CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[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.

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

Yes that is likely it. Interesting article. This suggests that Boieng opted for the rental model since there is no designated seat for a taxi driver. I wonder if SpaceX will also have tourists on their 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?

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).

Ah, that makes sense, but is it likely to happen?

The model supposedly being used by NASA is the "car rental" model, where SpaceX and Boeing provide the vehicle and NASA fills it up however they want (NASA personnel also operate the vehicle).  So with that model Boeing would not have a seat to "sell", and NASA is unlikely to be getting into the tourism business.

[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.

Here you find the possible answer (one extra seat for tourists to ISS).

Ah, that makes sense, but is it likely to happen?

The model supposedly being used by NASA is the "car rental" model, where SpaceX and Boeing provide the vehicle and NASA fills it up however they want (NASA personnel also operate the vehicle).  So with that model Boeing would not have a seat to "sell", and NASA is unlikely to be getting into the tourism business.

The other thing is : how does the tourist come home? This only works if SpaceX agrees to bring the tourist home on the returning flight and there is a direct handover. Is that even possible?

[oiorionsbelt]

Has there been any mention of whether CST-100 or DV2 will be used as a lifeboat?

[yg1968]

Has there been any mention of whether CST-100 or DV2 will be used as a lifeboat?

Yes, it's a requirement.

[oiorionsbelt]

On orbit time requirement, 6 months?

[arachnitect]

[...]

The other thing is : how does the tourist come home? This only works if SpaceX agrees to bring the tourist home on the returning flight and there is a direct handover. Is that even possible?

I'd love to see the actual details, but we've got nothing.

My assumption is that the tourist stays on orbit for 6 months and sleeps in CST. Most of capsule's stowage capacity is taken over by the tourist's provisions. There are obviously all kinds of reasons NASA may not be okay with this. One challenge I wasn't expecting was that, at $80,000/kg. or more, NASA may simply outbid any potentially spaceflight participants. NASA wants that cargo badly.

On orbit time requirement, 6 months?

210 days IIRC.

[rayleighscatter]

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?

Congress would have to appropriate more funding to do this. Seats until 2017 have already been purchased on Soyuz and CC program funding is estimated to run from 2017-end of program. To start launches earlier Congress would have to buy the same astronaut a second seat on a different launcher and that would be a hard sell.

The model supposedly being used by NASA is the "car rental" model, where SpaceX and Boeing provide the vehicle and NASA fills it up however they want (NASA personnel also operate the vehicle).  So with that model Boeing would not have a seat to "sell", and NASA is unlikely to be getting into the tourism business.

NASA won't sell out seats on their flights, they aren't in the commercial space business. It's kind of the crux of this whole program in fact, having commercial providers able to sell the service instead of NASA.

[yg1968]

On orbit time requirement, 6 months?

210 days.

[JasonAW3]

You know, I think I understand why Boeing won instead of SNC.

Of the three companies competing, only Boeing had any provision to be able to reboost the station.

SpaceX is becoming a proven commidoty and with the commercial contracts that they are getting, they could finish their manned flight capibilities without NASA.   Boeing has a track record with them. And SNC's bird reminded NASA too much of the Space Shuttle.

[dror]

Is there a requirment for a fast track rendezvous?
Is it planed for Dv2 and CST100?

[Coastal Ron]

NASA won't sell out seats on their flights, they aren't in the commercial space business. It's kind of the crux of this whole program in fact, having commercial providers able to sell the service instead of NASA.

That's the way I see it too.

However either Boeing or SpaceX could, on their own, fly to the ISS with passengers.  Would need to have one of the ISS partners sponsor it no doubt (Russia was the sponsor for the prior tourist visits), and no doubt NASA would NOT be in favor of it.  Or Boeing and SpaceX could do it as a partnership with a company like Space Adventures.  I think people will be looking at doing it, but it's probably a low probability of happening anytime soon after 2017.

[Patchouli]

[...]

The other thing is : how does the tourist come home? This only works if SpaceX agrees to bring the tourist home on the returning flight and there is a direct handover. Is that even possible?

I'd love to see the actual details, but we've got nothing.

My assumption is that the tourist stays on orbit for 6 months and sleeps in CST. Most of capsule's stowage capacity is taken over by the tourist's provisions. There are obviously all kinds of reasons NASA may not be okay with this. One challenge I wasn't expecting was that, at $80,000/kg. or more, NASA may simply outbid any potentially spaceflight participants. NASA wants that cargo badly.

On orbit time requirement, 6 months?

210 days IIRC.

That would have been one advantage of DC since it's larger in volume then the other vehicles though space would still be limited.

But I figure the tourist would only stay up a few days and could ride the old commercial crew vehicle back as done on Soyuz.

Now can two be docked at one given time if another docking adapter is brought up?

Interestingly there is a spare probe and drogue port since the ATV is retired.
I wonder could an adapter be used there or some commercial vehicles fitted with that docking system?

[Coastal Ron]

The other thing is : how does the tourist come home? This only works if SpaceX agrees to bring the tourist home on the returning flight and there is a direct handover. Is that even possible?

If NASA is renting the vehicle, then NASA decides when it comes home, not Boeing or SpaceX.

It has been talked about for having extra people go up for a quick stay during a changeover (like what happened with the Shuttle), but that requires two docking ports, and I don't recall two for Commercial Crew vehicles being installed.  Can anybody could confirm that?

[Nindalf]

You know, I think I understand why Boeing won instead of SNC.

Of the three companies competing, only Boeing had any provision to be able to reboost the station.

SpaceX is becoming a proven commidoty and with the commercial contracts that they are getting, they could finish their manned flight capibilities without NASA.   Boeing has a track record with them. And SNC's bird reminded NASA too much of the Space Shuttle.

I think it's more likely a combination of Boeing's lobbying power combined with uncertainty about the Dream Chaser engine and concern with risk management after revelations of the details of Dragon V2.

There have been indications and rumors that Dream Chaser would switch from a hybrid engine to a liquid-fuelled one.  They've denied that this is decided, or that it would lead to a delay, but acknowledged that they are exploring the option.  The declaration that it wouldn't cause a delay came after fear, uncertainty, and doubt were spreading about SNC abandoning hybrid motors, so it wasn't entirely convincing.  In any case, SNC is generally now behaving as if they know that hybrid motors were a mistake, to be moved away from at first opportunity.

Besides, as a matter of risk management, Dream Chaser and Dragon V2 are both extremely ambitious vehicles.  CST-100 is pedestrian, mediocre, safe.  If Dragon V2 had seemed more like a fallback option, if it was just the Dragon capsule with life support and a LAS module, Dream Chaser might have won alongside Dragon.

When Dragon V2 turned out to be this extremely ambitious design, with propulsive landing capability, it couldn't be treated as the fallback anymore.  Failures in the DragonFly test program could lead to delays in Dragon V2 being ready for service.

[nadreck]

Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?

[yg1968]

Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?

There is also a Soyuz lifeboat for the other 3 astronauts. So everyone is covered by a lifeboat.

[dlapine]

Besides, as a matter of risk management, Dream Chaser and Dragon V2 are both extremely ambitious vehicles.  CST-100 is pedestrian, mediocre, safe.  If Dragon V2 had seemed more like a fallback option, if it was just the Dragon capsule with life support and a LAS module, Dream Chaser might have won alongside Dragon.

When Dragon V2 turned out to be this extremely ambitious design, with propulsive landing capability, it couldn't be treated as the fallback anymore.  Failures in the DragonFly test program could lead to delays in Dragon V2 being ready for service.

You do know that Dragon V2 doesn't require propulsive landing to return crew and cargo, right? You keep using the phrase, "extremely ambitious design" for Dragon. It's a capsule, with parachute landing capability, and pusher style abort system, just like the CST-100. While the design includes more ambitious options, they aren't required for it to function.

In terms of risk management, one can easily argue that Dragon capsules, with flight heritage to ISS already are the less risky option than a capsule from Boeing, who hasn't built one since Apollo.

In light of that, I pretty sure that "risk management" wasn't the reason CST-100 had to be included. At least, not a reason that holds up to rational calculation.

[robertross]

Now there has been reference on the thread here about the use of CST-100 or Dragon V2 as a lifeboat. Does anyone here think that this would be redundant crew return capacity? That is, park a spare capsule over and above the ones that brought passengers? If so would it make sense for that to be a capsule capable of returning the full complement of the station (ie a 7 seat Dragon V2 or CST-100) and maybe one designed to be tested regularly but have a useful shelf life of several years?

I suppose that's possible.

The USTV designation is designed to dock on N1 Nadir & N2 Nadir (after PMM relocation). Currently (L2 document) they have only 1-month docked stays shown. However, SpaceX, Orbital, and HTV all use those same two docking ports for cargo, and JAXA plans on providing an additional 2 modules in the future (yay). So it makes it very congested.

I do believe however that there are plans for an additional port? I can't remember 100% though.

edit to add: 'ISS' Pete is the authority on here to figure this stuff out. 

[Patchouli]

You know, I think I understand why Boeing won instead of SNC.

Of the three companies competing, only Boeing had any provision to be able to reboost the station.

SpaceX is becoming a proven commidoty and with the commercial contracts that they are getting, they could finish their manned flight capibilities without NASA.   Boeing has a track record with them. And SNC's bird reminded NASA too much of the Space Shuttle.

I think it's more likely a combination of Boeing's lobbying power combined with uncertainty about the Dream Chaser engine and concern with risk management after revelations of the details of Dragon V2.

There have been indications and rumors that Dream Chaser would switch from a hybrid engine to a liquid-fuelled one.  They've denied that this is decided, or that it would lead to a delay, but acknowledged that they are exploring the option.  The declaration that it wouldn't cause a delay came after fear, uncertainty, and doubt were spreading about SNC abandoning hybrid motors, so it wasn't entirely convincing.  In any case, SNC is generally now behaving as if they know that hybrid motors were a mistake, to be moved away from at first opportunity.

Besides, as a matter of risk management, Dream Chaser and Dragon V2 are both extremely ambitious vehicles.  CST-100 is pedestrian, mediocre, safe.  If Dragon V2 had seemed more like a fallback option, if it was just the Dragon capsule with life support and a LAS module, Dream Chaser might have won alongside Dragon.

When Dragon V2 turned out to be this extremely ambitious design, with propulsive landing capability, it couldn't be treated as the fallback anymore.  Failures in the DragonFly test program could lead to delays in Dragon V2 being ready for service.

True the CST-100 with it's old school design and landing mode is pretty much guaranteed to work.
The only new part is the airbags while the rest is been there done that.

The second most risky is DC but  the landing mode is probably one of the most thoroughly proven spacecraft landing modes despite it's complexity.
STS flew roughly the number of times as Soyuz but had less mishaps associated with it's landing mode.

If SNC chose liquid propulsion I wonder if they would have won out as then the forward RCS could have been used for reboost if they shared propellant with the OMS/Abort engines.
But they seemed set on having a non toxic RCS plus they already had a high thrust hybrid in the works.

Dragon V2 has a lot of unknowns but could be landed Soyuz style with parachutes plus rockets.