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

[Mader Levap]

There's a very small market for cargo down mass. It's mostly urine samples from what I can tell.

AFAIK NASA considers return capability as very important. Oh, and a lot of other things was returned, not only urine samples. You should read other places than space.com sometimes.
Did you even read manifest from last Dragon flights? They have section about what is returned too.

[guckyfan]

I don't actually have a definitive answer to that so I will answer your question with a question.

If the requirement was 4 seats why did all 3 providers make sure they could squeeze in 7?

If anybody knows where the full requirements can be found that would be much appreciated.

Would appreciate it too.

My position was exactly like yours, assuming 7 is a NASA requirement for evacuation of the ISS with one vehicle. But when that was challenged I could only find a requirement for 4 and half a year at the ISS for lifeboat function.

[yg1968]

I don't actually have a definitive answer to that so I will answer your question with a question.

If the requirement was 4 seats why did all 3 providers make sure they could squeeze in 7?

If anybody knows where the full requirements can be found that would be much appreciated.

Would appreciate it too.

My position was exactly like yours, assuming 7 is a NASA requirement for evacuation of the ISS with one vehicle. But when that was challenged I could only find a requirement for 4 and half a year at the ISS for lifeboat function.

The Russians have their own lifeboat. NASA does not require 7. Orbital's CCDev-2 proposal (a space plane) only seated four astronauts.

The requirement is for four astronauts, see page 22 of the CCT-REQ-1130 document:

3.1.2.1 The CTS shall transport 1, 2, 3, and 4 NASA crew to the ISS during a single launch.

Rationale:  Four NASA crew are required to be transported and returned to the ISS to meet the United States Operations Segment (USOS) demand for crew time based on full utilization of ISS to perform science and support the ISS National Laboratory Program. All docking and undocking operations are a significant impact to the completion of ISS science, resulting in the determination by the ISS Program that the most efficient crew rotations strategy is to launch and return four crewmembers on a single vehicle.  Additionally, the integrated space system must be able to perform the mission with crew complements of one, two, three or four crewmembers in a single launch or landing to provide flexibility in the ISS crew rotation plan

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26489.0

[jnc]

Making space hardware work properly the first time seems to happen more often than not these days. I don't even know what the last rocket system to fail on an initial launch was. Delta III? Even in Asia things seem to have gone fairly well. When there is an issue it's been sorted quickly. No vehicles are ever ground long.

One could argue that this is a combination of i) the maturation of the field as an engineering discipline (e.g. how often does the average car fail, these days - even punctures are really rare now), and ii) improving technology (the reasons downtimes are short is there is so much telemetry it's usually relatively easy to figure out what went wrong -'relatively', compared to, say, the 1940s).

Noel

[pathfinder_01]

I don't actually have a definitive answer to that so I will answer your question with a question.

If the requirement was 4 seats why did all 3 providers make sure they could squeeze in 7?

If anybody knows where the full requirements can be found that would be much appreciated.

The companies are going beyond the min. requirements. The extra seats could be sold for tourism or the extra volume used for cargo and 7 is the ideal number of seats for an ISS lifeboat(ability to evacuate everyone should the path to soyuz be blocked… in fact theCRV was to hold 7). For a marking/public relations standpoint equaling shuttle capacity. The companies probably figure that being able to transport and hold 7 people for the short trip to the ISS a normal trip is only supposed to take no more than 48 hours and same day trips to the ISS are possible.
This old thread contains some draft information about requirements.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23304.30

The companies figure that 7 isn’t too hard a number to hold for a short time period. Apollo could squeeze 5 in for Skylab rescue. The shuttle normal crew was about 7 but it too could lift 8.

Orion’s problems relate to deep spaceflight. Enough power and consumables to last for 7 people about 72 hours total(if I recall the total amount of time the ccrew craft have to be able to support a crew) is a lot less than what is needed to support a of 4 for 21 days. Not to mention the fact that the ISS can be used to keep the batteries charged while in lifeboat mode where as Orion needs to support itself for 6 months without a station. 

[john smith 19]

The companies are going beyond the min. requirements. The extra seats could be sold for tourism or the extra volume used for cargo and 7 is the ideal number of seats for an ISS lifeboat(ability to evacuate everyone should the path to soyuz be blocked… in fact theCRV was to hold 7). For a marking/public relations standpoint equaling shuttle capacity. The companies probably figure that being able to transport and hold 7 people for the short trip to the ISS a normal trip is only supposed to take no more than 48 hours and same day trips to the ISS are possible.
This old thread contains some draft information about requirements.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=23304.30

The companies figure that 7 isn’t too hard a number to hold for a short time period. Apollo could squeeze 5 in for Skylab rescue. The shuttle normal crew was about 7 but it too could lift 8.

If 4 is the minimum NASA's selection of 3 contractors offering 7 seats (given Orbital offered 4) just makes no sense at all. OTOH this is an SAA so if they all said they could do it at a budget that NASA felt they could get from the Legislature why not?

It is hugely expensive to build a man rated spacecraft to NASA standards. 800m until 2018 is a lot of money.

No I meant that's roughly what Spacex got under the COTS and CCiCAP programmes and have delivered F9 and Dragon to date. by aerospace standards that is not a lot of money. The Airbus 380 or new Boeing cost around $15Bn. That's a lot of money, but you don't throw them away after 1 use.

I could argue that the spacecraft being developed are too big and the reason for that is forced bloat to meet the requirements. 7 seats, big batteries, LAS that pulls the ever increasing mass away from a potential disaster.

Based on what? I note all of the bidders have come up with various LAS approaches, all within budget.

Comparing to Orion isn't possible. Orion is designed to go much deeper into space without any support from a DSH because NASA isn't sure they'll ever be able to afford one.

Well so far their contractors have managed to burn through enough money that they cannot even afford the Support Module.

There's a very small market for cargo down mass. It's mostly urine samples from what I can tell. SpaceX isn't making a big killing there but yes it is good that particular capability is not outsourced.

Wrong. There's a guaranteed market for about 400Kg about every 6 months. The price of which is continually going up. Returning astronauts don't ride for free. Returning any machinery for failure analysis can help substantially in refining a design and would be critical if any kind of serious space manufacturing effort was set up on the ISS to return the products of it to Earth.
[/quote]

If NASA employees are against SLS but not brave enough to speak out they're cowards but that's only my opinion and I might be a troll 

It's a noble and beautiful thought.

I guess you didn't follow the enquiries of both Shuttle disasters and what happened to people within NASA who "spoke out."

I used to buy this "payload later" argument. In fact quite recently I was promoting it but it's just not going to happen.

If I described it as the bureaucratic version of "Build it and they will come,"   and that every private company has suffered severe problems raising any commercial funding on this basis would that suggest to you that perhaps NASA should spend its money figuring out how to use existing vehicles to get it's missions (even HSF, now that Atlas V and F9 are declared human rated, at a cost, as it turned out, of less than $10m) done?
CxP cost c $12Bn. Had they focused on the payloads, including an Earth Departure Stage launched either dry, or semi dry (on Atlas V or Delt IV)I would suggest that you would have seen the first orbital flight of Orion in LEO and (probably) the first trip round the dark side of the Moon since the early 70's. Something to think about? But the Utah casting shop would probably close for good. And that just can't be allowed to happen.

ISS isn't going to be splashed soon enough.

I expect it to be around for 2028. 

The SLS program can't be stretched out for 20 years, it just takes too much money to maintain the production line.

If the relevant Senators make enough noise on the relevant committees it will continue.

NASA will not stop HSF

Let's see. Russian seat prices continue to rise. The Legislature kneecaps Commercial Crew and the rest of the Legislature start eyeing up chunks of the NASA budget, of which SLS is a large single slice. Questions start to be asked why they are bothering when the 1st Orion flight is five years away and the 1st crewed flight a decade away.

How about just not bothering?

it's just that the people paying the bills want NASA to build all their own hardware. It's a big clash of ideals and not one that will be sorted any time soon.

Are you Australian? If you are you should be proud enough to display it on your profile. There's no need to hide. Space has no borders.

As far as the US view on ITAR is concerned there are only really two countries.
The United Stated of America and "everyplaceelse." An Australian, German, Russian or indeed a North Korean will get no better (or worse) treatment from the US State Department.

I agree that space has no borders, they however do not.

[RocketmanUS]

I could argue that the spacecraft being developed are too big and the reason for that is forced bloat to meet the requirements. 7 seats, big batteries, LAS that pulls the ever increasing mass away from a potential disaster.

I have a question for that. Is 7 seats a requirement by NASA? One would think so because all three vehicles offer 7. But I have found only a document where 4 seats were mentioned as requirement.

I don't actually have a definitive answer to that so I will answer your question with a question.

If the requirement was 4 seats why did all 3 providers make sure they could squeeze in 7?

If anybody knows where the full requirements can be found that would be much appreciated.

Future commercial use ( commercial space stations or future BLEO ).
Why make a four seat when they could make a six or seven seat capacity LEO taxi ( same launch vehicles ).
And as stated by others the extra seats could be used for cargo ( last minute cargo, replacement parts, ect. ). Plus all seven ISS crew could if needed take the ride down.

[MP99]

If 4 is the minimum NASA's selection of 3 contractors offering 7 seats (given Orbital offered 4) just makes no sense at all. OTOH this is an SAA so if they all said they could do it at a budget that NASA felt they could get from the Legislature why not?

It makes perfect sense.

NASA wishes to be just one of multiple customers for a crew-to-orbit taxi service.

If a seven-seat capsule is what it takes to be attractive to non-NASA customers, then cost-sharing with those other customers will out-weigh any small costs associated with flying in a larger capsule than NASA needs.

In general, I think it's also true to say that a 7-person capsule carrying 4 people will offer some extra margin on the on-orbit lifetime that ECLSS can maintain, which is a nice secondary feature.

cheers, Martin

[jnc]

I guess you didn't follow the enquiries of both Shuttle disasters and what happened to people within NASA who "spoke out."

In the Columbia case, I actually know the wheel guy at Langley, and the strong impression I got was that he actually got a lot more stress out of outsiders (press, etc) hassling him (once his name became public) than he did from his management.

Noel

[Robotbeat]

If 4 is the minimum NASA's selection of 3 contractors offering 7 seats (given Orbital offered 4) just makes no sense at all. OTOH this is an SAA so if they all said they could do it at a budget that NASA felt they could get from the Legislature why not?

It makes perfect sense.

NASA wishes to be just one of multiple customers for a crew-to-orbit taxi service.

If a seven-seat capsule is what it takes to be attractive to non-NASA customers, then cost-sharing with those other customers will out-weigh any small costs associated with flying in a larger capsule than NASA needs.

In general, I think it's also true to say that a 7-person capsule carrying 4 people will offer some extra margin on the on-orbit lifetime that ECLSS can maintain, which is a nice secondary feature.

cheers, Martin

...And a 7-seater is big enough for use as a cargo vehicle. And useful for beyond-LEO activities. The marginal cost may be pretty similar in either case, so companies go with the one that has significantly higher utility. Remember, there's significant "skin-in-the-game" by the companies.

[QuantumG]

The reason for 7 was that they are each describing themselves as a successor to the Shuttle for crew transport and the Shuttle transported 7 crew.

[Prober]

The reason for 7 was that they are each describing themselves as a successor to the Shuttle for crew transport and the Shuttle transported 7 crew.

Remember Elon went in front of Congress and said it would cost 20Millon per seat (based on 7 SpaceX design).  Files can be looked up on this site.
 

[RocketmanUS]

The reason for 7 was that they are each describing themselves as a successor to the Shuttle for crew transport and the Shuttle transported 7 crew.

Remember Elon went in front of Congress and said it would cost 20Millon per seat (based on 7 SpaceX design).  Files can be looked up on this site.
 

So $35M with a crew of four ( total $140M ). Still cheaper than out sourcing and with the three other seats could be cargo or other crew , up or down. Either way there would be more options at less cost while feeding the U.S. economy and skills ( work force ).

[QuantumG]

I don't know why Prober quoted me to deliver that well known fact.

The question was: why 7? I answered.

[Prober]

I don't know why Prober quoted me to deliver that well known fact.

The question was: why 7? I answered.

something you ponder 

[QuantumG]

I don't know why Prober quoted me to deliver that well known fact.

The question was: why 7? I answered.

something you ponder 

I guess the implication was that it makes the seat price seem less than it's likely to actually be. What it does make me ponder, though, is the seat price of the Shuttle.. $450M / 7 = $64M?

[Eric Hedman]

I don't know why Prober quoted me to deliver that well known fact.

The question was: why 7? I answered.

something you ponder 

I guess the implication was that it makes the seat price seem less than it's likely to actually be. What it does make me ponder, though, is the seat price of the Shuttle.. $450M / 7 = $64M?

The Shuttle also launched a lot of cargo so the price wasn't only for the seats.

[Prober]

Apparently the AIAA is encouraging Congress to provide more funding to commercial crew.

http://www.newspacewatch.com/articles/private-space-lauded-at-aiaa-meeting.html

extra funds were found.....seems the WH screwed up the numbers on cuts FY 2013, and found a bunch of funds.  Google for the story a couple days ago.

Your google-fu may be better than mine, can you do the honors?

found it again....Hill aides: White House recalculates spending cuts
 
http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?id=19477204&ps=1017&cat=&cps=0&lang=en
 
"WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House budget office is recalculating how to apply automatic spending cuts for a handful of agencies, freeing up almost $4 billion for the Pentagon and another $1 billion or so for other agencies like the Homeland Security Department and NASA."
 

[QuantumG]

The Shuttle also launched a lot of cargo so the price wasn't only for the seats.

Sure, but when time came to replace the shuttle, the focus was on transporting astronauts, and that's what this thread is supposedly about too.

[spectre9]

Ok thanks for pointing that out to me.

Seems like the equation is this.

Spacecraft+LV cost / numbers of seats = Much cheaper than Soyuz

Giving no consideration at all to the fact the requirement is only 4 seats.

Commercial Crew bloating on purpose? I thought only NASA did that? 

That puts a bit of a slant on my whole opinion of Commercial Crew