NASA Outlines its Plans for Commercial Crew Certification

[Chris Bergin]

Excellent and in-depth write up from Yves-A. Grondin

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/nasa-outlines-plans-commercial-crew-certification/

I learnt a few things myself after reading this one!

[WM68]

Excellent article.

[clongton]

Nicely done - thank you.

[JazzFan]

Great read.  Sadly the closer we get to flight ready craft, the closer we get to down select.  I'm greedy and still want all three flying to some mission of value.

[baldusi]

Interesting article. There were a couple of issues that I think should have been highlighted in the article.
First and foremost, that the cost will have more than 50% of the evaluation weight. This might imply a real cutthroat competition on price.
Second, even though the NDS would be GFE, 14M to 16M will be added to the entrant's price for each port. Thus, no money will be required from the contractor, but it will be a "cost" item for deciding the winner. I think this is a point worth stressing.

[yg1968]

Thanks for the compliments.

The source of material was posted in the following thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32412.0

[yg1968]

Interesting article. There were a couple of issues that I think should have been highlighted in the article.
First and foremost, that the cost will have more than 50% of the evaluation weight. This might imply a real cutthroat competition on price.
Second, even though the NDS would be GFE, 14M to 16M will be added to the entrant's price for each port. Thus, no money will be required from the contractor, but it will be a "cost" item for deciding the winner. I think this is a point worth stressing.

Concerning the evaluation criteria, I decided not to discuss them because I don't fully understand them. The evaluation is based on a 1000 points but it has a bunch of sub-criteria and it's not clear to me how the sub-criteria are weighted. Wayne Hale made the point that safety wasn't as important a factor as it was in prior rounds. But I don't know how important it was in the other rounds. So it would have been difficult for me to make that claim without backing it up.

I thought about putting the $14M to $16M figure for the NDS but I ended up not putting it because it's more of an accounting number for evaluation purposes than a real cost. So it would have been difficult to explain the number without going through the evaluation criteria which I didn't want to do.

I don't disagree with your points. I am just trying to give you an explanation as to why I didn't include those points in the article. The other consideration is that sometimes some of the details are too complex for an article but are better left as a post. In any event, thanks for the feedback, it's appreciated. Incidentally, I tried to take into account, some of the posts that were made in the other thread on the draft RFP; insights from members of this forum are very much appreciated when writing an article.

[Rocket Science]

Nicely done yg! I guess we’ll have to stay tuned to see who gets to “capture the flag”...

[Alpha Control]

And here all along I thought "yg" stood for "young guy", who was born in 1968! 

Just shows that you can't always assume what a person's username means. 

Very nice article, Yves.

[Lobo]

I'm thinking if Dreamchaser gets looking possibly like the downselect survivor, they should take a page out of Boeing's book. 
Dream chaser launching on a man-rated F9R (not Grasshopper) from LC-39A baby!

:-)

Keep LC-40 from needing to add a whole new crew access tower, as I think the plan for LC-39A is to have one there, whether they level the tower and build a new one, or modify the existing tower. 

Supposedly DC, like CST-100 can launch from multiple LV's. 

But not sure if SNC could switch horses like that.  Are they already paying ULA to man-rate Atlas V? (and develp the 2-engine Centaur?)  Is that something that even could or would be changed?

Just wondering about SpaceX's interest in 39A and how it could, depending on SpaceX's plans, already have all the crew access hardware you need.  Just need some modifications.
If SNC would need to pay ULA to add crew access to LC-40, as well as man-rate the Atlas, and SpaceX's commercial crew offering is not selected, it might be an interesting switch.
SpaceX wouldn't get commercial crew, but they would still get the launch service, and would still develop Dragonrider as the commercial cargo vehicle, so they'd have it anyway. 

[joek]

Another great article yg1968, I think you struck a good balance in the level of detail.

[yg1968]

Another great article yg1968, I think you struck a good balance in the level of detail.

Thanks joek, the discussions on the draft CCtCap RFP that we had in the other thread was helpful in figuring out what were some of the more important points that were worth highlighting in the article.

[JohnFornaro]

Great article there, Yves.

I spent the last hour reviewing the other thread and the vast amount of information there.

This is the best piece of info that I found:

Another item of interest in the draft RFP that could impact the price of a post certification missions is the presence of commercial passengers or of non-NASA cargo or payloads.

[Lurker Steve]

I saw that clause about commercial passengers.

It says that NASA must be reimbursed for any non-NASA visitors to the ISS. I wonder what those reimbursement rates will be ? NASA could price those seats in the 75-100 million range, which would basically kill any thought of carrying any non-NASA passengers on the flight.

[newpylong]

F9-R most likely not enough payload capacity for DC.

I'm thinking if Dreamchaser gets looking possibly like the downselect survivor, they should take a page out of Boeing's book. 
Dream chaser launching on a man-rated F9R (not Grasshopper) from LC-39A baby!

[Lurker Steve]

F9-R most likely not enough payload capacity for DC.

I'm thinking if Dreamchaser gets looking possibly like the downselect survivor, they should take a page out of Boeing's book. 
Dream chaser launching on a man-rated F9R (not Grasshopper) from LC-39A baby!

Then it won't work for cst-100 either.

[JBF]

F9-R most likely not enough payload capacity for DC.

I'm thinking if Dreamchaser gets looking possibly like the downselect survivor, they should take a page out of Boeing's book. 
Dream chaser launching on a man-rated F9R (not Grasshopper) from LC-39A baby!

Then it won't work for cst-100 either.

Please don't use the F9R moniker for standard F9v1.1 flights. You will just confuse everyone.

[newpylong]

F9-R most likely not enough payload capacity for DC.

I'm thinking if Dreamchaser gets looking possibly like the downselect survivor, they should take a page out of Boeing's book. 
Dream chaser launching on a man-rated F9R (not Grasshopper) from LC-39A baby!

Then it won't work for cst-100 either.

Right, it's supposed to be even heavier.

[Lars_J]

You're missing the point... F9-R in expendable form (what we call the v1.1) should be able to lift either DC or CST-100. (13,150kg to LEO)

When you write F9R people assume the reusable form, which is commonly assumed to have roughly half the payload.

[Robotbeat]

F9-R most likely not enough payload capacity for DC.

I'm thinking if Dreamchaser gets looking possibly like the downselect survivor, they should take a page out of Boeing's book. 
Dream chaser launching on a man-rated F9R (not Grasshopper) from LC-39A baby!

Then it won't work for cst-100 either.

Please don't use the F9R moniker for standard F9v1.1 flights. You will just confuse everyone.

The assumption was that it'd be the partially reusable F9R, not the fully expendable F9v1.1, which can easily put either Dreamchaser or CST-100 in orbit (expendable v1.1 can do almost 16 metric tons to LEO according to: http://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/elvMap/elvMap.ui.PerfQuery0?ReqType=Query&ContSource=-5&OrbitType=LEO&Incl=28&Contract=2&Vehicles=4&Drop1=Apogee&Entry1=400 ).

[newpylong]

You're missing the point... F9-R in expendable form (what we call the v1.1) should be able to lift either DC or CST-100. (13,150kg to LEO)

When you write F9R people assume the reusable form, which is commonly assumed to have roughly half the payload.

I'm not missing the point. If you want to correct anyone, ask Lobo to say 1.1 not R if he means an expendable vehicle. My reply was based on the reusable not having the lift capacity. Really not a big deal.

[Lobo]

Isn't it planning to launch on an Atlas 402?  Which I believe has a payload capacity around 12.5 mt to LEO and F9R will have around 13.1mt to LEO.

I wasn't referring to a reusable version of F9R, which will probably only have Delta II class capacity to LEO capacity.

Or do you mean F9R will end up with less than 12.5mt of capacity?

F9-R most likely not enough payload capacity for DC.

I'm thinking if Dreamchaser gets looking possibly like the downselect survivor, they should take a page out of Boeing's book. 
Dream chaser launching on a man-rated F9R (not Grasshopper) from LC-39A baby!

[Lobo]

Please don't use the F9R moniker for standard F9v1.1 flights. You will just confuse everyone.

I thought it was to be called the F9R, regardless of it was flying in an expendable or reusable configuration?  That it wasn't actually referred to as F9v1.1 by SpaceX (at least any more)

Wasn't there a whole thread string somewhere around here that hammered that out?  Elon called the new LV "F9R" pronounced "F-niner".
And that referred to the new LV regardless of if it had legs and boosted back and landed or not.

I thought that was it's official brand name now?

[Lars_J]

Elon called it F9-R in a tweet. SpaceX is officially only calling it F9 on their web site. It is probably safer to not use the F9-R or F9R terms unless you mean partial or full reusability.

[Lobo]

Elon called it F9-R in a tweet. SpaceX is officially only calling it F9 on their web site. It is probably safer to not use the F9-R or F9R terms unless you mean partial or full reusability.

Well, regardless, I meant the expendable version of the new Falcon 9 which can do 13mt+ to LEO to fly Dreamchaser as a potential way to get the fan-favorite Commercial crew vehicle to win the down select, but SpaceX still getting a piece of the pie where they can finish up Dragonrider themselves...as they said was their plan even if they don't win CCiCAP.
And it could then launch crews from Pad 39A and a new crew access tower would not need to be added to LC-41.

[yg1968]

Will the crewed Dragon launch on a F9R (reusable)?

[Lobo]

Will the crewed Dragon launch on a F9R (reusable)?

Good question.  Not sure.  The new Dragon with LAS system might be too heavy for the reusable F9.  I don't know how much it will weigh with it's LAS system, full propellant load, and crew or cargo.  sounds like SpaceX will go to just once common capsule for both cargo and crew (if they get crew) rather than have the old Dragon and the new Dragon. Then they can propulsively land downmass too. 

But, if the F9R-reusable only has about 1/2 the capacity of the expendable version, and the expendable version has a little over 13mt, I don't see how it could do it.  I'm guessing the new Dragon with LAS system and full propellant load and a crew will be too heavy for it.

The Cargo version might be able to use it though, as it might not need a full launch abort propellant load.  I think the amount of propellant needed for landing is less than for abort, so a cargo Dragon will only need enough to land.  So it could be light enough to fly on the reusable F9 depending on the cargo upmass both internal and external.

 

[manboy]

I saw that clause about commercial passengers.

It says that NASA must be reimbursed for any non-NASA visitors to the ISS. I wonder what those reimbursement rates will be ? NASA could price those seats in the 75-100 million range, which would basically kill any thought of carrying any non-NASA passengers on the flight.

Admittedly the clause makes sense because NASA intends to use the unoccupied space for up/down mass. Anyway, since there will be two NDS ports on the ISS and NASA only plans to use one; maybe a commercial mission could be financed and dock to the other port.

[Lars_J]

NASA has plans for both - The other port will be for crew overlap or as a spare.

[manboy]

NASA has plans for both - The other port will be for crew overlap or as a spare.

It's a back-up port. Currently nothing is planned to dock to it. USOS crew overlap is not planned. See L2 for more info.

Even if it were to be used it could still serve as a back-up to the primary.

[MP99]

I'm thinking if Dreamchaser gets looking possibly like the downselect survivor, they should take a page out of Boeing's book. 
Dream chaser launching on a man-rated F9R (not Grasshopper) from LC-39A baby!

F9-R most likely not enough payload capacity for DC.

Isn't it planning to launch on an Atlas 402?  Which I believe has a payload capacity around 12.5 mt to LEO and F9R will have around 13.1mt to LEO.

Don't forget that Atlas must fly a less lofted trajectory to aid during aborts.

Just raising this in case the same modification to F9's trajectory might reduce capacity slightly below Atlas for crewed configs.

cheers, Martin

[Robotbeat]

Again, remember that the performance of F9v1.1 according to NLS II is almost 16mT to LEO.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Will the crewed Dragon launch on a F9R (reusable)?

Good question.  Not sure.  The new Dragon with LAS system might be too heavy for the reusable F9.  I don't know how much it will weigh with it's LAS system, full propellant load, and crew or cargo.  sounds like SpaceX will go to just once common capsule for both cargo and crew (if they get crew) rather than have the old Dragon and the new Dragon. Then they can propulsively land downmass too. 

But, if the F9R-reusable only has about 1/2 the capacity of the expendable version, and the expendable version has a little over 13mt, I don't see how it could do it.  I'm guessing the new Dragon with LAS system and full propellant load and a crew will be too heavy for it.

The Cargo version might be able to use it though, as it might not need a full launch abort propellant load.  I think the amount of propellant needed for landing is less than for abort, so a cargo Dragon will only need enough to land.  So it could be light enough to fly on the reusable F9 depending on the cargo upmass both internal and external.

 

Current Dragon rode a V1.0 that only had 8.5mt to ISS. A partial reusable F9R would have ~80% of the expendable version or about 10.5 which was the original Block II payload size or the target size for Dragon with max payload. Crew Dragon would have to be a lot heavier to not be able to be launched on the 1st stage reusable only F9R version.

[Robotbeat]

It's not impossible that the crewed Dragon would do an orbital insertion burn.

[Lobo]

Again, remember that the performance of F9v1.1 according to NLS II is almost 16mT to LEO.

SpaceX's own website gives the 13.15mt number though.

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9

And 4.85mt to GTO.  Which put it right about the same as Atlas V-401 (4.95mt to GTO)  and a bit above a Delta IV-Medum with 4m upper stage and no SRB's (4.2mt to GTO) But less than any of the Delta IV configs with SRB's. 

But who knows if that will be revised or not later.

[Lobo]

Will the crewed Dragon launch on a F9R (reusable)?

Good question.  Not sure.  The new Dragon with LAS system might be too heavy for the reusable F9.  I don't know how much it will weigh with it's LAS system, full propellant load, and crew or cargo.  sounds like SpaceX will go to just once common capsule for both cargo and crew (if they get crew) rather than have the old Dragon and the new Dragon. Then they can propulsively land downmass too. 

But, if the F9R-reusable only has about 1/2 the capacity of the expendable version, and the expendable version has a little over 13mt, I don't see how it could do it.  I'm guessing the new Dragon with LAS system and full propellant load and a crew will be too heavy for it.

The Cargo version might be able to use it though, as it might not need a full launch abort propellant load.  I think the amount of propellant needed for landing is less than for abort, so a cargo Dragon will only need enough to land.  So it could be light enough to fly on the reusable F9 depending on the cargo upmass both internal and external.

 

Current Dragon rode a V1.0 that only had 8.5mt to ISS. A partial reusable F9R would have ~80% of the expendable version or about 10.5 which was the original Block II payload size or the target size for Dragon with max payload. Crew Dragon would have to be a lot heavier to not be able to be launched on the 1st stage reusable only F9R version.

I thought the partially reusable F9R would have more like 1/2 the payload capacity of the expendable one?

[guckyfan]

I thought the partially reusable F9R would have more like 1/2 the payload capacity of the expendable one?

Elon Musk stated in an Interview a while ago that the fully reusable vehicle 1. and 2. stage would have about half the payload. But that was a goal, not an engineering calculation for a given launch vehicle.