace Orion which is the real waste of money (along with the white elephant SLS), and the two "newspace" innovators allowed to proceed on commercial crew.

Then NASA would be able to concentrate on building in space vehicles with exotic propulsion like Nautilus-X and landers for the Moon and Mars.
The space program would look more like the one in 2001 a space odyssey vs Apollo 2.0.
If you had an in space vehicle like Nautilus-X  or even just a NTR spaced tug like in the LANTR concept you don't need anything much more capable then the CST-100 with better TPS for an Earth reentry vehicle on deep space missions.

[Nindalf]

Thanks for the link, Marslauncher.

I thought Boeing's comeback at the end of the video was very weak, at least as presented by CNN.  Boeing didn't actually say that Musk was wrong in claiming that SpaceX provides twice the service for half the cost -- it just said that he didn't have the information for making such a claim, leaving open the possibility that Musk's claim may be correct.

I am not sure that I understand the twice as much claim by Musk. OK, Dragon V2 does more precise landing but how is that twice as much as the CST-100? Both companies provide exactly the same service. Interesting that Musk was afraid that SpaceX would finish second behind Boeing.

My understanding is that CST-100 is strictly a LEO space station taxi, which is only about half reusable, whereas Dragon V2 is meant to be capable of relatively long independent stays in space, high-energy BEO returns, and propulsive landings on Mars, and is about 95% reusable (only the interstage/solar array/escape fins are expendable, with the heat shield reusable for "on the order of ten" flights before refurbishment).

This isn't just a contract for a dozen crew transporation missions to the ISS.  The main purpose of this program is to develop capabilities for future NASA consumption.

They only asked for certain capabilities, and with the CST-100, that's about all they're getting.  With the Dragon V2, they're getting a lot more.

Imagine that NASA has an off-the-shelf option for Mars missions.  "Want a payload on the Mars surface?  $200 million, all-inclusive.  We put the Dragon V2 on the Falcon Heavy, you put your payload inside, we put it on Mars."

Or how about commercial crew transport to and from lunar orbit, at similar bargain prices?  Having the Dragon V2 and Falcon Heavy puts it within spitting distance.

Implying that the Dragon V2 will be twice as useful to NASA as the CST-100 may prove to be a comical understatement rather than a vain boast.

[Jim]

This isn't just a contract for a dozen crew transporation missions to the ISS.

Yes, it is as far as NASA is concerned.

[MTom]

Maybe discussed earlier, I didn't found:
What about if SpaceX will be ready earlier than 2017? (I wouldn't be surprised).
Could they begin with the launches earlier under this contract?

[nadreck]

This isn't just a contract for a dozen crew transporation missions to the ISS.  The main purpose of this program is to develop capabilities for future NASA consumption.

Hmm, while I would like to think that there will be follow on missions after the 2-6 awarded in this contact. This will really be a bit of a waste if we only see future NASA consumption (unless of course they build a replacement for ISS with a much larger crew). We need non NASA future consumption. If the numbers that have been bandied about here fit, a single use F9 and Dragon V2 flight will cost somewhere in the order of $150M in 2020 vs $300M maybe for the CST-100. Will this pricing stimulate any such non NASA consumption? Could re-use of first stage and Dragon bring a launch cost down to $50M? Would that (and say a $50M price tag on a 90 day rental of a Bigelow or other orbital facility) be enough to see business use in space.

I guess, I would like to get a better handle on what pricing in 2020 would be for chartering a CST-100, a Dragon V2, a Soyuz. I would also like to see destinations created and hope that we have the first couple (however temporary) of these by 2020.

[yg1968]

ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.

At the press conference NASA said they only wanted 4 seats, and that supports the previously announced plans to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7 once Commercial Crew becomes operational (3 from Soyuz, 4 from CC).

Somewhere else on NSF there was a discussion about comments Garrett Reisman of SpaceX had made about the number of people going to the ISS, and that NASA was not interested in extra passengers at this time.

Has that changed?

No that hasn't changed. The 7 or 10 seat configuration would be for Bigelow. I am not sure what the 5 seat CST-100 configuration would be for. Possibly for a space taxi model with a Boeing taxi driver and 4 NASA astronauts. 

[MTom]

ISS configuration has 5 seats. They started with 7 seats so putting 2 back in is probably possible, but NASA wants powered lockers etc.

At the press conference NASA said they only wanted 4 seats, and that supports the previously announced plans to increase the staffing of the ISS from 6 to 7 once Commercial Crew becomes operational (3 from Soyuz, 4 from CC).

Somewhere else on NSF there was a discussion about comments Garrett Reisman of SpaceX had made about the number of people going to the ISS, and that NASA was not interested in extra passengers at this time.

Has that changed?

No that hasn't changed. The 7 or 10 seat configuration would be for Bigelow. I am not sure what the 5 seat CST-100 configuration would be for. Possibly for a space taxi model with a Boeing taxi driver and 4 NASA astronauts.

Here you find the possible answer (one extra seat for tourists to ISS).
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32438.msg1258230#msg1258230