Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/13/2020 08:56 pmIn a similar vein:twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1260638187640193024Quote NASA's Phil McAlister notes that the Commercial Crew program represents "the largest fixed-price contracts for spacecraft development in the history of the Agency" and yet are "still within 5% of the contract baseline."https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/13/nasa-estimates-having-spacex-and-boeing-build-spacecraft-for-astronauts-saved-up-to-30-billion.htmlNote that this was for a six person Lunar capable spacecraft with over 1 km/s delta-V and an all new launch vehicle. NASA could have developed a smaller vehicle with limited delta-V and used a commercial launch vehicle....
In a similar vein:twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1260638187640193024Quote NASA's Phil McAlister notes that the Commercial Crew program represents "the largest fixed-price contracts for spacecraft development in the history of the Agency" and yet are "still within 5% of the contract baseline."https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/13/nasa-estimates-having-spacex-and-boeing-build-spacecraft-for-astronauts-saved-up-to-30-billion.html
NASA's Phil McAlister notes that the Commercial Crew program represents "the largest fixed-price contracts for spacecraft development in the history of the Agency" and yet are "still within 5% of the contract baseline."https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/13/nasa-estimates-having-spacex-and-boeing-build-spacecraft-for-astronauts-saved-up-to-30-billion.html
Developing a version able to do the Orion mission, and certifying FH for the crew launch, would add some cost... but probably not multiple billions. I think SpaceX would bid between $1B and $1.5B to enhance Dragon for Gateway crew delivery, including an uncrewed test flight to the Gateway and back, if the dev contract included several guaranteed crew flights much like CCtCap.
The pity is that Boeing pushed right in, taking a slot in Commercial Crew that could have – and, IIRC, was whispered up until the very last moment would have – gone to SNC and DreamChaser. Let's be real: DC as a cargo-only vehicle is a depressing waste of potential.
With the benefit of hindsight, thanks to multiple and varying delays to both SpaceX and Boeing for various reasons, SNC may have been able to catch up to the other (which likely would have been Boeing anyway) by now and we'd probably still be about where we are now.
Dragon was baselined for high energy reentry and 7 crew, and still has about 800 m/s of delta-v and the same internal volume as Orion.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 05/14/2020 09:39 pmQuote from: dglow on 05/14/2020 09:19 pmQuote from: woods170 on 05/14/2020 08:58 pmYes, and that flawed logic came back to bite NASA in the behind...hard.But NASA has apparently learned its lesson: Boeing was not selected for the Gateway Logistics Services contract. Boeing was also not selected for the Human Lander System. NASA has now finally understood that Boeing no longer is the “safer/known” choice.The pity is that Boeing pushed right in, taking a slot in Commercial Crew that could have – and, IIRC, was whispered up until the very last moment would have – gone to SNC and DreamChaser. Let's be real: DC as a cargo-only vehicle is a depressing waste of potential.SNC / DreamChaser shot itself in the foot by making the (IMO, very wise and prudent) decision to switch its primary propulsion from a hybrid system to all liquid fuel. While this was probably a really good move long-term (looking at how Virgin Galactic / SpaceShip Two is going), in the immediate term (in 2014) it put them at least a year behind Boeing and SpaceX in terms of schedule. Keep in mind NASA was at that point looking to start commercial crew rotations in 2017. With the benefit of hindsight, thanks to multiple and varying delays to both SpaceX and Boeing for various reasons, SNC may have been able to catch up to the other (which likely would have been Boeing anyway) by now and we'd probably still be about where we are now.All true and valid, and I know that hindsight offers perfect vision. But DC development has continued, nonetheless, and we will see it flying to ISS. I just wish its development had continued as part of CC instead of CRS2.
Quote from: dglow on 05/14/2020 09:19 pmQuote from: woods170 on 05/14/2020 08:58 pmYes, and that flawed logic came back to bite NASA in the behind...hard.But NASA has apparently learned its lesson: Boeing was not selected for the Gateway Logistics Services contract. Boeing was also not selected for the Human Lander System. NASA has now finally understood that Boeing no longer is the “safer/known” choice.The pity is that Boeing pushed right in, taking a slot in Commercial Crew that could have – and, IIRC, was whispered up until the very last moment would have – gone to SNC and DreamChaser. Let's be real: DC as a cargo-only vehicle is a depressing waste of potential.SNC / DreamChaser shot itself in the foot by making the (IMO, very wise and prudent) decision to switch its primary propulsion from a hybrid system to all liquid fuel. While this was probably a really good move long-term (looking at how Virgin Galactic / SpaceShip Two is going), in the immediate term (in 2014) it put them at least a year behind Boeing and SpaceX in terms of schedule. Keep in mind NASA was at that point looking to start commercial crew rotations in 2017. With the benefit of hindsight, thanks to multiple and varying delays to both SpaceX and Boeing for various reasons, SNC may have been able to catch up to the other (which likely would have been Boeing anyway) by now and we'd probably still be about where we are now.
Quote from: woods170 on 05/14/2020 08:58 pmYes, and that flawed logic came back to bite NASA in the behind...hard.But NASA has apparently learned its lesson: Boeing was not selected for the Gateway Logistics Services contract. Boeing was also not selected for the Human Lander System. NASA has now finally understood that Boeing no longer is the “safer/known” choice.The pity is that Boeing pushed right in, taking a slot in Commercial Crew that could have – and, IIRC, was whispered up until the very last moment would have – gone to SNC and DreamChaser. Let's be real: DC as a cargo-only vehicle is a depressing waste of potential.
Yes, and that flawed logic came back to bite NASA in the behind...hard.But NASA has apparently learned its lesson: Boeing was not selected for the Gateway Logistics Services contract. Boeing was also not selected for the Human Lander System. NASA has now finally understood that Boeing no longer is the “safer/known” choice.
Quote from: envy887 on 05/15/2020 02:59 pmDragon was baselined for high energy reentry and 7 crew, and still has about 800 m/s of delta-v and the same internal volume as Orion.Not really the same internal volume. ~20 cubic meters vs 9.3 cubic meters pressurized.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 05/15/2020 07:37 pmQuote from: envy887 on 05/15/2020 02:59 pmDragon was baselined for high energy reentry and 7 crew, and still has about 800 m/s of delta-v and the same internal volume as Orion.Not really the same internal volume. ~20 cubic meters vs 9.3 cubic meters pressurized. Unfortunately, you are partly mistaken.The TOTAL pressurized volume of Orion is 19.6 cubic meters. But, over half of that volume (10.7 cubic meters) is reserved for stowage space. The actual HABITABLE volume of Orion is only 8.9 cubic meters.SpaceX, on its website lists the volume of Crew Dragon as 9.3 cubic meters. What they didn't mention was that this figure represents the HABITABLE volume of Crew Dragon. The TOTAL pressurized volume of Crew Dragon is 12.5 cubic meters. 3.2 Cubic meters of this is "under the floor" (stowage and systems).So, when envy887 stated that Crew Dragon and Orion have the same internal volume, he was partly correct. Correct on HABITABLE volume. Incorrect on total pressurized volume.
Net habitable volume is defined for this study as the pressurized volume left available to thecrew after accounting for the Loss of Volume (LOV) due to deployed equipment, stowage,trash, and any other structural inefficiency that decreases functional volume. The gravityenvironment corresponding to the habitable volume must also be taken into consideration. Nethabitable volume is the volume the crew has at their disposal to perform all of their operations.In order to estimate the net habitable volume requirement for the CEV for each phase of flight,this study first looked at the crewed operations required in the spacecraft, what operationsmust be done simultaneously, how many crew members might be expected to perform eachoperation, how long each operation might last, how often each operation might be requiredduring the mission, the complexity of the task, and the potential impact to the task by vehiclestructure, shape, and gravity environment. The analysis took into account the entire spacecraftpressurized volume and the estimated volume and layout of internal systems equipment andstowage volumes by mission type and phase. Pressurized and net habitable volumes of previous and current spacecraft were used for comparison. Full-scale rough mockups were madefor the internal volumes of both the CEV CM and LSAM to assist in the visualization andevaluation process.
if you were to increase the crew dragon duration on orbit (free flying) by 10x, habitable volume for the crew to work in would necessarily decrease.
How much would the habitable volume decrease with doubling the flight time?
Quote from: envy887 on 05/17/2020 07:05 pmHow much would the habitable volume decrease with doubling the flight time?I wonder if it needs to decrease at all. Why couldn't Dragon's trunk house additional consumables and other gear, SM-style?
Quote from: dglow on 05/18/2020 02:31 amQuote from: envy887 on 05/17/2020 07:05 pmHow much would the habitable volume decrease with doubling the flight time?I wonder if it needs to decrease at all. Why couldn't Dragon's trunk house additional consumables and other gear, SM-style?Hard consumables and other things the crew needs to access have to go inside the pressure vessel. But fluids, and equipment that handles fluids, could go in the trunk. For example, if they need to increase capacity for scrubbing CO2, they could pump air to scrubbers in the trunk and then back into the crew compartment.
I feel like we're straying away from Commercial Crew Dragon, and into "how can we make Crew Dragon into Orion" isn't really on topic for this thread.
Agreed. There is actually a thread for this: Are Commercial Crew Vehicles Usable or Upgradeable for Beyond-LEO Needs?
The numbers don’t lie—NASA’s move to commercial space has saved money“Together, we have become stronger for this nation.”ERIC BERGER - 5/20/2020, 12:30 PMWhen NASA astronauts Doug Hurley and Bob Behnken blast off inside a Crew Dragon spacecraft later this month, they will not only launch into space. They will also inaugurate a potentially transformative era for the space agency.No private company has ever launched humans into orbit before. Therefore the success of their mission, and others to come in the near future, may go a long way toward determining whether the promise of commercial spaceflight and lower cost access to space becomes the new reality.
Quote The numbers don’t lie—NASA’s move to commercial space has saved money“Together, we have become stronger for this nation.”ERIC BERGER - 5/20/2020, 12:30 PMWhen NASA astronauts Doug Hurley and Bob Behnken blast off inside a Crew Dragon spacecraft later this month, they will not only launch into space. They will also inaugurate a potentially transformative era for the space agency.No private company has ever launched humans into orbit before. Therefore the success of their mission, and others to come in the near future, may go a long way toward determining whether the promise of commercial spaceflight and lower cost access to space becomes the new reality.https://arstechnica.com/features/2020/05/the-numbers-dont-lie-nasas-move-to-commercial-space-has-saved-money/
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/20/2020 01:41 pmQuote The numbers don’t lie—NASA’s move to commercial space has saved money“Together, we have become stronger for this nation.”ERIC BERGER - 5/20/2020, 12:30 PMWhen NASA astronauts Doug Hurley and Bob Behnken blast off inside a Crew Dragon spacecraft later this month, they will not only launch into space. They will also inaugurate a potentially transformative era for the space agency.No private company has ever launched humans into orbit before. Therefore the success of their mission, and others to come in the near future, may go a long way toward determining whether the promise of commercial spaceflight and lower cost access to space becomes the new reality.https://arstechnica.com/features/2020/05/the-numbers-dont-lie-nasas-move-to-commercial-space-has-saved-money/Ouch!Former shuttle astronaut Scott Horowitz just got toasted by Eric Berger over his involvement in Ares I.If Scott Horowitz really did make that ludicrous $400 million comparison between Ares I-X and F9 v1.0... not good.
As of May 2019, Boeing and SpaceX’s contracts were valued at $4.3 billion and $2.5 billion, respectively. Of those amounts, Boeing’s costs for development and test flights were $2.2 billion, while SpaceX’s were $1.2 billion. For crewed missions to the ISS, NASA awarded each contractor six round-trip missions. Assuming four astronauts per flight and using publicly available information, the estimated average cost per seat is approximately $90 million for Boeing and approximately $55 million for SpaceX, potentially providing cost savings over current Soyuz prices.[6][6] The average cost per seat was calculated by taking the total contract value and subtracting the development and test flight costs (previously disclosed in NASA’s fiscal year 2020 budget request) and the special studies costs (disclosed in past Government Accountability Office reports) to determine the total mission cost for each contractor. This number was divided by the 24 seats currently assumed over the contactors’ six confirmed missions. These figures were calculated using publicly available information and are averages, not exact costs.
Due to slippage in the commercial crew schedule, in March 2018 NASA purchased two additional Soyuz seats for $86 million each, one for the September 2019 Soyuz flight and another on the upcoming April 2020 mission.
In regards to to the per-seat cost estimate, Boeing said that its craft "will fly the equivalent of a fifth passenger in cargo for NASA, so the per-seat pricing should be considered based on five seats rather than four."
However, Boeing dispute these prices per seat namely because it doesn't take into account the potential 5th seat on Starliner (which can be replaced with cargo):QuoteIn regards to to the per-seat cost estimate, Boeing said that its craft "will fly the equivalent of a fifth passenger in cargo for NASA, so the per-seat pricing should be considered based on five seats rather than four." https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Boeing_Starliner_to_cost_90_Million_per_seat_999.html
