Pros and Cons, Dragon V2, CST-100 and Dream Chaser

[kirghizstan]

Is there a capability comparison (graphic) of the 3 spacecraft?  would be helpful as we get closer to the next phase to see what each brings to the table that might be unique

[Giovanni DS]

I don't believe that they would select two vehicles requiring the same rocket using a Russian engine. There is that trampoline issue to address and, more importantly, the point about having two service providers is redundancy.

Giovanni

[Ike17055]

Isn't the Russian engine issue now a non-issue?  ULA has adequate supply even if there is a cutoff.  Plus there was never a threat against anything other than military missions, although that could of course change.  How credible is ULA's announced effort to develop a domestically produced version?  It would be nice to get some facts on how real this "threat" to RD-180 access really is, and thus whether it is really a selection factor -- or whether this is just another convenient prickpoint for repeat ad-nauseum, perpetuated cynically by the groupthink and blind boosterism of the SpaceX groupies and apologists.

[Hauerg]

Why should it be a non-issue.
You are NASA. you give the contracts to DC and CT100, both relying on RD180 driven Atlas V. 3 years from now supplies of RD 180 stops. How does that make look, since you took the decision AFTER that engine issue had been discussed in early 2013?
It will have been an issue. (Not that Dragon 2 should not win on it's own anyway.)

[Bob Shaw]

Isn't it strange that Dreamchaser hardly seems to feature in the Bigelow PR videos etc, and that Dragon hardly features (I can only recall seeing Dragons in the cutaway of the fantasy big Bigelow Station)?

The visiting spacecraft are always CST-100 vehicles, never Orion, Dragon, Dreamchaser, Soyuz or any of a host of unmanned spacecraft.

Is this telling us something about Bigelow's take on the future, or would Boeing's post downselect plan be to service Bigelow as sole provider, thus ensuring a reasonably regular income stream as the ISS starts to wind down?

[Hauerg]

Isn't it strange that Dreamchaser hardly seems to feature in the Bigelow PR videos etc, and that Dragon hardly features (I can only recall seeing Dragons in the cutaway of the fantasy big Bigelow Station)?

The visiting spacecraft are always CST-100 vehicles, never Orion, Dragon, Dreamchaser, Soyuz or any of a host of unmanned spacecraft.

Is this telling us something about Bigelow's take on the future, or would Boeing's post downselect plan be to service Bigelow as sole provider, thus ensuring a reasonably regular income stream as the ISS starts to wind down?

Unsubstantiated. 

Why would Bigelow go w somebody that is twice as expensive (likely) ? If you have a business case to close that is NOT a good idea.
(On the other hand, Boeing could intend to buy Bigelow in 2016 and provide station and transport. But I would not bet on this.)

[Coastal Ron]

Isn't the Russian engine issue now a non-issue?  ULA has adequate supply even if there is a cutoff.

Not really.  The current supply only covers the Air Force Block Buy, and that only last 3 years.  So based on that simple math ULA does not yet have any engines for when the Commercial Crew contract takes over from Soyuz in late 2017.

Plus there was never a threat against anything other than military missions, although that could of course change.

From a supply standpoint it's sometimes enough that there was a threat of a threat.  Here in the U.S. I don't think there is any concern at all that ULA would be able to get as many RS-68 engines for Delta IV as they want, but now there is certainly a concern that RD-180 engine supplies could be interrupted at any time because of political reasons.

Any reasonable company would be concerned about that situation, especially when their customer trusts them with their most valuable assets.

How credible is ULA's announced effort to develop a domestically produced version?

They said they could, but they didn't say they would.  It's the only leverage they have in this situation other than creating a new design rocket to replace Atlas V.

...or whether this is just another convenient prickpoint for repeat ad-nauseum, perpetuated cynically by the groupthink and blind boosterism of the SpaceX groupies and apologists.

Ask the Air Force if they mind if one of their national security payloads for monitoring Russia doesn't launch because of Russia.  I'd say it's a legitimate concern.  SpaceX only plays into this as a possible solution, but not as part of the cause.

[Robotbeat]

Isn't it strange that Dreamchaser hardly seems to feature in the Bigelow PR videos etc, and that Dragon hardly features (I can only recall seeing Dragons in the cutaway of the fantasy big Bigelow Station)?

The visiting spacecraft are always CST-100 vehicles, never Orion, Dragon, Dreamchaser, Soyuz or any of a host of unmanned spacecraft.

Is this telling us something about Bigelow's take on the future, or would Boeing's post downselect plan be to service Bigelow as sole provider, thus ensuring a reasonably regular income stream as the ISS starts to wind down?

Not strange at all considering Boeing and Bigelow were partnering on CST-100 for a long time with Bigelow even making one of the CST-100 test articles.

[TrevorMonty]

There is some business arrangement between Bigelow and Boeing.

Bigelow as repeatedly stated he wants at least two vehicles supplying his stations,
a) keep their pricing competitive
b) for redundancy

If Bigelow is successful he may use  more than 2 vehicles if they are available. NB a 2xBA330 is expected to need 8 passenger  flights a year plus a few cargo flights.

[Roy_H]

Isn't it strange that Dreamchaser hardly seems to feature in the Bigelow PR videos etc, and that Dragon hardly features (I can only recall seeing Dragons in the cutaway of the fantasy big Bigelow Station)?

The visiting spacecraft are always CST-100 vehicles, never Orion, Dragon, Dreamchaser, Soyuz or any of a host of unmanned spacecraft.

Is this telling us something about Bigelow's take on the future, or would Boeing's post downselect plan be to service Bigelow as sole provider, thus ensuring a reasonably regular income stream as the ISS starts to wind down?

Not strange at all considering Boeing and Bigelow were partnering on CST-100 for a long time with Bigelow even making one of the CST-100 test articles.

Bigelow didn't make a CST-100, just did some testing for Boeing. Bigelow made a commitment with Boeing years ago when SpaceX success was far less obvious. Bigelow contributed $100M to the development of CTS-100. What he was concerned with was that there would be at least one American spacecraft able to service his habitats, and he felt that Boeing was the lowest risk. Bigelow is keen to do business with all three in this competition.

[Ike17055]

Sorry, still sounds like misdirection.  THe air force may care about a shortage of russian engines for their satellites, sure. That is the point. The russian threat was to stop engines for military launches, not commercial crew.  My question stands: is there a real basis for concern that atlas for commercial crew would be grounded due to a boycott of sales to ULA for commercial crew. The answer provided SEEMS to muddy the water, thus my continuing frustration with trying to find a factual basis for the whole issue of the rd-180 "issue."   Is there a real threat to current timelines and Is a domestic substitute able to be found in time, if needed? Inquiring minds (really) want to know, because they would like to assess this situation factually instead of from the self-serving spin by spaceX advocates, who after all are ADVOCATES, and considering the conpany's credibility is stretched a bit tight to begin with.

[clongton]

Here is my try, I am sure many will have diverging opinions:

Dragon V2 cons:
   - ...
   - powered landing reduces usable mass to orbit
   - ...

Back to the original topic.

I'm surprised that nobody picked up on this. Powered landing does *not* reduce usable mass to orbit because the propellant for the landing is the abort propellant. All 3 spacecraft carry their abort propellant aloft, and actually use it if there is no abort. For DreamChaser that propellant gets used for the final push and the circularization burn. The propellant mass is not wasted. For Dragon, the propellant gets used either for abort or landing - not both. The propellant mass is not wasted. For CST-100 the propellant is used for abort and spacecraft/service module separation. The propellant mass is not wasted.

In all three cases the propellant mass does not affect the "usable mass to orbit". Ironically, it is only Orion that wastes that capability if not used. Only Orion's abort system is wasted mass when the spacecraft performs properly.

Bottom line. Powered landing for Dragon does not negatively affect useful mass to orbit.

[MP99]

What happens to the vehicles that are not selected?. I've not read anything stating what a manufacturer will do if their vehicle is not selected.

SpaceX has Mars as along term goal, plus there was an arrangement with Bigelow which I've not heard much about recently.

Boeing has an arrangement with Bigelow plus Space Adventures  http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1406/15lunarsoyuz/#.U59XkGf7Jgg

SNC have stated a few different uses for DC but not sure if they have any firm customers.

Yeah, but I think the reality is that two will die on the vine. If Bigelow is serious about demanding two providers for crew transport before putting up his first station, then I think he'll never fly. It's a shame, but the reality is that human spaceflight in the US is still strongly dependent upon NASA's budget. The idea of independent financing for human spaceflight coming in and changing this is great, and many people would welcome it, but so far that's not even on the horizon.

Obviously, Bigelow will immediately pull their finger out and start building stations so that they'll provide a second string of demand to sustain the two providers they need as soon as capability becomes available. ;-)

Oh, no wait... you were right.

Unfortunately, ISTM that Bigelow's business model is to wait for NASA to order some stations before beginning serious development, then have them pay for the flights to supply and visit them.

Cheers, Martin

[ChrisWilson68]

Bigelow contributed $100M to the development of CTS-100.

Source?

[ChrisWilson68]

the self-serving spin by spaceX advocates, who after all are ADVOCATES, and considering the conpany's credibility is stretched a bit tight to begin with.

I think you're unclear on the concept of "self-serving".  Self-serving means that the person saying something has some personal motivation for saying it other than the obvious motivation of saying it simply because he or she believes it.  It lowers the level of discussion on this forum to throw out personal insults like "self-serving" at those who disagree with you simply because they disagree with you.

[veblen]

Isn't the Russian engine issue now a non-issue?  ULA has adequate supply even if there is a cutoff.

Not really.  The current supply only covers the Air Force Block Buy, and that only last 3 years.  So based on that simple math ULA does not yet have any engines for when the Commercial Crew contract takes over from Soyuz in late 2017.

Plus there was never a threat against anything other than military missions, although that could of course change.

From a supply standpoint it's sometimes enough that there was a threat of a threat.  Here in the U.S. I don't think there is any concern at all that ULA would be able to get as many RS-68 engines for Delta IV as they want, but now there is certainly a concern that RD-180 engine supplies could be interrupted at any time because of political reasons.

Any reasonable company would be concerned about that situation, especially when their customer trusts them with their most valuable assets.

How credible is ULA's announced effort to develop a domestically produced version?

They said they could, but they didn't say they would.  It's the only leverage they have in this situation other than creating a new design rocket to replace Atlas V.

...or whether this is just another convenient prickpoint for repeat ad-nauseum, perpetuated cynically by the groupthink and blind boosterism of the SpaceX groupies and apologists.

Ask the Air Force if they mind if one of their national security payloads for monitoring Russia doesn't launch because of Russia.  I'd say it's a legitimate concern.  SpaceX only plays into this as a possible solution, but not as part of the cause.

USAF seems quite fond of AtlasV. Being sued by SpaceX, not so much.

[Coastal Ron]

Isn't the Russian engine issue now a non-issue?

As long as we have sanctions in place on Russia this will be a potential issue.

ULA has adequate supply even if there is a cutoff.

I think it was an Air Force official that said ULA has enough RD-180's for the 36 core Block Buy.  But that is not enough for Commercial Crew, as the Block Buy does not include Commercial Crew needs from 2017 and on.  So as of today the mere threat of a threat is enough to sow doubt in future availability of Atlas V beyond 2017.

How credible is ULA's announced effort to develop a domestically produced version?

They say they can build a licensed version of the RD-180 domestically.  However estimates they have provided for producing such an engine means that there could be a multi-year gap in the supply of engines if Russia cuts off the supply and ULA's engine manufacturer can't accelerate production of the engine.

Now that may be a worse case scenario, but ULA's customers will have to factor that in when ordering future Atlas V launches.  Or deciding NOT to order them.

It would be nice to get some facts on how real this "threat" to RD-180 access really is...

It is a fact that we are having political disagreements with Russia that have led to us and other countries putting in place severe sanctions on Russia.

It is a fact that Russia has threatened to cut off our supply of RD-180 engines.

...or whether this is just another convenient prickpoint for repeat ad-nauseum, perpetuated cynically by the groupthink and blind boosterism of the SpaceX groupies and apologists.

And what are the facts telling you know?

[Jim]

It is a fact that Russia has threatened to cut off our supply of RD-180 engines.

No, it is only one guy shooting his mouth off.    Much to do about nothing

[raczkri]

It is a fact that Russia has threatened to cut off our supply of RD-180 engines.

No, it is only one guy shooting his mouth off.    Much to do about nothing

You mean Dmitry Rogozin Deputy Prime Minister of Russian Government in charge of defense and space industry?  (the guy who suggested US use a trampoline to get to the ISS)

maybe he joked. or not.. sounds a high profile treat to me

[clongton]

Guys, this is supposed to be about the spacecraft, not the launch vehicles or their engines. There are other threads dedicated to those subjects. Can we get back on topic and discuss the pros and cons of the spacecraft please?