CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[newpylong]

All things said, especially compared to the overall budget, not that much is being spent on Commercial Crew development.

I don't see it is money down the drain, unless of course you consider stimulating private spaceflight and our industry a waste. All 3 providers won't get an ISS contract, but that doesn't mean they won't find customers for their vehicles.

Guess it comes down to opinion.

[baldusi]

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?

How much do you think this would have cost if it had been done under a single contractor and NASA could change and add features and requirements at will? It would have been a second Ares I. Or you'd have ended with SLS/Orion for ISS crew.
This was not the cheapest way, but it was the cheapest way as long as you have MSFC doing launch systems. BTW, this will probably also be the safest. Purely commercial might not have been as safe as if NASA is calling the risk levels.

[BrightLight]

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?

How much do you think this would have cost if it had been done under a single contractor and NASA could change and add features and requirements at will? It would have been a second Ares I. Or you'd have ended with SLS/Orion for ISS crew.
This was not the cheapest way, but it was the cheapest way as long as you have MSFC doing launch systems. BTW, this will probably also be the safest. Purely commercial might not have been as safe as if NASA is calling the risk levels.

If we recall - the NASA/congress HL-20 had a lot of funds expended on the program with little flight hardware (maybe something like 1 billion spent on studies -citation needed??). The SAA method has reduced risk and produced three potential options, all of which are workable.  If things go reasonably well (one can still hope) we will get both the highest reliability and lowest cost method to LEO for the next two or three decades.

[wronkiew]

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?

You're trying to argue that fly-offs are a waste of money. Historically this has not been the case.

[Elmar Moelzer]

I think it sucks that they are essentially killing one of the biggest advantages of commercial crew, which was redundancy. With more than one provider, american crews would not end up being grounded for years in case of a problem (and the following investigation). Instead more money will go to the Russians. Well, I guess it depends on where your political priorities are...

[joek]

I think it sucks that they are essentially killing one of the biggest advantages of commercial crew, which was redundancy. With more than one provider, american crews would not end up being grounded for years in case of a problem (and the following investigation). Instead more money will go to the Russians. Well, I guess it depends on where your political priorities are...

Agree that redundant (and in particular competitive) domestic commercial crew providers would be good.  However, let's not try to rewrite history and the goals of the program.  U.S. Domestic provider redundancy has never been a goal of commercial crew or a criteria for selection (you won't find it mentioned in any of the solicitations).

[Elmar Moelzer]

U.S. Domestic provider redundancy has never been a goal of commercial crew or a criteria for selection (you won't find it mentioned in any of the solicitations).

Hmmm, so maybe I am misunderstanding this (and other simillar quotes by NASA representatives on the topic):
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/752771main_May_2013_60_Day_Report_508_2.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,0,397

This same philosophy of dissimilar redundancy is critical to cargo transportation to space station, and will be critical to the development of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.

[joek]

Hmmm, so maybe I am misunderstanding this (and other simillar quotes by NASA representatives on the topic):

You are conflating commercial cargo and crew.  For cargo two domestic providers have been stated as a need; the same has not been stated for crew.

[newpylong]

The CST-100 and Bigelow? How about the last press conference they had (on the NASA SAA) which depicted it docked to Space Station Alpha (the two BA-330's together)... Of course at this point they will admit the vehicle is notional but let's be serious, would you use a graphic of something not under consideration?

[QuantumG]

Apologies to Funchucks, my eyes were reading what wasn't there! 

[Elmar Moelzer]

Hmmm, so maybe I am misunderstanding this (and other simillar quotes by NASA representatives on the topic):

You are conflating commercial cargo and crew.  For cargo two domestic providers have been stated as a need; the same has not been stated for crew.

and will be critical to the development of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.

I read crew here...? Scratches head.

[joek]

and will be critical to the development of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program.

I read crew here...? Scratches head.

Parse carefully, and in context...

This same philosophy of dissimilar redundancy is critical to cargo transportation to space station, and will be critical to the development of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. The successful completion of the Antares demonstration flight to space station will restore full U.S. redundancy to cargo transportation, along with NASA’s Commercial Resupply Service partner SpaceX. The Interantional Space Station Program’s cargo redundancy—rounded out by the European Automated Transfer Vehicle, the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle; and the Russian Progress—is such that space station can absorb a failure of any one of these systems without a major impact to on-orbit operations. Dissimilar redundancy is a sound engineering philosophy to which the space station program, along with its international and commercial partners, continues to adhere today.

According to Sam Scimemi, director of the International Space Station program at NASA Headquarters, “The long term viability and utilization of space station is dependent on two operational domestic cargo providers. Though currently there are multiple cargo providers across the partnership, there will be reductions in the availability in the future especially the ATV and HTV. Furthermore, spaceflight is inherently a challenging endeavor and no system is immune to significant anomalies or failures. Having two domestic cargo providers ensures that NASA’s mission in low-Earth orbit and on station is achievable.”

... which translates to: (a) a need for dissimilar redundancy for cargo and crew; (b) a call for two domestic cargo providers to ensure "viability and utilization" (note conjunction); and (c) a need for dissimilar redundancy for crew, but no statement of a need for multiple domestic providers for crew.

[AnalogMan]

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 file at the above link seems to be corrupt now.  For the record here's a link to a good version:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/752771main_May_2013_60_Day_Report_508_2.pdf

[Elmar Moelzer]

Parse carefully, and in context...

This same philosophy of dissimilar redundancy is critical to cargo transportation to space station, and will be critical to the development of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. The successful completion of the Antares demonstration flight to space station will restore full U.S. redundancy to cargo transportation, along with NASA’s Commercial Resupply Service partner SpaceX. The Interantional Space Station Program’s cargo redundancy—rounded out by the European Automated Transfer Vehicle, the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle; and the Russian Progress—is such that space station can absorb a failure of any one of these systems without a major impact to on-orbit operations. Dissimilar redundancy is a sound engineering philosophy to which the space station program, along with its international and commercial partners, continues to adhere today.

According to Sam Scimemi, director of the International Space Station program at NASA Headquarters, “The long term viability and utilization of space station is dependent on two operational domestic cargo providers. Though currently there are multiple cargo providers across the partnership, there will be reductions in the availability in the future especially the ATV and HTV. Furthermore, spaceflight is inherently a challenging endeavor and no system is immune to significant anomalies or failures. Having two domestic cargo providers ensures that NASA’s mission in low-Earth orbit and on station is achievable.”

... which translates to: (a) a need for dissimilar redundancy for cargo and crew; (b) a call for two domestic cargo providers to ensure "viability and utilization" (note conjunction); and (c) a need for dissimilar redundancy for crew, but no statement of a need for multiple domestic providers for crew.

Hmmm, see when I read it in the context of the commercial crew program, I DO read it as the need for multiple domestic commercial providers and I think that it was intended to mean that.

[Robotbeat]

Hmmm, so maybe I am misunderstanding this (and other simillar quotes by NASA representatives on the topic):

You are conflating commercial cargo and crew.  For cargo two domestic providers have been stated as a need; the same has not been stated for crew.

Um, yes it has been. It has repeatedly been stated. You're the one trying to rewrite history.

[Lobo]

... which translates to: (a) a need for dissimilar redundancy for cargo and crew; (b) a call for two domestic cargo providers to ensure "viability and utilization" (note conjunction); and (c) a need for dissimilar redundancy for crew, but no statement of a need for multiple domestic providers for crew.

So one domestic commercial crew provider, along with the Russian Soyuz, and Orion/SLS backup, could provide that "dissimilar redundancy"?

[docmordrid]

NASA crew to fly ISS test flights

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36098nasa-astronauts-to-fly-on-space-taxi-test-flights-to-station#.UdkCFL-9LTo

[clongton]

NASA crew to fly ISS test flights

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36098nasa-astronauts-to-fly-on-space-taxi-test-flights-to-station#.UdkCFL-9LTo

So at least one will be cut.

With or without NASA, Crewed Dragon will be deployed, so even though I am a Dragon enthusiast, I would advocate to cut SpaceX, for the pure purpose of allowing CST-100 and Dreamchaser to be matured and deployed long enough to allow a commercial market to develop that could support at least one of them, with or without NASA. Crewed Dragon will fly anyway, so why needlessly cut either of the other two? And if two must be cut I would cut Dragon and CST-100 in order to keep the lifting body spacecraft alive. Dreamchaser offers the most cross range, the largest launch and recovery windows, earth-wide landing capability and the gentlest return flight for delicate payload and/or injured personnel. It's landing opportunities and cross range exceed even Shuttle's because it can utilized much shorter runways than Shuttle for emergency returns.

Cutting SpaceX will not stop Crewed Dragon from flying, but cutting either of the other 2 would, imo, be a death blow to that spacecraft.

[vt_hokie]

I can't help but think that Dream Chaser is being used as eye candy for the CCDev program while already being doomed to cancellation (its image tends to get used in a lot of media coverage because, let's face it, it's sexier looking than capsules).  It's already at half-funding relative to the other two designs (so when it comes time to cut losses, hard to see how it survives).  I hope I'm wrong.

[newpylong]

I agree 100%.

With or without NASA, Crewed Dragon will be deployed, so even though I am a Dragon enthusiast, I would advocate to cut SpaceX, for the pure purpose of allowing CST-100 and Dreamchaser to be matured and deployed long enough to allow a commercial market to develop that could support at least one of them, with or without NASA. Crewed Dragon will fly anyway, so why needlessly cut either of the other two? And if two must be cut I would cut Dragon and CST-100 in order to keep the lifting body spacecraft alive. Dreamchaser offers the most cross range, the largest launch and recovery windows, earth-wide landing capability and the gentlest return flight for delicate payload and/or injured personnel. It's landing opportunities and cross range exceed even Shuttle's because it can utilized much shorter runways than Shuttle for emergency returns.

Cutting SpaceX will not stop Crewed Dragon from flying, but cutting either of the other 2 would, imo, be a death blow to that spacecraft.