CRS-2 Contenders- Who do you think will get the contract?

[Streetwind]

And it could reboost the station which I don't think any of the American commercial projects can.

Dreamchaser and Starliner both advertise that capability. One of the docking adapters for Commercial Crew vehicles is located so that reboosts can be performed from it, and Boeing crew missions will likely do so.

[fredinno]

Cygnus an Dragon would be my prefered choice since they both offer innovative designs based on economic and efficient concepts. Boeing just doesn't seem to take the risks of trying a new approach or funding complex R&D efforts.

Still, Boeing has very good relations to the agencies and organisations in charge... My best guess is that they'll get a contract despite the technical and economic disadvantages of the CST-100 :/

Cygnus isn't really innovative, or really, the Dragon either, through your line of thinking.

[Rune]

Why???

Lobbying power, mostly. And I concur, Dragon and CST-100 seem the likelier choices. The sound choices would be Dragon and Cygnus (because I am assuming Cygnus will be much cheaper than the Starliner), or scrapping the whole deal and bartering more ATV/HTV flights along with an extension of CRS-1. Then again, ATV is anything but cheap, and as Nibb31 says, NASA got pretty screwed on the last barter. Besides, ESA officials have already said that ATV was not shiny new tech development anymore, and thus not of real interest to the agency. But for the life of me, I still can't see the Orion service module deal working out in the long run...

And yeah, DC is going nowhere, fast. IMHO and all that, of course.

Rune. If Boeing wants a contract, Boeing gets the contract.

[Kibble]

Cygnus and Dragon. They work great together!

[Nibb31]

Then again, ATV is anything but cheap, and as Nibb31 says, NASA got pretty screwed on the last barter.

Just to elaborate, NASA screwed themselves. When the barter arrangements were originally made, NASA was still flying the Shuttle and those seats didn't cost them anything. Screwing up those barter agreements was a consequence of ending the STS program without having a replacement.

Rune. If Boeing wants a contract, Boeing gets the contract.

I don't agree with that. They have lost competitions many times in the past (X-32, CEV, etc...)

[fredinno]

Just to elaborate, NASA screwed themselves. When the barter arrangements were originally made, NASA was still flying the Shuttle and those seats didn't cost them anything. Screwing up those barter agreements was a consequence of ending the STS program without having a replacement.

I don't agree with that. They have lost competitions many times in the past (X-32, CEV, etc...)

Well, if CCDev had been fully funded by congress, flights would have started in 2015, so it only would have been a few years on Soyuz... That's not fully NASA's fault.

[Rune]

Just to elaborate, NASA screwed themselves. When the barter arrangements were originally made, NASA was still flying the Shuttle and those seats didn't cost them anything. Screwing up those barter agreements was a consequence of ending the STS program without having a replacement.

Yeah, since Congress is the one that cancels and starts programs, I wouldn't really blame NASA. They basically do as they are told. In any case, a pretty moot point, they still got screwed in a deal where they were the party with the most negotiating power.

I don't agree with that. They have lost competitions many times in the past (X-32, CEV, etc...)

You should always take what I put after my nick as non-serious joke on the subject at hand. Still, the spirit is somewhat accurate. Obviously they have lost contracts, but let's be honest, no one would bet against them when they are going against Orbital, given the respective size and budget of their lobbying teams. Also note that the two examples you cite were competitions against Lockheed, a similar defense/aerospace giant with similarly deep political connections. And if you kept track, I think they still come out ahead in their fights against LM, overall. They are the guys handling the ISS budget, for example, the biggest slice in NASA's human spaceflight pie.

Rune. Case in point, ULA... I count that as a win against LM.

[Streetwind]

...Didn't you already state that in your opening post?

[fredinno]

...Didn't you already state that in your opening post?

oh, yeah. *Facepalm*

[mellojoe]

I wish ... I WISH the Dream Chaser would be developed. Such a wonderful concept. But, it hit some major snags at crucial times, and just falls too far behind everyone else. I love the idea of being able to produce the Shuttle concept the way it should have been.

For this poll, the obvious answers are SpaceX and Boeing. The Orion Starliner / CST-100 has already got a ton of backing with the SLS project. SpaceX is proven and working.

Edited October 29, 2015 by mellojoe

[Kryten]

The Orion / CST-100 has already got a ton of backing with the SLS project.

CST-100 has nothing to do with Orion except rough shape. It's Boeing, Orion is LM.

[codepoet]

I wonder if Orbital are going to end up with a system that can launch on either their own booster or a ULA booster. That might be a lay of redundancy that would be attractive to NASA (if one of the launchers is grounded they can still fly using the other) and could be an unexpected silver lining from the current failure.

[fredinno]

I wonder if Orbital are going to end up with a system that can launch on either their own booster or a ULA booster. That might be a lay of redundancy that would be attractive to NASA (if one of the launchers is grounded they can still fly using the other) and could be an unexpected silver lining from the current failure.

Cygnus is already like that- actually, technically, wouldn't Dragon be able to launch on an Atlas/Vulcan, and CST-100 also be able to launch on a fully expendable Falcon 9 V1.1 Full Thrust (Or Dream Chaser on Delta IV Heavy, for that matter)?

OrbitalATK is currently launching Cygnus on Atlas, so the question is yes. I don't think that would be advantageous, though, since they are already contacting to 2 companies, not one, and launchers might not really matter so much- the cargo does not need to have abort capability, and could be put in a payload fairing like a satellite would.

CCiCap manned spacecraft are a different story.

[Nibb31]

I wish ... I WISH the Dream Chaser would be developed. Such a wonderful concept. But, it hit some major snags at crucial times, and just falls too far behind everyone else. I love the idea of being able to produce the Shuttle concept the way it should have been.

DreamChaser is a lifting body capsule that launches on top of a freaking disposable Atlas V. In fact, it has the disadvantages of the Shuttle with much less reusability.

[Firwen]

I would say SpaceX and the Dream Chaser to have two different concepts in flight and being able to compare it.

- SpaceX for a relatively low cost capsule-based solution, already tested.

- The Dream Chaser for a reusable lifting body with hybrid engines.

[Nibb31]

I would say SpaceX and the Dream Chaser to have two different concepts in flight and being able to compare it.

- SpaceX for a relatively low cost capsule-based solution, already tested.

- The Dream Chaser for a reusable lifting body with hybrid engines.

Reusable. Lifting body. Hybrid engines. None of those are actual requirements for the CRS-2 mission. Actually, they are programmatic risks that are likely to score negatively in NASA's evaluation process.

[Firwen]

Reusable. Lifting body. Hybrid engines. None of those are actual requirements for the CRS-2 mission. Actually, they are programmatic risks that are likely to score negatively in NASA's evaluation process.

I have to say that your forum-wide famous hate for the dream chaser is rather exhausting sometimes.

They are different technical choices, which obviously will give different results. That's precisely why I find them interesting.

NASA sponsors two programs. I would rather sponsors two program with radically different approach (two different launchers, two different concepts, two different propulsions) than two programs fundamentally similar:

1- The chance that the failure of one impacts the other is lower.

2- You analyse two radically different concepts in a real use case and learn out of it for later designs.

[Streetwind]

Cygnus is already like that- actually, technically, wouldn't Dragon be able to launch on an Atlas/Vulcan, and CST-100 also be able to launch on a fully expendable Falcon 9 V1.1 Full Thrust (Or Dream Chaser on Delta IV Heavy, for that matter)?

The question isn't really mass... remember, the cargo Dragon was launched on the original Falcon 9 v1.0 already, which was able to send up to 10 tons to the ISS... almost the same, incidentally, as an Atlas V without any solid boosters. You don't need a particularly big lifter to go there. Mass-wise, CST-100 could probably launch on the old F9 v1.0 even, if it was still being produced.

The real question is physical compatibility, though. Orbital ATK is able to stick Cygnus on top of an Atlas V because Cygnus is built on Orbital's standard satellite bus, which in turn is designed for compatibility with common launchers like Atlas. A purpose-built craft like the CST-100 is more difficult to adapt to a different launcher - especially when the core diameter differs. Atlas V is 3.8m, F9 is 3.65m. May still be possible, but it's not a no-brainer.

[Nibb31]

I have to say that your forum-wide famous hate for the dream chaser is rather exhausting sometimes.

I don't do hate. I do rational. The appeal for wings is irrational. I understand that it looks nice to Buck Rogers fans, but it's simply not the best use of upmass and esthetics shouldn't be a factor when it comes to selecting the best vehicle for the job.

Landing accounts only for the last few minutes of an orbital mission, yet the wings and all the associated systems (landing gear, hydraulics, larger heatshield...) take up the largest fraction of mass on the vehicle. Any benefits are far outweighed by the drawbacks in terms of weight, reliability, complexity, cost, flexibility, and safety.

They are different technical choices, which obviously will give different results. That's precisely why I find them interesting.

NASA sponsors two programs. I would rather sponsors two program with radically different approach (two different launchers, two different concepts, two different propulsions) than two programs fundamentally similar:

That's what they are doing. Dragon, CST-100 and Cygnus are radically different vehicles.

1- The chance that the failure of one impacts the other is lower.

Irrelevant. They don't share any systems. What sort of failure on one of the three major competitors could impact another one?

2- You analyse two radically different concepts in a real use case and learn out of it for later designs.

I think NASA has learned the hard way that wings on a spacecraft don't make much sense.

[Firwen]

I don't do hate. I do rational. The appeal for wings is irrational. I understand that it looks nice to Buck Rogers fans, but it's simply not the best use of upmass and esthetics shouldn't be a factor when it comes to selecting the best vehicle for the job.

The Dream chaser does not have wings, it has lift. And lift for a craft supposed to make regular atmosphere re-entry makes perfect sense.

Landing accounts only for the last few minutes of an orbital mission, yet the wings and all the associated systems (landing gear, hydraulics, larger heatshield...) take up the largest fraction of mass on the vehicle.

Are the 8 SuperDraco engines + associated explosive propergol + landing legs + 2 emergency parachutes needed to the Dragon Capsule Massless ?

[Nibb31]

The Dream chaser does not have wings, it has lift. And lift for a craft supposed to make regular atmosphere re-entry makes perfect sense.

It has winglets, control surfaces, landing gear, tyres, brakes, doors, hydraulic lines, reservoirs, and pumps. It also has heavy heatshield material that covers a much wider area and which is exposed to MMOD damage throughout the mission. The crewed version also had parachutes to make a launch abort survivable.

Capsules are also lifting bodies, they just don't need to carry all that stuff to space and back (except the parachutes), meaning that they can either carry more payload or use a smaller rocket. They are simpler, have less failure modes, are passively stable, and can survive a landing anywhere on the planet, not just on a runway. The only advantages of horizontal landing are slightly lower Gs on reentry and higher cross-range, neither of which are valued or required by NASA.

Are the 8 SuperDraco engines + associated explosive propergol + landing legs + 2 emergency parachutes needed to the Dragon Capsule Massless ?

Not on Cargo Dragon, which this thread is discussing. And NASA isn't super keen on using any of that gear for landing either. Commercial Crew Dragons will be descending on parachutes and the SuperDracos are officially for launch abort and dampening the touchdown impact like Soyuz. Crew Dragon doesn't meet NASA requirements very well either in that respect.

Actually, CST-100 was probably the best match to NASA's RFP, which associated with the perceived risk, explains why it was favored.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Nibb31

[mellojoe]

CST-100 has nothing to do with Orion except rough shape. It's Boeing, Orion is LM.

I'm sorry, yes. Not Orion. The Starliner.

[fredinno]

The question isn't really mass... remember, the cargo Dragon was launched on the original Falcon 9 v1.0 already, which was able to send up to 10 tons to the ISS... almost the same, incidentally, as an Atlas V without any solid boosters. You don't need a particularly big lifter to go there. Mass-wise, CST-100 could probably launch on the old F9 v1.0 even, if it was still being produced.

The real question is physical compatibility, though. Orbital ATK is able to stick Cygnus on top of an Atlas V because Cygnus is built on Orbital's standard satellite bus, which in turn is designed for compatibility with common launchers like Atlas. A purpose-built craft like the CST-100 is more difficult to adapt to a different launcher - especially when the core diameter differs. Atlas V is 3.8m, F9 is 3.65m. May still be possible, but it's not a no-brainer.

Still, there's going to be at least a few months to figure it out, and you can put a CST-100 in a Falcon 9 in a fairing with an adapter inside. Yes it is more difficult though, but it should not be a deal-breaker. Actually, if that doesn't work, you could rearrange the flights with the other competitor.

Also, I chose CST-100 to launch on a Falcon 9 Full Thrust, since it has a payload of 16.6 T to LEO. CST-100 is 13T mass, which would fit inside a Falcon 9 V1.1, but since CST-100 is carrying cargo, rather than people, I just decided to give myself a little more breathing room.

Really, it's impossible to be sure until we can find out CST-100's cargo capacity.

- - - Updated - - -

I wish ... I WISH the Dream Chaser would be developed. Such a wonderful concept. But, it hit some major snags at crucial times, and just falls too far behind everyone else. I love the idea of being able to produce the Shuttle concept the way it should have been.

For this poll, the obvious answers are SpaceX and Boeing. The Orion Starliner / CST-100 has already got a ton of backing with the SLS project. SpaceX is proven and working.

"The way the Shuttle should have been" would have been a 2 stage, fully reusable lifting body system, as was originally envisioned.

[codepoet]

Cygnus is already like that- actually, technically, wouldn't Dragon be able to launch on an Atlas/Vulcan, and CST-100 also be able to launch on a fully expendable Falcon 9 V1.1 Full Thrust (Or Dream Chaser on Delta IV Heavy, for that matter)?

OrbitalATK is currently launching Cygnus on Atlas, so the question is yes. I don't think that would be advantageous, though, since they are already contacting to 2 companies, not one, and launchers might not really matter so much- the cargo does not need to have abort capability, and could be put in a payload fairing like a satellite would.

CCiCap manned spacecraft are a different story.

Oh yes, I am sure that all of the various capsules could be launched on top of a variety of boosters (in a very kerbal way ), but of course the details are in the work to develop the hardware, launch site support etc to make it possible. The point is that Orbital will have done that work, so they will be ready to go with a ULA or their own booster.

[fredinno]

DreamChaser is a lifting body capsule that launches on top of a freaking disposable Atlas V. In fact, it has the disadvantages of the Shuttle with much less reusability.

Well, Dream Chaser has the benefit off of being based off of HL-20, so there are less R&D than Dragon when they were first being made.

Dream Chaser is also actually lighter than CST-100 and Dragon, so it uses a cheaper booster. Also, it could launch on a Falcon 9 if they wanted too- it was proposed when the spacecraft was first being built.

The Dream Chaser is great for tourism- I mean, who wouldn't want to ride on something looking that cool?

- - - Updated - - -

The question isn't really mass... remember, the cargo Dragon was launched on the original Falcon 9 v1.0 already, which was able to send up to 10 tons to the ISS... almost the same, incidentally, as an Atlas V without any solid boosters. You don't need a particularly big lifter to go there. Mass-wise, CST-100 could probably launch on the old F9 v1.0 even, if it was still being produced.

The real question is physical compatibility, though. Orbital ATK is able to stick Cygnus on top of an Atlas V because Cygnus is built on Orbital's standard satellite bus, which in turn is designed for compatibility with common launchers like Atlas. A purpose-built craft like the CST-100 is more difficult to adapt to a different launcher - especially when the core diameter differs. Atlas V is 3.8m, F9 is 3.65m. May still be possible, but it's not a no-brainer.

This is so wrong, it's not even funny.

The Cargo Dragon can only carry ~3.5T to the ISS. Falcon 9 1.0 can carry 10 T to LEO. The smallest Atlas V is 8T to LEO. CST-100 is 13T, too big for V1.1.

- - - Updated - - -

It has winglets, control surfaces, landing gear, tyres, brakes, doors, hydraulic lines, reservoirs, and pumps. It also has heavy heatshield material that covers a much wider area and which is exposed to MMOD damage throughout the mission. The crewed version also had parachutes to make a launch abort survivable.

Capsules are also lifting bodies, they just don't need to carry all that stuff to space and back (except the parachutes), meaning that they can either carry more payload or use a smaller rocket. They are simpler, have less failure modes, are passively stable, and can survive a landing anywhere on the planet, not just on a runway. The only advantages of horizontal landing are slightly lower Gs on reentry and higher cross-range, neither of which are valued or required by NASA.

Not on Cargo Dragon, which this thread is discussing. And NASA isn't super keen on using any of that gear for landing either. Commercial Crew Dragons will be descending on parachutes and the SuperDracos are officially for launch abort and dampening the touchdown impact like Soyuz. Crew Dragon doesn't meet NASA requirements very well either in that respect.

Actually, CST-100 was probably the best match to NASA's RFP, which associated with the perceived risk, explains why it was favored.

It is favoured by the DOD an tourism, to have wings, though.