Commercial Crew: On Course to Purposeful Flight - ISPCS

[catdlr]

Speaker Slide Presentation: Commercial Crew: On Course to Purposeful Flight (w/audio)

ISPCS .com
Published on Oct 17, 2017

Benjamin Reed, Director of Commercial Crew Mission Management, SpaceX

Two American companies are on course, following their own unique paths to produce certified end-to-end crew transportation systems capable of flying astronauts to and from the International Space Station. Launch pads along Florida’s Space Coast have taken shape, spacecraft and launch vehicle hardware are being built and extensive qualification testing is under way for Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner and SpaceX’s Crew Dragon systems. The companies are working diligently and purposefully with NASA’s Commercial Crew Program and the astronauts selected to train to fly flight tests to the International Space Station to ensure the systems are meeting the agency’s certification requirements and adequately addressing all credible hazards, including pad emergencies, in-flight aborts and emergency landings.

[Ludus]

Are there still landing legs that get stowed on ascent, or did that line just get left in the slide after they made the change?

[jpo234]

Are there still landing legs that get stowed on ascent, or did that line just get left in the slide after they made the change?

This is about the first stage landing legs. Of course they are still present. SpaceX is not going to throw away a perfectly good F9 Block 5 after a gentle LEO mission.

[Jcc]

Are there still landing legs that get stowed on ascent, or did that line just get left in the slide after they made the change?

This is about the first stage landing legs. Of course they are still present. SpaceX is not going to throw away a perfectly good F9 Block 5 after a gentle LEO mission.

I think the question is whether block 5 will have redesigned legs, maybe similar to Blue Origin's design with thinner legs that can both extend and retract. The SpaceX design with wide carbon fiber legs was intended to provide aerobraking but they are never deployed early because that could cause aerodynamic instability, so the design is a bit suboptimal.

[SmallKing]

AFAIK, the newly designed legs are very similar to those old legs from the appearance

[jpo234]

Are there still landing legs that get stowed on ascent, or did that line just get left in the slide after they made the change?

This is about the first stage landing legs. Of course they are still present. SpaceX is not going to throw away a perfectly good F9 Block 5 after a gentle LEO mission.

I think the question is whether block 5 will have redesigned legs, maybe similar to Blue Origin's design with thinner legs that can both extend and retract. The SpaceX design with wide carbon fiber legs was intended to provide aerobraking but they are never deployed early because that could cause aerodynamic instability, so the design is a bit suboptimal.

I thought Ludus referred to the canceled Dragon legs and confused them with the F9 landing legs.

[Roy_H]

Are there still landing legs that get stowed on ascent, or did that line just get left in the slide after they made the change?

This is about the first stage landing legs. Of course they are still present. SpaceX is not going to throw away a perfectly good F9 Block 5 after a gentle LEO mission.

I think the question is whether block 5 will have redesigned legs, maybe similar to Blue Origin's design with thinner legs that can both extend and retract. The SpaceX design with wide carbon fiber legs was intended to provide aerobraking but they are never deployed early because that could cause aerodynamic instability, so the design is a bit suboptimal.

I never saw anything official about the legs being designed for aero-braking. There was a lot of speculation on this forum about using the legs for aero-braking which I thought was nonsense from the get-go for your stated reason.

[IanThePineapple]

Is there any word on 39A's progress for Crew? Like the access arm?

[76794p]

Is there any word on 39A's progress for Crew? Like the access arm?

I believe the plan is to install the crew access arm after Falcon Heavy launches.

[Norm38]

I take it the same weight distribution that creates lift during rentry is responsible for its angle with respect to the water?  Don't really like the idea of opening that hatch in anything but calm seas. One big wave away from being flooded. Is that emergenc evac only?

[deruch]

I take it the same weight distribution that creates lift during rentry is responsible for its angle with respect to the water?  Don't really like the idea of opening that hatch in anything but calm seas. One big wave away from being flooded. Is that emergenc evac only?

Where the diver is sitting isn't the hatch but the parachute compartment.  It's fine for that section to flood.  The hatch is above his head outlined in grey. 

[woods170]

I take it the same weight distribution that creates lift during rentry is responsible for its angle with respect to the water?  Don't really like the idea of opening that hatch in anything but calm seas. One big wave away from being flooded. Is that emergenc evac only?

Where the diver is sitting isn't the hatch but the parachute compartment.  It's fine for that section to flood.  The hatch is above his head outlined in grey. 

Also, SOP is that the crew is to remain on-board until the capsule has been hoisted on board the recovery vessel. Only in an emergency will the crew pop the hatch and get out into life-rafts (Apollo style). Only than is actual support from the divers needed.

[QuantumG]

So... umm... are Boeing still intending for Starliner to land on land with airbags or are they also being directed by NASA to only work water landings?

[kevinof]

airbags.

[QuantumG]

airbags.

Doesn't answer the question - they intend to use airbags on water landings too.

[gongora]

airbags.

Doesn't answer the question - they intend to use airbags on water landings too.

on land with airbags

[yg1968]

Here is the full presentation:

[woods170]

airbags.

Doesn't answer the question - they intend to use airbags on water landings too.

on land with airbags

And is approved by NASA given that they studied it to death for Orion. Remember, Orion was initially to land on land, with airbags. The very approach Boeing is using for Starliner now.

[AncientU]

So... umm... are Boeing still intending for Starliner to land on land with airbags or are they also being directed by NASA to only work water landings?

The hearings yesterday indicated Boeing land landings and ten reuses of capsule -- SpaceX all water landings and new capsule each time.  This is the problem of forgoing (innovative) land landings... and who pays for the new capsules?

[envy887]

So... umm... are Boeing still intending for Starliner to land on land with airbags or are they also being directed by NASA to only work water landings?

The hearings yesterday indicated Boeing land landings and ten reuses of capsule -- SpaceX all water landings and new capsule each time.  This is the problem of forgoing (innovative) land landings... and who pays for the new capsules?

SpaceX has said many times that they don't factor reuse into the F9 business plan or price. I don't see why they would factor it into the Commercial Crew bid. $3.1 billion should cover 6 new vehicles.

Hans said they are building 4 vehicles already that will go to ISS: the uncrewed and crewed test vehicles, and the first two operational flight vehicles. They are going to want a number of vehicles in rotation anyway, even with reuse.

[Lar]

These vehicles will find other uses to be sure.

[Khadgars]

These vehicles will find other uses to be sure.

Agreed.  But what impacts will sea water have on re-use of Dragon 2?

[guckyfan]

These vehicles will find other uses to be sure.

Agreed.  But what impacts will sea water have on re-use of Dragon 2?

Land landing would sure be better but it hasn't stopped reuse of Dragon 2. I am sure they have learned since then.

[Lar]

These vehicles will find other uses to be sure.

Agreed.  But what impacts will sea water have on re-use of Dragon 2?

Land landing would sure be better but it hasn't stopped reuse of Dragon 2. I am sure they have learned since then.

There hasn't been any reuse of Dragon 2 yet, I think you mean Dragon 1 . Sadly the reuse of Dragon1 so far seems to be tear down to the pressure vessel and rebuild

[yg1968]

So... umm... are Boeing still intending for Starliner to land on land with airbags or are they also being directed by NASA to only work water landings?

The hearings yesterday indicated Boeing land landings and ten reuses of capsule -- SpaceX all water landings and new capsule each time.  This is the problem of forgoing (innovative) land landings... and who pays for the new capsules?

Gerst made it clear that this was the initial plan for SpaceX but that it could change.

Incidentally, Gerst said that parts of Orion might also be reused.

[Jcc]

So... umm... are Boeing still intending for Starliner to land on land with airbags or are they also being directed by NASA to only work water landings?

The hearings yesterday indicated Boeing land landings and ten reuses of capsule -- SpaceX all water landings and new capsule each time.  This is the problem of forgoing (innovative) land landings... and who pays for the new capsules?

Gerst made it clear that this was the initial plan for SpaceX but that it could change.

Incidentally, Gerst said that parts of Orion might also be reused.

One-use Dragon missions are still cheaper than Starliner used up to 10 times, so who pays the extra cost for Starliner?

Certainly SpaceX will work on certifying refurbishment of Crew Dragon so those can be reused, the same way they have certified Cargo Dragon refurbishment.

I think SpaceX funded the development of the refurbishment process for Dragon1, and they can do so for Dragon2 even if NASA doesn't make it a funded milestone.

[yg1968]

I just watched the ISPCS video, one interesting question that was asked was about space tourism. Mulholland from Boeing said that the CST-100 seats 5 astronauts, so there was an extra seat available for a spaceflight participant and they mentioned their partnership with Space Adventures. Lueders said that NASA was open about to these types of arrangements. SpaceX was less committal on this question, Reed said that SpaceX and all of the industry still had to figure out how to train a spaceflight participant. The strange thing is that he had several opportunity to talk about their circumlunar flight but did not do so.  I suspect that this flight is no longer part of SpaceX's plans.

[Robotbeat]

...or H from SpaceX didn't want to make Congress upset. That's Elon's job.

[envy887]

A Commercial Crew hearing before Congress with NASA leadership present is the worst time and place to bring up the lunar Dragon mission. NASA wants SpaceX to focus on the team at hand of getting Crew going, and both NASA and most of Congress would prefer that Orion be the first to fly back around the moon.

As long as the customer's money is good, lunar Dragon will be part of SpaceX plans.

[deruch]

Even when they planned to transition to propulsive, land landings, SpaceX bid single-use capsules for the Commercial Crew missions.  What the water landings limits isn't their CC contract, they were always planning to build 6 new capsules for the full set of 6 PCMs.  The questions start to arise with respect to how they plan to meet CRS2 and commercial non-NASA missions (e.g. circumlunar, Red Dragon [now cancelled], etc.).  Have they already started working through with NASA refurbing and reusing capsules from the crew missions for cargo?  Or is their build capacity large enough to support both contracts simultaneously. 

[yg1968]

...or H from SpaceX didn't want to make Congress upset. That's Elon's job.

I was talking about the ISPCS presentation that I linked above, not the Congresionnal hearing.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44009.msg1773620#msg1773620

[yg1968]

A Commercial Crew hearing before Congress with NASA leadership present is the worst time and place to bring up the lunar Dragon mission. NASA wants SpaceX to focus on the team at hand of getting Crew going, and both NASA and most of Congress would prefer that Orion be the first to fly back around the moon.

As long as the customer's money is good, lunar Dragon will be part of SpaceX plans.

I would like to hear SpaceX reaffirm that (it doesn't have to be in front of Congress). Elon also called Dragon 2 a dead end system and that makes me wonder if it has any future beyond ISS.

P.S. I was talking about the ISPCS presentation that I linked above, not the Congresionnal hearing.

[AncientU]

A Commercial Crew hearing before Congress with NASA leadership present is the worst time and place to bring up the lunar Dragon mission. NASA wants SpaceX to focus on the team at hand of getting Crew going, and both NASA and most of Congress would prefer that Orion be the first to fly back around the moon.

As long as the customer's money is good, lunar Dragon will be part of SpaceX plans.

I would like to hear SpaceX reaffirm that (it doesn't have to be in front of Congress). Elon also called Dragon 2 a dead end system and that makes me wonder if it has any future beyond ISS.

Until certification of Dragon 2 by NASA, there won't be much more talk about Dragon 2's future.  Certainly there won't be any 'tourist' flights or land landing advances before crew reaches ISS on Dragon 2... that would be too much in the face for NASA.

[OM72]

One-use Dragon missions are still cheaper than Starliner used up to 10 times, so who pays the extra cost for Starliner?

This seems like a ridiculous statement.  Source?

[Lar]

One-use Dragon missions are still cheaper than Starliner used up to 10 times, so who pays the extra cost for Starliner?

This seems like a ridiculous statement.  Source?

Value of bid divided by number of missions? Starliner bid was a lot higher, IIRC.

[yg1968]

One-use Dragon missions are still cheaper than Starliner used up to 10 times, so who pays the extra cost for Starliner?

This seems like a ridiculous statement.  Source?

The price of the CCtCap contract for Boeing ($4.2B) was almost twice as much as SpaceX ($2.6B) but that includes the price of an Atlas V 422 which is much more expensive than a F9. CCtCap includes 2 demo flights and 6 post-certification missions.

[OM72]

One-use Dragon missions are still cheaper than Starliner used up to 10 times, so who pays the extra cost for Starliner?

This seems like a ridiculous statement.  Source?

Value of bid divided by number of missions? Starliner bid was a lot higher, IIRC.

That's not a source though.  That is an assumption based on a bid that is used for book keeping.  None of the PCM flights are on contract yet. 

[AncientU]

One-use Dragon missions are still cheaper than Starliner used up to 10 times, so who pays the extra cost for Starliner?

This seems like a ridiculous statement.  Source?

'One use Starliner being cheaper than ten use Starliners', and
'One use Dragons being cheaper than ten use Dragons' are ridiculous statements.

One use Dragon being cheaper than ten use Starliners (full flight expenses included) is plausible. 

I think that's what the $2.6B to SpaceX vs. $4.2B to Boeing awards showed -- each included a couple crew rotation missions along with two demo launches for each vendor plus one in-flight abort for Dragon 2 only.

[yg1968]

One-use Dragon missions are still cheaper than Starliner used up to 10 times, so who pays the extra cost for Starliner?

This seems like a ridiculous statement.  Source?

Value of bid divided by number of missions? Starliner bid was a lot higher, IIRC.

That's not a source though.  That is an assumption based on a bid that is used for book keeping.  None of the PCM flights are on contract yet.

It's actually the maximum value of the CCtcap contract which implies 8 flights (2 demo and 6 post-certification missions). NASA announced last year that all 6 post-certification flights were awarded to each of the providers.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/mission-awards-secure-commercial-crew-transportation-for-coming-years

[OM72]

One-use Dragon missions are still cheaper than Starliner used up to 10 times, so who pays the extra cost for Starliner?

This seems like a ridiculous statement.  Source?

Value of bid divided by number of missions? Starliner bid was a lot higher, IIRC.

That's not a source though.  That is an assumption based on a bid that is used for book keeping.  None of the PCM flights are on contract yet.

It's actually the maximum value of the CCtcap contract which implies 8 flights (2 demo and 6 post-certification missions). NASA stated last year that all 6 post-certification flights have been awarded to each of providers.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/mission-awards-secure-commercial-crew-transportation-for-coming-years

Which is essentially what I just said.  While NASA does not have oversight here, they do have extensive insight.  To blindly state the you can build a new Dragon every time for less than 10 reused Starliners, and NASA will just fork over the cash, is false.   

[Lar]

Which is essentially what I just said.  While NASA does not have oversight here, they do have extensive insight.  To blindly state the you can build a new Dragon every time for less than 10 reused Starliners, and NASA will just fork over the cash, is false.   

Except that's exactly what is happening. NASA is paying for new Dragons and reused Starliners, and paying more for the Starliner trips. Maybe not 1:10 but that was hyperbole, the point is SpaceX is providing the service for less than Boeing.

You're quibbling. Don't do that, it's boring.

[gongora]

We don't know the cost of a Starliner flight, and we don't know the cost of a Crew Dragon flight.  You can't get it by dividing the total contract amount, that's ridiculous.  The majority of those amounts is initial development.

[Lar]

We don't know the cost of a Starliner flight, and we don't know the cost of a Crew Dragon flight.  You can't get it by dividing the total contract amount, that's ridiculous.  The majority of those amounts is initial development.

When I buy a car I'm paying for the initial development too... my share of it (me and every other car buyer) is bundles into the price.

When considering what a flight costs, dividing number of flights into the contract price is exceedingly valid.

[AncientU]

We don't know the cost of a Starliner flight, and we don't know the cost of a Crew Dragon flight.  You can't get it by dividing the total contract amount, that's ridiculous.  The majority of those amounts is initial development.

When I buy a car I'm paying for the initial development too... my share of it (me and every other car buyer) is bundles into the price.

When considering what a flight costs, dividing number of flights into the contract price is exceedingly valid.

If Dragon crew flights cost something like 50% more than CRS-1 cargo (could be 100% more) -- $200M per flight -- and SpaceX is supplying two demos plus six crew rotations, then that leaves $1B for development out of the original $2.6B.   Removing the $62M per flight for Falcon, that leaves the new capsule price around $140M.  For Boeing, assuming $2B for development, remaining $2.2B yields $275M per flight.  Atlas X22 is about half of that (possibly more than half), leaving $130-$140M for a Starliner launch, amortizing the initial development of three(?) capsules* over these eight flights. 

That new Dragons cost about the same as a few reuses on Starliner isn't ridiculous in the slightest. 
The delta between Falcon and AtlasV makes it likely more expensive to fly Starliner than Dragon.

* At ten reuses per capsule -- which obviously will not happen during this initial Crew contract --  the price per flight might become significantly cheaper than a new Dragon.

[gongora]

We don't know the cost of a Starliner flight, and we don't know the cost of a Crew Dragon flight.  You can't get it by dividing the total contract amount, that's ridiculous.  The majority of those amounts is initial development.

When I buy a car I'm paying for the initial development too... my share of it (me and every other car buyer) is bundles into the price.

When considering what a flight costs, dividing number of flights into the contract price is exceedingly valid.

It's not even remotely valid if you don't have separate contracts for development and production flights.  You're not paying for the initial development of the car, you're paying what the car company thinks they can get away with charging you for one unit of their product.  They hope to eventually make enough profit on selling tens of thousands of those individual units to cover their development cost on the car.  That's not how the commercial crew vehicles are priced.

[OM72]

We don't know the cost of a Starliner flight, and we don't know the cost of a Crew Dragon flight.  You can't get it by dividing the total contract amount, that's ridiculous.  The majority of those amounts is initial development.

When I buy a car I'm paying for the initial development too... my share of it (me and every other car buyer) is bundles into the price.

When considering what a flight costs, dividing number of flights into the contract price is exceedingly valid.

It's not even remotely valid if you don't have separate contracts for development and production flights.  You're not paying for the initial development of the car, you're paying what the car company thinks they can get away with charging you for one unit of their product.  They hope to eventually make enough profit on selling tens of thousands of those individual units to cover their development cost on the car.  That's not how the commercial crew vehicles are priced.

Ding, ding. 

Again, these advertised bids are for book-keeping of the NASA budget.
Flights to ISS are still TBD contractually. 
NASA has insight to the development.  NASA requires BoE's and they will use their insight of the programs to either justify or call BS on the price being asked. 

[gongora]

Flights to ISS are still TBD contractually. 

Wrong.  The flights to ISS have already been ordered under the contract at already agreed to pricing.

[woods170]

Flights to ISS are still TBD contractually. 

Wrong.  The flights to ISS have already been ordered under the contract at already agreed to pricing.

Gongora is correct. As has been stated earlier, the CCtCAP contracts are max value contracts and cover a maximum of 8 missions, per provider (2 demo missions and 6 PCM missions).

The six PCM missions, per provider, have already been awarded. But for some funny reason that information seems to have been completely overlooked by ReturnTrajectory.

Here's a link to fresh up his/her memory: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/mission-awards-secure-commercial-crew-transportation-for-coming-years

Jan 3, 2017

NASA took another big step to ensure reliable crew transportation to the International Space Station into the next decade. The agency’s Commercial Crew Program has awarded an additional four crew rotation missions each to commercial partners, Boeing and SpaceX, to carry astronauts to and from the International Space Station.

The four additional missions will fly following NASA certification. They fall under the current Commercial Crew Transportation Capability contracts, and bring the total number of missions awarded to each provider to six.

[gongora]

The task orders are:
PCM-1 : NNK16MA03T
PCM-2: NNK16MA58T
PCM-3,4,5,6: NNK17MA01T

[Jcc]

As was pointed out above, a big part of the cost difference between Starliner and Dragon2 is probably the launch vehicle costs, but remember that Starliner also expends the whole service module, which includes abort engines and some orbital engines. Much more hardware there than a Dragon trunk. Also they expend the heat shield, etc.

Another point is that it is doubtful that one Starliner will be reused 10 times for NASA or anyone else, since they are building two for crew flight, and there are only 6-8 missions available under the current contract. In effect, they will at best be used 3-4 times.

[envy887]

For what it's worth, this study estimates the loaded recurring cost at $405M for Dragon and $654M for Starliner. About one third to one half the difference would appear to be the launch vehicles.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdf

[DigitalMan]

For what it's worth, this study estimates the loaded recurring cost at $405M for Dragon and $654M for Starliner. About one third to one half the difference would appear to be the launch vehicles.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdf

Interesting.  It’s a good thing Boeing is reusing starliner to keep costs down, I wonder what it would have been without reuse.  Money spent on ISS does not usually benefit BEO exploration hardware.

I’d rather see long term focus given to exploration.

[john smith 19]

We don't know the cost of a Starliner flight, and we don't know the cost of a Crew Dragon flight.  You can't get it by dividing the total contract amount, that's ridiculous.  The majority of those amounts is initial development.

When I buy a car I'm paying for the initial development too... my share of it (me and every other car buyer) is bundles into the price.

When considering what a flight costs, dividing number of flights into the contract price is exceedingly valid.

It's not even remotely valid if you don't have separate contracts for development and production flights.  You're not paying for the initial development of the car, you're paying what the car company thinks they can get away with charging you for one unit of their product.  They hope to eventually make enough profit on selling tens of thousands of those individual units to cover their development cost on the car.  That's not how the commercial crew vehicles are priced.

Ding, ding. 

Again, these advertised bids are for book-keeping of the NASA budget.
Flights to ISS are still TBD contractually. 
NASA has insight to the development.  NASA requires BoE's and they will use their insight of the programs to either justify or call BS on the price being asked.

Welcome to the forum.   

The interesting thing about CC is how it's phrased.

If it's "undercut any foreign competitors seat price" that's  a ceiling price. The more extortionate the foreign competitors price the better, but the goal is good value for "The US taxpayer."

If it's "To return assured US access to LEO regardless of cost" that's kind of a blank check to the vendors. 

If I were a US taxpayer I know which of those options I'd prefer.  From what I've seen the prolonged lack of competition in this market has made prices escalate and performance stagnate that even limited competition has an an interesting effect on prices.

I'm curious, what are the Russians looking to charge now, relative to CC? Are they still being unreasonable or are they starting to believe it might actually happen?

Russian (and TBF ULA's) pricing should serve as a powerful lesson to what happens when you have a monopoly supplier (HSF launch to ISS, or NSS launch) in this area.

BTW. Starting an argument with a moderator is usually a game no one wins. 

[su27k]

For what it's worth, this study estimates the loaded recurring cost at $405M for Dragon and $654M for Starliner. About one third to one half the difference would appear to be the launch vehicles.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdf

Note though this estimate has a rather big discrepancy with what we know about the total contract value, for example SpaceX's total contract value is $2.6B for R&D plus 6 post certification flights, if each flight really cost $405M, the 6 flights itself would cost $2.4B, doesn't leave much for R&D (i.e. upfront cost). I haven't found a way to explain this discrepancy yet.

[AncientU]

For what it's worth, this study estimates the loaded recurring cost at $405M for Dragon and $654M for Starliner. About one third to one half the difference would appear to be the launch vehicles.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdf

Note though this estimate has a rather big discrepancy with what we know about the total contract value, for example SpaceX's total contract value is $2.6B for R&D plus 6 post certification flights, if each flight really cost $405M, the 6 flights itself would cost $2.4B, doesn't leave much for R&D (i.e. upfront cost). I haven't found a way to explain this discrepancy yet.

Not that it solves the problem, but this document* pegged the Dragon 2/CST100 spacecraft (per unit) prices as $243/323M, and the pure development costs as $1,520/2,196M.  The latter leaves $1.2B/$2.0B for the six flights which still doesn't work.

Only way out is if the development costs cover the first two guaranteed crew rotation flights and the $1.2B/$2.0B remaining is for the remaining four flights.  That would put individual flights at $300/500M which is closer, but still low.

* attached, page 31, Figures LCC-2 and -3