Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[Jim]

 If Boeing is serious about Commercial, they will fund it.

They are and X-37 is too expensive, hence CST-100

[yg1968]

 If Boeing is serious about Commercial, they will fund it.

They are and X-37 is too expensive, hence CST-100

Why is DC affordable but the X-37C not affordable?

[JBF]

Why is DC affordable but the X-37C not affordable?

If I had to make a guess I'd say the payload bay with doors + endurance time adds a lot to the cost.

[baldusi]

 If Boeing is serious about Commercial, they will fund it.

They are and X-37 is too expensive, hence CST-100

Why is DC affordable but the X-37C not affordable?

First DC is not demonstrated to be affordable, yet. And second, DC is past PDR, while X-37C would have to redo everything. It's a bigger craft, with human rated everything, with a whole different interior design and mission profile. Little can be taken from the X-37 for the specific needs of the Commercial Crew Program.

[yg1968]

 If Boeing is serious about Commercial, they will fund it.

They are and X-37 is too expensive, hence CST-100

Why is DC affordable but the X-37C not affordable?

First DC is not demonstrated to be affordable, yet. And second, DC is past PDR, while X-37C would have to redo everything. It's a bigger craft, with human rated everything, with a whole different interior design and mission profile. Little can be taken from the X-37 for the specific needs of the Commercial Crew Program.

In his post above, Jim is explaining why CST-100 was chosen by Boeing over the X-37 at the beginning of CCDev. So you have to put yourself back in 2009 when the CCDev-1 proposals were made. In 2009, nobody knew if DC was going to make it to PDR.

[Prober]

 If Boeing is serious about Commercial, they will fund it.

They are and X-37 is too expensive, hence CST-100

Why is DC affordable but the X-37C not affordable?

First DC is not demonstrated to be affordable, yet. And second, DC is past PDR, while X-37C would have to redo everything. It's a bigger craft, with human rated everything, with a whole different interior design and mission profile. Little can be taken from the X-37 for the specific needs of the Commercial Crew Program.

I beg to differ

If Soyuz type seating is acceptable for LEO, the X-37 B “refined” would work for 2-4 people.   This is a refined version of the X-37B now used. Sorry to say this is only a paper project atm.  It would land users with alot more comfort vs just about all the candidates except maybe the DC.

[mr. mark]

The more flexible the spacecraft the better. Of all the commercial vehicles only Dragon is slated for both LEO and BEO missions. NASA is not in the business of fostering a commercial spaceflight industry according the Wolf agreement. What NASA can do is pick a commercial vehicle that can parallel Orion's flight profiles and use in case Orion encounters problems or to enhance the programs overall capacity. The commercial COTS agreement in 2004 states that COTS commercial cargo could be used for BEO missions as well. p. 17: "As we move outward into the solar system, NASA will rely more heavily on private sector space capabilities to support activities in Earth orbit and future exploration activities. In particular, NASA will seek to use existing or new commercial launch vehicles for cargo transport to the Space Station, and potentially to the Moon and other destinations." Only Dragon meets that profile. While CCDEV is about LEO manned spaceflight to the ISS, a vehicle that can not only do that but can do much more is in NASA's best interest long term.   

[Political Hack Wannabe]

The more flexible the launch vehicle the better. Of all the commercial vehicles only Dragon is slated for both LEO and BEO missions. NASA is not in the business of fostering a commercial spaceflight industry according the Wolf agreement.

No, that is not the case.  The Wolf agreement is that the primary purpose is ISS access, and a secondary purpose is stimulating commercial industry.  And Dragon isn't a launch vehicle - its a spacecraft.

[baldusi]

 If Boeing is serious about Commercial, they will fund it.

They are and X-37 is too expensive, hence CST-100

Why is DC affordable but the X-37C not affordable?

First DC is not demonstrated to be affordable, yet. And second, DC is past PDR, while X-37C would have to redo everything. It's a bigger craft, with human rated everything, with a whole different interior design and mission profile. Little can be taken from the X-37 for the specific needs of the Commercial Crew Program.

I beg to differ

If Soyuz type seating is acceptable for LEO, the X-37 B “refined” would work for 2-4 people.   This is a refined version of the X-37B now used. Sorry to say this is only a paper project atm.  It would land users with alot more comfort vs just about all the candidates except maybe the DC.

Are you tanking into consideration the emergency egress requirements on the four crew case (the minimum for Commercial Crew)? X-37 is too small for that, just look at pictures when the ground people safe the aircraft. You need internal space for quick egress, and you need a port big enough. The X-37B is 8.8m long, while the C-37C was supposed to be 14.6m, over 2/3ds bigger, or 3.5 times more volume.
The other issue is that once you have to man rate, you have to redesign everything. And I mean everything. A pipe that when punctured releases toxic gases internally is perfectly OK normally, an absolute no for man rate. That means different piping, different cabling, different margins on all structures, redesigning for no sharp edges, etc. The crewed version would also have to have an internal pressure vessel where the current has the payload bay. So its a completely different vehicle.
And more importantly, there's no advantage for the Commercial Crew on going with a plane over a capsule, and many disadvantages.

[mr. mark]

Sorry , but regardless of the spacecraft slight which I corrected, Dragon is still the most flexible vehicle and is the only long duration vehicle.

[Lurker Steve]

 If Boeing is serious about Commercial, they will fund it.

They are and X-37 is too expensive, hence CST-100

Why is DC affordable but the X-37C not affordable?

First DC is not demonstrated to be affordable, yet. And second, DC is past PDR, while X-37C would have to redo everything. It's a bigger craft, with human rated everything, with a whole different interior design and mission profile. Little can be taken from the X-37 for the specific needs of the Commercial Crew Program.

I beg to differ

If Soyuz type seating is acceptable for LEO, the X-37 B “refined” would work for 2-4 people.   This is a refined version of the X-37B now used. Sorry to say this is only a paper project atm.  It would land users with alot more comfort vs just about all the candidates except maybe the DC.

Are you tanking into consideration the emergency egress requirements on the four crew case (the minimum for Commercial Crew)? X-37 is too small for that, just look at pictures when the ground people safe the aircraft. You need internal space for quick egress, and you need a port big enough. The X-37B is 8.8m long, while the C-37C was supposed to be 14.6m, over 2/3ds bigger, or 3.5 times more volume.
The other issue is that once you have to man rate, you have to redesign everything. And I mean everything. A pipe that when punctured releases toxic gases internally is perfectly OK normally, an absolute no for man rate. That means different piping, different cabling, different margins on all structures, redesigning for no sharp edges, etc. The crewed version would also have to have an internal pressure vessel where the current has the payload bay. So its a completely different vehicle.
And more importantly, there's no advantage for the Commercial Crew on going with a plane over a capsule, and many disadvantages.

And the X-37B is currently designed to launch inside a Fairing on top the Atlas. A crewed-vehicle would not have the fairing, so it's back to the wind tunnel to refine the vehicle shape to handle the aero-dynamic loads of launch. Then they need to add an abort motor. And a larger vehicle probably also needs more than the Atlas 412 used by the CST-100.

The X-37 is a nice space vehicle, but the CST-100 was closer to crewed flight when Boeing chose their vehicle for commerical crew.

[Lurker Steve]

Sorry , but regardless of the spacecraft slight which I corrected, Dragon is still the most flexible vehicle and is the only long duration vehicle.

And none of that matters for access to LEO space stations.

[mr. mark]

Sorry , but regardless of the spacecraft slight which I corrected, Dragon is still the most flexible vehicle and is the only long duration vehicle.

And none of that matters for access to LEO space stations.

So what you are saying is that NASA should choose a one dimensional vehicle with one flight profile? That's not good stewardship of resources. That's what got NASA in this mess.

[kirghizstan]

can we stop talking about the x-37 in this thread it is not an option. 

for what it is worth, the 2.5 contracts that Wolf talked about will probably end up like this

CST-100 full contract
Dreamchaser half contract
SpaceX full contract

the only reason i see it this way is the use of 2 different rockets adds flexibility and a true backup incase the rocket becomes the problem.  if that doesn't factor into the equation then spaceX gets the half and dreamchaser gets the full because spacex is still going to go manned no matter what and no funding for DC would kill the program. 

[Chris Bergin]

No more on the X-37 on this thread from this point onwards. Not relevant.

[Jim]

 If Boeing is serious about Commercial, they will fund it.

They are and X-37 is too expensive, hence CST-100

Why is DC affordable but the X-37C not affordable?

First DC is not demonstrated to be affordable, yet. And second, DC is past PDR, while X-37C would have to redo everything. It's a bigger craft, with human rated everything, with a whole different interior design and mission profile. Little can be taken from the X-37 for the specific needs of the Commercial Crew Program.

Jim was explaining why CST-100 was chosen by Boeing over the X-37 in 2009. So you have to put yourself back in 2009 when the CCDev-1 proposals were made. In 2009, nobody knew if DC was going to make it to PDR.

CST-100 draws upon Boeing's OSP and CEV work.  Cost and size was important for OSP.

[Jim]

Sorry , but regardless of the spacecraft slight which I corrected, Dragon is still the most flexible vehicle and is the only long duration vehicle.

And none of that matters for access to LEO space stations.

So what you are saying is that NASA should choose a one dimensional vehicle with one flight profile? That's not good stewardship of resources. That's what got NASA in this mess.

ISS crew access is the only criteria, and not adaptability to other missions.  Read the proposed competition requirements.

And no,that is not what got NASA in this mess.

[mr. mark]

Jim, while I understand that, I can't get my head around one dimensional thinking. If I ran my business like that I'd be broke. One vehicle per task? If I did that, I don't know where I'd be. That's why computers rule the day. You have a photo shop, typewriter, recording studio, you name it all in one device. That's the future, that's the way NASA needs to think if they are going to stay relevant or commercial will eventually pass them by. I hope NASA chooses a vehicle not only based on this contract but, a vehicle that can do several flight profiles. Get the most bang for your buck.

[Lobo]

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.

Yea, after learning a bunch of new info in the last couple days, I’m starting to lean towards Downix’s assessment now, with Sen. Wolf’s revised approach that it would be narrowed down to 2.5 partners.  (I was wowed by ATK’s proposal, but sounds like they may still be pretty far behind and on the outside of all of this still?)
Full funding for Boeing and SNC, with a partial funding for SpaceX.
I believe SpaceX will be just fine in developing Dragon Rider with 0.5 funding, and they’ll cost share with their CRS contract, and then have a vehicle mostly paid for by NASA still they can use to go to a Bigelow BA-330 module. 
Boeing would probably be ok with 0.5 funding too, as they are such a big company and already have other elements of SLS.  But it sounds like they have both the clout and progress on their program to have a good shot at one of the full-funding slots.
Sounds like DC is pretty far along too, and it has a lot of “star” appeal.  Looks like a mini shuttle.  It looks like what people –think- a cheap, reusable spaceship looks like.  I think it would give NASA good face too to have a little shuttle landing on the SLF and being towed over to one of the OPF buildings.  I’m sure those considerations aren’t lost on NASA.

Additionally, if Boeing and SNC get the two full funding slots, then they can share the costs of man rating Atlas V, and the costs of modifying whichever launch pad will be launching it.  LC-41 or a KSC MLP.  ULA will like getting those additional Atlas V launches too.  And I really don’t think the fact it’s powered by an RD-180 engine be a factor in a “commercial crew” launch, like it might if it was powering a US Government/NASA owned rocket.

[FinalFrontier]

Jim, while I understand that, I can't get my head around one dimensional thinking. If I ran my business like that I'd be broke. One vehicle per task? If I did that, I don't know where I'd be. That's why computers rule the day. You have a photo shop, typewriter, recording studio, you name it all in one device. That's the future, that's the way NASA needs to think if they are going to stay relevant or commercial will eventually pass them by. I hope NASA chooses a vehicle not only based on this contract but, a vehicle that can do several flight profiles. Get the most bang for your buck.

I get the point your making but it just does not apply here. If for no other reason then we have multiple cargo providers, and will hopefully have at least two crew providers, while NASA builds a vehicle that can go to variety of different locations at a significantly lower cost then the previous program.   

And these vehicles are not singles purposed, the people developing them are not NASA and as such have other commercial sector plans for them. This is just one of the things they are being used for.


So I also sort of fail to see how we are being "one dimensional" here as well, with vehicles and companies that are satisfying a desperately needed requirement  now, but can also do different things as needed in the future.