CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[clongton]

Agree, I just think commercial crew then was the wrong program to try to spur innovation.  NASA's ISS crew rotation/assured crew return needs don't mesh with pushing the envelope, which means NASA really needs separate programs for doing that imo.

That actually makes a lot of sense. While true that Dragon also pushed the envelope it does it in such a way that is evolutionary of existing methodology to fill a very specific and well defined need. I had hoped to see DreamChaser win thru but in hindsight I have to admit that for the very specific need NASA is attempting to fill that DC was too much. So to all who think that the board decided that DC wasn't good enough I submit that it may have been the other way around - it was too advanced for the very specific need being filled, and thus a higher risk to the program. It's not that NASA didn't like DC because they obviously did. But it didn't fit well within the very narrow risk envelope NASA had defined for this program. VT is correct - DC would be a better fit in a NASA-sponsored X-Plane program. In such a program DC would have fared extremely well.

[joek]

...
If we take baldusi's $150M per flight, the final cost gets even lower since two of these flights are part of the development (certification) process.
...

There is one crewed flight to the ISS required for certification.  The other (2-6) flights are post-certification missions and all have the same pricing framework.

[yg1968]

...
If we take baldusi's $150M per flight, the final cost gets even lower since two of these flights are part of the development (certification) process.
...

There is one crewed flight to the ISS required for certification.  The other (2-6) flights are post-certification missions and all have the same pricing framework.

Although an uncrewed test flight is not required, it is very likely that both companies suggested one as part of their milestones.

[mr. mark]

I would argue that ESA's IEV hybrid vehicle is the possible future not winged vehicles.

[AJW]

Agree, I just think commercial crew then was the wrong program to try to spur innovation.  NASA's ISS crew rotation/assured crew return needs don't mesh with pushing the envelope, which means NASA really needs separate programs for doing that imo.

That actually makes a lot of sense. While true that Dragon also pushed the envelope it does it in such a way that is evolutionary of existing methodology to fill a very specific and well defined need. I had hoped to see DreamChaser win thru but in hindsight I have to admit that for the very specific need NASA is attempting to fill that DC was too much. So to all who think that the board decided that DC wasn't good enough I submit that it may have been the other way around - it was too advanced for the very specific need being filled, and thus a higher risk to the program. It's not that NASA didn't like DC because they obviously did. But it didn't fit well within the very narrow risk envelope NASA had defined for this program. VT is correct - DC would be a better fit in a NASA-sponsored X-Plane program. In such a program DC would have fared extremely well.

NASA also just came off decades of very direct knowledge of the high risks and costs of a space plane.  Look up STS anomalies and two LOC were only the top of a list of hundreds of failures and many near catastrophes. Regular damage and failure of the TPS.  STS-1 suffered a melted external door latch because of poorly designed tiles as well as hot gas entering a wheel well that buckled the door.  There were other issues like the ASA-1 anomalies on STS-125 which could have resulted in loss of control surfaces.  STS-51-D's flat tire and failed brakes.  While it was not the final system, DC's landing failure was a clear reminder that complex systems are subject to a far larger array of failure opportunities.  In addition, every pound devoted to flight controls, actuators, hydraulics, landing gear or tires is a pound of upmass that is lost. 

The report on the decision making process will be an important read for the DC staff as well as for all current and future spacecraft designers.

[joek]

In short, to justify CCtCap, you need to go well beyond annual/operations $seat numbers.

To be precise, that's to justify CCtCap as they chose to award it.  If they had gone with a downselect to just SpaceX it would have been justifiable on a pure cost basis within a much shorter period.

Possibly, but I would not bet on it.  Some of the numbers thrown around in these forums recently for commercial crew operational or $/seat costs appear to be extremely optimistic.  From the very recent Extending the Operational Life of the International Space Station Until 2024, NASA OIG, 18-Sep-2014:

We found the assumptions underlying NASA’s future life cycle estimates for transportation costs unrealistic. For example, NASA estimates for commercial crew transportation are based on the cost of a Soyuz seat in FY 2016 – $70.7 million per seat for a total cost of $283 million per mission for four seats. However, the Program’s independent government cost estimates project significantly higher crew transportation costs when using commercial crew companies.  ISS Program officials explained they used the price of a Soyuz seat as a planning tool and are tracking the cost of commercial crew missions as a program risk, in essence acknowledging that the price for commercial crew missions is expected to be more than the current Soyuz prices paid by the Program.

Much else of interest beyond commercial cargo and crew in that report.  I started a new thread in the ISS section for ISS-specific discussion.

[Nindalf]

I would argue that ESA's IEV hybrid vehicle is the possible future not winged vehicles.

One can imagine such a minimalistic lifting body to provide low-g reentry and cross range capability, combined with DV2-style propulsive landing + parachute backup, which would default to a capsule-style high-g reentry if the control surfaces are damaged (and ejected).

As you scale rockets up to larger diameters, the capsule that fits on top naturally tends toward higher lift:drag ratio shapes.  A flying saucer might not take more than a pair of heat-shielded paddles and software.  It may even be possible to stabilize and steer it in high-lift:drag mode propulsively without requiring an excessive mass of propellant.  I wonder if something like this is already on the drawing board for a BFR-scale (10m diameter) Dragon V3 spaceliner, with passenger capacity comparable to a 737.

Even if fully funded and realized, Dream Chaser could represent a dead end approach if there are ways to achieve its strengths without accepting its weaknesses.

[mr. mark]

LAS demands would also be different with this type of vehicle. You could have a capsule style abort without having to fly/ glide back. You could have parachute based landings in case of abort.

[edkyle99]

Keith Cowing seems to be upset that CST-100 is too Apollo ...

I'm not seeing it.  Maybe I have to look closer?

 - Ed Kyle

[Rocket Science]

Keith Cowing seems to be upset that CST-100 is too Apollo ...

I'm not seeing it.  Maybe I have to look closer?

 - Ed Kyle

He should wish it was the Apollo CM/SM...

[TomH]

I'm not seeing it.  Maybe I have to look closer?

I'm sure he meant the CM shape and size. As Jim said re. the Orion, no need to do extensive aerodynamic testing when you're using the same design. The Apollo SM had to do LOI of CSM and LM, then TEI of CSM. It was basically a combo SM and 4th stage. Skylab CSMs flew with almost empty tanks. No need for all that tankage, fuel cells, relatively large engine, etc. on CST-100, but yea, how can one disagree that the basic CM (other than modern electronics, etc.) is much different between Apollo and CST-100?

[Nibb31]

It differs in pretty much the same way a Boeing 707 differs from Boeing 787. It's just the right shape for the job.

[ChrisWilson68]

It differs in pretty much the same way a Boeing 707 differs from Boeing 787. It's just the right shape for the job.

Not really.  CST-100 has exactly the same outer mold lines as Apollo.  Exactly the same size, exactly the same shape.

It's like saying we're going to design our new 787, but we're going to make it have exactly the same outer mold lines as 707 so we can save money on aerodynamic testing -- same length, same width, same wing shape, etc.

[Lars-J]

It differs in pretty much the same way a Boeing 707 differs from Boeing 787. It's just the right shape for the job.

Not really.  CST-100 has exactly the same outer mold lines as Apollo.  Exactly the same size, exactly the same shape.

No, the CST-100 CM is larger than Apollo's CM. 4.56m diameter vs 3.9m diameter.

[Darkseraph]

Keith Cowing seems to be upset that CST-100 is too Apollo ...

I'm not seeing it.  Maybe I have to look closer?

 - Ed Kyle

He was saying it with regards to the vehicle interior, not its external shape. Obviously the external shape is very similar...but who cares! It works. Might as well say circular wheels are old hat and too 4th Millennium BC.

[Nibb31]

It differs in pretty much the same way a Boeing 707 differs from Boeing 787. It's just the right shape for the job.

Not really.  CST-100 has exactly the same outer mold lines as Apollo.  Exactly the same size, exactly the same shape.

It's not the same size or the same shape. It's larger, and the top end is flatter because NDS is wider than the Apollo docking probe. It's made of different materials, it's more streamlined, windows and propulsion are in different places.

It is superficially similar just as a Dreamliner is superficially similar to a 707, because form follows function.

[john smith 19]

There was a lot of optimism within the space enthusiast community that DC might make the final selection but the reality was that it was always the outside choice due to SNC's lack of track record as a prime  contractor (they've built lots of space rated sub systems) and continual 1/2 size funding (thank you Representative Wolfe)

Superficially they look to be in the same place that Liberty/ATK were at however unlike ATK they are not a publicly quoted company so there is no "stock price" to worry about.

That said pursuing DC at any rate will take a lot of company resources.

Interesting questions for DC management will be
1) Should (can) they re-host on a SpaceX F9, and will it be cheaper?

2)If they pursued a "source parts from every state" strategy to get the support of the Legislature would it be more cost effective to focus on fewer suppliers with better track records or even, as one poster has suggested do most (if not all) work in house?

3)Virgin Galactic would love to be able to offer orbital flights and don't seem too fussy about buying in the tech to do it. It could be said that NASA's funding had retired risk in the same way that SS1/WK1's winning of the X prize basically proved out the architecture.  In principal SNC can offer a system that's gives a)winged entry (which VG seem to like) with good cross range  b)Low g (handy given people who can afford the fare are likely to be older) c)An interesting experience even if they don't dock with a station. d)Fairly quickly (if adequately funded). A side bonus is the main engine shares it's tech with the SS2. Reports of a switch to the Orbitec pressurized liquid design seem to be so much FUD.

In hind sight it could be said DC was more flexible than the CCiCAP contract needed but was not that exactly the strategy that SpaceX pursued with the design of Dragon? Putting hooks in for future upgrades (or in the case of DC widening their envelope) is a lot easier than designing essentially 2 different vehicles.

SNC faces some very tough choices and they hinge around both the company finances and the "vision" SNCs management has of what sort of company it wants to be. 

I think once the transport contracts start for both Crewed Dragon and CTS100 (I really hope NASA learned something from the payment schedule they gave SpaceX and Orbital for cargo) we'll see if people feel CTS100 is worth the much larger payments NASA will make for each flight.

[R7]

Keith Cowing seems to be upset that CST-100 is too Apollo ...

I'm not seeing it.  Maybe I have to look closer?

 - Ed Kyle

He was saying it with regards to the vehicle interior

So what's wrong with CST-100 interior? Are dedicated gauges and switch guards old hat too?

[Bennett]

So I guess now you divide up the astronaut class, group A for Dragon and group B for CST. Since each capsule layout and interface will be different.

[edkyle99]

So I guess now you divide up the astronaut class, group A for Dragon and group B for CST. Since each capsule layout and interface will be different.

The example, I suppose, would be how NASA astronauts trained for launching on both Shuttle and Soyuz.  Won't they also be passengers, not pilots?

 - Ed Kyle