Commercial Crew: And Then There Were Three

[saundby]

NASA has announced the three winners in the next round of Commercial Crew vehicle development: SpaceX's Dragon capsule, Boeing's CST-100 capsule, and Sierra Nevada Corporation's Dream Chaser lifting body.

NASA CCiCap Announcement

NasaSpaceFlight: NASA CCiCap Funding SpaceX, Boeing, SNCS Crew Vehicles

This leaves out the ATK Liberty vehicle, the Blue Origin biconic capsule, and the long-shot Excalibur-Almaz retread Soviet-era vehicle. ATK may have enough clout to get themselves some funding to continue work on the Liberty, and Blue Origin has stated its intent to go forward with their system regardless of NASA's commercial crew work in the past.

Excalibur-Almaz is still looking for people with more money than sense to pony up some bucks with the hope of getting a joyride (and hopefully not a death trip) into deep space.

The Dream Chaser comes up with the short stick of the three selected systems (the funding model is two and a half, with DC getting the "half"), but hopefully they can keep advancing far enough to bring the system to a status where they can get the backing to fly. Personally I would have liked to see CST-100 get the half as a fall-back rather than front-line system, from a technical standpoint.

 

[VonPickles]

Isnt it sad, in 69' the yanks got to the moon - with dodgy equipment and "seat of your pants" ideals. now today with all the progress we cant even get to orbit WTF people??? just really sad! we now need to beg cap in hand to private business...

can someone explain to a non-us citizen why this is so?
i bet ten bucks the chinese will be the next to the moon and they will have a base there within 20 years...

 

[aramis]

VonPickles, I don't know what planet you're on, but the US has been putting stuff in orbit even after killing the shuttles. The Russians have a manned capsule capability (which the US has been borrowing). And the UK has never even fired a thing to orbit...

 

[saundby]

For various reasons several prior manned vehicle/launch vehicle programs were cancelled. Getting into all the details would require going into the Pit, which I'm just as glad to leave closed, closed, closed.

The Shuttles could have been operated longer, but there was a competition between operations and development for the available dollars, so turning off Shuttle operations has provided more money for development work within this point of view. Atlantis and Endeavor were good for several more flights each, easily, though Discovery was pretty well end of life.

However, consider that until the downselect to three commercial vehicles, the U.S. was supporting five simultaneous manned orbital vehicle programs, plus one manned deep space program. We're still developing a manned deep space system and three manned orbital systems, one that claims it'll go on to deep space. And we've got two more that might go on to space without additional government support.

As to going to the private companies "hat in hand", commercial enterprise has been building U.S. manned spacecraft all along, from McDonnell-Douglas to North American/Rockwell/Boeing. However, the limited applicability of the work done just for a government spacecraft has been such that the commercial enterprises have required the government to buy and operate a lot of stuff that they'd buy and operate on their own for a more commercially viable product. Everything from specialized equipment to the very sites where the factories are. This caused a terrible distortion of things as a commercial market developed.

For example, when we were working to "commercialize" the Titan launch vehicles, we had to deal with the fact that the government owned the test stands for the engines, a lot of the equipment mounted in the control rooms, even some of the specialized hand tools. That meant we couldn't use them for anything but government work. We had to either replicate them for commercial engines, or, in some cases we were able to work out deals with the government where we could use them once we'd walked through a bunch of liability issues.

Anyway, the U.S. has had some problems as a nation with being committed to a particular manned vehicle development program (I worked on several that were cancelled before Constellation), but technically we've had the wherewithal all along. And getting to a more commercial model will let us solve some of those organizational issues that have been holding back our technical work. It's good for both the government (who take a smaller share of the costs, and risks associated with development) and the commercial providers (who can sell their technical abilities to more customers without having as much government entanglement.)

Whether we get back to the Moon is more a political question than a technical one, but while the Chinese are developing some great abilities, they're not exactly moving at a breakneck pace, and they still have a long way to go (no deep space vehicle, no heavy lift vehicle, limited rendezvous/docking experience, etc. etc.)

But hey, it took a race to get us there last time.

The gap in U.S. manned launch capability is frustrating, but it's an organizational problem with political roots. The slowness of current development is also based on politics/funding. But we're getting there, and soon manned spaceflight won't be an effort that requires a high national level of commitment. Which is a development in and of itself.

And as far as the U.K...there are some really promising developments there, too. U.K. government space funding has about quadrupled in the past year. Skylon/Reaction Engines is the headline-getter, but there's plenty of work in satellites going, too.

Oh, and Aramis...there was Prospero.

 

[aramis]

Oh, and Aramis...there was Prospero.

Ok, 1 unmanned... 40 years ago... I lie here corrected.

Only three countries have proven manned flight programs: US, Russia, China.
Several more have sent astronauts with those three: India, Japan, Australia, Several ESA members*...
Some countries have been working on manned programs with no launches I've heard of: Japan, India, ESA*

For various reasons, I do hope to see more manned space flight nations - if only to get the US going again.

*Essentially, the ESA is almost but not quite the EU Space Agency - overlapping membership, and similar approaches to governance. For our purposes, the EU can be equated to the US or Russia in terms of political, economic, and military, with the ESA as the EU space program...

 

[far-trader]

...Several more have sent astronauts with those three: India, Japan, Australia, Several ESA members*

<polite cover cough> Canada* </polite cover cough>

 

[aramis]

<polite cover cough> Canada* </polite cover cough>

Keep forgetting that Canada is a country, not a Territory of the US...

Realistically, Canada's Space Program is tightly intertwined with NASA - for good or ill.

 

[far-trader]

Keep forgetting that Canada is a country, not a Territory of the US...

I had originally added a "51st State" commentary (note the ' * ' in my reply I forgot to delete) but I decided not to pick at that scab

Realistically, Canada's Space Program is tightly intertwined with NASA - for good or ill.

Yep, I think it's been mostly good and mutually beneficial. It's not like we could run a proper space program of our own so international cooperative ventures are a natural for us. We're also a long standing special status member of the ESA; and talking with both Japan and India re space initiatives.

 

[far-trader]

Realistically, Canada's Space Program is tightly intertwined with NASA - for good or ill.

Re: That and the commercialization side of things and such, Canada's next (last?) manned NASA contribution is a bit of a bitter-sweet one. Coming up in November it'll mark the first Canadian Commander of the ISS (for the second half of the 6 month mission) and is also the last NASA compensated CSA contribution for the Shuttle/ISS cooperation. After this we have to pay for our rides. Realistically, or at least pessimistically, this pretty much looks to end CSA manned flight missions

 

[Fritz_Brown]

I would actually like to see more commercial emphasis on what to do once we get back into space (with commercial ventures). Doing it as joyrides for rich folk and scattering sci-fi ashes isn't going to keep it viable for long. What I want to see developed is vacuum smelting, micro-g materials development (doping semiconductors and such), etc. That is what will make space travel happen. Yes, by all means, let's go back to the moon. But, let's not do it just to drive around and hit golf balls. ([redacted comment about presidents here]) Let's build stuff and make things so we have a reason to keep going.

 

[aramis]

Re: That and the commercialization side of things and such, Canada's next (last?) manned NASA contribution is a bit of a bitter-sweet one. Coming up in November it'll mark the first Canadian Commander of the ISS (for the second half of the 6 month mission) and is also the last NASA compensated CSA contribution for the Shuttle/ISS cooperation. After this we have to pay for our rides. Realistically, or at least pessimistically, this pretty much looks to end CSA manned flight missions

I'm certain CSA will send people up with NASA again... as soon as one of the 3 vehicle programs gets operational in a year or two.

 

[saundby]

The tourist spacecraft have discovered a substantial market in science. Lots of institutions and countries that can't afford spaceflight otherwise are looking at the cost of a tourist seat and rubbing their collective chins.

Spaceship2 is being fitted to carry standard NanoRacks for science experiments, either tended or untended. They're expecting half or better than half their revenue to come from science flights.

Other tourist endeavors are headed the same way. If you're Indonesia, and looking at getting into space, a "fat cat" tourist ticket is a lot cheaper than a launch or a home grown space program.

And the U.S. has certainly benefited from Canada's involvement in both the Shuttle and ISS programs.

 

[VonPickles]

It just astounds me that my mobile has more tech than an apollo computer, but we still cant replicate it! we can build JSF's, and other untold devices of death, but when it comes to the betterment of mankind meh it seems few care.
it seems that we over populate this small world we live on when there are "Huge tracts of land" up for grabs by anyone with the courage to try.
i understand world economies are in the poo, and Presidents/Prime Ministers etc are weary of stepping out of the economic circle, and taking a gamble with advancement. is there no one left with that frontier mentality of lets explore and go have a look?
this wasnt meant to be a dig, or a point finger at anyone im just at a loss as to why we are still earthbound after all our advances since the 60's we should be all driving/flying hover cars, and living in a utopian paradise.
if i wasnt approaching 40, and as dumb as a house brick i would be putting my hand up signing my life away and saying pick me!!!

 

[saundby]

We aren't replicating the Apollo spacecraft, we're building something much better. Several of them, in fact.

And the computer isn't the hold-up. It's all that other stuff that we haven't exercised our ability to build so much in the intervening 40 years. Things like life support systems, which are still hand-built one-off lab articles.

Everyone's really excited by Dragon getting to ISS, and a certain amount of public presentation has suggested that we could just stick people into it and go somewhere. For anything more than a brief joyride of an orbit or two, that's just not true, and at that the joyride had better have everything go just right.

A lot of the money from the new commercial crew funding will go into developing an environmental control and life support system for Dragon. That will let people get by on a Dragon for longer trips, of a few days or so, possibly a bit longer, possibly long enough for a Moon mission.

I'm not sure why people focus on the Apollo computers. The actual computers were on the ground, doing their work via telemetry. The on-board computer was a sort of calculator intended for some local data reduction capability, not for the heavy work which was either pre-computed before flight or performed on the ground.

The hard part is everything else. And the expense comes from things like having to use a $100,000 block of metal as raw materials for making your components. That's $100,000 before you hand it to the machinist to turn it into a part.

Getting the gumption to do the job, in spite of the expense, is the real problem. And that's a problem that's political, so it's outside the scope of COTIs discussion.

Talk to your friends and acquaintances, find out what they think of space exploration and their objections. Find answers to their objections and convince them of the necessity and possibility of human space exploration. Get the word out, and help them understand it in a way they can not only believe it, but pass it on.

 

[aramis]

The computer issue is NASA not having space-rated many current CPUs...

And having been public about same.

As for dragon, it's pretty much "it could go to the moon in its crew configuration" if that configuration was actually flying, but current launch systems tend to indicate the SM and LM would have to go separately, and mate up in orbit... which might not be bad.

It'd be three or four launches, and some hassle, but it should be doable to get to the moon in a year or two. Down and back in 3-4. If we're motivated.

 

[saundby]

Well, there are two parts here that tend to get intermingled.

The spacecraft.

The launch vehicle.

While parallel, they're two separate efforts. More so now than in the 60s or 70s. There aren't any current plans with as close a level of integration between LV and spacecraft as Shuttle, though ATKs Liberty is sold as a package deal.

For CPUs, it's not that big of a problem, really. We've qualified Lenovo laptops for ECLSS controllers and monitors on ISS. Part of the qualification problem is that things get qualified as systems, mostly, not as components. Then time marches on, and the system that was qualified isn't in production any more. I remember a buying frenzy on used and remaining stock Commodore 64s for use in ground installations when they finally went out of production. They'd been qualified as part of a larger infrastructure that would have been expensive and time consuming to replace.

Anyway, the point is that the technology isn't the problem. It's organization and monetary commitment. NASA itself has lost a lot of its ability to control its own organization, and therefore its costs and schedule. That's one of the reasons going commercial is likely to be far more productive for the U.S.

Anyway, I was focusing more on the spacecraft there. If SLS and/or Falcon Heavy come along well, I think the deep space launch vehicle will be taken care of there, though multiple launches of Atlas V, Delta IVH, or Falcon 9 would do the trick, too.

 

[mbrinkhues]

For quite a few nations the question is also "why bother". ESA could easily turn the ATV into a manned system (Ariane V is man rated) and there is a low key study to do it. But it is low key and a "spin of" for more useful stuff (ATV and it's re-entry version ARV) that does the mission automatically. The whole ARV project has less than 20percent of ESAs budget and the manned subversion is a part of that.

Within the Earth-Moon "system" robots can do almost everything man can do. Cheaper, easier and if one get's lost - it is just money, send in the next one. Nobody would care if "Hephaistos-13" has a problem, write it of, launch Hephaistos-14. Man are not needed in space.

Now, if the Aliens attack we send the cynical old guy and the super-smart blond in a space fighter to put a missile in a vent...

 

[far-trader]

...Man are not needed in space.

Eggs: almost 7 BILLION, and growing (Humans)

Baskets: 1 (Earth)

Rocks: several thousand (by some estimates, aka Earth Crossing Killer Asteroids)

You do the math

...and in case of less than universal knowledge of my point it's the old adage about not putting all your eggs in one basket, for if that basket breaks you lose everything. Manned missions are the first tentative steps to building a few more baskets for when, not if, our little blue planet is faced with catastrophe. It's only prudent, and compared to the wastefulness of many other accepted and even applauded "pursuits" an easily justifiable one.

 

[mbrinkhues]

I will disagree here. As long as politically and technically we have no drives capabel of transporting sizeable amounts of people and equipment to another planet it is useless. And drive research does not need humans. We are talking a few hundred persons and resonable industry here for an independent colony. Everything else means the guys/gals on say Mars die a few weeks/month after the rest.

Now if that cute white haired, red eyed Alien and her aging mentor crash land on the moon we can talk...

 

[madmike]

If mankind is to survive as a species, then moving out into local space and then ultimately the stars is the future and nigh on essential.

Exploring the solar system with manned expeditions is the next step, following on from the robotic spacecraft that have been a great success over the last 40 years.

Build the infrastructure in nearspace/on the moon and then build interplanetary spacecraft in orbit. Forget chemical propulsion for such spacecraft as emerging propulsion technologies now and in the near future will be far more efficient and powerful (VASIMR for example). Add revolving habitats to simulate gravity as well, so important for planned six month journeys to Mars and further/longer trips beyond..

This all can be done.

NASA have done the right thing in my opinion. Stripped of funding they have rightly concentrated on exploration and provided incentives for private industry to put people in space.