CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[edkyle99]

Actually, the rocket is being built by Ukraine, not Russia.

What rocket are you talking about?

I was talking about the RD-180 which, as far as I'm aware, is still built by NPO Energomash in Russia.

Edit: hmpft.. seems it's "made" by RD AMROSS, which is a Florida company. No idea where it is actually manufactured.

RD-180 is manufactured by NPO Energomash, which is headquartered in Khimki, Moscow State, Russia.  RD AMROSS is the joint venture with PWR that facilitates import to the U.S..

No one is going to make any RD-180s in the U.S. (or NK-33s for that matter) without the involvement of the Russian companies that own their designs. 

 - Ed Kyle

[Robotbeat]

Unless the fit hits the shan.

[Patchouli]

Unless the fit hits the shan.

I think they should start working on a domestic alternative to the RD-180.

If not a US produced RD-180 then maybe the AJ-26-500.


On down selecting I think they can bring it to Spacex,SNC,and Boeing now.
Spacex is a shoe in with their proven CRS performance which leaves the remaining two SNC and Boeing.

SNC's vehicle is better across the board but Boeing has more resources
so choosing between those two is tough.

Though maybe go with 2.5 contractors for it.
This seems the best compromise between cost and redundancy.
2 is the minimum since with 1.5 you're putting too many eggs in one basket.

[BrightLight]

Unless the fit hits the shan.

I think they should start working on a domestic alternative to the RD-180.

If not a US produced RD-180 then maybe the AJ-26-500.


On down selecting I think they can bring it to Spacex,SNC,and Boeing now.
Spacex is a shoe in with their proven CRS performance which leaves the remaining two SNC and Boeing.

SNC's vehicle is better across the board but Boeing has more resources
so choosing between those two is tough.

Though maybe go with 2.5 contractors for it.
This seems the best compromise between cost and redundancy.
2 is the minimum since with 1.5 you're putting too many eggs in one basket.

Why is the SNC DC "better across the board", the DC has to be more complex then a capsule owing to it requirement to maneuver to land and the DC TPS is under more stress than the CST-100. While i am a DC fan, the CST-100 is a smart, relatively simple design that utilizes proven technology.

[Patchouli]

Why is the SNC DC "better across the board", the DC has to be more complex then a capsule owing to it requirement to maneuver to land and the DC TPS is under more stress than the CST-100. While i am a DC fan, the CST-100 is a smart, relatively simple design that utilizes proven technology.

I has a low g reentry which is better for fragile items and it's has enough difference from Dragon and Orion to not appear redundant.

The decent and landing method is the most tested and proven of all decent and landing modes used on spacecraft.
If STS proved anything it proved that a runway landing is by far the safest mode of recovery you can't really argue too much with the statistics.
The failure that did occur with STS were launch stack interaction induced.

Would be the only vehicle to use non toxic RCS I feel this is a very important technology for the future.
As for the TPS being more highly stressed that depends.

My gripes with the CST-100 it's actually a little too conservative they made little attempt to push the envelope beyond what's been done before but it is a solid design just an uninspiring one.

[Robotbeat]

That is still much different from "better across the board." The hybrid propulsion is likely to be, in practice, much lower performance than other options, even if they can get it to work reliably (their bid would be significantly improved if they switched to something else, say ethanol and nitrous). They're also unlikely to be usable for deep space (though it's not /impossible/), unlike both Dragon and CST-100. This is perhaps half the reason to develop such a vehicle in the first place. I can see plenty of good aspects of DC, but absolutely can not see how one can claim it's better "across the board."

[Patchouli]

That is still much different from "better across the board." The hybrid propulsion is likely to be, in practice, much lower performance than other options, even if they can get it to work reliably (their bid would be significantly improved if they switched to something else, say ethanol and nitrous). They're also unlikely to be usable for deep space (though it's not /impossible/), unlike both Dragon and CST-100. This is perhaps half the reason to develop such a vehicle in the first place. I can see plenty of good aspects of DC, but absolutely can not see how one can claim it's better "across the board."

So far only Spacex has made any big claims of beyond LEO capability though mostly about their existing heat shield.


The truth is a BLEO version of any of the vehicles may be best described as derived from the LEO version due to the number of changes likely needed.
Well unless they decide to design in some of the requirements in from the start.

I give Spacex credit here as they seem to be able make quick changes to their designs.
Even a major OML change may not be a show stopper for them.

[Robotbeat]

Boeing engineers have also said the CST-100 could be used for BLEO.

Look, the biggest advantage of capsules over more complicated shapes is that they can relatively easily be used for higher reentry speeds. CST-100's shape is derived from Apollo's, for goodness sake.

Also, both CST-100 and Dragon can use the /same/ TPS technology for BLEO flights. There really aren't that many changes needed. It's even possible both could be used for BLEO reentries with just a flight software change*! ...if they both have enough margin in their TPS designs, which it appears at least Dragon has. Honestly, someone would have to come up with a good reason they /couldn't/ be used BLEO before saying "major changes" would be needed (for it really depends on internal design choices Boeing and SpaceX have made).



*and obviously an appropriate booster or LEO rendezvous with a stage or something

[erioladastra]

The decent and landing method is the most tested and proven of all decent and landing modes used on spacecraft.
If STS proved anything it proved that a runway landing is by far the safest mode of recovery you can't really argue too much with the statistics.
The failure that did occur with STS were launch stack interaction induced.

Most tested and proved???  I think if you were to add up the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, chinese and Soviet/Russian capsules you will find far more than the shuttle.  And they have shown where even failures (e.g., Soyuz 14S ballistic entry) can be recovered safely.   I think statistically you would find the capsules are safer and by far, BY FAR, cheaper to operate.  The shuttle was as safe as it was due to a tremendous amount of ground support, training, redudancy...  Your statement just doesn't fly.

[Robotbeat]

fix quotes

[spectre9]

I like CST-100.

It lands on land. Good for live coverage of egress.

Good internal volume for the diameter.

Service module propellant is used for abort. Solid abort tractor tower I find icky in comparison.

Shape can handle BEO reentry.

It's light enough to launch on existing rockets.

Compared to Orion it's a hot rod dream machine.

[Lobo]

I like CST-100.

It lands on land. Good for live coverage of egress.

Good internal volume for the diameter.

Service module propellant is used for abort. Solid abort tractor tower I find icky in comparison.

Shape can handle BEO reentry.

It's light enough to launch on existing rockets.

Compared to Orion it's a hot rod dream machine.

You could launch Orion on existing Atlas Variants if it had a LEO SM that didn't have a load of propellant to get it home from LLO.  The Capsule isn't -that- heavy, about 9mt I think.  it's the SM with it's prop load and LAS tower.  Apollo was about 6mt and had about half the pressurized volume (total). 
The Orion CSM is almost 10mt lighter than the Apollo CSM fully loaded, despite being so much larger (capsule). 

So if Orion were going to service the ISS, and there was no commercial crew program, they could certainly launch it with a partial prop load on an Atlas-552, and perhaps some of the smaller variants if they had a SM more like CST-100 (less the LAS system) or Dragon's trunk. 

The reason Ares 1 needed to be so big, and they couldn't launch it on Atlas-552 or similar, was because they needed that crew LV to be able to launch the full  prop and full sized SM for EOR for a lunar mission primarily.  And it probably didn't make much sense to man-rate an Atlas when they needed to develop another launcher for Orion's lunar missions anyway.  Dragon or CST-100 would need a significantly larger and heavier SM to go to the Moon and back, like the smaller Apollo capsule did.  In the case of DRagon, it would need a real service module with a SMME in order to do the TEI burn and perhaps a LOI burn depending on the architecture. (Assuming a mission profile similar to what the Orion SM was designed for). 
Also, the big thing to consider with CST-100, is if you need to add some mass to the capsule, and more to the SM for a BLEO mission, can the LAS system handle that extra mass?  If not, it will need a new upgraded LAS system in order to launch crews BLEO adding more expense. 
SpaceX can probably get around that since their LAS system launches the capsule only, not the capsule and SM like CST-100.  But a BLEO Draong would inevitably be heavier than the LEO version just due to the additional crew accomodations for those long durations.

Now, that said, if NASA had went with a pusher LAS system like CST-100 for Orion, they might have been able to get the mass down to where it -could- have launched on an Atlas-552 for full lunar missions, and then on a lighter variant of Atlas for an ISS servicing mission.  And during a successful launch, the LAS propellant and engines (throttleable like superdracos) would be used for the various burns during a lunar mission. 

[Lobo]

Astronaut Lee Archambault will join Sierra Nevada Corp:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/news/releases/2013/J13-007.html

Interesting.

Like I've said before, I don't tknow how NASA really needs more than one commercial crew provider.  But each of the 3 competators has a lot of strengths and I don't know how they can cancelled either.  They don't really need all three...or even two really...just one, and even that one is probably only launching twice a year. 
SpaceX already has a spacecraft flying, and have their own LV that is basically designed to be man-rated anyway. 
Boeing has a lot of clout and political connections.  THey also seem to have a pretty good design, and seem to be proceeding like they are fully expecting to get a contract, rather than just hoping to in a still active competition.
SNC has a spacecraft that promises good "visuals" for NASA, landing at KSC, and looking like a mini shuttle.  Space Planes just have good visuals even if they aren't really any better in reality than capsules.  And they seem to be ramping up as if fully expecting to get the contract.

I don't see how all 3 are chosen, but I don't see how any of them are -not- chosen...for various reasons. 

[Elmar Moelzer]

I think they should have at least 2 and simply expand the mission.
That way US astronauts wont be grounded if something (heaven forbid) was to happen to one of the operators. Personally, I would even prefer 3.

[guckyfan]

I think they should have at least 2 and simply expand the mission.
That way US astronauts wont be grounded if something (heaven forbid) was to happen to one of the operators. Personally, I would even prefer 3.

I don't see how they can have more than one. There are just two flights per year unless and until additional private Space Stations come into service. That's barely enough for one. The spare system can be Soyus as before.

A capsule system is not as likely to get out of service as the Shuttle was, so I don't see a reason for having two systems.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

It's all a problem of market for yearly persons to orbit. Current market is 8 persons per year to the ISS. With a Bigelow Alpha station that rises to a market of 48 persons per year. That’s quite a growth of 2 flights to 7 + flights per year.

At the end of CCiCAP SpaceX, Boeing and SNC will have a vehicle ready to move into the test phase requiring a pad abort, max Q abort, on orbit un-manned test followed by on orbit manned test. At $20-30M per seat the 48 person/year market is a yearly value of $960m-$1,440M. Over 5 years that’s $4.8-7.2B. This would be an incentive for some like SNC, Blue Origin and others to push forward on their own dime to produce a vehicle that can offer a competitive price or additional features for new customers such as those not willing to ride a capsule. The revenue return would quickly outstrip the additional investments made. Even if three operators were flying an average of 2-3 flights per year initially just breaking even in a market that is expanding, most business investors look for that type of situation.

SNC for example would probably need $500-1,000M additional funds to complete the testing phase, most of that cost being the Atlas V launch costs for 3 of the tests at about $350-$400M total. If they switched to an F9 there would be at least $100M in new integration costs (wind tunnel testing, etc) that would have to be funded as well as the cost of launch on 3 F9's of $180-250M, a total LV cost of $280-350M. It may not make sense to change vehicles depending on the magnitude of the integration expense plus the added integration effort would delay initial operations. A switch to F9 after initial operations would cost approximately $220-250M for the integration cost plus 2 test flights, max-Q abort and the unmanned orbital to demonstrate that the configuration would be safe to fly humans. With an operation cost reduction of ~$40M per flight at 3 flights per year where price per launch is reduced by $20M, it would take 4 years of operations to recover the cost of switching boosters. There would be added advantage here in that the system would become booster independent. DC could become the preferred ride to orbit even if it is a little more expensive.

BTW the yearly CC market size of 48 to orbit seats/yr (for ISS + the Alpha station) has a yearly value equal to the SLS operations launch contract values currently projected. SLS has limited expansion due to budget constraints, but the Commercial Crew market could grow rapidly and significantly beyond the 48 seats/yr plus it's not completely dependent on a government budget.

[vt_hokie]

I think they should have at least 2 and simply expand the mission.
That way US astronauts wont be grounded if something (heaven forbid) was to happen to one of the operators. Personally, I would even prefer 3.

I don't see how they can have more than one. There are just two flights per year unless and until additional private Space Stations come into service. That's barely enough for one. The spare system can be Soyus as before.

A capsule system is not as likely to get out of service as the Shuttle was, so I don't see a reason for having two systems.

Back when I was a naive optimist, I thought the idea was to make spaceflight more routine and allow more frequent visits to the station than our current 3 up, 3 down every few months.  But yeah, as long as current ISS expeditions represent the extent of our manned space program, the whole "commercial crew" thing really makes no sense.

[Elmar Moelzer]

Back when I was a naive optimist, I thought the idea was to make spaceflight more routine and allow more frequent visits to the station than our current 3 up, 3 down every few months.

That is what I thought as well. But I guess there is no money to extent space station operations because it all goes to the SLS...
I still think commercial crew makes sense (much cheaper than anything else). It is the rest of the politics that dont make sense (the original plan of the administration was much better, btw).

[guckyfan]

Back when I was a naive optimist, I thought the idea was to make spaceflight more routine and allow more frequent visits to the station than our current 3 up, 3 down every few months.  But yeah, as long as current ISS expeditions represent the extent of our manned space program, the whole "commercial crew" thing really makes no sense.

Naive? Probably. But I will always try be be an optimist. Have seven crew on the ISS would enable a lot more science done and all it takes is two Dragon or CST-100 flights a year. Plus more supply cargo.

[Robotbeat]

Combine crew and cargo contracts, then having two suppliers is entirely feasible.