Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 1

[QuantumG]

Perhaps an actually commercial market?

There's people willing to pay good money to go up and down. Two orbit flights would sell too. Make it cheap enough and there's a real market there.

[baldusi]

ISS can't have more than 7 permanent crew, and each docking and berthing operation uses 2 to 3 days of crew time, but also interrupts the microgravity environment.
It was already stated that they wanted no more than 5 CRS flt/yr, exactly because of that. Thus, increasing the crewed flights is not desirable. Not necessary.
Don't forget that Shuttle used crew on a lot of missions that didn't really required it. In fact, you should add CRS-1/2 to the total flight, if you are comparing Shuttle to ISS only. Else, you should add some F9 and EELVs, too.
Overall, there are more, cheaper flights with a lot more redundancy.

[Space Ghost 1962]

ISS can't have more than 7 permanent crew, and each docking and berthing operation uses 2 to 3 days of crew time, but also interrupts the microgravity environment.

Program compromises.

It was already stated that they wanted no more than 5 CRS flt/yr, exactly because of that. Thus, increasing the crewed flights is not desirable. Not necessary.

For the current program, yes.

For a research lab utilization perspective, "NO!".

If we judged by earth bound lab standards, researchers would prefer to come and go on a weekly basis. And not as many stay for the length of a fraction of a day. (Some would help to install/refine/debug apparatus/experiment. Many more of these for an up/down "taxi" then bunking for even a day).

This is especially true for industrial purposes.

Don't forget that Shuttle used crew on a lot of missions that didn't really required it.

More got assembled/done when Shuttle was docked, because of the flux of people. Yet with its greater capability, little of this was exploited.

Both Bezos and Musk could exploit more of this. However, the compromises have lasting effects. Such is the awkwardness of "bootstrapping HSF".

In fact, you should add CRS-1/2 to the total flight, if you are comparing Shuttle to ISS only. Else, you should add some F9 and EELVs, too.
Overall, there are more, cheaper flights with a lot more redundancy.

Temporarily.

If one doesn't take advantage of access, say because one's limited definition about what HSF is about is elsewhere, then ISS will be under exploited and deemed a failure. Again another chicken/egg dilemma, where more access might be needed to justify the need for more access, or is that ... more waste? Eye of the beholder.

[rockets4life97]

Somewhat to what Space Ghost is saying, the naive perspective that I was thinking from is likely the one that the media/Congress would consider. If there are lots of humans going to the ISS regularly that feels successful. So, maybe perception is more important than reality in extending the life of ISS or convincing Congress to allocate more $$ to NASA.

[guckyfan]

Wild speculation mode.

Maybe continue as planned with limited crew and microgravity science until 2024. But going for science that destroys good microgravity after that. Like testing the efficiency of vibration plates for microgravity mitigation. Like using centrifuges for animal tests in Mars and moon gravity.

[baldusi]

ISS is foremost a microgravity research lab. If you wanted production, tourism, or don't need good microgravity, then ISS is more like a step stone where you can learn a few thing before paying for whatever commercial endeavor comes next.
Yes, I understand the cost of an difficulties of having to train a crew for a six month worth of experiments AND ISS maintenace. This is why things have a two year lead time. But it's also true the the microgravity requires to work like this.
The future space station will probably have a man tended microgravity lab that docks each three months and can do all kind of sensitive and dangerous experiments while leaven the not so sensitive things to shorter stay crew.
And probably won't have a design where 75% of the total available crew has to be dedicated to maintenance.

[A_M_Swallow]

Wild speculation mode.

Maybe continue as planned with limited crew and microgravity science until 2024. But going for science that destroys good microgravity after that. Like testing the efficiency of vibration plates for microgravity mitigation. Like using centrifuges for animal tests in Mars and moon gravity.

That sort of research may have to be performed at a different spacestation. By 2020 you can probably ask Bigelow for a quote.

[Dante80]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757578687453630464

Updated timeline of major commercial crew milestones. SpaceX certification review Oct 2017; Boeing in May 2018.

[yg1968]

Thanks! Has Boeing already certified its spacesuits?

[russianhalo117]

Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc.
Jul 25, 2016
Aerojet Rocketdyne Successfully Completes Hot-Fire Tests on Engines Designed to Support New Era of Human Spaceflight for U.S.

SACRAMENTO, Calif., July 25, 2016 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., a subsidiary of Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:AJRD), has successfully completed a series of hot-fire development tests on three Reaction Control System (RCS) engines for Boeing's Crew Space Transportation (CST)-100 Starliner service module propulsion system. Each RCS engine was tested up to 4,000 pulses and 1,600 seconds - the longest accumulated time ever conducted on a lightweight thruster with a composite chamber. The tests were performed at NASA's White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico.

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at http://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/2046eaef-20c9-4a8f-86b0-44763aad02c0

"The successful RCS engine tests demonstrated durability and long operational life capabilities meeting the Starliner requirements for composite thrust chambers, which are crucial to mission success and astronaut safety," said Aerojet Rocketdyne CEO and President Eileen Drake. "We look forward to qualifying the engines and continuing our nation's legacy of delivering humans into space."

Starliner is designed to open a new era of spaceflight, one that will carry humans to the International Space Station once again from American soil. The RCS engines are part of the spacecraft's service module propulsion system, and are designed to provide on-orbit maneuvering functions, as well as re-boost capabilities for the space station.

Under its Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract to Boeing, Aerojet Rocketdyne is completing the design, development, qualification, certification and initial production of the service module propulsion system. As part of that contract, Aerojet Rocketdyne will provide shipsets of service module propulsion system production hardware. Each shipset will include Launch Abort Engines (LAEs), Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control (OMAC) engines and RCS engines. Boeing will assemble hardware kits into the service module section of the Starliner spacecraft at its Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Aerojet Rocketdyne also provides propulsion hardware supporting the Starliner crew module and Atlas V launch vehicle. The Starliner is targeting the delivery of astronauts to the space station for NASA beginning in 2018.

The Starliner service module propulsion system provides launch abort capability on the pad and during ascent, along with all propulsion needs during a nominal flight—from launch vehicle separation, docking and undocking from the space station, and through separation of the crew and service modules when the spacecraft begins to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere. During re-entry, the crew module propulsion is then provided by monopropellant thrusters built by Aerojet Rocketdyne.

Aerojet Rocketdyne is an innovative company delivering solutions that create value for its customers in the aerospace and defense markets. The company is a world-recognized aerospace and defense leader that provides propulsion and energetics to the space, missile defense and strategic systems, tactical systems and armaments areas, in support of domestic and international markets. Additional information about Aerojet Rocketdyne can be obtained by visiting our websites at www.Rocket.com and www.AerojetRocketdyne.com.

Contact:

Glenn Mahone, Aerojet Rocketdyne, 202-302-9941

[email protected]

Carri Karuhn, Aerojet Rocketdyne, 818-586-4963

[email protected]

Aerojet Rocketdyne

Source: Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc.
News Provided by Acquire Media

Photo Caption: One of three Reaction Control System engines for Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner recently completed hot-fire testing at NASA’s White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico

[whitelancer64]

Thanks! Has Boeing already certified its spacesuits?

Boeing's spacesuit will most likely be very closely derived from the ACES, it is being made by the David Clark Company, same company that made the ACES and makes high-altitude pressure suits for the Air Force. DCC also designed and made the pressure suit used by Felix Baumgartner on the Red Bull Stratos high-altitude parachute jump.

Depending on how close it is to ACES, they might not have to do much in the way of certification work.

[BrianNH]

I wonder if this is indicating that the SpaceX docking port has been certified since that is not one of the major milestones listed.

[A_M_Swallow]

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/757578687453630464

Updated timeline of major commercial crew milestones. SpaceX certification review Oct 2017; Boeing in May 2018.

So in the financial year 2018 budget NASA will be asking the new President and Congress for money to pay for manned flights to the ISS using American made spacecraft. Good news.

[joek]

Thanks! Has Boeing already certified its spacesuits?

Boeing's spacesuit will most likely be very closely derived from the ACES, it is being made by the David Clark Company, same company that made the ACES and makes high-altitude pressure suits for the Air Force. DCC also designed and made the pressure suit used by Felix Baumgartner on the Red Bull Stratos high-altitude parachute jump.

Depending on how close it is to ACES, they might not have to do much in the way of certification work.

Unlike SpaceX, Boeing has no separate suit certification milestone (it rolls up into other milestones).  That, as you suggest, is likely indicative of the amount of risk/work required.  But again, careful about comparing SpaceX and Boeing milestones--they are difficult to compare as SpaceX and Boeing approaches are very different.

[joek]

I wonder if this is indicating that the SpaceX docking port has been certified since that is not one of the major milestones listed.

Nope.  It is part of the "ISS certification" gate--which is not really an official milestone for SpaceX, but rolls up other milestones.  Exactly which milestones and when is unclear.  But it means "you have passed everything necessary to dock with the ISS".  Sorry if that is not much help, but it is the best we have at the moment.

[yg1968]

Perhaps an actually commercial market?

There's people willing to pay good money to go up and down. Two orbit flights would sell too. Make it cheap enough and there's a real market there.

That's where the commercial habitat attached to a commercial docking port fits in. For example, a B330 could be attached to a commercial port (where BEAM currently is). Space tourists and foreign astronauts could be transported to and from the commercial habitat (using commercial crew and IDA2 or IDA3).

See these threads for more info:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40798.0   

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38818.180

[Chalmer]

New more detailed milestone summery and timeline found on the last page in this pdf from the July NAC meeting https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/9-mcalister_status_of_ccp.pdf

[Space Ghost 1962]

New more detailed milestone summery and timeline found on the last page in this pdf from the July NAC meeting https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/9-mcalister_status_of_ccp.pdf

No "Inflight Abort Test" ?

[gongora]

This was an item under SpaceX accomplishments:

– Completed all 3 demonstration flights needed for Range approval to
use Automated Flight Termination System

[gongora]

I wonder if this is indicating that the SpaceX docking port has been certified since that is not one of the major milestones listed.

Nope.  It is part of the "ISS certification" gate--which is not really an official milestone for SpaceX, but rolls up other milestones.  Exactly which milestones and when is unclear.  But it means "you have passed everything necessary to dock with the ISS".  Sorry if that is not much help, but it is the best we have at the moment.

The docking system qualification is shown as a completed milestone on the more detailed chart.