Author Topic: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread  (Read 22175 times)

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2990
  • Likes Given: 7960
Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« on: 02/04/2014 12:32 PM »
So I was sipping my morning cup of Joe as usual and I started thinking of an alternate scenario with the four major players would get a piece of the pie and the U.S. would benefit in four new spacecraft they invested in during the competition.

-Dragon would handle cargo on Falcon.

-Cynus would handle cargo as well.

-Dream Chaser for crew rotation.

-CST-100 as a CEV for long stays.

Since both DC and the CST-100 will fly on Atlas the certification will be done for both spacecraft.
I like the CST-100 for its possible future in some commercial BEO missions with some mods.
We get three new spacecraft and two launch vehicles in the U.S. inventory for our investment. (I never really felt that this was really a fly-off as in the aviation world anyway). Thoughts?

« Last Edit: 02/04/2014 01:20 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10626
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2785
  • Likes Given: 1066
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #1 on: 02/04/2014 01:01 PM »
-Dragon would handle cargo on Falcon.

What about Orbital? Your scenario deletes them and they already have an ISS cargo contract.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 757
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 361
  • Likes Given: 1147
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #2 on: 02/04/2014 01:04 PM »
OK, I'll bite:

* Why reduce the only vehicle with flight history to cargo only?

* Why award the company with the least amount of "visible vision" with the long stays award. They will not do anything with this experience, while SpaceX might...

* Why have the crew rotation vehicle on the more expensive launcher?

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2990
  • Likes Given: 7960
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #3 on: 02/04/2014 01:05 PM »
-Dragon would handle cargo on Falcon.

What about Orbital? Your scenario deletes them and they already have an ISS cargo contract.
Fair enough Chuck, I adding  it in...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2990
  • Likes Given: 7960
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #4 on: 02/04/2014 01:31 PM »
OK, I'll bite:

* Why reduce the only vehicle with flight history to cargo only?

* Why award the company with the least amount of "visible vision" with the long stays award. They will not do anything with this experience, while SpaceX might...

* Why have the crew rotation vehicle on the more expensive launcher?
-Elon's goal is not ISS crew but "free reused" spacecraft and launchers.

-Altlas has a long "proven"flight history, you can't say that "yet" for SpaceX.

- I am seeking the greatest ROI and the maximum number of vehicle mix for the future.

Please feel free to provide you alternate for the best ROI and greatest mix...
« Last Edit: 02/04/2014 01:32 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3214
  • Liked: 604
  • Likes Given: 883
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #5 on: 02/04/2014 01:39 PM »
I actually like that mix. I had a similar thought a while ago. I did leave out Orbital as well, back then (they might run out of engines anyway, if I remember correctly).

Offline simonbp

Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #6 on: 02/04/2014 04:38 PM »
-Altlas has a long "proven"flight history, you can't say that "yet" for SpaceX.

That's an increasingly hard argument to make, as the two versions of Falcon 9 have 8 flights between them, with only a single anomaly, which did not affect the primary payload (and only affected the secondary because of ISS proximity requirements). If the USAF gives its approval to Falcon 9 v1.1 (which is likely now after three good flights), then it's really as "proven" as it needs to be.

Not that Atlas isn't a great rocket, it's just that it starts to look really expensive for not much more reliability.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28616
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8585
  • Likes Given: 5600
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #7 on: 02/04/2014 08:00 PM »
If SpaceX gets 6 launches this year, 10 the next then 12 in 2016 (reasonable numbers, based on their manifest), it will have overcome Delta IV's total number of launches and will be proportionally (logarithmically) quite close to Atlas V. Atlas V's advantage in number of launches won't be significant for much longer.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1441
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 462
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #8 on: 02/04/2014 08:27 PM »
So this thread is basically looking for a way to divide the pie so everyone gets a slice. I think the premise is unwise (takes longer, costs more) but anyways...

As I see it, there's only one way it could happen (and I reiterate that it shouldn't, and it won't):

SpX and ORB continue to both fly cargo.

NASA awards post certification missions to both CST-100 and Dreamchaser with the understanding that CST will be ready sooner. Then (and this is a very "alternate" universe here) NASA (with the blessing of congress) decides they want both a lifting body and a capsule and keeps buying seats from both providers at a hefty markup.

The vehicle that rotates crew serves as CRV; escape pod doesn't really work as an excuse for having two providers.

The only question now is how to get ATK's Liberty in on this...

Offline dror

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
  • Israel
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 383
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #9 on: 02/04/2014 08:51 PM »
I did leave out Orbital as well, back then (they might run out of engines anyway, if I remember correctly).
A cygnus on a falcon 9 may be even better for cargo. Let them run out of engines, but keep them flying.
"If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal. "
Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2990
  • Likes Given: 7960
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #10 on: 02/04/2014 10:33 PM »
If SpaceX gets 6 launches this year, 10 the next then 12 in 2016 (reasonable numbers, based on their manifest), it will have overcome Delta IV's total number of launches and will be proportionally (logarithmically) quite close to Atlas V. Atlas V's advantage in number of launches won't be significant for much longer.
It’s going to be interesting comparing reliability between Atlas and Falcon when the flight numbers are at an equal footing...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #11 on: 02/05/2014 12:24 AM »
So this thread is basically looking for a way to divide the pie so everyone gets a slice.

That just leaves everyone hungry for more pie.


Offline Elmar Moelzer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3214
  • Liked: 604
  • Likes Given: 883
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #12 on: 02/05/2014 03:18 AM »
So this thread is basically looking for a way to divide the pie so everyone gets a slice.

That just leaves everyone hungry for more pie.
Then drive the competition harder and offer more pie in return!

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #13 on: 02/05/2014 06:09 AM »
Am I the only one who is somewhat amused by the concept of this thread, where a Commercial Cargo/Crew program is distributed in the fairest way possible to as many organizations a possible, like some Soviet market planning exercise? :)

Thus, in the process guaranteeing that they all have so few missions that they have trouble making a profit. Is that what is the goal here?  ;D

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8717
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3654
  • Likes Given: 858
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #14 on: 02/05/2014 06:18 AM »
So long as no-one challenges Boeing and LockMart in the next buffet bid, who cares? ;)
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Online guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6792
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1842
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #15 on: 02/05/2014 07:11 AM »
Am I the only one who is somewhat amused by the concept of this thread, where a Commercial Cargo/Crew program is distributed in the fairest way possible to as many organizations a possible, like some Soviet market planning exercise? :)

Thus, in the process guaranteeing that they all have so few missions that they have trouble making a profit. Is that what is the goal here?  ;D

It seems, yes. Plus punish SpaceX for being ahead.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2990
  • Likes Given: 7960
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #16 on: 02/05/2014 12:34 PM »
Am I the only one who is somewhat amused by the concept of this thread, where a Commercial Cargo/Crew program is distributed in the fairest way possible to as many organizations a possible, like some Soviet market planning exercise? :)

Thus, in the process guaranteeing that they all have so few missions that they have trouble making a profit. Is that what is the goal here?  ;D
Lars, kind of ironic to make that analogy since even after their collapse of the USSR they continued their human spaceflight program without any downtime and we have to go begging a ride at 70 million a head for what, at least the next four years or so... What have we to show for the past 20 years billions spent on a scrap heap of unfinished projects..? Just sayin’...
« Last Edit: 02/05/2014 12:35 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Online clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10626
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2785
  • Likes Given: 1066
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #17 on: 02/05/2014 12:42 PM »
What we have to show Rocket is a cast-in-stone example of Administrations and Congresses at odds with each other and using NASA as a political football instead of the Space Agency it was intended to be. The results are inevitable: a few spectacular successes but far more spectacular program failures/cancellations.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 665
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #18 on: 02/05/2014 05:06 PM »
Am I the only one who is somewhat amused by the concept of this thread, where a Commercial Cargo/Crew program is distributed in the fairest way possible to as many organizations a possible, like some Soviet market planning exercise? :)

Thus, in the process guaranteeing that they all have so few missions that they have trouble making a profit. Is that what is the goal here?  ;D
Lars, kind of ironic to make that analogy since even after their collapse of the USSR they continued their human spaceflight program without any downtime and we have to go begging a ride at 70 million a head for what, at least the next four years or so... What have we to show for the past 20 years billions spent on a scrap heap of unfinished projects..? Just sayin’...

I think my point may just have sailed over your head. What exactly does the continued use of a single launch system that is ~45 years old have to do how contracts would be distributed amongst competing contractors?

In addition - You may not have realized that part of the reason the NASA space program is in its current state is because it has been run like a centrally planned government program ever since the Apollo years.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9121
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2990
  • Likes Given: 7960
Re: Commercial Crew Alternate Universe Thread
« Reply #19 on: 02/05/2014 06:37 PM »
Am I the only one who is somewhat amused by the concept of this thread, where a Commercial Cargo/Crew program is distributed in the fairest way possible to as many organizations a possible, like some Soviet market planning exercise? :)

Thus, in the process guaranteeing that they all have so few missions that they have trouble making a profit. Is that what is the goal here?  ;D
Lars, kind of ironic to make that analogy since even after their collapse of the USSR they continued their human spaceflight program without any downtime and we have to go begging a ride at 70 million a head for what, at least the next four years or so... What have we to show for the past 20 years billions spent on a scrap heap of unfinished projects..? Just sayin’...

I think my point may just have sailed over your head. What exactly does the continued use of a single launch system that is ~45 years old have to do how contracts would be distributed amongst competing contractors?

In addition - You may not have realized that part of the reason the NASA space program is in its current state is because it has been run like a centrally planned government program ever since the Apollo years.
Centrally planned governments with human spaceflight ability: Russia, China... BTW, you brought up the term Soviet... They have a long-term plan, we don’t. Are they on to something?

Anyways... I'm not going to argue space policy on this thread, I've got to watch that Russian re-supply mission to ISS...
« Last Edit: 02/05/2014 06:57 PM by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Tags: