Narrowing the CCDev candidate list

[Political Hack Wannabe]

Jorge and PHW are both correct, certainly from a mechanics perspective.

The larger question is why NASA continues to at times to reference what can be mutually exclusive requirements.  Those being fly crews on American vehicles at the earliest possible time and the other being to create a new industry.

Those requirements are only "mutually exclusive" if you make certain fundamental assumptions.  But if you don't agree with those assumptions, (I don't) then they aren't mutually exclusive - rather they are requirements that work well together. 

These statements applied when it fits the question only reinforces the central confusion and tends to lead to notions that downselect should happen now so all available resources can be focused appropriately.  It does not help that potential providers are not advertising real external clients either (and Bigelow does not count, they have no customers also and likely would fly anything at this point).

That last sentence is fundamentally untrue - Boeing is partnered with Space Adventures, which has sold every available Soyuz seat in the private astronaut market.  Virgin Galactic is partnered with SNC (or at least they were). 

[Go4TLI]

Jorge and PHW are both correct, certainly from a mechanics perspective.

The larger question is why NASA continues to at times to reference what can be mutually exclusive requirements.  Those being fly crews on American vehicles at the earliest possible time and the other being to create a new industry.

1.  Those requirements are only "mutually exclusive" if you make certain fundamental assumptions.  But if you don't agree with those assumptions, (I don't) then they aren't mutually exclusive - rather they are requirements that work well together. 

These statements applied when it fits the question only reinforces the central confusion and tends to lead to notions that downselect should happen now so all available resources can be focused appropriately.  It does not help that potential providers are not advertising real external clients either (and Bigelow does not count, they have no customers also and likely would fly anything at this point).

2.  That last sentence is fundamentally untrue - Boeing is partnered with Space Adventures, which has sold every available Soyuz seat in the private astronaut market.  Virgin Galactic is partnered with SNC (or at least they were). 

1.  I made no assumptions.  And I note you made no attempt to place any context on the assumptions you believed I was making.  You also gave zero insight or logic to prove my point wrong in even the slightest way or clarify why you believe these two objectives work in harmony seamlessly together.

2.   It is not fundamentally untrue in the slightest.  Any company can be "partnered" with anyone else and it is entirely possible no products are ever delivered or sold.  Again with this statement of yours you actually do not add any data for evaluation. 

One can absolutely be a supporter of this effort and still point out what are at least personally believed to be fundamental flaws in the strategy that are in essence a danger and risk to the overall program

[Oberon_Command]

Jorge and PHW are both correct, certainly from a mechanics perspective.

The larger question is why NASA continues to at times to reference what can be mutually exclusive requirements.  Those being fly crews on American vehicles at the earliest possible time and the other being to create a new industry.

1.  Those requirements are only "mutually exclusive" if you make certain fundamental assumptions.  But if you don't agree with those assumptions, (I don't) then they aren't mutually exclusive - rather they are requirements that work well together. 

These statements applied when it fits the question only reinforces the central confusion and tends to lead to notions that downselect should happen now so all available resources can be focused appropriately.  It does not help that potential providers are not advertising real external clients either (and Bigelow does not count, they have no customers also and likely would fly anything at this point).

2.  That last sentence is fundamentally untrue - Boeing is partnered with Space Adventures, which has sold every available Soyuz seat in the private astronaut market.  Virgin Galactic is partnered with SNC (or at least they were). 

1. 
a) I made no assumptions. And I note you made no attempt to place any context on the assumptions you believed I was making. 
b) You also gave zero insight or logic to prove my point wrong in even the slightest way or clarify why you believe these two objectives work in harmony seamlessly together.

a) The fact that philosophically speaking everyone makes assumptions aside, you yourself implied in your post that the "mutual exclusivity" at question here depends on assumptions of some sort - your wording was "NASA continues to at times to reference what can be mutually exclusive requirements." If you did not believe yourself that whether the requirements are exclusive or not depends on context and assumptions, one would assume that you would have said "what are mutually exclusive requirements."

b) I'm not sure that PHW was aiming to do that. Given my point above, I saw PHW's response as an elaboration of yours. Furthermore, while I'm not sure what PHW had in mind, I can certainly tell you what I assumed you meant at first: "flying crews on American vehicles at the earliest possible time" implies down-selecting and pouring government funds into one company to get their vehicle flying as quickly as possible, while "creating a new industry" implies attracting lots of private funding and customers outside of NASA. I believe these can be seen as contradictory because the former, while getting things off the ground quickly, could result in this whole venture being reduced to a "typical" NASA-contractor relationship which contradicts the goals of the second, which is often thought to result in a longer, more drawn out timescale.

However, I'm sure someone here will jump on these assumptions immediately after reading them, so here are the assumptions I thought would result in the two not contradicting each other: "flying crews on American vehicles at the earliest possible time" implies using government seed money to fund enough crew vehicle competitors to preserve a competitive edge, but also at such a level that investors will regard the budding industry as safe for private investment. With private investors on board not will the funds any one company would "miss" from not down-selecting be provided (or not be necessary at all), but I would assume that the perceived risk of investment in HSF would go down, and as it went down the level of activity would go up resulting in a new industry being created around it.

Just the way a long time lurker sees things.

[Robert Thompson]

Could the prospect of X-b37 play into deselection of DC? Kind of like when the judge tells the jury you're not allowed to consider some known matter of record.

[yg1968]

The Senators and Representatives that are in favour of a down select were mostly against the idea of commercial crew to begin with.

Can you provide a link to that documentation?  Thanks.

Representatives Hall and Wolf come to mind as people that were against commercial crew and that are in favour of a down select.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

Could the prospect of X-b37 play into deselection of DC? Kind of like when the judge tells the jury you're not allowed to consider some known matter of record.

Officially, it probably shouldn't.  There is a set of criteria laid out in the CCiCap documents of how things would be judged. 

Now, that said, people can be influenced by things that they shouldn't be.  But I am willing to bet that the selection team has enough variation to level out these kinds of issues, and allow the primary overriding drivers laid out in the CCiCap documents to be the majority of the criteria

[Political Hack Wannabe]

1.  I made no assumptions.  And I note you made no attempt to place any context on the assumptions you believed I was making.  You also gave zero insight or logic to prove my point wrong in even the slightest way or clarify why you believe these two objectives work in harmony seamlessly together.

Oberon_Command I think addressed this point pretty concisely. 

2.   It is not fundamentally untrue in the slightest.  Any company can be "partnered" with anyone else and it is entirely possible no products are ever delivered or sold.  Again with this statement of yours you actually do not add any data for evaluation. 

Yes, actually, I would submit that it is untrue.  We aren't party to the actual agreement, but it is entirely possible that the excess capacity will be sold directly to Space Adventures or Virgin Galactic.  Therefore, they would be responsible for reselling the seat on the open market (something like a guaranteed option).  That being the case, they (the CCiCap bidders) would've shown who their clients or potential clients are.   Also, some of this would've been in the bids, but they would very likely be proprietary in nature (I can imagine a client list for something like this would've been very powerful/worthwhile, and not something to be overly shared)

[watermod]

Regarding the tower question?     Will SpaceX require a traditional style tower for entry and servicing of astronauts?   I ask this because they tend to be a little more "out of the box" than NASA and the other players.    I've seen the quick turn around videos they have for later supply & private launches and can't help thinking that they would prefer to just strap the astronauts in on the ground then roll out the missile and erected it.   (It just seems more like their  style)    I image NASA is dead set against it with the same vigor from a citizen's point of view, as the little old ladies who were against Rock & Roll but that doesn't mean one is right and  the other  wrong rather one just has the power of authority on their side. 

To be totally honest... as somebody who enjoyed the moon landings I find it disheartening we haven't taken more paths.  It's all been too much melba toast since. (ignoring the shuttle disasters)

[Lars_J]

Regarding the tower question?     Will SpaceX require a traditional style tower for entry and servicing of astronauts?   I ask this because they tend to be a little more "out of the box" than NASA and the other players.    I've seen the quick turn around videos they have for later supply & private launches and can't help thinking that they would prefer to just strap the astronauts in on the ground then roll out the missile and erected it.   (It just seems more like their  style)    I image NASA is dead set against it with the same vigor from a citizen's point of view, as the little old ladies who were against Rock & Roll but that doesn't mean one is right and  the other  wrong rather one just has the power of authority on their side.

They won't strap in astronauts before the stack is vertical and ready to go. As for what kind of tower, I seem to recall an interview where it was stated that a separate tower would be constructed for crew access. (sorry I don't remember the reference)

All in all, constructing a tower for crew access should be one of the easiest and cheapest tasks compared to the other long poles of making a a human rated spacecraft. It doesn't have to be a massive structure.

[MikeAtkinson]

There is a set of criteria laid out in the CCiCap documents of how things would be judged. 

e.g. http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/document_file_get.cfm?docid=579

[Edit: slides 16-24]

[CitabriaFlyer]

The missing piece of information is planned NASA utilization for commercial crew.  Currently NASA flies a 3 person crew twice per year.  That could be accomplished with two commercial ships.  I have read that the medical folks would prefer to fly more people on 90 day missions so that they would have a larger sample size in their long duration spaceflight database.  So that takes us to four commercial ships per year.

It is hard to understand given the budget and economic issues how you can justify two commercial providers if you are only going to fly four sorties per year.  At current ISS utilization rates a down select is not unreasonable.

If the desire of Congress is to stimulate a commercial space industry then the best way to do that is to increase demand for flights.  One way to do that is to fly a 3 man crew (and their logistics) to station twice per month to perform research or extra maintenance for a week.  Additionally, if ISS is used to capacity NASA should rent space on a Bigelow.  Bottom line, creating a commercial space industry involves more than throwing money at additional crew transport providers it involves increasing the utilization of space born assets, an activity that would also cost more money.

If there is no desire to utilize ISS or other space born assets more than the current level then immediate down select makes sense.

[CitabriaFlyer]

As far as contenders SpaceX and Boeing are my favorites and I predict one of them to be the ultimate provider. 

My concern about CST-100 is the cost of Atlas V.  I seem to recall that Boeing once made the point that they were designing CST-100 to be compatible with multiple launchers.  If that remains the case, if I were Boeing I would consider booking an additional test flight with Falcon just to prove that point.  In that case Boeing would have 1) launch vehicle redundancy and 2) increased bargaining power with ULA for launch services.

Redundancy with respect to launch vehicles seems to be far more important than redundancy with respect to spacecraft.

[CitabriaFlyer]

With respect to Dream Chaser I think it wins by virtue of the cool factor but the technical risk seems higher, the cost seems higher.

The benefits (lower G reentry and greater flexibility with respect to cross range and easier logistics with runway landings) do not seem to be worth the technical and financial risk in the current time frame.  X-38 shared many of those advantages and did not survive even in more prosperous economic times. Having said that I can see Dream Chaser being a popular choice if commercial orbital travel increases beyond current demand.

If Dream Chaser cannot continue to be funded via commercial crew (which I suspect is a real possibility) it would be awesome if NASA could fund it via other means, such as the aeronautical budget.  (Although I am sure that budget is being squeezed as well.)  Perhaps use it as a hypersonic research vessel either ground or air launched.  Hopefully by the 2020s Virgin or other orbital spaceflight providers will have enough demand for orbital flights to fund full development of an orbital vehicle.

[yg1968]

[...]

The spacecrafts can also be used for cargo. So there is some synergy there. As far as down select, the argument is that it should happen as late as possible (for example after the CCiCap base period in 2014) and that a downselect to less than 2 providers should be avoided in order to prevent a monopoly.

I seriously doubt that the CST-100 will ever be used on anything but the Atlas V. It's a bit of a marketing ploy for Boeing to say that it will. Dragon could also be launched on an Atlas V and DC could launch on a Falcon 9. But none of these things are likely to happen. 

If Dream Chaser is not retained during the CCiCap base period, I doubt that it will be picked up by anyone else. It's not very realistic to think that it will. If DC is only down selected after the CCiCap base period, there is a possibility that it could still be used for cargo. 

[Downix]

Regarding the tower question?     Will SpaceX require a traditional style tower for entry and servicing of astronauts?   I ask this because they tend to be a little more "out of the box" than NASA and the other players.    I've seen the quick turn around videos they have for later supply & private launches and can't help thinking that they would prefer to just strap the astronauts in on the ground then roll out the missile and erected it.   (It just seems more like their  style)    I image NASA is dead set against it with the same vigor from a citizen's point of view, as the little old ladies who were against Rock & Roll but that doesn't mean one is right and  the other  wrong rather one just has the power of authority on their side.

They won't strap in astronauts before the stack is vertical and ready to go. As for what kind of tower, I seem to recall an interview where it was stated that a separate tower would be constructed for crew access. (sorry I don't remember the reference)

All in all, constructing a tower for crew access should be one of the easiest and cheapest tasks compared to the other long poles of making a a human rated spacecraft. It doesn't have to be a massive structure.

I am so imagining a team of men carrying out a large step-ladder and slapping it up against the rocket for the astronauts to climb up.

[mr. mark]

I'm starting to think it may play out this way. Boeing or Sierra Nevada will get the manned NASA contract for ISS. SpaceX would continue cargo resupply for the longer term beyond this contract not only to ISS but to eventual NASA BEO destinations as well. SpaceX would eventually move forward with it's own manned plans to the Bigelow station or other LEO destinations. SpaceX will also move forward with their long duration DragonLab.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

I'm starting to think it may play out this way. Boeing or Sierra Nevada will get the manned NASA contract for ISS. SpaceX would continue cargo resupply for the longer term beyond this contract not only to ISS but to eventual NASA BEO destinations as well. SpaceX would eventually move forward with it's own manned plans to the Bigelow station or other LEO destinations. SpaceX will also move forward with their long duration DragonLab.

I fail to see how thats a "way out".  Yes, it does deal with the desire for rapid down-select to a leader+follower, but it keeps the circle closed too much. 

I would really like to see us get to a fly off of at least 2, if not 3, vehicles before moving towards a final contract for crew delivery.

[mr. mark]

What i'm saying is that I see SpaceX in a long term NASA support role mainly doing cargo resupply to LEO and BEO destinations. SpaceX would still have a manned option but, eventually by it's own doing.

[Political Hack Wannabe]

What i'm saying is that I see SpaceX in a long term NASA support role mainly doing cargo resupply to LEO and BEO destinations. SpaceX would still have a manned option but, eventually by it's own doing.

I understand what you are articulating.  What I am saying is it doesn't actually scratch my itch.  I don't want just one provider that may, at somepoint, have a second provider at some future date, unknown date. 

I want to see Commercial Crew development get to a point where it can have a formal flyoff with more than one vehicle.  I'd really like it to be able to have at a minimum 3 vehicles. 

As for BEO - that is a whole other can of worms I don't want to open in this thread.

[mr. mark]

Understand, though in both the short term and longer term, it may be easier for NASA to control a vastly smaller more space launch dedicated company like SpaceX than a giant like Boeing who is involved in multiple aspects of aviation. NASA could easily control vast aspects of SpaceX's direction through their contracts and eventual oversight of NASA related SpaceX projects. NASA already has had oversight influence on Dragon and Falcon 9 as related to COTS.