The CCiCAP Award (PRE- and Post-AWARD DISCUSSION) Thread

[joek]

[...] demonstrates a viable business plan that targets different markets beyond crew transportation to LEO and ISS with multiple spacecraft and launch vehicle configurations.

I don't see how NASA would have been able to categorize that as 'viable' at this point.

I think that they were trying to make two separate points in that sentence: SpaceX has a viable business pan and their business plan targets various markets. I don't think that they were trying to say that SpaceX' business plan is viable because it targets Mars and other BLEO destinations.

Agree, and other comments in the selection statement reinforce that view; specifically, that SpaceX can draw from other potential revenue streams/markets.  E.g., NASA may be the only commercial crew customer, but SpaceX has other customers using a common lauch vehicle and processes.  As stated:

SpaceX's Business Information received the highest allowable Effectivenss rating... SpaceX's ability to utilize significant hardware elements of its existing cargo system, infrastructure, and processes is consistent with it having the lowest overall development costs of all the proposals.  The proposal sets out a credible business plan on how SpaceX will capture different marktes to LEO and ISS and how it will utlilize existing revenue streams associated with its current manufest to fund the CCiCap effort.  Based on SpaceX's Tehcnical Approach ad Business Information ratings as well as the underlying fundings giving ries to those ratings, I determine that SpaceX has one of the top approaches for a portfolio selection.

[Lars_J]

From:

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Patton-Holguin_4-4-12/

Is there really going to be an emergency side hatch, as indicated by that image? That would make three hatches on the DC, which would add some mass.

[john smith 19]

Is there really going to be an emergency side hatch, as indicated by that image? That would make three hatches on the DC, which would add some mass.

The other alternatives either mean some kind of extended payload adaptor with a door in it to get to the rear hatch or thrusters in the *main* heatshield *unless* DC is berthed and all motion is handled by the arm, rather than docked.

Berthing eliminates the thruster issue (which has *never* been done, although scarfed nozzles were a feature of the Shuttle RCS and were surprisingly awkward to develop).

Looks like it depends on the docking mode and if they want to absorb the mass in an expendable component (the adaptor) or fit it on the vehicle and gain flexibility.

[Lars_J]

Is there really going to be an emergency side hatch, as indicated by that image? That would make three hatches on the DC, which would add some mass.

The other alternatives either mean some kind of extended payload adaptor with a door in it to get to the rear hatch or thrusters in the *main* heatshield *unless* DC is berthed and all motion is handled by the arm, rather than docked.

Berthing eliminates the thruster issue (which has *never* been done, although scarfed nozzles were a feature of the Shuttle RCS and were surprisingly awkward to develop).

Looks like it depends on the docking mode and if they want to absorb the mass in an expendable component (the adaptor) or fit it on the vehicle and gain flexibility.

What in the world are you writing about? DC will not be doing any berthing. My *point* is that DC already has (or will have) two hatches:
- The top one (if the DC is horizontal) for boarding
- The rear one for the ISS docking adapter (some imagery ha also suggested that astronauts will deplane from this hatch as well)

But the image indicates (unless I am wrong) a *side hatch* - for emergency exit after landing. That is my question - I don't see then need for such a hatch.

[simonbp]

From:
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Patton-Holguin_4-4-12/

Walk the plank!

WRT "skin in the game", it helps to show that a company is serious about trying to win the final contract, and not just using development funding as a slush fund for other activities with no expectation to win. Boeing doesn't need CST-100, but their "skin in the game" is to prove that they actually want it (at the corporate/Board level).

Another thing that hasn't been pointed out is that Gerst seem to like the Boeing approach of high-heritage subsystems in a new vehicle, as opposed to ATK's more hand-wavy use of heritage of large systems. Nice contrast.

[simonbp]

But the image indicates (unless I am wrong) a *side hatch* - for emergency exit after landing. That is my question - I don't see then need for such a hatch.

I believe that is a pyrotechnically-released emergency hatch, much like like the escape hatches on vehicles with ejection seats. There is an image somewhere on this site showing regular egress out of DC is through the back. The need for an extra hatch may be because of the tunnel connecting the back of the vehicle to the front, which could be damaged in an emergency landing.

[Ben the Space Brit]

The need for an extra hatch may be because of the tunnel connecting the back of the vehicle to the front, which could be damaged in an emergency landing.

Besides, you'll be crawling through a tunnel that runs through an equipment/propellent bay.  All it takes is for some prop lines to be damaged and the tunnel could be dripping with hypergolics.

[strangequark]

The need for an extra hatch may be because of the tunnel connecting the back of the vehicle to the front, which could be damaged in an emergency landing.

Besides, you'll be crawling through a tunnel that runs through an equipment/propellent bay.  All it takes is for some prop lines to be damaged and the tunnel could be dripping with hypergolics.

RCS is Ethanol/Nitrous. Still, probably a little disabling.

[Robotbeat]

The need for an extra hatch may be because of the tunnel connecting the back of the vehicle to the front, which could be damaged in an emergency landing.

Besides, you'll be crawling through a tunnel that runs through an equipment/propellent bay.  All it takes is for some prop lines to be damaged and the tunnel could be dripping with hypergolics.

RCS is Ethanol/Nitrous. Still, probably a little disabling.

I thought they were ONLY using nitrous, as a monopropellant for RCS?

(if they are indeed using ethanol, it's a great step up in performance compared to nitrous monopropellant... And it'll be good news to me, since I don't especially trust the practicality of the hybrid)

[strangequark]

The need for an extra hatch may be because of the tunnel connecting the back of the vehicle to the front, which could be damaged in an emergency landing.

Besides, you'll be crawling through a tunnel that runs through an equipment/propellent bay.  All it takes is for some prop lines to be damaged and the tunnel could be dripping with hypergolics.

RCS is Ethanol/Nitrous. Still, probably a little disabling.

I thought they were ONLY using nitrous, as a monopropellant for RCS?

(if they are indeed using ethanol, it's a great step up in performance compared to nitrous monopropellant... And it'll be good news to me, since I don't especially trust the practicality of the hybrid)

Dropped it, catalyst dev was expensive for the performance parameters they wanted. Also, thruster vendor had IP concerns.

[Lee Jay]

But the image indicates (unless I am wrong) a *side hatch* - for emergency exit after landing. That is my question - I don't see then need for such a hatch.

I believe that is a pyrotechnically-released emergency hatch, much like like the escape hatches on vehicles with ejection seats.

Well, I didn't see such a hatch in the vehicle I saw, and there's no hint of one in the pictures I took either.

[Lee Jay]

The need for an extra hatch may be because of the tunnel connecting the back of the vehicle to the front, which could be damaged in an emergency landing.

Besides, you'll be crawling through a tunnel that runs through an equipment/propellent bay.

The prop sections are unpressurized,  while the tunnel is part of the pressurized volume.  To get one connected to the other, you'd have to breach the pressurized section.

I looked into that tunnel from the outside, with the hatch open, and it's not very long at all - maybe 6-10 feet?  I'd say traversing that in a couple of seconds wouldn't be difficult.  Remember how much smaller this vehicle is than shuttle.

And the top hatch (the crew ingress hatch) is still there as well.  If you had to exit through that hatch, I don't think safely getting off the vehicle from there - quickly - would be too big a deal.  You could just slide down the side.  It's not that high up at all.

[Rocket Science]

The need for an extra hatch may be because of the tunnel connecting the back of the vehicle to the front, which could be damaged in an emergency landing.

Besides, you'll be crawling through a tunnel that runs through an equipment/propellent bay.

The prop sections are unpressurized,  while the tunnel is part of the pressurized volume.  To get one connected to the other, you'd have to breach the pressurized section.

I looked into that tunnel from the outside, with the hatch open, and it's not very long at all - maybe 6-10 feet?  I'd say traversing that in a couple of seconds wouldn't be difficult.  Remember how much smaller this vehicle is than shuttle.

And the top hatch (the crew ingress hatch) is still there as well.  If you had to exit through that hatch, I don't think safely getting off the vehicle from there - quickly - would be too big a deal.  You could just slide down the side.  It's not that high up at all.

Lee Jay is right!

[Ben the Space Brit]

The need for an extra hatch may be because of the tunnel connecting the back of the vehicle to the front, which could be damaged in an emergency landing.

Besides, you'll be crawling through a tunnel that runs through an equipment/propellent bay.

The prop sections are unpressurized,  while the tunnel is part of the pressurized volume.  To get one connected to the other, you'd have to breach the pressurized section.

Which is possible.  Rememeber that we are specifically talking about  a forced/emergency landing contingency here.  One of the issues that a good engineer will design in is crew safety in the event of serious structural damage because of either a wheels-up landing or landing gear collapse.  A quick, direct exit from the main cabin rather than a relatively slow journey down a tunnel (remember, they'll be in their flight suits rather than shirt-sleeves) is probably preferrable.

[Go4TLI]

The need for an extra hatch may be because of the tunnel connecting the back of the vehicle to the front, which could be damaged in an emergency landing.

Besides, you'll be crawling through a tunnel that runs through an equipment/propellent bay.

The prop sections are unpressurized,  while the tunnel is part of the pressurized volume.  To get one connected to the other, you'd have to breach the pressurized section.

Which is possible.  Rememeber that we are specifically talking about  a forced/emergency landing contingency here.  One of the issues that a good engineer will design in is crew safety in the event of serious structural damage because of either a wheels-up landing or landing gear collapse.  A quick, direct exit from the main cabin rather than a relatively slow journey down a tunnel (remember, they'll be in their flight suits rather than shirt-sleeves) is probably preferrable.

A good engineer and properly run project will also not over-design something just because a minute possibility exists for something to happen.  There are plenty of other overall system engineering tools that help inform and mitigate risks so that people can make the proper decisions on what really needs to be placed into the design and what does not.

Otherwise, nobody would every do anything because nothing less than a super-battleship would be required for any mode of transportation, which of course then drives design complexity, cost and schedule which in turn drives cost of operations. 

[pathfinder_01]

does not.

Otherwise, nobody would every do anything because nothing less than a super-battleship would be required for any mode of transportation, which of course then drives design complexity, cost and schedule which in turn drives cost of operations. 

Not  really.  In the case of a school bus, many have hatches in the roof to help with escape(should the bus turn over on it's side door).

In the case of the shuttle, the shuttle’s windows could be used to exit. The shuttle’s windscreen was equipped with a heat resistant blanket and rope. In the unlikely event you survived a crash, you could break them. The top windows were also designed to allow escape they could be taken out too if the shuttle’s cabin were on its side.

[psloss]

In the case of the shuttle, the shuttle’s windows could be used to exit. The shuttle’s windscreen was equipped with a heat resistant blanket and rope. In the unlikely event you survived a crash, you could break them. The top windows were also designed to allow escape they could be taken out too if the shuttle’s cabin were on its side.

Besides Window 8, which required pyros for two of the three panes, what's the source for the rest of this?

[Go4TLI]

In the case of the shuttle, the shuttle’s windows could be used to exit. The shuttle’s windscreen was equipped with a heat resistant blanket and rope. In the unlikely event you survived a crash, you could break them. The top windows were also designed to allow escape they could be taken out too if the shuttle’s cabin were on its side.

Besides Window 8, which required pyros for two of the three panes, what's the source for the rest of this?

None, because it did not exist.  The crew could exit window 8 with pyros as you suggested.  They could perform their own emergency egress out of the side hatch if necessary by either swinging off the hatch or with a egress slide similar to what one would find in a commercial airliner.  There was a "cut here" box on the starboard side of the ship in the event someone had to physically cut through the hull from the outside. 

[Jim]

The front windows were not an option, window 8 was the only other crew initated way out besides side hatch

[simonbp]

There was a "cut here" box on the starboard side of the ship in the event someone had to physically cut through the hull from the outside.

Which, on further thought and inspection of the picture in question, seems to be more likely for the emergency egress. Not a "hatch" per se, but rather an area that is made safe for emergency personnel to cut through.