Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[yg1968]

One of the positives of the DC cargo selection under CRS2 is that it means that the money spent by NASA on the crewed DC for the commercial crew program wasn't waisted after all.

Money spent on Blue Origin was also not waisted as the Blue engine will be used by Orbital/ATK, ULA and Blue.

[abaddon]

Honestly, the DreamChaser has had a lot of money spent on it over the years.  As skeptical as I am of the cost involved in the CRS2 award, I'm very glad to see that it's going to actually be a production vehicle, unlike so many of the previous attempts at a follow-on space plane to the Space Shuttle.

[yg1968]

This part of the report (on page 17) is interesting:

The CCP has a requirement to achieve a LOC risk of no worse than 1 in 270 (1:270). Analysis of current designs indicates that they fall short of that limit. The primary risk contributor is MMOD damage. The strategy that is being taken to meet the LOC requirement is to back off to 1:200 for the spacecraft themselves, but to require that the design and vehicle capability be the sole means to achieve that level without consideration of operational adjustments. Any potential inspections or other operational workarounds will be put aside and left for later consideration. Both companies are now considering potential changes to their vehicles to address the MMOD risks. While there will always be risk from MMOD, NASA wants the providers to do as well as they can in using the spacecraft design to provide primary prevention before looking at other ways to improve safety through secondary preventive techniques such as inspection. There is some evidence that this strategy will have a positive result.

See the post above on LOC ratio and MMOD risks for commercial crew.

It is from page 17 of this report:

http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2015_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf

[Robotbeat]

This part of the report (on page 17) is interesting:

The CCP has a requirement to achieve a LOC risk of no worse than 1 in 270 (1:270). Analysis of current designs indicates that they fall short of that limit. The primary risk contributor is MMOD damage. The strategy that is being taken to meet the LOC requirement is to back off to 1:200 for the spacecraft themselves, but to require that the design and vehicle capability be the sole means to achieve that level without consideration of operational adjustments. Any potential inspections or other operational workarounds will be put aside and left for later consideration. Both companies are now considering potential changes to their vehicles to address the MMOD risks. While there will always be risk from MMOD, NASA wants the providers to do as well as they can in using the spacecraft design to provide primary prevention before looking at other ways to improve safety through secondary preventive techniques such as inspection. There is some evidence that this strategy will have a positive result.

See the post above on LOC ratio and MMOD risks for commercial crew.

It is from page 17 of this report:

http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2015_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf

I can't help but think that's an overly conservative estimate. Maybe of the right order of magnitude, but still overly conservative. (Though I do think that Starliner and Dragon were very good choices.)

[guckyfan]

I can't help but think that's an overly conservative estimate. Maybe of the right order of magnitude, but still overly conservative. (Though I do think that Starliner and Dragon were very good choices.)

I can't help but think the same. If the MMOD risk were that high the ISS should be perforated by now. The parts most at risk from MMOD hits would be the heat shields. Both Starliner and Dragon have their heatshields very well protected. Only a very small part at the rim would be even at risk to be hit.

[yg1968]

Both companies are now considering potential changes to their vehicles to address the MMOD risks.

I wonder what kind of changes they are considering. 

[Rocket Science]

Welcome to the age of "bubble-wrap spaceflight"...

[guckyfan]

Both companies are now considering potential changes to their vehicles to address the MMOD risks.

I wonder what kind of changes they are considering.

The biggest risk is probably on the heatshield. 95% (arbitrary number) are already protected by the trunk/service module. A simple fairing should be able to protect the rest. A hit might take out a single RCS engine but those are redundant.

[okan170]

Welcome to the age of "bubble-wrap spaceflight"...

I get the feeling that 30 years of the Space Shuttle Orbiter being a remarkably exposed and fragile spacecraft, eventually requiring on-orbit inspection, have seriously influenced the attitude towards safety that we see here. 

[Jim]

I get the feeling that 30 years of the Space Shuttle Orbiter being a remarkably exposed and fragile spacecraft, eventually requiring on-orbit inspection, have seriously influenced the attitude towards safety that we see here. 

Quite the opposite.  Aside from the TPS, the orbiter was rugged, especially compared to other spacecraft.

[okan170]

I get the feeling that 30 years of the Space Shuttle Orbiter being a remarkably exposed and fragile spacecraft, eventually requiring on-orbit inspection, have seriously influenced the attitude towards safety that we see here. 

Quite the opposite.  Aside from the TPS, the orbiter was rugged, especially compared to other spacecraft.

Apologies, I suppose I mean the TPS specifically since it was the area that was inspected and focused on the most and exposed to the launch environment.

[Antilope7724]

In its past history NASA has usually had to deal with only 1 or 2 types of crewed vehicles at a time. Now, NASA astronauts could be dealing with potentially 3 or 4 types of crew vehicles flying in the near future (Starliner, Dragon, Soyuz and Orion).

It seems things will get a lot more complicated when it comes to crew training. Is there basic commonality between the various vehicles to make crew training easier?

[MattMason]

In its past history NASA has usually had to deal with only 1 or 2 types of crewed vehicles at a time. Now, NASA astronauts could be dealing with potentially 3 or 4 types of crew vehicles flying in the near future (Starliner, Dragon, Soyuz and Orion).

It seems things will get a lot more complicated when it comes to crew training. Is there basic commonality between the various vehicles to make crew training easier?

My opinions are

(1) Orion astronauts will be dedicated to Orion missions only. Or, at least, as with past astronauts that transitioned from Mercury to Gemini and Apollo and even Space Shuttle, you may have some crews that are trained as pilots for only one or two of the three American spacecraft.

(2) I don't believe the Soyuz has a true pilot--and being a Russian spacecraft, the Americans onboard assist but certainly aren't the spacecraft commanders if politics has a say. I'm not certain here, however, so a correction is appreciated.

(3) It seems that NASA has probably answered your question in that the Commercial Crew's first four astronauts are currently training for both Starliner and Dragon. There's no mention of Orion, so this training may be a matter for other crews once that vehicle is closer to a manned launch.

[vt_hokie]

Not to mention, with the latest rumors of EM-2 going unmanned, Orion probably won't carry astronauts for another decade.  If SLS and Orion do manage to fly within the next 20 years, there should be plenty of time to worry about crew training for the small number of astronauts who will be assigned to those once every couple of years missions.

[yg1968]

In its past history NASA has usually had to deal with only 1 or 2 types of crewed vehicles at a time. Now, NASA astronauts could be dealing with potentially 3 or 4 types of crew vehicles flying in the near future (Starliner, Dragon, Soyuz and Orion).

It seems things will get a lot more complicated when it comes to crew training. Is there basic commonality between the various vehicles to make crew training easier?

For the time being, the four astronauts that were selected for commercial crew are being trained for both the Boeing CST-100 and Dragon2.

[erioladastra]

In its past history NASA has usually had to deal with only 1 or 2 types of crewed vehicles at a time. Now, NASA astronauts could be dealing with potentially 3 or 4 types of crew vehicles flying in the near future (Starliner, Dragon, Soyuz and Orion).

It seems things will get a lot more complicated when it comes to crew training. Is there basic commonality between the various vehicles to make crew training easier?

There is no required commonality between the Orion, Starliner and Dragon.  Boeing has borrowed some things - for example they had a Space Act Agreement to obtain the code for the crew displays.  Both Orion and Starliner have evolved since that time frame but there will be some similar look and feel.  NASA is trying to encourage the partners to be similar to the ISS as much as possible (e.g., fire extinguisher, alarm system etc) but it is up tot he company to decide.

[Jim]

It seems things will get a lot more complicated when it comes to crew training. Is there basic commonality between the various vehicles to make crew training easier?

The astronauts are more like passengers than pilots.  The vehicles can fly unmanned and don't really need crew interaction.

[Antilope7724]

It seems things will get a lot more complicated when it comes to crew training. Is there basic commonality between the various vehicles to make crew training easier?

The astronauts are more like passengers than pilots.  The vehicles can fly unmanned and don't really need crew interaction.

But they still have to learn emergency procedures and take over in the event of malfunctions.

I just wondered if the control panels of the various spacecraft hand any commonality. Since the U.S. spacecraft have mostly "glass cockpit" display panels it seems like the displays, or at least emergency displays should have some commonality.

[Jim]

But they still have to learn emergency procedures and take over in the event of malfunctions.

I just wondered if the control panels of the various spacecraft hand any commonality. Since the U.S. spacecraft have mostly "glass cockpit" display panels it seems like the displays, or at least emergency displays should have some commonality.

No more than any aircraft from different companies.  The training would be no different than a pilot's.  Once one has the basic pilot's license or astronaut qualification, all it takes is to be "checked out" in each different aircraft or spacecraft.  Which means vehicle specific training.

[Garrett]

Going to count Soyuz's development funds, too?

Why would you? NASA didn't have to pay for them.

Not to get too bogged down in economics (and I'm somewhat out of my depth here) but:
 - from a NASA perspective, CCP is not necessarily beneficial from a crude comparison of prices compared to buying from the Russians
 - from a US macroeconomics perspective, the expenditure for CCP is much more likely to benefit the economy as a whole, whereas it is difficult to argue that money spent in "modern" Russia can somehow benefit American interests.

CCP only makes economic sense from the the nation's viewpoint.  It also makes indirect economic sense for NASA by ensuring a second or third crew transport provider, thus greatly reducing the risk of a costly de-crew scenario.