posted 06-29-2011 04:06 PM               

Editor's note: In an effort to keep the topics

• NASA Commercial Crew Development (CCDev)
  
• CCDev: SpaceX Dragon crewed spacecraft
  
• CCDev: Boeing Company/Bigelow Aerospace
  
• CCDev: Blue Origin Crew Transportation System
  
• CCDev: Sierra Nevada Corp. (Dream Chaser)

...focused on status updates, reader's feedback and opinions are directed to this thread.

Please use this topic to discuss the NASA's investment in commercial crew launch services and the four chosen companies' development updates and plans.

posted 08-04-2011 04:32 PM               

Under the award, ULA will provide launch services from Space Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station using the Atlas V 412 configuration with a single solid rocket booster with a dual engine upper-stage Centaur.

"Our preference is to have something that could attach to the existing mobile launch platform and not have to build a dedicated tower or gantry," said Sowers.

• An unmanned orbital test flight in the first quarter of 2015.
  
• An unmanned in-flight test of the abort system in the middle of the year.
  
• A manned test flight with two Boeing pilots on board in the fourth quarter.

For the late 2015 test flight, Boeing is recruiting its own crew.

"The test pilots, we're just starting the interview process for that," said John Elbon, vice president and program manager of Boeing commercial crew transportation systems. "Of course, it is interesting to look at flown astronauts as candidates for this and certainly, we'll consider that as we make selections. They also could be test pilots maybe who haven't flown in space, or some mix of all that. We'll go through a selection process for that."

"Certainly, somebody who has flown in space would have great credentials and will fair well in the selection process I think," said Elbon.

posted 08-11-2011 08:39 AM            

Boeing has the experience and proven rocket and hardware to succeed. But if this is a race, it currently looks as if SpaceX will beat Boeing to the finish line. May be SpaceX will falter, and Boeing will pull ahead. Or may be one of the other contenders will take the lead.

posted 08-11-2011 09:15 AM               

If there is new "excitement" being conveyed over the competition between the four major companies vying for the future contract(s), it is only due to the realization that until something else comes along, we have subsidized part of our national heritage to Russia.

Barbree is simply covering the story that now is. There's no point in him questioning the correctness of the policy anymore, but just wait until one of these companies has a failure. The media in general will jump all over Congress and NASA with sensationalized questioning of the decisions that have led us to this point.

posted 08-11-2011 09:30 AM            

While Barbree laments the current condition of NASA, I direct you to the following quote which shows he has relented somewhat from his previous stance:

...it's just possible that America's stumble-along space agency has stumbled upon a pretty good plan for low Earth orbit.

posted 08-11-2011 09:33 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
...just wait until one of these companies has a failure. The media in general will jump all over Congress and NASA with sensationalized questioning of the decisions that have led us to this point.

---

posted 08-11-2011 01:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
I direct you to the following quote which shows he has relented somewhat from his previous stance

---

To Robert's point, yes, failures with loss of life have always drawn media attention and scrutiny because that's the kind of things they think sells well. But my statement was intended more toward a failure in the early unmanned test/demo flights.

The criticism and questioning following Challenger, Columbia, and Apollo 1 were largely focused on operational decisions made within the organization, unless one considers the arguments of the shuttle's configuration with SRB's.

posted 08-11-2011 01:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
Short of talking to the man himself, I think it will take some time and some more editorials from him to see if his true feelings have changed.

---

I'll be seeing him again later this month and can put the question directly to him.

quote:

---

I think that the media/Congress questions following a failure like I described would be more along the lines of the larger policy decisions regarding the retirement of the shuttle, the large flight gap to fill in the shortest period of time, and the entire concept of handing over LEO to the commercial sector.

---

The reason you have demo/test flights is to verify your readiness and work out any problems before you start full-up operations, otherwise there would be no need for them. As technically illiterate as Congress and the media can sometimes be, even they can understand that process.

posted 09-17-2011 04:45 AM            

NASA will impose various requirements to ensure systems can be certified as safe to fly NASA crews.

posted 09-17-2011 09:00 AM               

Procurement rules say the agency must use contracts governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulations when services are being provided directly for the government's benefit.

Some companies prefer Space Act Agreements because they provide more freedom to design systems, fewer burdensome federal regulations and fixed rewards for meeting technical milestones. They fear compliance with the contracts will drive up costs and slow vehicle development.

NASA promises a "non-traditional" contracting approach that limits burdensome accounting requirements and continues to pay companies fixed awards for meeting technical milestones.

posted 09-20-2011 10:49 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
I was under the impression the whole ethos of commercial crew development was to let those companies run things without bureaucratic oversight.

---

posted 10-31-2011 07:28 PM               

In an innovative agreement that will create new jobs, NASA today (Oct. 31) announced a partnership with Space Florida to exclusively occupy, use and modify Kennedy Space Center's Orbiter Processing Facility-3, the Space Shuttle Main Engine Processing Facility and Processing Control Center.

posted 12-07-2011 05:05 PM               

There is a lot of skepticism about whether commercial companies, particularly the new ones, can accomplish reliable, safe, and cost-effective spaceflight. There's even resistance to letting them try. Can you accomplish what you're trying to do with this program in spite of the skepticism and resistance that's out there?

Well, we are doing our best to do that. And I would say that a lot of important things that have happened in the country, or in the world for that matter, have happened despite criticism and despite folks who want to slow it down or not have it happen at all.

The members of my team are not folks that we hired from industry yesterday. Most everyone on the team has either worked space shuttle, like myself, Constellation, like myself, test flying, like some of the folks — Brent Jett who's an astronaut and a very good test pilot is on the team — and then folks from the space station program. We also have other folks on the program that have launched Atlases and Deltas and been part of the launch services program for many years as well.

So I think my biggest pushback on the skeptics is that they need to look at who is on the team from the NASA program who’s making this stuff happen, and NASA engineers. Our history would tell us what is important and what is not important in order to go get a design that can go work. There are some areas where we will push extremely hard to make sure that we will have a safe vehicle. At the same time many of us have grown up … in the space shuttle program. We’ve seen some of the hard parts of the shuttle program, and where we can change the way we do business to make it more innovative and also make it more cost-effective.

I would also say the same thing is true in the companies. For [commercial crew], all of these companies are not folks that are right off the street. They are folks that had worked for NASA, and left NASA, and went to work for the contractors. There are folks that went from one company in aerospace to another company in aerospace. And I would put money on the table that says the best aerospace capabilities of the world are represented by our American aerospace industry. Whether or not they have a name that might be SpaceX, or Boeing, or Blue Origin, or Sierra Nevada or United Launch Alliance is secondary to the fact that as a nation we do have the best capability in order to go put a safe vehicle in space. And so that is what’s driving us, what's driving the program to go get a capability. When we get proposals and when we figure out who are the right ones, then NASA is bringing its 50 years of history to those contractors to help them make sure we have a safe vehicle to go fly. I am confident that we will have a safe vehicle when we go fly by the middle of the decade.

posted 03-16-2012 07:59 AM               

With the Space Shuttle program now retired, NASA does not have a vehicle to put Americans into space. The Obama administration has decided to farm out the next manned spacecraft to the private sector. Musk, the Internet billionaire who co-founded PayPal, has invested $100 million into his company, known as SpaceX, to compete for the contract. "I think we are at the dawn of a new era," he tells Pelley, about the government handoff of the manned orbital space program to the private sector. Does he believe his rocket will be the next American craft to put an astronaut into space? "I believe that is the most likely outcome," says Musk.

But two of the people who inspired Musk - Apollo Astronauts Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan, who walked on the Moon - were early critics of the president's plan to commercialize space. They went before Congress to protest the government's reliance on the private sector as a mistake that could erode America's preeminent role in space exploration. "I was very sad to see that," says Musk, who said he was hoping men like them would cheer him on. "Those guys are heroes of mine, so it's really tough... I wish they would come and visit... see the hard work that we're doing here and I think that it would change their mind," Musk tells Pelley.

posted 03-20-2012 08:34 AM               

1. There will be no wave off. They will only undock if conditions are good. Soyuz delays were due to hardware problems.

2. There is no need for fluid loading. That was for the shuttle pilots.

posted 03-20-2012 08:36 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Behling:
There is no need for fluid loading. That was for the shuttle pilots.

---

The body loses some of its fluid volume while in orbit due to the distribution changes. So astronauts and cosmonauts coming back on Soyuz have to go through a form of fluid replenishment so they don't risk dehydration complications once they are back in 1G (not necessarily blackout complications on reentry due to their seating positions).

They may not do it quite the same as shuttle, but they still do it. Even when long duration crew members were in reclined seats on shuttle, they still did fluid loading the same as the upright crew members.

As to hardware problems, a Dragon capsule can have hardware problems the same as a Soyuz. You can do all the status checks before undocking, but that does not guarantee a problem will not occur.

posted 03-20-2012 08:47 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
Based on what I have read, fluid loading is done on long duration flights as well for cosmonauts (with water and salt tablets to help the body retain fluid).

---

posted 03-20-2012 09:51 AM               

But two of the people who inspired Musk - Apollo Astronauts Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan, who walked on the Moon - were early critics of the president's plan to commercialize space.

For the record, I still support what they said on Capitol Hill because our current administration has gone for "mediocrity" it seems since we have no real destination other than the ISS (an important one, but not a long term future goal). CCDev is a different issue, but not exactly the same thing that was being addressed.

SpaceX has had two successful Falcon 9 flights since then and one successful Dragon flight. But nobody made an attempt to ask Armstrong, Cernan or Lovell about their thoughts SINCE that Congressional testimony implying that it was against SpaceX. On the other side, I also find it interesting that 60 Minutes didn't ask Elon about his "he's just a pilot" comment (from "This Week In Space" I believe) in regards to Neil Armstrong's comments during his Congressional testimony.

Maybe it didn't really have to be acknowledged I suppose since in the two or three recent interviews I've seen with Elon, he has backed off from a confrontational stance somewhat. He can be like a pitbull on some issues, which is a trait which helped him to get where he is. But it can be a negative trait as well sometimes, especially in this age of instant media.

In one interview with AOL, he acknowledged the idea to potentially make Falcon fully reusable was going to be a major challenge and it might not work, but they were going to study it anyway. Elon's body language during the 60 Minutes interview told me that he wanted to say something when asked about Armstrong and Cernan's comments, as he was shaking a little, but he held his comments in check (probably a good thing).

My own belief about SpaceX is they still need to prove themselves and flights are the way to do that. Put together a string of successes and do it quietly and orderly. Because in this business, success (or failure) is what your company will be judged by more so than just talk. NASA showed that the hard way with STS-51L and STS-107 (plus the Mars probe failures in the 1990s) while Roscosmos has recently had their dish served up with the Progress failure, Soyuz pressurization test failure and the loss of Phobos Grunt.

posted 03-20-2012 10:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
But nobody made an attempt to ask Armstrong, Cernan or Lovell about their thoughts since that Congressional testimony implying that it was against SpaceX.

---

quote:

---

Elon's body language during the 60 Minutes interview told me that he wanted to say something when asked about Armstrong and Cernan's comments, as he was shaking a little, but he held his comments in check (probably a good thing).

---

posted 05-07-2012 09:39 AM               

The Dream Chaser model with its Atlas V launch vehicle is undergoing final preparations at the Aerospace Composite Model Development Section's workshop for buffet tests at the Transonic Dynamics Tunnel at NASA Langley. The scale model is being tested as part of NASA's Commercial Crew Development program to regain the American capability to launch astronauts safely to the International Space Station. The lifting body reusable spacecraft would carry as many as seven astronauts to the space station. Sierra Nevada Space Systems is developing the craft under a Space Act Agreement with NASA.

posted 05-11-2012 06:10 AM               

Being a cynic, and given their wallet and lobbying clout, (and, of course, they are a very capable company), I think Boeing for sure will be one of the winners. I'd guess if NASA continues to fund more than one system, SpaceX would be the other system that continues to get funding. I think the other systems will find the government tap turned off in the not too distant future.

posted 05-11-2012 06:19 AM               

The House plan received the endorsement of astronauts Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan and Jim Lovell in a letter sent to appropriations subcommittee chairman Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA).

"It seems unlikely that NASA will receive significant budgetary relief in the foreseeable future," the three retired astronauts wrote in a May 4 letter to Wolf. "Consequently, it is mandatory to maximize return on the limited funds available to access low Earth orbit. An early downselect would seem to be prudent in order to maximize the possibility of developing a crew-carrying spacecraft in time to be operationally useful."

The Administration strongly opposes the level of funding provided for the commercial crew program, which is $330 million below the FY 2013 Budget request, as well as restrictive report language that would eliminate competition in the program. This would increase the time the United States will be required to rely solely on foreign providers to transport American astronauts to and from the space station. While the Administration appreciates the overall funding level provided to NASA, the bill provides some NASA programs with unnecessary increases at the expense of other important initiatives.

posted 05-11-2012 07:06 AM               

First, the language has to be adopted by the Senate, which is unlikely. Once the Senate passes its own budget bill, then the two houses go to conference committee to hammer out a compromise, and both houses vote on it.

Second, this is an election year, and as we've seen in recent years Congress is not inclined to pass the budget on time. The 2013 fiscal year starts October 1. My guess is Congress will pass continuing resolutions until at least after the November election, and might punt the whole thing to the next Congress in January, although sequestration will become effective if they don't.

Third, the CCiCap awards should be decided this summer. NASA might decide on its own to downsize, select one or two or three. Now that ATK has entered the game with Liberty, another player is in the mix, one with powerful lobbyists so NASA will be pressured by Congress to select Liberty along with Boeing's CST-100. In any case, NASA may down-select on their own and the language will be irrelevant.

posted 06-23-2012 09:11 AM               

But two of the people who inspired Musk - Apollo Astronauts Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan, who walked on the Moon - were early critics of the president's plan to commercialize space. They went before Congress to protest the government's reliance on the private sector as a mistake that could erode America's preeminent role in space exploration. "I was very sad to see that," says Musk, who said he was hoping men like them would cheer him on. "Those guys are heroes of mine, so it's really tough... I wish they would come and visit... see the hard work that we're doing here and I think that it would change their mind," Musk tells Pelley.

We should have made it explicit in our story that, while Armstrong was "not confident" that the newcomers could achieve safety and cost goals in the near term, he did want to "encourage" them. We also should have spelled out more clearly that his concerns were directed toward the "newcomers" in general and not SpaceX in particular