NASA’s Commercial Crew Catch 22 as another $424m heads to Russia

[john smith 19]

Liberty...

Then I presume you're counting their composite capsule as the 4th spacecraft?

I thought that after the last NASA assessment the parent ATK had pulled the plug on this effort. The team had originally said they were pressing on but the parent was not having it, unless they have revised their position.

[Rocket Science]

Liberty...

Then I presume you're counting their composite capsule as the 4th spacecraft?

I thought that after the last NASA assessment the parent ATK had pulled the plug on this effort. The team had originally said they were pressing on but the parent was not having it, unless they have revised their position.

Nah, I never presume anything with ATK and their zombie rocket system...

[Prober]

Liberty...

Then I presume you're counting their composite capsule as the 4th spacecraft?

I thought that after the last NASA assessment the parent ATK had pulled the plug on this effort. The team had originally said they were pressing on but the parent was not having it, unless they have revised their position.

open this service up for bids now, and who knows what we might see.  BO has opened up a bit and they might be able to do something etc.

[mike robel]

In my view, the fact that they are launching an Orion on a Delta IV next year means we should stop SLS development.  Take the money and put it to Delta IV man rating and accelerate Orion.  Any left over should be given to the company with the best chance of flying a manrated craft within the next 3 years.  If we don't want to launch off of 37, then we can either crash develop the capability to launch from 39 or from 34.

The goal is to either get Delta IV Heavy/Orion flying or Falcon 9/Dragon up in 36 months from contract award.  Maybe its doable maybe its not.  I think Gemini did  it though.  Surely we can do now what we did in the 60's.

But I'm probably just generating wishful thinking, and the professionals will tell me I'm wrong, which is ok.

[rcoppola]

CCP, CCiCap, SAAs, FAR...with all due respect, just stop. We couldn't make this whole fiasco more convoluted.

Screw it. My dream would be for Elon to definitively announce that, "Regardless of congressional / NASA funding allocations, SpaceX will proceed with all available haste and resources to ensure a domestic crew capability by 2015. We believe it is the right thing to do. Nasa believed in us, helped us to achieve great things. Now it's our turn. We'll be there for you...when you're ready."

Now I'd pay to see that on the Senate floor.

[clongton]

In my view, the fact that they are launching an Orion on a Delta IV next year means we should stop SLS development.  Take the money and put it to Delta IV man rating ...

No can do. The Delta-IV is *not* a NASA launch vehicle and the Air Force, which has final authority on any upgrades, no longer has any intention of allowing the Delta-IV to be man-rated.

[USFdon]

Though isn't the Delta IV, in a rather circuitous way, getting closer to man-rating anyway? RS-68a upgrade, Upperstage man-rating for SLS and new fleetwide avionics (don't know how far ULA is into this though). It is not out of the relm of possibility that someone hostile to commercial crew could suggest this as way to do away / or continue the slow walk of ccp to create a govt lead competitor; especially if it were to use KSC (have an extra mlp, hydrogen infrastructure, the VAB for integration, out of ULA / air forces way...). Just a thought.

[Lobo]

Noel, there is litterally tons of information out there on this. But for openers, try here:
 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategies/AdvisoryGroupReports/garriott_griffin_2004.pdf

Ares-I is even shown. What became the Ares-V is not shown but is discussed.
This paper was published in July 2004 and was the brainchild of Dr. Mike Griffin (primary) and former astronaut Owen Garriott.

An interesting read.

They thought NASA using BAU cost plus FAR25 contracting rules could a)Design a new human rated LV built around the SRB and b)Design a capsule for it for LEO use within 6 years to be ready by 2010.

I just wonder if any of this team had any experience of actual large scale projects within NASA.

The Ares I design predated Griffin's involvement.  It came out of the NASA Astronaut Office during 2003 in the wake of Columbia.  Griffin was briefed on the concept in late 2003, before he became NASA Administrator.

Clongton likes to say that Griffin designed Ares, but it simply is not true.

I happen to disagree with those who opposed Ares I.  It would have put Orion into orbit with crew faster than the current plan.  KSC would still be alive now.

Better than sending the money to Moscow. 

 - Ed Kyle

Would it have gotten Orion into orbit faster than Atlas V?
We are debating an Atlas 551 or 552 for Orion to the ISS, but if that wouldn't work, Atlas V heavy certainly would have.  ULA has said it could be ready 36 months frim an order.  I'd think man rating Atlas could be done I parallel in the same 36 months. 
So I would think that would have been both the fastest and cheapest way to go in bth development costs and annual costs.  It would probably have been ready well ahead if Orion.

[yg1968]

CSF not happy about the need to extend the contract with Roscosmos:

"It is disheartening that we must continue to rely on increasingly expensive Russian vehicles to take our astronauts to the International Space Station," said CSF President Michael Lopez-Alegria. "NASA's commercial cargo program, undertaken in partnership with Orbital Sciences and SpaceX, has been highly successful in creating reliable, cost-effective American cargo delivery to the ISS, and we support NASA's continued and vigorous work on the follow-on Commercial Crew Program. Unfortunately, limited funding has delayed this program in the past and we strongly urge Congress to provide the necessary appropriations to keep the program on schedule. In difficult economic times, extending the offshoring of American jobs to Russian rocket companies is not a practice the American taxpayers should support."

http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/2013/05/csf-president-michael-lopez-alegria-statement-on-nasa-contract-extension-with-roscosmos/

[mike robel]

In my view, the fact that they are launching an Orion on a Delta IV next year means we should stop SLS development.  Take the money and put it to Delta IV man rating ...

No can do. The Delta-IV is *not* a NASA launch vehicle and the Air Force, which has final authority on any upgrades, no longer has any intention of allowing the Delta-IV to be man-rated.

Well Chuck, Edit:  (Of course, you are right on this.  That's the way it is.  sigh.)

That's all fine.  NASA could let a separate contract for the vehicle (in my little fantasy world here) and install the necessary packages on "their" Delta IVs and launch them from 39.  IMO opinion, even though it is a test flight, they are opening the barn door with EFT-1.

Redstone was an Army Missile, not NASA.  Atlas and Titan II were Air Force Missiles, not NASA.  It's been done before.

If congress says to do it (which is what this little fantasy of mine would require) and pass a law, the USAF would get to salute and say 'Yes, sir'.

Its not like they don't have excess production capability.

In my mind, this whole issue approaches a national crisis.  Good jobs in Alabama and Louisiana and Florida satisfies at least six senators and 3 representatives.

Just sayin.

Instead, we will stumble along, pay the Russians, and splash the ISS.  and then where will we be?

[RocketmanUS]

Noel, there is litterally tons of information out there on this. But for openers, try here:
 http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/strategies/AdvisoryGroupReports/garriott_griffin_2004.pdf

Ares-I is even shown. What became the Ares-V is not shown but is discussed.
This paper was published in July 2004 and was the brainchild of Dr. Mike Griffin (primary) and former astronaut Owen Garriott.

An interesting read.

They thought NASA using BAU cost plus FAR25 contracting rules could a)Design a new human rated LV built around the SRB and b)Design a capsule for it for LEO use within 6 years to be ready by 2010.

I just wonder if any of this team had any experience of actual large scale projects within NASA.

The Ares I design predated Griffin's involvement.  It came out of the NASA Astronaut Office during 2003 in the wake of Columbia.  Griffin was briefed on the concept in late 2003, before he became NASA Administrator.

Clongton likes to say that Griffin designed Ares, but it simply is not true.

I happen to disagree with those who opposed Ares I.  It would have put Orion into orbit with crew faster than the current plan.  KSC would still be alive now.

Better than sending the money to Moscow. 

 - Ed Kyle

Would it have gotten Orion into orbit faster than Atlas V?
We are debating an Atlas 551 or 552 for Orion to the ISS, but if that wouldn't work, Atlas V heavy certainly would have.  ULA has said it could be ready 36 months frim an order.  I'd think man rating Atlas could be done I parallel in the same 36 months. 
So I would think that would have been both the fastest and cheapest way to go in bth development costs and annual costs.  It would probably have been ready well ahead if Orion.

There were to be three versions of Orion.
1 ) LEO  ( more than lite enough for the Atlas V )
2 ) Lunar
3 ) Mars

As usual Congress approves a project and then later reduce it's funding and we see the original estimates were to low ( the price tag goes up after approval ).

Orion will have over a decade to develop before we see it test flown with crew. CST-100 or Dragon would most likely be able to see first crew flight over Orion with more of a benefit to human space flight.

[Lobo]

Add ~15K lbs for the LAS.  (Or is it intended to fly uncrewed, which would make it useless as an ISS crew transport?)  Might also want to include some margin for the adapter, which for Orion-on-Ares was ~3K lbs.

The LAS isn't carried all the way to orbit.  I know it factors in, but I'm not sure exactly how.  It's not the same as if it were part of the mass of the payload, but it counts against the payload to a degree.
I think during ESAS NASA was saying a crew launch vehicle needed the capability of like 25mt to LEO.  So maybe that's like a 22mt CSM and like half the mass of the LAS or something, equivalent?  Maybe someone with the expertise of such things can clarify that.
However, if the Orion CSM is 14mt dry, and the LAS is about 6.5mt total and you counted it all, that's 18.5mt.
The Atlas 552 could do that plus 2mt of crew or cargo.
The Atlas 551 could just do it with really no margin for crew or cargo.  However, I'd have to think an ISS Block 1 Orion would be a little lighter than the full version at 8.9mt.  you don't need a lot of the long duration hardware the full verions needs, just need to get the crew to the ISS.  So I'd think you could shave maybe 1 mt off the mass of Orion there, which could leave enough mass for 3-4 astroanuts, which is all Orion would be taking to the ISS anyway because the Russians launch their cosmonauts in Soyuz.
And again, I don't think the full mass of the LAS is counted against the payload to orbit, but some fraction of it, which should free up another couple of mt of payload  So really, an Atlas 551 should still do the job if the acceleration loads on the 552 are too great (as was mentioned).

Then Orion-on-Ares with a J-2X in the "ISS configuration" shouldn't have needed any SM propellant either wouldn't you think?  Odd then that the SM still included ~8K lbs of SM propellant in the ISS configuration.

Odd, but Ares 1 needed to have the capability of getting the fully fueled Orion to LEO for EOR with the LSAM/EDS stack.   So it really needed to be designed for -that- mission, and short fueling the Orion CSM to the ISS would have just increased the delivered payload as a side bar mission.
Or maybe with Ares 1, Orion needed all of it's propellant to act as a 3rd stage to ISS orbit?
Where I don't think Centaur does.  However, Orion could still do some of it's own burn on an Atlas 551/552 if that was desirable?  Maybe someone with knowledge in that could chime in if the SM burn would be helpful on an Atlas 551/552?  Or if it's better to launch Orion without fuel and let Centaur do the full orbital insertion?

Atlas 551/552 would -not- be the LV for a full ORion on a lunar mission, that could be either Atlas 55X with 5m WBC upper stage, or an Atlas V-heavy.
Just thinking a man-rated existing variant of a single stick Atlas for ISS crew launcher would be an affordable and fast LV to have instead of Ares 1 after ESAS.

[Lobo]

I think that you're overestimating Ares-I's performance.  In its final iteration, it was a suborbital launcher and the Orion SM was needed to complete the ascent as well as to perform the circularisation burn.

FWIW, I have always understood the primary objection to using Atlas-V-552 is that it has a very high-g launch environment for its optimum lift performance (reaching over 6g in some phases).  It wouldn't be a nice ride for a crew.  Most crew launchers try to keep the g-loading below 5g and ideally below 4g.

How about Atlas 551?  What's it's acceleration?  It should be able to do it too, depending on how much the LAS works against the inserted payload, and if some mass would be shaved off of the CM and SM for a trip to the ISS vs. the BLEO full version.

[Lobo]

Do I understand it right that SpaceX is on track to launch crews by 2015. Then for two years, NASA astronauts will continue to fly with Russian vehicles because of a corrupt Alabama senator?

Careful now, that's getting a bit too far OT and we don't want to upset our hosts. 

Personally I'd say it's the "Gentleman from Utah" and his need to keep that SRB casting shop open that has somewhat skewed things.

Despite 3 decades of STS SRB ops they still seem no closer to being able to shut them down without ripping the stack to pieces.

Multiplying that by sticking a big SRB casting shop in a state with no water access to the Cape continues to ensure that the US taxpayer gets first class servicing

Yea, and I'd guess there's maybe more concensus politics that maybe don't want to see a commercial provider be ready to send astronauts to space before NASA's flagship program can.

I doubt the senator from Alabama has much interest in sending money to the Ruskies over having an out-of-his-state US company do it.
I think MOST wrankle at that situation, regardless of their personal turf wars.

[Lars_J]

I doubt the senator from Alabama has much interest in sending money to the Ruskies over having an out-of-his-state US company do it.
I think MOST wrankle at that situation, regardless of their personal turf wars.

On the contrary, I think the senator knows that CC is a much stronger threat to the SLS/Orion pork than the "Ruskies" are. They realize that the moment a commercial crew vehicle flies manned, Orion is on its death bed. (Just like SLS will be on life support when FH flies)

Why else would their rancor against CC keeps growing, and they make more and more outrageous statements as time passes.

[QuantumG]

They realize that the moment a commercial crew vehicle flies manned, Orion is on its death bed.

The fiction that Orion is for "deep space" and commercial crew vehicles are only for LEO is easily maintainable.

(Just like SLS will be on life support when FH flies)

Not even comparable.

Why else would their rancor against CC keeps growing, and they make more and more outrageous statements as time passes.

Because the program makes no sense and every time they ask NASA representatives leading questions they get more nonsensical answers. We've been over this.

[Lobo]

In my view, the fact that they are launching an Orion on a Delta IV next year means we should stop SLS development.  Take the money and put it to Delta IV man rating and accelerate Orion.  Any left over should be given to the company with the best chance of flying a manrated craft within the next 3 years.  If we don't want to launch off of 37, then we can either crash develop the capability to launch from 39 or from 34.

The goal is to either get Delta IV Heavy/Orion flying or Falcon 9/Dragon up in 36 months from contract award.  Maybe its doable maybe its not.  I think Gemini did  it though.  Surely we can do now what we did in the 60's.

But I'm probably just generating wishful thinking, and the professionals will tell me I'm wrong, which is ok.

Mike,
A few issues with this, aside from the argument about whether USAF will allow it or not.

First, if you do this, cancel SLS and accelerate D4H man-rating, then what?  You now have a $300-$400 million dollar 23mt crew launcher to the ISS.  But Orion doesn't need to go to the ISS now because of commercial crew.
(again, I think commercial crew is cool, but wholly unnecessary.  Orion needed to be doing that work on an EELV launcher to get it's flight rate up to something reasonable, rather than spreading NASA's limited crew launches between 1-2 commercial crew providers, and the occasional BLEO Orion). 

I think that ship has sailed. There was a time that'd be a good option.  But now?
I think it might make more sense to cancel SLS and put Orion on FH if you are going that way, starting from the point we are now.  I'm sure Elon would love Orion flying on his LV, and would cooperate fully.  And I think FH will be pretty easy to man-rate, as F9 is designed from the start with HSF in mind.  Delta IV is not.
But even if you do that, then what?
You have a 50mt crew launcher.  You need more launches to do anything BLEO.  You have options with Orion on FH, but you'd need at least 3 launches to put together any BLEO mission.  Where do you launch 3 FH's in rapid succession from?  You'll need an EDS that FH can carry, etc. etc.
you can do something that way, but that's a completely different type of architecture.  Again, at -this- point that would probably be a more likely way to go.  Back in 2004 and 2005, D4H and it's upgrades would have been a good option.  I think Orion on a man-rated Atlas, and then a 7-core Delta 4 super heavy cargo launcher (so it never needs man-rated) with big upper stage/EDS would have been a good 1.5 architecture if NASA had scaled down the CxP requirements to fit a 100mt-ish cargo launcher instead of the 125mt-ish cargo launcher Ares V started out as.

But right now, I don't think D4H is the way to go for Orion.  If you want to do something that way, cancel commercial crew, and man-rate Atlas 551/552 (which is already happening for commercial crew) and use Orion as the American ISS crew service spacecraft.
Or...launch it on FH, and make sure Elon gets a contract to expeditiously man-rates FH in leu of getting a commercial crew contract for DRagonrider.
Which again, I'm sure Elon would like and be fully cooperative on.
FH with Orion can launch from a modifed existing MLP at KSC, so NASA can retain the optics.
Then roll FH into a brand new multi-launch BLEO architcture.

Or just stick with SLS, as it does seem to be progressing reasonably well.
:-)

[Lar]

Because the program makes no sense and every time they ask NASA representatives leading questions they get more nonsensical answers.

makes no sense compared to SLS or Orion? Please.

[Mark S]

They realize that the moment a commercial crew vehicle flies manned, Orion is on its death bed.

Why do people keep saying this? Orion is designed exclusively for BLEO missions, and CC craft are designed to be LEO taxis and freighters. If Elon ever does send a Dragon craft to Mars, it will be much different than the CC Dragons.

(Just like SLS will be on life support when FH flies)

This is even more difficult to reconcile with reality than your first assertion. FH is not even in the same class as SLS Block 1, much less -1A or -2.

And this is what the slow strangulation of NASA's budget is achieving. It is pitting all the various NASA constituencies against each other: SLS vs. Commercial, HSF vs Robotic, Astronomy vs. Planetary missions, etc. Which is a deplorable state of affairs that is totally unnecessary. All of these program could be fully funded for a year on what we spend in one week in Afghanistan.

Congress needs to increase NASA's budget. And we (NASA supporters) should be letting them know this, instead of going at each other in these forums.

[QuantumG]

Because the program makes no sense and every time they ask NASA representatives leading questions they get more nonsensical answers.

makes no sense compared to SLS or Orion? Please.

It makes no sense compared to what they're used to..