CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Robotbeat]

Clunky-legged, single-engined Grasshopper 1.0 was for close in testing.  Grasshopper 1.1 apparently is for full flight envelope.

Far from it.  They will being doing things with FH boosters before GH is ready.

how are you guys disagreeing, here? GH2 (whatever) will be more capable than GH1, but won't be ready until after v1.1 (and Falcon heavy?) flies, probably several times. Or do you have some insight on FH?

[Jason1701]

Clunky-legged, single-engined Grasshopper 1.0 was for close in testing.  Grasshopper 1.1 apparently is for full flight envelope.

Far from it.  They will being doing things with FH boosters before GH is ready.

No, I think Funchucks was right.

[Rocket Science]

^

So the trajectory is along the coast or something? Otherwise there is no guarantee it will reach a runway. Then the crew would have to bail out before hitting the water.

P.S. Ah those are shuttle abort modes . Well but the shuttle had a whole tank of fuel to boost back to the launch site.

Sorry I couldn’t reply, storm knocked out the power.  Yes, it will fly up the east coast and then over Europe as Shuttle did (see attached). It really is about energy, how high, how far and how fast where you would land with many opportunities to land on a field. It has been discussed over the years on the DC threads, have a look. I need to mention again DC has no parachutes to lower it for landing...

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_overview.html
http://www.universetoday.com/14159/shuttle-launch-controllers-prepared-to-press-self-destruct-button/

[Rocket Science]

^

TAL? ATO?

I read something about crew bailout, which would be ok I guess.

The Dreamchaser is by far the coolest design, but I fear its also the most expensive to maintain.

OK I'll bite -
The design of the HL-20 from the outset was for a reduced cost, low maintenance spacecraft (compared to Shuttle), the DC is an outgrowth and evolution of the HL-20, why do you feel that the DC will be the most expensive to maintain?

The HL-20 is a shape.  Details of a shape aren't really known to correlate all that much with cost.

I agree with you that shape and cost are probably poorly correlated however, the design of the HL-20 had maintenance and refurbishment "built-in" such as access panels, simple engine replacement etc. The DC went a step further with the TPS "slipper" system for  replacement of the lower section. These design choices should make the DC competitive, hopefully the DC will make it to flight so that the long-term costs of operation can be extrapolated.

The “ablative slipper” has been rethought to conventional evolved TPS as on X-37 at this point.

[Oli]

Sorry I couldn’t reply, storm knocked out the power.  Yes, it will fly up the east coast and then over Europe as Shuttle did (see attached). It really is about energy, how high, how far and how fast where you would land with many opportunities to land on a field. It has been discussed over the years on the DC threads, have a look. I need to mention again DC has no parachutes to lower it for landing...

Indulge me. The shuttle required to fire its engines to change its trajectory to the launch site or to the coast. And I read this about the HL-20:

Once at a safe distance, a cluster of three emergency parachutes would open to lower the vehicle to a safe ocean landing. Inflatable flotation devices ensure that it rides high in the water, with at least one of two hatches available for crew emergency egress.

[BrightLight]

Sorry I couldn’t reply, storm knocked out the power.  Yes, it will fly up the east coast and then over Europe as Shuttle did (see attached). It really is about energy, how high, how far and how fast where you would land with many opportunities to land on a field. It has been discussed over the years on the DC threads, have a look. I need to mention again DC has no parachutes to lower it for landing...

Indulge me. The shuttle required to fire its engines to change its trajectory to the launch site or to the coast. And I read this about the HL-20:

Once at a safe distance, a cluster of three emergency parachutes would open to lower the vehicle to a safe ocean landing. Inflatable flotation devices ensure that it rides high in the water, with at least one of two hatches available for crew emergency egress.

Good question, to my knowledge (which is limited) this aspect of the HL-20 is not on the DC. Maybe one of the SNC folks can answer this aspect of abort scenarios.

[mr. mark]

NASA reporting that it may go down to two competitors for next round.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36559next-round-of-commercial-crew-round-likely-to-support-only-two-competitors

[vt_hokie]

I hope that Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser makes the cut! Having two roughly comparable capsules in CST-100 and Dragon would be kind of pointless and boring. Hopefully the "dissimilar redundancy" offered by a reusable lifting body spacecraft with low reentry g-loads and high cross-range will appeal to NASA.

If not, I hope Sierra Nevada can keep the program alive somehow so that all of the work to date (going back to HL-20 and earlier) isn't for naught.

[manboy]

I hope that Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser makes the cut! Having two roughly comparable capsules in CST-100 and Dragon would be kind of pointless and boring.

Why do you believe it would be "pointless"?

Hopefully the "dissimilar redundancy" offered by a reusable lifting body spacecraft with low reentry g-loads and high cross-range will appeal to NASA.

That's not what dissimilar redundancy is. Eventually CCDev is going to downselect to one.

[Go4TLI]

Hopefully the "dissimilar redundancy" offered by a reusable lifting body spacecraft with low reentry g-loads and high cross-range will appeal to NASA.

That's not what dissimilar redundancy is. Eventually CCDev is going to downselect to one.

Actually that is exactly what it means. 

For those who think SpaceX is the answer to everything, I find it ironic that all the arguements against shuttle, etc were that the "eggs were in one basket" and now it seems perfectly acceptable to give SpaceX cargo and crew and on the same rocket and with only a variant Dragon. 

Sure, give them 39A too.  Unfortunately thus far, while they have made accomplishments no doubt, their rhetoric has not matched reality. 

[newpylong]

I think you are confusing Fan Boy with company rhetoric.

I have seen nothing but class (with a little cockyness) out of Hawthorne.
The same cannot be said for the more vocal "new space" community that follows them, which often seems to bend reality.

[manboy]

Hopefully the "dissimilar redundancy" offered by a reusable lifting body spacecraft with low reentry g-loads and high cross-range will appeal to NASA.

That's not what dissimilar redundancy is. Eventually CCDev is going to downselect to one.

Actually that is exactly what it means. 

For those who think SpaceX is the answer to everything, I find it ironic that all the arguements against shuttle, etc were that the "eggs were in one basket" and now it seems perfectly acceptable to give SpaceX cargo and crew and on the same rocket and with only a variant Dragon. 

He didn't claim dissimilar redundancy came from having Commercial Crew use different spacecraft and rockets than Commercial Cargo. He claimed it came from having a non-capsule design. So no, that is not dissimilar redundancy.

[clongton]

Dreamchaser is not designed to carry crew and cargo. It is a crew vehicle. Any "cargo" that accompanies the crew will likely be personal items of the crews' or small stores of consumables that either don't rate a cargo launch or can't wait for one. In either case any cargo going uphill will be minor at most. SN does not advertise the Dreamchaser as a cargo vehicle.

[Go4TLI]

Dreamchaser is not designed to carry crew and cargo. It is a crew vehicle. Any "cargo" that accompanies the crew will likely be personal items of the crews' or small stores of consumables that either don't rate a cargo launch or can't wait for one. In either case any cargo going uphill will be minor at most. SN does not advertise the Dreamchaser as a cargo vehicle.

That's not precisely true. 

[newpylong]

It would have the benefit of being able to return the most g limited cargo back to earth, something none of the others will.

[MP99]

Hopefully the "dissimilar redundancy" offered by a reusable lifting body spacecraft with low reentry g-loads and high cross-range will appeal to NASA.

That's not what dissimilar redundancy is. Eventually CCDev is going to downselect to one.

Actually that is exactly what it means. 

For those who think SpaceX is the answer to everything, I find it ironic that all the arguements against shuttle, etc were that the "eggs were in one basket" and now it seems perfectly acceptable to give SpaceX cargo and crew and on the same rocket and with only a variant Dragon.

Surely, in this context, it just means F9/Merlin vs Atlas/RD-180/RL-10, and three spacecraft with very little in common component- or design-wise?

Downselect to DC & CST-100 would leave both vulnerable to Atlas being grounded, but otherwise what issue that grounds Dragon would be more likely to ground CST-100 and less to ground DC (the whole point of dissimilar redundancy, as I understand it)?

Certainly they're dissimilar capabilities, which has it's own value.

cheers, Martin

[erioladastra]

NASA reporting that it may go down to two competitors for next round.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36559next-round-of-commercial-crew-round-likely-to-support-only-two-competitors

While it is a great ideal, anything but one will just mean a delay past 2017.  Just no way around it - unless lightening strikes and the CCP gets a HUGE budget increase.  And that is not going to happen. 

[Robotbeat]

NASA reporting that it may go down to two competitors for next round.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36559next-round-of-commercial-crew-round-likely-to-support-only-two-competitors

While it is a great ideal, anything but one will just mean a delay past 2017.  Just no way around it - unless lightening strikes and the CCP gets a HUGE budget increase.  And that is not going to happen. 

This doesn't take a lightning strike, it's all human. It's the collective will and faith of enough people that determines whether a good idea will or will not happen. People like you and me influencing the influencers. Just saying.

[AnalogMan]

Four Milestones Added to Commercial Crew Agreements
Trent J. Perrotto, NASA Headquarters  Aug. 15, 2013

NASA announced Thursday it is adding some additional milestones to agreements with three U.S. commercial companies that are developing spaceflight capabilities that could eventually provide launch services to transport NASA astronauts to the International Space Station from U.S. soil.

NASA is supporting the development of these capabilities through its Commercial Crew Integrated Capability (CCiCap) initiative. As part of this initiative, NASA is exercising and funding specific additional milestones for these next generation space transportation systems. The agency has extended the Space Act Agreements (SAAs) for The Boeing Company of Houston, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, Calif., and Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) of Louisville, Colo., to include one or two additional milestones each under CCiCap.

"Our commercial partners are on-track developing innovative, new space systems that can safely, reliably and affordably transport astronauts and end the gap in U.S. human spaceflight capabilities," said William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "These additional milestones are specifically targeted by NASA and our partners to reduce risk and improve development efforts."

In their respective CCiCap SAAs, which were awarded in August 2012, NASA's partners listed optional milestones that could be exercised to continue the development and maturation of their space systems. After negotiation with the partners, NASA decided to fund revised portions of existing CCiCap optional milestones and extend the period of performance for the CCiCap SAAs from May 2014 to August 2014. The industry partners also will be contributing financially to the execution of these milestones. The revisions, in the form of amendments to the SAAs, are posted online at:

http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=38

The milestones are:

• Boeing Spacecraft Safety Review. NASA's investment is $20 million and the milestone is planned to be
   accomplished in July 2014.
• SpaceX Dragon Parachute Tests. NASA's investment is $20 million and the milestone is planned to be
   accomplished over several months culminating in November 2013.
• SNC Incremental Critical Design Review #1. NASA's investment is $5 million and the milestone is planned
   to be accomplished in October 2013.
• SNC Incremental Reaction Control System Testing #1. NASA's investment is $10 million and the milestone
   is planned to be accomplished in July 2014.

These milestones each reduce risks, advance the partners' development efforts or accelerate schedules consistent with the goals of CCiCap. NASA plans to use fiscal year 2014 funding for the total government investment of $55 million. Funding these optional milestones does not alter or affect NASA's acquisition strategy for the agency's Commercial Crew Program.

http://www.nasa.gov/content/four-milestones-added-to-commercial-crew-agreements

[Ronsmytheiii]

NASA, Congress Finalize Operating Plan for 2013

NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, intended to nurture development of commercial crew taxi services to and from the international space station, received $525 million under the final operating plan — exactly the presequestration amount Congress approved in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 (H.R. 933) signed March 26

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/37020nasa-congress-finalize-operating-plan-for-2013