CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[QuantumG]

Yes.  CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.  L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.

I thought yg1968's question was relevant:

If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

.. as was my reply. What's off-topic about it?

Whether we like it or not, commercial crew's funding is tied to SLS/Orion funding. The "public option" for ISS crew transport has not gone away. The better that option can be justified, the more perilous commercial crew's funding becomes.

[Robotbeat]

If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

Almost certainly that would be separate from the initial commercial crew contracts to ISS, and would be considerably later. So the initial contract(s) must be based solely on ISS needs, not exploration needs.
...

(emphasis mine)
Why "must"? Is there some law that says NASA must only engage in short-term thinking? Or is this some Congressional/NASA powers who don't want commercial crew getting a toe-hold on their exploration turf?

[joek]

Yes.  CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.  L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.

I thought yg1968's question was relevant:

If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

.. as was my reply. What's off-topic about it?

Because this is the "CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread", and CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.

Does anyone reasonably claim that potential future use of commercial crew transport may support other programs (such as an L2 gateway)?  I'd say "yes".

Does anyone reasonably claim that the viability of commercial crew transport can, should or must be based on the efficacy of those other programs?  I'd say, "no".

In short, two very different discussions IMHO.

[Robotbeat]

Yes.  CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.  L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.

I thought yg1968's question was relevant:

If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

.. as was my reply. What's off-topic about it?

Because this is the "CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread", and CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.

Does anyone reasonably claim that potential future use of commercial crew transport may support other programs (such as an L2 gateway)?  I'd say "yes".

Does anyone reasonably claim that the viability of commercial crew transport can, should or must be based on the efficacy of those other programs?  I'd say, "no".

In short, two very different discussions IMHO.

Jorge went much further than you did and suggested that NASA shouldn't (can't?) take into account future uses of commercial crew. That is pretty ridiculous, if true. Commercial crew's purpose certainly goes beyond ISS, and to /ONLY/ consider its relevance to ISS and nothing else puts it at a SEVERE disadvantage, especially if you're only considering ISS to 2020.

Jorge, what's the story, here?

[yg1968]

Yes.  CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.  L2-or-whatever discussion belongs elsewhere.

I thought yg1968's question was relevant:

If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

.. as was my reply. What's off-topic about it?

Because this is the "CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread", and CCDev-CCiCap-CTS is primarily about ISS crew transport.

Does anyone reasonably claim that potential future use of commercial crew transport may support other programs (such as an L2 gateway)?  I'd say "yes".

Does anyone reasonably claim that the viability of commercial crew transport can, should or must be based on the efficacy of those other programs?  I'd say, "no".

In short, two very different discussions IMHO.

Yes but I meant that commercial crew could be used for assembly of the L2 Gateway at ISS. So it is related to transportation of crew to ISS. Furthermore, the downselect to one or two providers in the next round may depend on other NASA uses for commercial crew. So they are related subjects in my opinion.   

[Lobo]

There's enough flights for two companies, if you combine crew and cargo.

Is there a provider other than SpaceX that could do both?  And I think part of the advantage Cygnus had will be it's large pressurized volume compared to Dragon, but they can't do crew.

[yg1968]

There's enough flights for two companies, if you combine crew and cargo.

Is there a provider other than SpaceX that could do both?  And I think part of the advantage Cygnus had will be it's large pressurized volume compared to Dragon, but they can't do crew.

DC can do cargo. Although, there are no plans for a cargo version, the CST-100 could also do cargo if necessary.

[Lobo]

If the L2 Gateway is first assembled at ISS. Wouldn't that also be a reason for additional crewed flights in order to assemble the gateway. 

Sure.. but they're going to be arguing for Orion for anything Gateway related. I think you just made the case for an early Orion to ISS capability.

<snip>I think relying on Soyuz alone for keeping ISS crewed (with either Orion or commercial crew as "backup") is far more likely than some switch to using Orion for regular trips to ISS, especially Orion launched on SLS.

Who said anything about regular trips to the ISS?

The question was about Gateway assembly at the ISS. How do you think they're planning to get Gateway into orbit?...

In fact, EELV-class launch vehicles are considered. They are the likely option at LEAST as much as SLS is, provided first launch this decade.

Well, Since Atlas V along with the Atlas SRB's will be man rated for commercial crew (CST-100 will use one SRB), I don’t know that there’s any reason Orion couldn’t launch from an Atlas 552 (although, it might technically be an Atlas 452 since the 5m PLF wouldn’t be used, it’d look like the CST-100 stack, but with more SRB’s).
Orion –would- need a cut down service module to make it light enough though.  But that would probably be less expensive than launching a whole SLS just to get Orion to the ISS.
Dunno if there’ll ever be a need for that, but I’d think it could be done.

[Lobo]

There's enough flights for two companies, if you combine crew and cargo.

Is there a provider other than SpaceX that could do both?  And I think part of the advantage Cygnus had will be it's large pressurized volume compared to Dragon, but they can't do crew.

DC can do cargo. Although, there are no plans for a cargo version, the CST-100 could also do cargo if necessary.

Other than small cargo that could fit throught the docking port in an uncrewed CST-100, what else could CST-100 do?  Again, as I understand, I think the stretched Cygnus has capabilities that Dragon, CST-100, and DC can't do as far as pressurized volume.  And I think that's needed when ATV is retired.  And Cygnus can't do crew.
I tink that's where it gets tricky.  in theory, yea, two providers doing both cargo and crew seems ideal.   If it could be mae to work. 

Maybe CST-100 could be fitted with a cargo pod with a rear-facing CBM in place of the service module...which won't really be needed for cargo.  No ECLSS and LAS needed.  .  Like a Cygnus, but in reverse.  Then it's captured and berthed like Cygnus would be, with the capsule facing teh other way.  Once done, the capsule jettisons the pressurized cargo pod like it would the SM, and then returns to Earth normally. 
If something like that could be done, then SpaceX and Boeing could perhaps be both cargo and crew providers.

Ditto for SpaceX.  Just a stretched and Pressurized cargo pod rather tahn the trunk, but with the solar panels on it. 

[Robotbeat]

Russia has been just fine using Progress for logistics for several decades, and its docking port I think is even smaller than iLIDS or NDS or APAS or whatevertheheckitiscallednow. That's not actually a huge constraint especially if you have two other cargo vehicles (HTV and Dragon) which could do a full CBM. And note, Cygnus's actual hatch size is much smaller than CBM. So I see no reason why commercial crew vehicles couldn't do unmanned logistics.

Cygnus may be a good platform for the AR&D module needed for the pieces of the gateway, though that is off-topic.

[Lars_J]

There's enough flights for two companies, if you combine crew and cargo.

Is there a provider other than SpaceX that could do both?  And I think part of the advantage Cygnus had will be it's large pressurized volume compared to Dragon, but they can't do crew.

DC can do cargo. Although, there are no plans for a cargo version, the CST-100 could also do cargo if necessary.

Other than small cargo that could fit throught the docking port in an uncrewed CST-100, what else could CST-100 do?  Again, as I understand, I think the stretched Cygnus has capabilities that Dragon, CST-100, and DC can't do as far as pressurized volume.  And I think that's needed when ATV is retired.  And Cygnus can't do crew.
I tink that's where it gets tricky.  in theory, yea, two providers doing both cargo and crew seems ideal.   If it could be mae to work.

One thing to note about Cygnus is that while it certainly has more pressurized cargo volume than Dragon, it does *not* have a full sized CBM hatch - it has a smaller hatch than Cargo Dragon. (see attached images for comparison)

I don't think doing cargo deliveries through a APAS/SIMAC hatch is a problem - 95+% of the cargo should not need the full CBM hatch. I see no reason why cargo runs with DC or CST-100 should be a problem.

I agree that two combined CRS2/CCrew contracts would be ideal. Two providers to provide both crew and cargo capabilities.

[Lobo]

What about the length of Cygnus, particularly the stretched Cygnus, vs. CST-100 and DRagon?
The stretched Cygnus will be almost 5m long, and have 27 cu meters pressurized volume, compared to about 10 cu m for Dragon, and I think CST-100 will be similar.

Myself, again, I'd like two total providers to supply both, as that gives both redundancy, adn efficiency.  And NASA could dump one or the other if they started screwing them around. 
Preferrably Dragon/F9, and then something flying on Atlas V.  So not only are there two spacecraft, but two LV's for better redundancy.
SpaceX and Boeing woudl probably be the two most likely candidates, as Cygnus can't do crew, and DC I think will be pretty limited on it's cargo capabilities, even if there were a stripped out dedicated cargo version of it.  But who knows, maybe DC would work for cargo.

But, I'm just repeating some things I've herad around the forums about why the capabilities of Cygnus can't be replicated by Boieng, SNC, or SpaceX.

[Robotbeat]

HTV can do full-sized stuff, so there's as much redundancy as you need right there.

[rcoppola]

Dragon has the ability to provide much needed Down-mass. In fact, as we all know, it's currently the only commercial provider with that capability under contract. Not to say that CST or DC couldn't do this in the future, but that is NOT what they are being given the opportunity to provide NASA with.

Dragon, is exceptionally well positioned for the long-term.

My main concern with CCiCAP is NASA's predilection to go beyond requirements definition and slip into Design direction. Of course, being as this is crew and not cargo, they will be even more intimately involved  in the process, which I think even the commercial providers appreciate to a large degree. But this is a new dance for NASA and I hope in some ways they don't step on too many toes...so to speak.
 

[manboy]

HTV can do full-sized stuff, so there's as much redundancy as you need right there.

Doesn't HTV have a limited number of flights left?

[yg1968]

HTV can do full-sized stuff, so there's as much redundancy as you need right there.

Doesn't HTV have a limited number of flights left?

No HTVs will be extended. Gerst said that more HTVs will be needed for ISS but that more ATVs weren't needed. 

[yg1968]

There will be no test flights under the CCiCap optional milestones period according to a NASA statement sent to ASAP:

"NASA will not fly people to orbit under a Space Act Agreement," said Joe Dyer, the panel’s chair, reading from a NASA statement.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130125/SPACE/130125025/Safety-panel-discusses-NASA-concerns-KSC-meeting

Here are the minutes from that ASAP meeting:
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/ASAP_Public_Meeting_Minutes_1st-Qtr-2013.pdf

Here is a quote from page 4 of the minutes:

VADM Dyer read a statement prepared by NASA regarding certification:

“NASA is running the CPC contracts in parallel with the Commercial Crew Integration Capability (CCiCap) space act agreements today. This is allowed because they are separate activities with distinct goals. However, the goals of the program do not change nor do they end at the conclusion of the [SAA] base period. There has been no formal Agency-level decision at an Acquisition Strategy Meeting regarding the specific scope and mechanism of the Phase 2 Certification effort. However, we have determined that all NASA certification activity needs to be performed under a Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)-based contract. In addition, NASA has been clear that it does not intend to exercise the optional milestones [carrying out flight test by the provider under the SAA]. However, NASA may choose to pursue some of the initial optional milestones or a portion of a milestone if exercising them furthers the purpose of developing a capability that could ultimately be available to serve both government and commercial customers, but the benefit to the government would need to be high. NASA will not fly people to orbit under a space act agreement.”

[jongoff]

It is also worth noting that commercial crew commitments for FY2013 total ~$625M = ~$595M CCiCap milestones + ~$30M CPC.  Some of the difference might be made up with funds carried forward (?), but there still appears to be a significant hole--even without sequestration reductions--that I've yet to see explained.

I'm surprised nobody else has commented on this one yet. Does anybody know how much if any funds were going to carry forward from FY12? My curiosity has definitely been piqued.

~Jon

[Lurker Steve]

It is also worth noting that commercial crew commitments for FY2013 total ~$625M = ~$595M CCiCap milestones + ~$30M CPC.  Some of the difference might be made up with funds carried forward (?), but there still appears to be a significant hole--even without sequestration reductions--that I've yet to see explained.

I'm surprised nobody else has commented on this one yet. Does anybody know how much if any funds were going to carry forward from FY12? My curiosity has definitely been piqued.

~Jon

I didn't see that math, but I'm not suprised.

Ed Mango has been running the program like he has the $850 million from the president's proposed budget, instead of the actual dollar amounts authorized by Congress.

[yg1968]

It is also worth noting that commercial crew commitments for FY2013 total ~$625M = ~$595M CCiCap milestones + ~$30M CPC.  Some of the difference might be made up with funds carried forward (?), but there still appears to be a significant hole--even without sequestration reductions--that I've yet to see explained.

I'm surprised nobody else has commented on this one yet. Does anybody know how much if any funds were going to carry forward from FY12? My curiosity has definitely been piqued.

~Jon

Ed Mango has mentionned that 75% of the FY 2012 amount for commercial crew would be spent on CCiCap (the other 25% was spent on CCDev2 optional milestones). So you have 75% x 406M = $304.5M for CCiCap for FY 2012. Plus you have at least $385M for commercial crew for FY 2013 if the sequester kicks in (reduction of 5% over FY 2012 amounts) and if the CR continues for the rest of the year. I am not sure about the exact number but I believe that the commercial crew office gets about $30M per year from the commercial crew budget (which must be substracted from the above amounts).  So you get about $637M (95%x406M-30M+75%x406M-75%x30M) for CCiCap less the CCiCap milestones that were already paid in FY 2012 (which obviously don't get carried over to FY 2013) which were for an amount of $160M (60M+20M+50M+30M) based on the SAAs.

So you get about $477M for CCiCap for FY 2013 according to my rough estimates if you carryover the FY 2012 amounts. The commercial crew office was expecting $525M based on the Senate's draft FY 2013 appropriation legislation. So that would essentially explain the hole of about $140-150M (525M-386M =139M) caused by the CR and the sequester.

See this link for more information:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28395.msg881383#msg881383