Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[baldusi]

So, by the looks for NSF's latest article,...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/06/dream-chaser-passes-pdr-integrated-system-testing/

... it appears that the SNC DC is ahead of Boeing's CT-100 as far as completed milestones. I say this with blind folders on because I don't know the pace of Boeing's progress and where they're at in the milestone race for comparison.

Can anyone assess which company is progressing the fastest and which is ahead as far as milestone markers go?

Boeing is way past PDR and very close to CDR, actually. I still think that the cost of human rating Atlas and, may be, the crew access tower could be shared between the two, for the 1.5 of the down select.

[yg1968]

See here:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/639717main_CCDev2_Public_20120417_508.pdf

[yg1968]

I might be thinking about this too much. But I am starting to think that this deal might actually help DC win the 3rd spot over ATK (I am assuming that Boeing and SpaceX will claim the first two spots). For one thing, the priority of the commercial crew program is now to service the ISS as quickly as possible. Adding a new entrant with a new LV and spacecraft at this juncture does not help NASA achieve this goal.

Secondly, the partial award would still allow Boeing and SNC to manrate the Atlas V. Adding a new Liberty LV and capsule is probably more like a full award than a partial award.

Lastly, the justification for having a partial award can be explained by the fact that this partial award allows NASA to get the added versatility of a having a lifting body in addition to two capsules. The need for having a third LV is harder to justify.

[joek]

Thanks! I don't know if this is a typo or something, though, but it seems odd that while other parts of the document refer to Article 16B (termination for failure to perform), this bit refers to all of article 16. The other sub-articles make sense, but article 16D refers to unilateral termination by NASA for circumstances outside NASA or the company's control like national emergencies, acts of war, or "failure of Congress to appropriate sufficient funding." If Congress cuts funding for the program partway through, does that mean NASA gets any IP or other property related to the contract? That seems peculiar.

A literal interpretation of that boilerplate suggests NASA could exercise those rights if Congress terminated funding.  But again "MASA gets any IP or other property related to the contract" is painting with too broad a brush.  Moreover, the solicitation verbiage (not the SAA template boilerplate) strongly suggests that is not the intent.

In any case, if you look at the actual as-executed SAA's, the boilerplate has been changed in most (all?), and tends to be a bit simpler (and usually specifies non-performance only).  For links to the excuted SAA's, see this post.

[Lars_J]

Except this mold line change appears to be unsubstantiated. Downix has offered no proof of his claim.

SpaceX's website pictures of the crewed Dragon show that the LAS / Landing thrusters are located in a different place on the capsule than the existing thrusters, external to the existing mold lines in fact. 
...
To demonstrate my point I'm including a picture of the Dragonrider mockup, which shows the bulges clearly.  To lift the Dragon away will need a good amount of thrust, and that thrust needs to be supported by the capsule structure in some method.  The existing Cargo unit was not designed to support it, or else it is over weight for its existing use due to carrying the support structure for components it lacks.  What SpaceX is doing is not the solution I would have picked, but it is a good solution, and we should be happy at it.  I am just pointing out the obvious, that there will be differences between the two, due to the path that SpaceX has chosen, which will add further time to the development.  Once that R&D is done, however, Dragon will be a very capable crew system and I have full confidence that SpaceX will deliver, NASA or no.

Yes, some changes will be made. 'bulges' to accommodate the super draco thrusters. Note however that SpaceX has modeled Dragon with similar buldges for quite some time. See the image found here: http://astro4u.net/yabbse/index.php/topic,9938.msg170485.html#msg170485
This image was released in 2007, years before the 'integrated LAS' was publicly announced. The shape of them do not be large enough to affect the airflow significantly around the capsule during descent - and if they are, it has been known to SpaceX for a while.

Weight changes to incorporate them will be a factor - but those can also be modeled - and flown on cargo/unmanned tests.

So my point was merely to refute you original statement that implied that these changes were significant enough to put them behind competitors that have yet to fly *any* hardware.

[vt_hokie]

It is most unfortunate that we're likely to end up with exactly what I feared - capsules stuck in Low Earth Orbit.  If we're going to be stuck in LEO for another decade or more, I'd rather see some progress on the spaceplane front.  So, I do hope SNC beats the odds.  It's a shame that Boeing entered the race with the pointless, redundant CST-100 instead of, say, an X-37 derived crew vehicle.

[FinalFrontier]

It is most unfortunate that we're likely to end up with exactly what I feared - capsules stuck in Low Earth Orbit.  If we're going to be stuck in LEO for another decade or more, I'd rather see some progress on the spaceplane front.  So, I do hope SNC beats the odds.  It's a shame that Boeing entered the race with the pointless, redundant CST-100 instead of, say, an X-37 derived crew vehicle.

"Derived" would be the key word there.

Would have to be essentially a totally new vehicle.

[Downix]

Except this mold line change appears to be unsubstantiated. Downix has offered no proof of his claim.

SpaceX's website pictures of the crewed Dragon show that the LAS / Landing thrusters are located in a different place on the capsule than the existing thrusters, external to the existing mold lines in fact. 
...
To demonstrate my point I'm including a picture of the Dragonrider mockup, which shows the bulges clearly.  To lift the Dragon away will need a good amount of thrust, and that thrust needs to be supported by the capsule structure in some method.  The existing Cargo unit was not designed to support it, or else it is over weight for its existing use due to carrying the support structure for components it lacks.  What SpaceX is doing is not the solution I would have picked, but it is a good solution, and we should be happy at it.  I am just pointing out the obvious, that there will be differences between the two, due to the path that SpaceX has chosen, which will add further time to the development.  Once that R&D is done, however, Dragon will be a very capable crew system and I have full confidence that SpaceX will deliver, NASA or no.

Yes, some changes will be made. 'bulges' to accommodate the super draco thrusters. Note however that SpaceX has modeled Dragon with similar buldges for quite some time. See the image found here: http://astro4u.net/yabbse/index.php/topic,9938.msg170485.html#msg170485
This image was released in 2007, years before the 'integrated LAS' was publicly announced. The shape of them do not be large enough to affect the airflow significantly around the capsule during descent - and if they are, it has been known to SpaceX for a while.

Weight changes to incorporate them will be a factor - but those can also be modeled - and flown on cargo/unmanned tests.

So my point was merely to refute you original statement that implied that these changes were significant enough to put them behind competitors that have yet to fly *any* hardware.

But you failed to refute.  Instead, you claimed that there was no mold line change, as in quotes above.  I pointed out that there was a mold line change, and then gave the resulting structural changes needed to accept that.  It changes enough that there is no longer an in existence pressure vessel to match the spaceflight form, which puts it behind CST-100 and DC which both offer that, in my viewpoint.  The weight changes also mean that the existing RCS system will similarly need adjustment, and this causes all sorts of changes down the line in the design.  Is this a major problem?  Not at all, it is routine and to be expected when designing a crew capsule.  SpaceX does offer thanks to its cargo vehicle an ideal test-bed for these changes, giving them plenty of opportunity to progress.  I just do not put them in the lead at this time due to the number of changes that need to happen, which they are doing.  I do think that if they do not get picked in the next round it will be due more to contract issues than anything.

[yg1968]

It is most unfortunate that we're likely to end up with exactly what I feared - capsules stuck in Low Earth Orbit.  If we're going to be stuck in LEO for another decade or more, I'd rather see some progress on the spaceplane front.  So, I do hope SNC beats the odds.  It's a shame that Boeing entered the race with the pointless, redundant CST-100 instead of, say, an X-37 derived crew vehicle.

"Derived" would be the key word there.

Would have to be essentially a totally new vehicle.

Such a vehicle, the X-37C has been proposed by some at Boeing but not as an official CCDev proposal:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27010.0

[go4mars]

Having built myself more than one containment vessel in the past, I know that adding such a structure to a lightweight aluminum pressure container, as the Dragon has, is an invitation for disaster unless given the appropriate reinforcement

I was assuming that the reinforcement would be factored in as part of the shelf that the astronaut chairs are on.  If the whole time there has been emphasis on making every decision with respect to eventual humans (the oft asserted claim) then why not suspect that it occurred to them too?  The requirement to support a thruster's force is as clear as the nose on a dragon.   

I would further note, I got the same criticism when I pointed out that the LAS thrusters could not fit inside of the existing Dragon, and I had folk going after me saying that obviously I was wrong,

I agreed with you then (though I thought the stick-out engines might swivel downward for lower cosine losses but I was wrong; they are fixed and in hindsight their solution appears better and lower risk than mine would have been).

Once that R&D is done, however, Dragon will be a very capable crew system and I have full confidence that SpaceX will deliver, NASA or no.

IIRC, Elon mentioned in an interview somewhere that once they have the capability to land dragon propulsively, that all cargo dragons will do likewise. 

[Jim]

an X-37 derived crew vehicle.

Which would really make us stuck in LEO. 

Wings are for LEO and capsules are for BEO.

[vt_hokie]

Wings are for LEO and capsules are for BEO.

Which is why I've been saying let's either go back to the moon or focus on reusable spaceplanes if we're staying in Low Earth Orbit.  Unfortunately, we're getting the worst of both worlds - capsules stuck in LEO for the foreseeable future.

[Downix]

Having built myself more than one containment vessel in the past, I know that adding such a structure to a lightweight aluminum pressure container, as the Dragon has, is an invitation for disaster unless given the appropriate reinforcement

I was assuming that the reinforcement would be factored in as part of the shelf that the astronaut chairs are on.  If the whole time there has been emphasis on making every decision with respect to eventual humans (the oft asserted claim) then why not suspect that it occurred to them too?  The requirement to support a thruster's force is as clear as the nose on a dragon.   

The reinforcement would need to be above, to the nose of the craft due to the stresses involved.  They could indeed have accounted for this already, but then the work for the LAS makes less sense, as that would need to have been designed and tested already, unless they deliberately made Dragon overweight in order to buy the margin they would later need, which would harm their cargo contract.

I would further note, I got the same criticism when I pointed out that the LAS thrusters could not fit inside of the existing Dragon, and I had folk going after me saying that obviously I was wrong,

I agreed with you then (though I thought the stick-out engines might swivel downward for lower cosine losses but I was wrong; they are fixed and in hindsight their solution appears better and lower risk than mine would have been).

And your solution was better than mine.  In the end, they took the best path I think.

Once that R&D is done, however, Dragon will be a very capable crew system and I have full confidence that SpaceX will deliver, NASA or no.

IIRC, Elon mentioned in an interview somewhere that once they have the capability to land dragon propulsively, that all cargo dragons will do likewise. 

Then that simplifies things later on.  It does not mean however that they're further ahead right now, as two of their CCDev competition are further along in development milestones.  But they do have one of the best test platforms possible with the cargo Dragon.

[QuantumG]

Which would really make us stuck in LEO. 

Wings are for LEO and capsules are for BEO.

Spaceships are for BEO.. direct reentry is nice, but is it worth it?

[Lars_J]

But you failed to refute.  Instead, you claimed that there was no mold line change, as in quotes above.  I pointed out that there was a mold line change, and then gave the resulting structural changes needed to accept that.  It changes enough that there is no longer an in existence pressure vessel to match the spaceflight form, which puts it behind CST-100 and DC which both offer that, in my viewpoint.

Yes, you are correct, there will be a mold line change. That we can agree on. My bad.

But you go on here (again) to make another claim - that this mold line change implies a pressure vessel change. This is an assertion I find more troubling.
1) this is far from certain - depends on the exact size and location of the superdraco thrusters.
2) even if true, is a pressure vessel change more important/difficult than a mold line change? I really don't know, so feedback from experienced ones would be helpful.

[Jim]

Spaceships are for BEO.. direct reentry is nice, but is it worth it?

It will be the way for many years.  Can't afford the delta V to enter LEO from BEO.

[QuantumG]

Spaceships are for BEO.. direct reentry is nice, but is it worth it?

It will be the way for many years.  Can't afford the delta V to enter LEO from BEO.

Fair enough. Single pass aerobraking is a pivotal technology to develop.

[joek]

The reinforcement would need to be above, to the nose of the craft due to the stresses involved.  They could indeed have accounted for this already, but then the work for the LAS makes less sense, as that would need to have been designed and tested already, unless they deliberately made Dragon overweight in order to buy the margin they would later need, which would harm their cargo contract.

It would harm their cargo contract only if it would put their ability to meet contractual minimums at undue risk (or if there was competitive pressure to do so increase upmass, which there wasn't/isn't).  Whether they could have or did, and how, is speculation probably better left to another thread.

[Downix]

The reinforcement would need to be above, to the nose of the craft due to the stresses involved.  They could indeed have accounted for this already, but then the work for the LAS makes less sense, as that would need to have been designed and tested already, unless they deliberately made Dragon overweight in order to buy the margin they would later need, which would harm their cargo contract.

It would harm their cargo contract only if it would put their ability to meet contractual minimums at undue risk (or if there was competitive pressure to do so increase upmass, which there wasn't/isn't).  Whether they could have or did, and how, is speculation probably better left to another thread.

Quite true, getting off-topic.  I just posted my feelings and why, agree or not.  I am always willing to be wrong, and honestly hope that I am wrong and Musk can single handedly lift a hammer and force a blessed Dragon capsule at the heart of Mount Doom, a single capsule to rule them all...

[beancounter]

Read the previous posts with interest.  One comment:  think many have underestimated SpaceX engineering and design personnel and continue to do so. 
I believe that all the points being debated in these posts have long since been dispensed with and strategic decisions made some time ago.  SpaceX has always had the strategic vision to go beo and is developing vehicles to align with that vision.  AS designs have developed, they've been modified sure, but the overarching plan has remained the same.
Wrt Dragon crew, I think several are nitpicking.  From what I can see, the basic mold shape has not changed.  Structural reinforcement for the Super-Dracos doesn't have to be intrusive, it simply needs to be smart and capable.  Seems like SpaceX could achieve such a thing quite readily.  Just an opinion.