Author Topic: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread (Read 811296 times)

joek · « **Reply #440 on:** 03/22/2013 12:58 am »

Quote from: Jason1701 on 03/21/2013 11:32 pm

Quote from: mr. mark on 03/21/2013 07:02 pm
While it still is TBD, Glad to see it coming up on the launch calendar.
(2015) "4th quarter - TBD, ABS 2A - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
yearend - Dragon (manned flight to ISS) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40"
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1025272#msg1025272
That would probably be the second manned Dragon flight, right? The first would have SpaceX crew and not be on NASA's launch schedule.

Interesting, but don't see how that could be as NASA has stated no crewed flights under CCiCap SAA's, and notional certification contract timeline shows first mission no earlier than 2017. Unless SpaceX has committed to a crew test flight with their own $ (no SAA funds), and separate from and in advance of award of a certification contract, and prior to completion of certification? That would be Big Time News. Even then, given NASA's stated position, it's doubtful they would OK a crewed flight to ISS before certification is complete.

joek · « **Reply #441 on:** 03/22/2013 01:26 am »

Quote from: Zed_Noir on 03/20/2013 06:00 pm

Wonder if SpaceX and Boeing might each do a test launch of the other's capsule on their respective LVs?

Undoubtedly they could, but the probability is nil. NASA has asked for and wants in integrated capability, not a mix-and-match solution. Given that NASA wouldn't fund such, who would? SpaceX, Boeing and SNC have placed their bets, and in the absence of funds and motivation to move those bets, the table is set.

Zed_Noir · « **Reply #442 on:** 03/22/2013 06:09 am »

Quote from: joek on 03/22/2013 01:26 am

Quote from: Zed_Noir on 03/20/2013 06:00 pm
Wonder if SpaceX and Boeing might each do a test launch of the other's capsule on their respective LVs?

Undoubtedly they could, but the probability is nil. NASA has asked for and wants in integrated capability, not a mix-and-match solution. Given that NASA wouldn't fund such, who would? SpaceX, Boeing and SNC have placed their bets, and in the absence of funds and motivation to move those bets, the table is set.

Maybe Bigelow. Remember reading that Bigelow might offer CST-100 flights on the Falcon. I guess the Atlas V is a bit pricey for regular use to the Bigelow Station Alpha.

Jim · « **Reply #443 on:** 03/22/2013 11:15 am »

Quote from: Zed_Noir on 03/22/2013 06:09 am

Maybe Bigelow. Remember reading that Bigelow might offer CST-100 flights on the Falcon.

No, that would have to be Boeing to offer it to Bigelow.

Lurker Steve · « **Reply #444 on:** 03/22/2013 12:41 pm »

Quote from: Jason1701 on 03/21/2013 11:32 pm

Quote from: mr. mark on 03/21/2013 07:02 pm
While it still is TBD, Glad to see it coming up on the launch calendar.

(2015) "4th quarter - TBD, ABS 2A - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
yearend - Dragon (manned flight to ISS) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40"

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1025272#msg1025272

That would probably be the second manned Dragon flight, right? The first would have SpaceX crew and not be on NASA's launch schedule.

Every launch has to be on the schedule, even if it's just a commerical payload, which this flight technically qualifies as.

Soralin · « **Reply #445 on:** 03/23/2013 09:55 am »

Quote from: Lurker Steve on 03/22/2013 12:41 pm

Quote from: Jason1701 on 03/21/2013 11:32 pm
Quote from: mr. mark on 03/21/2013 07:02 pm
While it still is TBD, Glad to see it coming up on the launch calendar.

(2015) "4th quarter - TBD, ABS 2A - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40
yearend - Dragon (manned flight to ISS) - Falcon 9 v1.1 - Canaveral SLC-40"

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.msg1025272#msg1025272

That would probably be the second manned Dragon flight, right? The first would have SpaceX crew and not be on NASA's launch schedule.

Every launch has to be on the schedule, even if it's just a commerical payload, which this flight technically qualifies as.

Could they be launching SpaceX crew to the ISS for their crew qualification/demonstration/whatever flight then? Demonstrate a complete trip to the ISS and back?

It doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of intermediate steps to test there, going from cargo to crew, that would prevent them from just doing a quick full run, there and back, once they're ready to put people into it.

yg1968 · « **Reply #446 on:** 05/31/2013 10:22 pm »

Quote from: AnalogMan on 05/31/2013 08:54 pm

Latest Commercial Spaceflight 60-Day Report (May 2013) has just been posted:

Here is the link to the 60-day report:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/752771main_May_2013_60_Day_Report_508.pdf

corrodedNut · « **Reply #447 on:** 06/06/2013 01:39 pm »

Quote from: yg1968 on 05/31/2013 10:22 pm

Quote from: AnalogMan on 05/31/2013 08:54 pm
Latest Commercial Spaceflight 60-Day Report (May 2013) has just been posted:

Here is the link to the 60-day report:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/752771main_May_2013_60_Day_Report_508.pdf

"The pad abort test article consists of a Dragon test capsule sitting on top of a trunk structure in the center of the pad. A successful abort test will carry the Dragon capsule away from the launch pad and towards the ocean. The main parachutes will deploy once the capsule is stabilized."

Sounds like the mobile transporter and launch mount will be in the hangar for this test, and the "trunk structure" will probably not be flight-like.

newpylong · « **Reply #448 on:** 07/01/2013 05:02 pm »

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_01_2013_p26-589690.xml&p=1

GBpatsfan · « **Reply #449 on:** 07/01/2013 07:16 pm »

Quote from: newpylong on 07/01/2013 05:02 pm

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_01_2013_p26-589690.xml&p=1

Man that has a lot of good info on both Boeing and SpaceX and their respective capsules.

mr. mark · « **Reply #450 on:** 07/01/2013 07:33 pm »

"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”

News of the day (at least to me)... Boeing to meet with SpaceX soon to discuss launching CST-100 on Falcon 9. Up until now it was just rumors looks like it may be heading in that direction.

Jim · « **Reply #451 on:** 07/01/2013 07:39 pm »

Quote from: mr. mark on 07/01/2013 07:33 pm

"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”

News of the day (at least to me)... Boeing to meet with SpaceX soon to discuss launching CST-100 on Falcon 9. Up until now it was just rumors looks like it may be heading in that direction.

No, it was not rumors, they have be stating that all along. This is no indication that they are selecting F9 over Atlas.

JasonAW3 · « **Reply #452 on:** 07/01/2013 08:19 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 07/01/2013 07:39 pm

Quote from: mr. mark on 07/01/2013 07:33 pm
"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”

News of the day (at least to me)... Boeing to meet with SpaceX soon to discuss launching CST-100 on Falcon 9. Up until now it was just rumors looks like it may be heading in that direction.

No, it was not rumors, they have be stating that all along. This is no indication that they are selecting F9 over Atlas.

Always a good idea to keep you're options open. Might be a time where there's a need for a fast turn around and SpaceX has a rocket ready but no Dragon, while Boing might have a CST-100 ready but no rocket. This would save time and headaches, as well as potentilaly 'right sizing' a payload to the launcher.

Jason

Lurker Steve · « **Reply #453 on:** 07/01/2013 08:46 pm »

Quote from: JasonAW3 on 07/01/2013 08:19 pm

Quote from: Jim on 07/01/2013 07:39 pm
Quote from: mr. mark on 07/01/2013 07:33 pm
"We'll be going over [to SpaceX] soon to see what it will take to make sure our new vehicle is compatible with the Falcon 9. If the price point stays extremely attractive then that is the smart thing to do.”

News of the day (at least to me)... Boeing to meet with SpaceX soon to discuss launching CST-100 on Falcon 9. Up until now it was just rumors looks like it may be heading in that direction.

No, it was not rumors, they have be stating that all along. This is no indication that they are selecting F9 over Atlas.

Always a good idea to keep you're options open. Might be a time where there's a need for a fast turn around and SpaceX has a rocket ready but no Dragon, while Boing might have a CST-100 ready but no rocket. This would save time and headaches, as well as potentilaly 'right sizing' a payload to the launcher.

Jason

I believe they will need to have the LV ordered well in advance. There is no last-minute scramble to find a LV.

In addition, since NASA would be ordering an "integrated" system, Boeing and SpaceX would need to go thru another round of certification tests to validate the complete system. Since there is no "standard" for this stuff, they would need to integrate the CST-100's LAS with the fault-detection logic on F9. Also, another round of wind-tunnel tests, etc. How many launches on F9 are necessary to make this worthwhile ?

I assume there is no way this would have been possible on a F9 V1.0, since it already requires a Atlas V 412. If V1.1 loses too much performance due to the added weight for re-usability, it might not be suitable either.

Jim · « **Reply #454 on:** 07/01/2013 08:57 pm »

Quote from: JasonAW3 on 07/01/2013 08:19 pm

Always a good idea to keep you're options open. Might be a time where there's a need for a fast turn around and SpaceX has a rocket ready but no Dragon, while Boing might have a CST-100 ready but no rocket. This would save time and headaches, as well as potentilaly 'right sizing' a payload to the launcher.

They aren't that interchangable. That would require advanced planning and money. Boeing and Spacex would have to be ready as though either Dragon or CST-100 were going to fly, it can't be done as an afterthought. Also, Spacex has other spacecraft in the queue that might want to go earlier.

yg1968 · « **Reply #455 on:** 07/03/2013 03:56 am »

A bit of a late update:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/cert-joint-testing.html#.UdLxf6wlI4k

AnalogMan · « **Reply #456 on:** 07/03/2013 09:29 am »

Quote from: yg1968 on 07/03/2013 03:56 am

A bit of a late update:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/crew/cert-joint-testing.html#.UdLxf6wlI4k

I noticed we have yet another acronym to learn!

"The newest certification phase expected to kick off next summer will be called the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap). The program manager said CCtCap will include at least one crewed demonstration mission to the orbiting laboratory."

vt_hokie · « **Reply #457 on:** 07/03/2013 03:36 pm »

I can't help but look at this program and think, what a disaster in the making. So, it's pretty much assured that two out of the three contenders are going to be dead-ends and pretty much just money down the drain for nothing?

ClaytonBirchenough · « **Reply #458 on:** 07/03/2013 04:12 pm »

Quote from: AnalogMan on 07/03/2013 09:29 am

I noticed we have yet another acronym to learn!

"The newest certification phase expected to kick off next summer will be called the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap). The program manager said CCtCap will include at least one crewed demonstration mission to the orbiting laboratory."

They're killing me with these acronyms!!!

ClaytonBirchenough · « **Reply #459 on:** 07/03/2013 04:13 pm »

Quote from: vt_hokie on 07/03/2013 03:36 pm

I can't help but look at this program and think, what a disaster in the making. So, it's pretty much assured that two out of the three contenders are going to be dead-ends and pretty much just money down the drain for nothing?

Sounds pretty bad when you put it that way...