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

[abaddon]

DEC is required for performance.  It is required to be man-rated to be considered suitable for launching either CST-100 or Dreamchaser.

[arachnitect]

The Atlas V will only be man-rated after a dual engine Centaur upper stage has successfully flown. It's been a long time since a DEC upper stage has flown.

Why is DEC required for man rating and is that that pacing item?

Spacecraft will be the long pole.

Higher thrust of DEC is required to fly flatter (safer) trajectories.

[yg1968]

The Atlas V will only be man-rated after a dual engine Centaur upper stage has successfully flown. It's been a long time since a DEC upper stage has flown.

Why is DEC required for man rating and is that that pacing item?

Spacecraft will be the long pole.

Higher thrust of DEC is required to fly flatter (safer) trajectories.

To avoid blackzones?

[alexterrell]

When is the "down-selection" due?

Looking from the outside, I'd be amazed if NASA increases a reliance on Russian supplied engines? Having been trying to encourage Europe to reduce reliance on Russian energy, the USA can't really increase reliance on Russian engines.

That makes Dragon-crew a very probable winner.

Given the increased importance of commercial crew, the urgent need for a manned capability, and I would suggest, the good results achieved by all three companies (especially compared to NASA's own efforts), a second participant will/should be chosen. I'd expect this to be Dream Chaser as this is something different to Dragon - especially as far as the public is concerned. It would be harder for NASA to justify to the public "yet another capsule" after Dragon and Orion.

[Hauerg]

When is the "down-selection" due?

Looking from the outside, I'd be amazed if NASA increases a reliance on Russian supplied engines? Having been trying to encourage Europe to reduce reliance on Russian energy, the USA can't really increase reliance on Russian engines.

That makes Dragon-crew a very probable winner.

Given the increased importance of commercial crew, the urgent need for a manned capability, and I would suggest, the good results achieved by all three companies (especially compared to NASA's own efforts), a second participant will/should be chosen. I'd expect this to be Dream Chaser as this is something different to Dragon - especially as far as the public is concerned. It would be harder for NASA to justify to the public "yet another capsule" after Dragon and Orion.

quod licet US non licet EU.

[SWGlassPit]

When is the "down-selection" due?

August/September.

Basically, any day now.

[sghill]

quod licet US non licet EU.

Awe. I don't think that's true.  Just differing priorities, that's all.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Keep in mind that the process here has pros and cons for the collective choice as well.

Partially due to the nature of Congress not appropriately funding, nor supporting the program enthusiastically, it has certain weaknesses that were unavoidable.

Pro's:
  * American crew launch capability
  * Reinvestment in HSF for American industry
  * Movement towards a more cost effective HSF access to space globally

Con's:
  * Non-uniform approach of milestones chosen leaves lack of surety for overall program goals and schedule
  * Paucity / "stretching" of budget, possibly intentionally, might lead to cutting safety corners (mind over funding also not helpful)
  * Constant political threats, "down select" demands, legislative intimidation (Shelby) have not improved the health/stability of the program

Against this judge the companies and their proposals. One small, self-contained heretic with an Heinlien-esque propulsive lander,
a small contractor well integrated into the industry with a modernized version of the "plan B for STS 101 failing", a giant industry titan with vast HSF CV redoing its failing OSP "Apollo-like" bid.

The big guy has the highest financial loading, so can't do so much fabrication/testing for the Congressionally miserly bucks present. The little guys have the biggest financial risk, but also the most to gain. All but for different reasons will have hidden program risks brought on by the uncertainty. Ironically, the earlier capsule under development not in this program, certainly hasn't benefited from these added risks, and a case can be made that these risks ironically hurt that capsule as well.

Such are the effects of political games. Not to mention certain egg on certain faces as CRS/COTS successes work against their talking points.

The heretic actually has helped the industry overall because it has attracted a critical eye to all three. The two industry ones have had setbacks before flying hardware, in propulsion and flight/test articles or lack thereof. None of the three is a slam/dunk.

The heretic is impossible to ignore because of obvious flight history of a largely similar cargo craft, yet they are their worst enemy by extreme choices, over claims, and undercutting own efforts to make concrete a win, apparently because they want to win in a much larger way.

"plan B" et al faced the biggest risk in materials, flight testing, absurd propulsion system, and with the least resources. Yet it has been consistently retaining NASA's trust as it can mitigate risks NASA understands extremely well, so these weaknesses are far less damning than otherwise. They are likely to win on the virtual of manageable risk and predictability than the heretic.

So what about the giant? Where's the love so to speak for it? In straightforward, shop worthy, predictable, design. Not brilliant but very believable. Not aimed much at cost but traditional "iron". Should be a solid win, just crank out the "iron" since its so straight forward. Ah, there's the rub - where exactly is this "iron"? They could afford the people and the paper, but not enough of the actual "iron". Again, reminds me of ATK's earlier Liberty+capsule entry - too much "trust us, we've built bigger before ...". Meaning rear end loaded program/schedule risk. So while giants have a reputation for "can do", they also have a reputation for "oh, I need more due to overrun". Critical weakness, because you can't system test paper designs.

While political gambits may have been intended to favor certain interests, they often have unpredictable ends. Had they fully funded commercial crew, the big guys would have fielded hardware first and been unstoppable. By meddling, things have devolved to a game of the small fry, and how can they channel relative effectiveness in scope for their own ends.

Also, the downsides of the polarization of this program and the other capsule have unpleasantly made the other capsule look bad, and made this program a more necessarily needed success as a direct result. Unfortunate. But predictable.

[TrevorMonty]

As stated by M Sirangelo the DC has no blackzones, meaning it can abort anywhere in the launch and either land at a runway or achieve orbit. In the case of the capsules both will most likely end up in the sea if they abort, this could be 100s km into the atlantic. During every launch Navy rescue ships will have to be on station just in case.

Somebody has to pay for these rescue ships. For ISS launches the navy will most likely provide the service for free. What happens for private launches to a commercial station or a tourist flight.

[Lars_J]

As stated by M Sirangelo the DC has no blackzones, meaning it can abort anywhere in the launch and either land at a runway or achieve orbit. In the case of the capsules both will most likely end up in the sea if they abort, this could be 100s km into the atlantic. During every launch Navy rescue ships will have to be on station just in case.

I'm still skeptical about this claim... Although I admit it is more of a gut feeling than based on calculations. But if you follow the ISS launch track northeast from CCAFS, yes it does go close to the east coast. But after that there is a large area of the Atlantic before Europe is reached.

EDIT: I added an approximate ISS launch path from CCAFS, as annotated in Google Earth.

[Coastal Ron]

As stated by M Sirangelo the DC has no blackzones, meaning it can abort anywhere in the launch and either land at a runway or achieve orbit. In the case of the capsules both will most likely end up in the sea if they abort, this could be 100s km into the atlantic. During every launch Navy rescue ships will have to be on station just in case.

Somebody has to pay for these rescue ships. For ISS launches the navy will most likely provide the service for free. What happens for private launches to a commercial station or a tourist flight.

Same thing that happens when SpaceX retrieves a Dragon cargo - they have a ship standing by.

This is a great question though.  I think that instead of putting the responsibility on the customer (i.e. NASA, Bigelow, etc.), that the service providers will provide recovery services in case of an abort.  We should be able to see what their plans are after the CCtCap contract is announced and NASA releases information about the requirements.

[arachnitect]

This is a great question though.  I think that instead of putting the responsibility on the customer (i.e. NASA, Bigelow, etc.), that the service providers will provide recovery services in case of an abort.  We should be able to see what their plans are after the CCtCap contract is announced and NASA releases information about the requirements.

Provider does recovery for nominal landings. SAR during abort/off nominal landing is NASA's responsibility.

[Darkseraph]

I strongly suspect Dragon and CST100 will be downselected, just based on how funds have been allocated over the lifetime of the programs so far. Sierra Nevada would need to be paid a very large sum to catch up with the others. It's already going to replace the motors being used for propulsion and emergency escape with something different because the current hybrids are not working out well. It's an advanced technology program, but it overlaps with the X37B. NASA's priority I think at the moment is to go with the quickest, most conservative option to getting astronauts to the ISS rather than pushing the limits of technology. It's got seriously burnt before trying to do bleeding edge stuff, and Commercial Crew is going to have a limited budget for the foreseeable future.

[heinkel174]

As stated by M Sirangelo the DC has no blackzones, meaning it can abort anywhere in the launch and either land at a runway or achieve orbit.

To my untrained eyes I just found it not very convincing that DC can glide back to the launch site or the other side of Atlantic anytime during the ascent, regardless of LV failure modes. Both Shuttle and DC are unpowered gliders in the atmosphere. Even the orbiter, with its very high cross-range, has to do a long retro burn to RTLS.

I don’t know, but my gut feeling is that maybe he actually means DC can survive a ocean ditching, unlike the Shuttle.

[TrevorMonty]

Mark stated it on a recent SpaceShow, one caller did ask about ditching in sea. Mark was quite clear that ditching in sea wasn't in the plans, but it should survive it. You have remember this is a plane with around 100knots of horizontal airspeed on landing.

[arachnitect]

As stated by M Sirangelo the DC has no blackzones, meaning it can abort anywhere in the launch and either land at a runway or achieve orbit.

To my untrained eyes I just found it not very convincing that DC can glide back to the launch site or the other side of Atlantic anytime during the ascent, regardless of LV failure modes. Both Shuttle and DC are unpowered gliders in the atmosphere. Even the orbiter, with its very high cross-range, has to do a long retro burn to RTLS.

I don’t know, but my gut feeling is that maybe he actually means DC can survive a ocean ditching, unlike the Shuttle.

If they're going to ISS they should have the option to go to a runway up until ATO is available. Similar to ECAL for shuttle. I'll bet some of the options are pretty scary though.

They like to say they can go to any runway, but they're going to have to plan ahead a little better than that.

Image from Continuous Improvements to East Coast Abort Landings for Space Shuttle Aborts by Kevin Butler
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20100034892.pdf

[oiorionsbelt]

Seems I remember reading somewhere that DC has an air lock and the other two contestants don't. Is this likely to enhance DC's chances or have no impact?

[Zed_Noir]

Seems I remember reading somewhere that DC has an air lock and the other two contestants don't. Is this likely to enhance DC's chances or have no impact?

Should have no impact IMO. EVA support wasn't a requirement for commercial crew IIRC.

[rayleighscatter]

Both Shuttle and DC are unpowered gliders in the atmosphere.

Is there anything that would prevent DC from using its own motors/engines in an abort?

[Jim]

Both Shuttle and DC are unpowered gliders in the atmosphere.

Is there anything that would prevent DC from using its own motors/engines in an abort?

That's how it gets away from the launch vehicle