One will get voted off the island...

[Nibb31]

When soyuz 1 launched one of the solar panels did not deploy, this led to many problems such as re-entry guidance systems shutting down, but he couldn't do anything because they didn't pack eva suits. The mission was cancelled and Komarov re-entered with a tragic ending.

My main point is, stuff happens, better to have backup in case.

And how would an EVA capability have saved Komarov? He was killed by a parachute failure, which was unrelated to the electrical problems earlier in the mission. Even if he had a suit, he would have needed a crew mate to help him don the suit and prepare for the EVA and monitor the operations. And repairing a stuck spring-loaded mechanism or orbit would have been more dangerous than aborting the mission as it might have killed him anyway or made things worse.

And I still don't see how this relates to DreamChaser in any way. There is no contingency scenario that would require an EVA from DreamChaser, since it's supposed to be going to the ISS (which has EVA capability) or deorbiting. There is simply no reason to go outside because there are no serviceable parts there, and the same is true for all three of the CCDev vehicles.

DC is already the heaviest CCDev vehicle of the lot, so why would you want to add EVA suits (which typically weigh around 100 kilos each) and an airlock with specialized pre-breathing and depress/repress equipment and consumables on each flight. It's ridiculous.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Nibb31

[xenomorph555]

And how would an EVA capability have saved Komarov? He was killed by a parachute failure, which was unrelated to the electrical problems earlier in the mission. Even if he had a suit, he would have needed a crew mate to help him don the suit and prepare for the EVA and monitor the operations. And repairing a stuck spring-loaded mechanism or orbit might have killed him anyway.

And I still don't see how this relates to DreamChaser in any way. There is no contingency scenario that would require an EVA from DreamChaser, since it's supposed to be going to the ISS (which has EVA capability) or deorbiting. There is simply no reason to go outside because there are no serviceable parts there, and the same is true for all three of the CCDev vehicles.

DC is already the heaviest CCDev vehicle of the lot, so why would you want to add EVA suits (which typically weigh around 100 kilos each) and an airlock with specialized pre-breathing and depress/repress equipment and consumables on each flight. It's ridiculous.

An EVA would not have saved Komarov but it shows that you should suspect the unexpected. Anyway I see your points so I guess it doesn't 100% need a EVA capability.

[Sky_walker]

An EVA would not have saved Komarov but it shows that you should suspect the unexpected. Anyway I see your points so I guess it doesn't 100% need a EVA capability.

You either build a small ferry or a large spacecraft.

And we all know how did the large reusable spacecraft ended - with the Space Shuttle. Though wait - even despite of being so huge and ready for unexpected - it still ended up burning itself in the atmosphere, no EVA airlock prevented it - even though, in a pure theory, it could at least allow them to know about the problem.

EVA airlock doesn't help to fulfil any of the CCDev objectives - therefore none of the spacecrafts taking part in the competition got it.

And if none of the CCDev spacecrafts have the airlock then this:

If anything, it would actually be an argument against DreamChaser as a cheap dependable LEO taxi.

is clearly false.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Nibb31]

An EVA would not have saved Komarov but it shows that you should suspect the unexpected. Anyway I see your points so I guess it doesn't 100% need a EVA capability.

No, you identify failure modes for each component and for the entire system and make contingency plans accordingly. Adding random stuff "just in case something unexpected comes up" isn't sound engineering.

Crew taxis do not need EVA capability, which is why NASA doesn't require it, and why none of them (including DreamChaser) has it. EVA capability adds weight, cost, and complexity, which are things that NASA specifically does not want for a simple crew taxi.

Edited September 8, 2014 by Nibb31

[TythosEternal]

There is a mental NASA risk spectrum map floating around in my head, in which (from least to most risk) the order is: Boeing, SpaceX, SNC. I think it's most likely, given their process and priorities, that the selection will be made based off of a risk-versus-cost frontier in which NASA seeks to minimize both at the expense of novelty, capability, and diversity.

In a perfect world, I think NASA would choose two and bookend the spectrum by selecting Boeing and SNC. I am a big fan of "portfolio diversification," if you will, and if I were in charge, I'd want to maximize the experience we have with the advantage and disadvantages of both approaches. There's clear tradeoffs, but if a lifting body design can be proven to sufficiently reduce the weight, re-entry, and complexity issues that plagued the space shuttle, I think it will be a major step forward.

The pessimist in me thinks that, despite the great success of CRS, NASA will choose only one supplier for CTS. In this case, it is virtually guaranteed to be a Boeing-versus-SpaceX faceoff, and the evaluation of launch vehicle risk (well, and the political question, which I will only mention briefly here) will likely be the determining factor. While there is the spectre of RD-180 dependence and the risk associated with the evolution of an alternative, it is naive to think that NASA will blindly accept a Falcon 9 / Dragon v2 stack with open arms.

It's not easy to quantify, but there is still a great deal of skepticism, cynicism, and resentment within industry (both NASA and private) towards SpaceX. Common complaints range from "they're just copying our work and low-balling the cost," to "they're an upstart bunch of undergrads who have gotten lucky but have no real appreciation of risk," to the usual resentment you see against novel and successful risk-takers. Certain organizations will go far, far out of their way to ensure Musk never sees a dime of their money. If a substantial part of the selection board reflects this attitude, you can be sure to expect some rationalization of the Atlas V risk to accompany the decision. Add to this the political clout and relationships Boeing and ULA maintain with all levels of NASA, its congressional watchdogs, and other industry associates, and it looks like it will really take some unusually honest balls for NASA to sole-source this to SpaceX.

[Sky_walker]

Great post TythosEternal. Pretty much my feelings on a whole case.

But to be fair - from all three companies SpaceX is most likely to continue the project even despite of being turned down by NASA and CCDev. I'm quite sure that Musk would be ready to spend half of his fortune if it means proving the point* to NASA.

* whatever that would be

[Kryten]

Selection is apparently due tomorrow, 10-11am EDT

[montyben101]

Who told you that? Can I see the webpage

[PakledHostage]

Who told you that? Can I see the webpage

There's a press release on NASA's press office website.

NASA will make a major announcement today at 4 p.m. EDT regarding the return of human spaceflight launches to the United States. The agency will make the announcement during a news conference from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The event will be broadcast live on NASA Television and the agency's website.

[Kryten]

We've now got reports Boeing top brass are heading out to the announcement; which is a good sign for them. Lat time NASA had a live 'secret' announcement (X-33), the winning team had their top execs and were already smiling, the losers had a couple of miserable-looking mid-level staffers.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Kryten

[Streetwind]

Do you mean "not got reports" or "now got reports"? Because this seems a bit contradictory...

[Kryten]

Now got. Autocorrect, sorry.

[Mr Shifty]

Go [thread=93907]here[/thread] for results and discussion.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Mr Shifty