Commercial Crew - Discussion Thread 3

[gongora]

I put this question here because I didn't see it anywhere, and it involves three Commercial Crew missions.

Crew-1 vehicle, Resilience was to relocate from IDA-2 to IDA-3, to free up IDA-2 for Boeing OFT-2. But with OFT-2 now delayed until after the Crew-1, Crew-2 handover, has that relocation now been cancelled, or discussions of it being cancelled? Cancellation would permit Crew-2 to dock directly with IDA-3, and IDA-2 would then be available for OFT-2 once Crew-1 leaves. If they go through with the relocation as originally planned, then Crew-2, Endeavor, would dock to IDA-2, and would also require require relocation to vacate that port before OFT-2 could fly.

It seems obvious to cancel, but I haven't seen it mentioned.

I've been wondering similar things.  It all depends on when OFT-2 would actually fly.  If they're pretty sure it would fly before SpX-22 then one configuration would make sense, and if it might slip as far as SpX-22 then a different configuration would make sense.  (Assuming OFT-2 still needs to be on that specific port and is definitely flying after Crew-2.)

[ThomasGadd]

I put this question here because I didn't see it anywhere, and it involves three Commercial Crew missions.

Crew-1 vehicle, Resilience was to relocate from IDA-2 to IDA-3, to free up IDA-2 for Boeing OFT-2. But with OFT-2 now delayed until after the Crew-1, Crew-2 handover, has that relocation now been cancelled, or discussions of it being cancelled? Cancellation would permit Crew-2 to dock directly with IDA-3, and IDA-2 would then be available for OFT-2 once Crew-1 leaves. If they go through with the relocation as originally planned, then Crew-2, Endeavor, would dock to IDA-2, and would also require require relocation to vacate that port before OFT-2 could fly.

It seems obvious to cancel, but I haven't seen it mentioned.

I've been wondering similar things.  It all depends on when OFT-2 would actually fly.  If they're pretty sure it would fly before SpX-22 then one configuration would make sense, and if it might slip as far as SpX-22 then a different configuration would make sense.  (Assuming OFT-2 still needs to be on that specific port and is definitely flying after Crew-2.)

In the NASA press conference last week they said they were planning on having Crew-1 change ports before Crew-2 arrives. 

I think, no Dragons have done it before so they can check the done box. 

[gongora]

In the NASA press conference last week they said they were planning on having Crew-1 change ports before Crew-2 arrives. 

I think, no Dragons have done it before so they can check the done box.

Yes, but if Crew 2 docks at the forward port, and OFT-2 needs the forward port and launched in May, that would force Crew-2 to relocate twice in a month.  The assignments for Crew 2, OFT-2, and SpX-22 need to play nicely together.  If OFT-2 could be in May then Crew 1 shouldn't move.  If OFT-2 is flying in April or after May (basically after SpX-22) then Crew 1 should move.

[edzieba]

If a Crew-1 Dragon move is feasible, then so would be a Crew-2 Dragon move if needed. Does the relocation have any pain points beyond needing those 3/4 crewmembers to suit up and get into Dragon for the relocation (to avoid them being 'stranded' on station without a lifeboat vehicle)?

[IntoTheVoid]

If a Crew-1 Dragon move is feasible, then so would be a Crew-2 Dragon move if needed. Does the relocation have any pain points beyond needing those 3/4 crewmembers to suit up and get into Dragon for the relocation (to avoid them being 'stranded' on station without a lifeboat vehicle)?

The dragon doesn't need any of the crew to to the relocation. That the crew will be in the spacecraft is an acknowledgement of NASA's view of the risk of the maneuver.

Even at that, the risk of an abort to landing is much different at the end of a Crew-1 mission versus the start of the Crew-2 mission.

No doubt they'll work it out.

[yg1968]

NASA Signs Contract to Fly a NASA Astronaut on April Soyuz Rotation to the International Space Station:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-signs-contract-to-fly-a-nasa-astronaut-on-april-soyuz-rotation-to-the-international

https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1369419496662917122
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1369430021719420931

[gongora]

I'm wondering about that 2023 seat that Axiom gets in return.  Is Axiom going to put up someone on a 5-6 month mission, or will there be a one-year mission by one of the USOS astronauts to free up a seat for a short term mission during handover? (or will Axiom end up selling that seat back to NASA?)

[Lars-J]

I'm wondering about that 2023 seat that Axiom gets in return.  Is Axiom going to put up someone on a 5-6 month mission, or will there be a one-year mission by one of the USOS astronauts to free up a seat for a short term mission during handover? (or will Axiom end up selling that seat back to NASA?)

That would make some odd sense. NASA could this way claim not to pay for a Soyuz seat, instead they are buying a seat from a commercial partner. Looks much better. 

[IntoTheVoid]

I'm wondering about that 2023 seat that Axiom gets in return.  Is Axiom going to put up someone on a 5-6 month mission, or will there be a one-year mission by one of the USOS astronauts to free up a seat for a short term mission during handover? (or will Axiom end up selling that seat back to NASA?)

That would make some odd sense. NASA could this way claim not to pay for a Soyuz seat, instead they are buying a seat from a commercial partner. Looks much better. 

Why frame this so pejoratively? It's not "claim not to pay"; it's not even "buying a seat" at all.
NASA, according to their blog statements, is performing a "no exchange of funds", seat exchange. NASA is receiving a seat on Soyuz (with associated training & support), and providing in return, a Commercial Crew, seat (with associated training & support).

This seems to be a single seat in the same vein as NASA has been seeking to reestablish directly with the Russians. Why should it matter at all that the exchange is with Axiom rather than Roscosmos? Speculatively, perhaps Axiom will sell the seat back to the Russians, once they accept flying on CC. Or maybe Axiom will utilize the seat in support of their segment, in some way.

However the CC seat ends up getting utilized, NASA got what they've been seeking without paying; they acquired a seat on Soyuz, through seat exchange.

[Nomadd]

 Seems like NASA is trading a Lufthansa first class seat for a Eurowings coach.

[kdhilliard]

Seems like NASA is trading a Lufthansa first class seat for a Eurowings coach.

That Eurowings flight was fully booked and leaves now, while the Lufthansa flight is a couple of years away.
Flying first class to my daughter's two-year wedding anniversary celebration is small comfort for missing the wedding itself.

It sounds like a great deal for NASA *if* the Axiom crew is only making a short visit to the station during crew handover while one of the astronauts remains onboard for a long endurance mission.

Roscomos needs the money, but with Nauka scheduled for a July launch, I'd have thought they would have wanted three cosmonauts on Expedition 65 to deal with its installation.  They must figure Novitsky and Dubrov can handle it.

[freddo411]

Can someone explain the NASA statement:

"To ensure continuous U.S. presence aboard the ISS ..." buying a soyuz seat.

Crew Dragon is flying, and the missions overlap.   Or am I missing something?

[Tomness]

Seems like NASA is trading a Lufthansa first class seat for a Eurowings coach.

It sounds like a great deal for NASA *if* the Axiom crew is only making a short visit to the station during crew handover while one of the astronauts remains onboard for a long endurance mission.

With them putting the new bunk in on USOS I think you are going to see 6 month commercial astronauts doing their own science because of the price increases. These will be formal astronauts working for private companies.

[ThomasGadd]

Can someone explain the NASA statement:

"To ensure continuous U.S. presence aboard the ISS ..." buying a soyuz seat.

Crew Dragon is flying, and the missions overlap.   Or am I missing something?

NASA is covering their butt until Starliner is certified... what happens Dragon has problem and is delayed. 

[DigitalMan]

Can someone explain the NASA statement:

"To ensure continuous U.S. presence aboard the ISS ..." buying a soyuz seat.

Crew Dragon is flying, and the missions overlap.   Or am I missing something?

NASA is covering their butt until Starliner is certified... what happens Dragon has problem and is delayed. 

I don't think it has anything to do with that. I remember Jim saying that at least 1 US astronaut is required to run the US side of ISS and 1 Russian Cosmonaut is required to run the Russian side of ISS.

Therefore, the desire to make sure there are flights that have one of each.

[ThomasGadd]

Can someone explain the NASA statement:

"To ensure continuous U.S. presence aboard the ISS ..." buying a soyuz seat.

Crew Dragon is flying, and the missions overlap.   Or am I missing something?

NASA is covering their butt until Starliner is certified... what happens Dragon has problem and is delayed. 

I don't think it has anything to do with that. I remember Jim saying that at least 1 US astronaut is required to run the US side of ISS and 1 Russian Cosmonaut is required to run the Russian side of ISS.

Therefore, the desire to make sure there are flights that have one of each.

I agree and with Dragon back to back missions that's covered my point is what if Dragon can't fly before Starliner is ready...

[Lars-J]

I'm wondering about that 2023 seat that Axiom gets in return.  Is Axiom going to put up someone on a 5-6 month mission, or will there be a one-year mission by one of the USOS astronauts to free up a seat for a short term mission during handover? (or will Axiom end up selling that seat back to NASA?)

That would make some odd sense. NASA could this way claim not to pay for a Soyuz seat, instead they are buying a seat from a commercial partner. Looks much better. 

Why frame this so pejoratively? It's not "claim not to pay"; it's not even "buying a seat" at all.
NASA, according to their blog statements, is performing a "no exchange of funds", seat exchange. NASA is receiving a seat on Soyuz (with associated training & support), and providing in return, a Commercial Crew, seat (with associated training & support).

This seems to be a single seat in the same vein as NASA has been seeking to reestablish directly with the Russians. Why should it matter at all that the exchange is with Axiom rather than Roscosmos? Speculatively, perhaps Axiom will sell the seat back to the Russians, once they accept flying on CC. Or maybe Axiom will utilize the seat in support of their segment, in some way.

However the CC seat ends up getting utilized, NASA got what they've been seeking without paying; they acquired a seat on Soyuz, through seat exchange.

You are correct - now. But IF it turns out that NASA buys back the Axiom seat later (as my bolded quote segment indicates), then this has all been a bit of a weaselly workaround to avoid paying the Russians directly.

[kdhilliard]

Can someone explain the NASA statement:

"To ensure continuous U.S. presence aboard the ISS ..." buying a soyuz seat.

Crew Dragon is flying, and the missions overlap.   Or am I missing something?

NASA is covering their butt until Starliner is certified... what happens Dragon has problem and is delayed.

It's not just that.  Were a single member of Crew-2 to require medical evacuation from the station, all four would have to return with the vehicle, leaving the USOS deserted ... unless NASA also had a seat on MS-18.  NASA's preferred solution is to swap seats with the Russians, and that is still the eventual plan, but the Russians have been reluctant to fly on our new and untested vehicles.  There is still hope they might start with Crew-3 and MS-19.

[freddo411]

Can someone explain the NASA statement:

"To ensure continuous U.S. presence aboard the ISS ..." buying a soyuz seat.

Crew Dragon is flying, and the missions overlap.   Or am I missing something?

NASA is covering their butt until Starliner is certified... what happens Dragon has problem and is delayed.

It's not just that.  Were a single member of Crew-2 to require medical evacuation from the station, all four would have to return with the vehicle, leaving the USOS deserted ... unless NASA also had a seat on MS-18.  NASA's preferred solution is to swap seats with the Russian, and that is still the eventual plan, but the Russians have been reluctant to fly on our new and untested vehicles.  There is still hope they might start with Crew-3 and MS-19.

there are good reasons to do seat swaps with the Russians, we all understand that.

But there’s no specific reason to worry about continuous US crew on the Station.  We have an operational spacecraft.  I think it’s wrong to characterize this as “ ensuring continuous US presence”.  That makes it sound like there’s a known problem with the current crew rotation

It might be more accurately described as adding redundant capability in case of unanticipated emergencies

[ncb1397]

Can someone explain the NASA statement:

"To ensure continuous U.S. presence aboard the ISS ..." buying a soyuz seat.

Crew Dragon is flying, and the missions overlap.   Or am I missing something?

NASA is covering their butt until Starliner is certified... what happens Dragon has problem and is delayed.

It's not just that.  Were a single member of Crew-2 to require medical evacuation from the station, all four would have to return with the vehicle, leaving the USOS deserted ... unless NASA also had a seat on MS-18.  NASA's preferred solution is to swap seats with the Russians, and that is still the eventual plan, but the Russians have been reluctant to fly on our new and untested vehicles.  There is still hope they might start with Crew-3 and MS-19.

This deal doesn't really help in this case. The Russians aren't likely to evacuate the Russian segment just so the U.S. doesn't have to evacuate theirs (to save a USOS astronaut). Or leave a Russian cosmonaut up without a Soyuz just so the U.S. doesn't have to do the same.