One will get voted off the island...

[magnemoe]

Minimal training, not no training. As shynung pointed out the avionics will be redundant and probably very sturdy given NASA's vast experience flying a shuttle type spacecraft. I still don't know what if any evidence you have to suggest that DC is less safe than the alternatives? If anything, DC is safer because it offers low-G reentry and landing.

Plane landings has two benefits, lower G strains and higher cross range capabilities, downside is that you need a runway to land safely.

A capsule can land anywhere, how is abort modes handled on DC, second stage fail will easy result in a splashdown in the Atlantic.

[R0cketC0der]

Plane landings has two benefits, lower G strains and higher cross range capabilities, downside is that you need a runway to land safely.

A capsule can land anywhere, how is abort modes handled on DC, second stage fail will easy result in a splashdown in the Atlantic.

I dont know about how the LAS of Dream Chaser works, but I assume it is based on that of the HL-20(the entire Dream Chaser design was based on the HL-20), which means that it also likely has parachutes for this kind of situation.

[sgt_flyer]

i guess DC will have similar abort modes than the space shuttle : Return To Landing Site (if the abort is needed early enough during the flight) or Transoceanic abort - if later in the flight. Dreamchaser's hybrid rocket engines are it's abort system - so it gives it plenty of delta-v for doing such manoeuvers at this point in the flight (basically, for Thrust considerations, virgin galactic use 1 hybrid rocket engine from SNC for it's spaceship two - DC will use two of these hybrid rocket engines for abort during ascent phases, then for manoeuvers once in orbit )

[No one]

If they cut funding for Commercial Crew there would be no CST-100 either. They can't influence the selection committee because their identities are not public knowledge.

They don't need to threaten Commercial Crew specifically, they can threaten some of the easier things to cut and NASA would probably do as they say.

I think that Boeing will probably win because of influence, and I don't know which out of the Dragon and the Dream Chaser will also win. Personally I think they should vote the CST-100 off the island, because as others have said it adds nothing new. Assuming SpaceX can get the Dragon to work with the same reliability as the CST-100, it would definitely be better.

[magnemoe]

I dont know about how the LAS of Dream Chaser works, but I assume it is based on that of the HL-20(the entire Dream Chaser design was based on the HL-20), which means that it also likely has parachutes for this kind of situation.

Thanks, and yes it would work as the craft would be pretty light.

[Woopert]

I like the Dragon v2 the best, followed by Dream Chaser, followed by CST-100. I just love how SpaceX does things, they're so efficient with what they do; almost all the materials for their rockets are built in house, including the metal parts and the avionics software/computers. If you've ever heard Elon Musk (or any other SpaceX employee, there was an engineer from SpaceX who had worked there over 10 years that came to speak at my planetarium) talk about their ideals and work goals you would be amazed. The time they put into everything is astonishing, everything is thouroughly thought out and planned.

I'd actually like to work for SpaceX as a career (though, a job at Aerojet Rocketdyne working with NASA would be nice as well), I love the way they get things done. They also don't use the silly cost-plus business plan so they're much less expensive.

CST-100 is pretty good as well, couldn't go wrong with either three. Dream Chaser offers lower G forces and better crossrange than the CST-100; apparently, as stated during the Dragon v2 unveil stream, the Dragon v2 is being engineered to land with the same precision that a helicopter can.

[hugix]

Space X & Sierra Nevada have a big plus on the recovery of the crew in their designs. Both designs are capable of pinpoint landings making it easier to get the crew out and securing the scientific payload.

A water / parachute landing is quite the operation. Just look at the preparations NASA is doing to train the recovery crew. You need helicopters, divers, a ginormous boat that can house the capsule.

Just look at the difference between this :

Apollo recovery, somewhere in the water. landing zone is a few kilometers big.

Space shuttle launch. At the end of the runway, Landing zone is as big as a runway.

[Streetwind]

The CST-100 uses parachutes but is capable of landing on land. It can do water too, but in contrast to the Apollo capsule, it doesn't need to.

I reckon that they'll be doing something similar to the Soyuz - a quick burst from their downward facing rocket motors to take a couple m/s off right before touchdown.

EDITed: my reckoning was wrong, the CST-100 actually has deployable airbags that soften the landing.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Streetwind

[Nibb31]

I think either SpaceX or Dream Chaser are getting the axe. Boeing has a solid proposal, and although it's minimalistic, it meets all NASA 's requirements. It is the less imaginative, but that also makes it the safest in terms of program management. They also have a lot more jobs at stake, which is what NASA is really about. So Boeing stays.

SpaceX already has the Commercial Cargo contract, so as far as funding innovative new companies, NASA has done its job with them. They don't need to give them another contract and they might want to prefer to spread their money over other businesses. SpaceX can survive on the cargo runs alone.

As for Dream Chaser, it has some severe flaws in its abort modes. Ok, there is a LAS, but it isn't a glider and it needs somewhere to land. The Shuttle abort modes, risky as they were do not apply because this vehicle is different. Chances are that they would have to ditch in the Pacific after a successful escape burn. It isn't at all clear whether an abort would be survivable all through the flight profile. Unless all these abort modes are proven, it doesn't meet NASA requirements and is the most likely proposal to get cut.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Nibb31

[Mr Shifty]

NSF has an article up:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/08/cctcapnasa-wont-abandon-commercial-crew-loser/

[Streetwind]

I noticed that, and I'm wondering how deeply I should read into it.

I mean, it may be less than five days until the announcement. At this point, the decision is probably final already. And if the decision is final, and NASA now says "we hope we will still be able to continue working together on the project without official funding", that means the one competitor that gets axed is one of the two who will continue development even if axed. Beoing will be in, and either SNC or SpaceX gets the boot.

In that constellation I'm almost expecting SpaceX to get the boot - again, because the Dream Chaser has a unique mission profile. And from NASA's point of view, the Dragon V2 is probably the safest to drop, precisely because SpaceX has always planned to build a manned capsule anyway. SpaceX already has a use for the Dragon V2 that is not named NASA. The Dream Chaser? I'm not so sure of that, at least not initially. So NASA can come and say "Hey sorry Elon, but we know you can do it on your own. Still friends tho?" That way, NASA ensured that there are three projects continuing to proceed, even if they can only fund two. Maximum redundancy and maximum activity in the commercial sector.

Of course, an alternative scenario sees the Dream Chaser get cut because even right now it's only getting half a contract's worth. They may decide to sever it entirely.

And then, of course, it's possible that there's nothing to read into in that NASA statement. We'll see.

Edited August 18, 2014 by Streetwind

[AngusJimiKeith]

I noticed that, and I'm wondering how deeply I should read into it.

I mean, it may be less than five days until the announcement. At this point, the decision is probably final already. And if the decision is final, and NASA now says "we hope we will still be able to continue working together on the project without official funding", that means the one competitor that gets axed is one of the two who will continue development even if axed. Beoing will be in, and either SNC or SpaceX gets the boot.

In that constellation I'm almost expecting SpaceX to get the boot - again, because the Dream Chaser has a unique mission profile. And from NASA's point of view, the Dragon V2 is probably the safest to drop, precisely because SpaceX has always planned to build a manned capsule anyway. SpaceX already has a use for the Dragon V2 that is not named NASA. The Dream Chaser? I'm not so sure of that, at least not initially. So NASA can come and say "Hey sorry Elon, but we know you can do it on your own. Still friends tho?" That way, NASA ensured that there are three projects continuing to proceed, even if they can only fund two. Maximum redundancy and maximum activity in the commercial sector.

Of course, an alternative scenario sees the Dream Chaser get cut because even right now it's only getting half a contract's worth. They may decide to sever it entirely.

And then, of course, it's possible that there's nothing to read into in that NASA statement. We'll see.

The thing is...NASA needs a US manned spacecraft sooner rather than later. It doesn't make sense to drop the farthest along competitor in that case. That competitor would be SpaceX.

As for Dream Chaser, it's important to remember just how much they've managed to get done with that half contract reward. They're slightly behind SpaceX and easily keeping up with Boeing, and yet they only got half the money. This makes a really good impression. SNC also has outside interest in Dream Chaser: JAXA and the German space agency (DLR) are both interested. The DLR deal(?) agreement is several months old, but JAXA is quite recent. (see: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29416.msg1232736#msg1232736)

CST I haven't been following too much, but I wouldn't count them out, either, Sometimes a more conservative design can be a good thing. On the other hand, Boeing doesn't have much interest in continuing the program outside of NASA, which is actually not what NASA wants. More launches for their provider means prices go down, and also means a more stable/viable provider long term.

Edited August 18, 2014 by AngusJimiKeith
Updated info, added reference.

[Streetwind]

Interesting info on the Dream Chaser, thanks!

[Nibb31]

I noticed that, and I'm wondering how deeply I should read into it.

I mean, it may be less than five days until the announcement. At this point, the decision is probably final already. And if the decision is final, and NASA now says "we hope we will still be able to continue working together on the project without official funding", that means the one competitor that gets axed is one of the two who will continue development even if axed. Beoing will be in, and either SNC or SpaceX gets the boot.

SpaceX has zero customers other than NASA for Dragon V2. If NASA doesn't buy it, then the only rationale to build it is to make it Elon's super-expensive private space-yacht.

However, in the hypothesis that SpaceX gets the boot, then the article makes sense because NASA will continue to support SpaceX through the Commercial Cargo contract.

[Mazon Del]

Not correct Nibb31, SpaceX has one BIG customer besides NASA for the Dragon V2. SpaceX itself! Here is a question for you all, just how long after SpaceX has its manned capsule working do you think it will be until they begin assembling their own station? Musk wants to get to Mars, SpaceX is behind this goal, having an orbiting research station is very likely to aid this goal.

[Kryten]

That's not going to happen. Just how rich do you think Musk is?

[Nibb31]

And what would be the viable business model for a private Dragon and a SpaceX space station other than as a money sink for Elon's billions?

Besides, SpaceX had never claimed any interest in building a space station.

Without customers, private space companies are going nowhere. And the only paying customers at this point are NASA, DoD, and a handful of private billionaires.

[sgt_flyer]

SpaceX no, but there's at least one company currently testing it's space station habitat modules in space (and even offering a reward for a company which would have a vehicle capable of docking two times with it's modules) - bigelow.

if that works, maybe there's more companies that will start to consider Space tourism / space exploitation (especially if manned launch costs goes down)

on that, i guess SpaceX Dragon 2 + reusable F9 would help a lot lowering price access to space, so Musk would find such customers.

[Kryten]

There's already a company that offers orbital space tourism; they've only been able to arrange nine flights, and two of those were the same guy. It's simply not a market big enough to justify development of new craft.

[Mr Shifty]

SpaceX no, but there's at least one company currently testing it's space station habitat modules in space (and even offering a reward for a company which would have a vehicle capable of docking two times with it's modules) - bigelow.

Bigelow is collaborating with Boeing on the CST-100. So, I'm not sure they're going to be a major customer for Dragon v2.

[Nibb31]

SpaceX no, but there's at least one company currently testing it's space station habitat modules in space (and even offering a reward for a company which would have a vehicle capable of docking two times with it's modules) - bigelow.

Bigelow has zero paying customers too.

on that, i guess SpaceX Dragon 2 + reusable F9 would help a lot lowering price access to space, so Musk would find such customers.

An unmanned F9 launch has a claimed price tag of $50 million. Even if they cut it by 20% by reusing the first stage (which is highly optimistic), it's still $40 million. 7 seats, minus 2 pilots, spreads the cost over 5 paying customers. Add the cost of the Dragon, the training, catering, and ground ops for the duration of the flight, and you will be way above $10 million for a tourist ticket to space.

There simply isn't a big enough market to justify the cost.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Nibb31

[Sky_walker]

An unmanned F9 launch has a claimed price tag of $50 million.

That's a price that they can offer only thanks to the government subsidies. A real price launch price is ~$141 million (source).

[Nibb31]

That's a price that they can offer only thanks to the government subsidies. A real price launch price is ~$141 million (source).

I agree that the SpaceX's claimed price doesn't necessarily reflect the actual price, which is usually confidential in this sort of contract, and SpaceX is also heavily subsidized (but then so are ULA and Arianespace). However, that article is full of crap, comparing Minotaur and Falcon, suggesting that NASA would have saved money by launching SMAP on a Minotaur when it was way too big and was launched on Delta II, not F9, and mixing up the prices for commercial satellite launches with the price for manned Dragon flights to the ISS.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Nibb31

[Sky_walker]

*scratches his head*

Well, that just popped on google when I searched for a price that I actually remembered from some other french article - thought that it's the one, but obviously not, though the number they cite is correct.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Streetwind]

SpaceX lists on their own website under "About Us" -> "Capabilities and Services" a pricetag of $61.2M for the Falcon 9, full payload capacity. According to a conference video that I watched, this is supposed to be an always up to date, commercial customer WYSIWYG price tag. In other words, if you see this figure today, and call SpaceX today and ask to charter a Falcon 9 at that price, they're supposed to answer "yes, of course (but it won't launch until 2016 because our manifest is backlogged)".

Not sure if that's actually the way it works, but that's what I heard claimed from a SpaceX employee speaking publicly sometime within the last two months.

EDIT: I assume the cost for the Dragon V2 spacecraft itself will be in addition to that, if you want to charter crew transport.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Streetwind