CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread

[Elmar Moelzer]

This implies more than one test flight, which is at least two Atlas V launches, which is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  SNC isn't so big they can throw hundreds of millions of dollars to something that is only a small part of their operations without seriously harming the whole company.

Well they have over 750 million in just government contracts every year and that is not all of their business. So over a few years, they might very well be able to set aside the funds. Also maybe ULA would co sponsor the flight (after all they would benefit as well if DC was selected, providing the LV and all that).

[erioladastra]

This implies more than one test flight, which is at least two Atlas V launches, which is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  SNC isn't so big they can throw hundreds of millions of dollars to something that is only a small part of their operations without seriously harming the whole company.

How many flights are the other vendors planning before a crewed flight to the ISS, which I assume NASA will pay for ?

Pad abort test does not require a launch vehicle, just the proper interface structure. This is where we get to see if those hybrid engines have enough oomph to get Dream Chaser successfully away from the LV and let it turn and land on a nearby runway.

They need the LV for the in-flight abort scenario, if they need to demonstrate it to the FAA / NASA.

Maybe one more LV for a "normal" test flight that lasts a day or two in orbit.

Do they need more flights than this ?

There is no set number nor is an in flight test abort required.  It is up tot he companies to define how many flights and of what type they need.  Obviously NASA will need to agree to the plan before NASA astronauts are put on the vehicle (which appears to now be required for the test flights also) or before entering the ISS's Keep Out Sphere.  Theoretically (and this I just an example, have no idea if it is the plan), SpaceX could make tweaks on their cargo and then put crew to the ISS on the first manned vehicle if they could show that it has demonstrated it is ready to do so. 

[Robotbeat]

Is there any hardcore reason why SNC couldn't do an abort test on a vastly-cheaper Falcon 9?

[savuporo]

Is there any hardcore reason why SNC couldn't do an abort test on a vastly-cheaper Falcon 9?

Yeah, they didnt book that launch 2 years ago.

[guckyfan]

Is there any hardcore reason why SNC couldn't do an abort test on a vastly-cheaper Falcon 9?

Yeah, they didnt book that launch 2 years ago.

Did they book a Atlas V? Or can they get a flight from ULA on short notice?

Edited typo.

[Lurker Steve]

Is there any hardcore reason why SNC couldn't do an abort test on a vastly-cheaper Falcon 9?

Because of the design work already in process that mates the vehicle to Atlas.
The whole design for mating the craft to the top of centaur, The fairing, LAS interface, wind tunnel tests, etc.
I'm sure that any test flight is more than 2 years away. At that point, it may be easier to find an opening on the Atlas manifest than SpaceX.
 

[Robotbeat]

Is there any hardcore reason why SNC couldn't do an abort test on a vastly-cheaper Falcon 9?

Because of the design work already in process that mates the vehicle to Atlas.
The whole design for mating the craft to the top of centaur, The fairing, LAS interface, wind tunnel tests, etc.
I'm sure that any test flight is more than 2 years away. At that point, it may be easier to find an opening on the Atlas manifest than SpaceX.

How do you know for sure that they have only been looking at talking to the Atlas V folk?

[Rocket Science]

SNC could even go to Orbital for a “new” version of Little Joe II tests....

[Lurker Steve]

How do you know for sure that they have only been looking at talking to the Atlas V folk?

I don't know anything for sure. It just seems that with the pace of their development, they are only working on integrating with 1 launch vehicle at a time, and they are not working on integrating with their commercial crew competition.

[Occupymars]

It's nearly been a year since we got a proper status update on the Commercial Crew program!
>

January 9th to be precise. Anyone hear any indicators when the next one will be?

[edkyle99]

It's nearly been a year since we got a proper status update on the Commercial Crew program!
>

January 9th to be precise. Anyone hear any indicators when the next one will be?

Here's your update. 
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/38944nasa-may-order-more-soyuz-rides-to-station-despite-commercial-crew

 - Ed Kyle

[Robotbeat]

It seems more important that commercial crew is not seen as "winning" (financially, at very least) at the expense of SLS/Orion than we actually stop having to pay the Russians. I hope I'm wrong.

[yg1968]

There is also this presentation by McAlister to the NAC:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/20131209_heocnac_mcalister_tagged.pdf

[Occupymars]

It's nearly been a year since we got a proper status update on the Commercial Crew program!
>

January 9th to be precise. Anyone hear any indicators when the next one will be?

Here's your update. 
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/38944nasa-may-order-more-soyuz-rides-to-station-despite-commercial-crew

 - Ed Kyle

Delightful news! -_-

[Occupymars]

There is also this presentation by McAlister to the NAC:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/20131209_heocnac_mcalister_tagged.pdf

Cool I haven't seen that pdf before thank's but still not much of an update. I demand a video update

[AnalogMan]

Another recent update document:

Dec 20, 2013 "Commercial Spaceflight - 60 Day Report, Issue 13"

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASAROIReport_Dec2013_TAGGED.pdf

[yg1968]

Commercial crew will get $696M for FY 2014. See the post below:

Here is a copy of the FY 2014 CJS Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 158 of the bill):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-h3547-hamdt2samdt_xml.pdf

Here is a copy of the report (NASA starts at page 112 of the PDF):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-FM-B.pdf

$696M for commercial report but $171M is conditional on NASA obtaining an independant cost-benefit report for commercial crew. See pages 161-162 of the bill.

[joek]

Commercial crew will get $696M for FY 2014. See the post below:

Here is a copy of the FY 2014 CJS Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 158 of the bill):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-h3547-hamdt2samdt_xml.pdf
Here is a copy of the report (NASA starts at page 112 of the PDF):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-FM-B.pdf

Thanks yg!  Also of note, launch liability is extended from 31-Dec-2013 to 31-Dec-2016.

[boinc]

Commercial crew will get $696M for FY 2014. See the post below:

Here is a copy of the FY 2014 CJS Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 158 of the bill):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-h3547-hamdt2samdt_xml.pdf

Here is a copy of the report (NASA starts at page 112 of the PDF):
http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-FM-B.pdf

$696M for commercial report but $171M is conditional on NASA obtaining an independant cost-benefit report for commercial crew. See pages 161-162 of the bill.

this is good news, right? (still a downselect this year?)

[Jarnis]

Less than was asked for (~$820M if I recall right)

Probably still enough that they won't downselect down to just one? Perhaps one-and-a-half of sorts?