Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) SpaceX and Boeing Developments

[bxr140]

How many missions needed for deorbiting? Wouldn't it be done one module at a time?

It’s easy to imagine it being split into US (or ROW?) and Russian…maybe even more segments? From a re-entry predictability/demiseability perspective I think it’s better as smaller chunks, of course at the expense of more discrete things to re-enter.

I’d guess there’s also a pretty strong chance that Starship will be used to bring back modules too. Not everything, but certainly there’s some good museum opportunity there. And good PR for Spacex too as well as generally good PR for the space industry that is [exclusively due to spacex] becoming exponentially scrutinized over space junk.

But, as noted a few posts up, we’re getting off topic. Best to get back to the on-topic content full of perpetual no-new-news, kindergarten-level re-dunking on anything that’s not spacex.

 

[Grendal]

Back on track:

 

[Cosmacelf]

So why does dragon land in the water and Starliner on land?

 

[Electroman]

It could be something to do with the fact that dragon is fully 100% reusable. Nothing is thrown out. Whereas Starliner only lands the bare essential pod and throws out a lot of stuff making it much more lighter?

 

[Grendal]

SpaceX replacing heat shield on upcoming Crew Dragon mission after failed test

SpaceX will replace the heat shield on the next Crew Dragon after it failed inspections, but NASA says there is no risk for the one now at the ISS.

spacenews.com

 

[mongo]

Five more Crew missions awarded to SpaceX to cover ISS out to 2030.
NASA to Purchase Additional Commercial Crew Missions – Kennedy Space Center

 

[Grendal]

Five more Crew missions awarded to SpaceX to cover ISS out to 2030.
NASA to Purchase Additional Commercial Crew Missions – Kennedy Space Center

That gets SpaceX up to Crew 14. Six on the original contract, three added last year, and five more with this contract makes fourteen.

Commercial Crew Program - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The wording in the statement is pretty clear that NASA has lots of confidence in SpaceX and expects that Boeing fulfills their original contract - hopefully. The other issue why Boeing is being excluded is that they wouldn't have a rocket to launch on. Vulcan hasn't launched and isn't human rated even if it were launching. Vulcan may become human rated in the future but that is just speculation on a rocket that hasn't launched yet.

 

[Grendal]

$700 million over and they still haven't carried any Crew.
The article also fails to mention that SpaceX got half the money that Boeing did.

Boeing takes additional charge for Starliner astronaut capsule, bringing cost overruns to near $700 million

Boeing disclosed a charge of $93 million in the second quarter for its Starliner astronaut capsule program.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Electroman]

That was intentional. It is called lying by omission.

 

[Padelford]

Here’s a new theory: NASA is keeping Boeing’s Starliner program because it can be used to reboost & maintain ISS in orbit, whereas crew Dragon cannot if the Russians do leave the ISS.

 

[ecarfan]

Here’s a new theory: NASA is keeping Boeing’s Starliner program because it can be used to reboost & maintain ISS in orbit, whereas crew Dragon cannot if the Russians do leave the ISS.

Except that a month ago a Cygnus cargo resupply vehicle was tested to determine if it could perform that function and NASA said the test was successful. See https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2022/06/25/cygnus-cargo-craft-fires-engine-for-limited-station-reboost/

 

[Padelford]

Then NASA could have two spacecraft capable of ISS orbital boost and reorientation, a much more robust situation than just Cygnus.

 

[Grendal]

Then NASA could have two spacecraft capable of ISS orbital boost and reorientation, a much more robust situation than just Cygnus.

Here is the unpleasant truth. The old school contractors like Boeing, Lockheed, ULA, Northrup-Grumman, and Raytheon have great lobbyists and politicians backing them. The politicians are the ones that fund NASA and the military. They have the factories that build the items in their states and districts. That way they can funnel the money and jobs into their state and keep it there. Up until Commercial Crew and Commercial Resupply Services, it was standard practice that all contracts were "cost plus." If there was any overrun or any adjustments needed then a delay and added expense was absolutely accepted and welcomed by the politicians and the contractors. So it is not surprising that things went wrong and there was a delay from Boeing. It is in the culture of the business. Though I am sure that Boeing is upset about having cost overruns in this situation where it isn't "cost plus."

The history of how CRS and CCtCap came about is interesting. Cost overruns were so commonplace and NASA desperately needed a cheaper way to "upkeep" the ISS. The Space Shuttle was going to be retired. There were a few almost unknown upstarts wanting to become bigger players. So NASA came up with the crazy idea of giving a little seed money to a few of the upstarts to see where they could take it. The politicians backed it because it made for good press and they absolutely did not expect anything to come from it. SpaceX came out of nowhere to actually succeed. SpaceX was made to jump through a huge amount of hoops that Boeing and Orbital Sciences didn't but still succeeded at a lower cost.

On a secondary note, it was Boeing, Lockheed, and their offspring ULA that fought first to exclude SpaceX for being a young upstart. Then later pushed hard for "there always needs to be a backup in place." That has saved ULA and Boeing for military launches and the Starliner program. It's hard to argue that having only one company to rely on is better for the country. So Starliner working with ULA as a backup to SpaceX and Crew Dragon is going to stick around for sure.

 

[Grendal]

Starliner crewed test flight slips to early 2023

Work on Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner commercial crew vehicle will delay its first flight with astronauts to early 2023, NASA and Boeing said Aug. 25.

spacenews.com

 

[Electroman]

<Yawn>

 

[Nikxice]

Yawn indeed. SpaceX won this race so long ago, for 2023 Boeing is proposing to play "Recapture the Flag".

 

[Cosmacelf]

Doesn’t inspire confidence. These issues are in addition to probable debris in an engine that they jettisoned so they don’t really know what happened.

”Several reaction control thrusters also shut down during the mission, which Nappi said was likely due to low inlet pressures and can be addressed with a “tweak in timing and tolerances” in software. High pressures in a thermal control loop noticed in the mission were linked to filters that engineers determined are not needed and can be removed. A guidance system on the spacecraft called VESTA worked well but generated more data than the flight software could handle, requiring changes to the software.”

 

[mongo]

Five more Crew flights officially awarded to SpaceX. (Same +5 mentioned previously)

UPDATE: NASA awards five additional CCtCap Crew Dragon missions to SpaceX. This is a firm fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract modification for the Crew-10, Crew-11, Crew-12, Crew-13, and Crew-14 flights. The period of performance runs through 2030.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1565069564060307458

 

[Grendal]

Here is the official press release:
"The value of this modification for all five missions and related mission services is $1,436,438,446."

NASA Awards SpaceX More Crew Flights to Space Station - NASA

NASA has awarded five additional missions to Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, California, for crew transportation services to

www.nasa.gov

So that is $287,287,690 per launch.

I wonder if SpaceX will build another Crew Dragon 2 capsule? They have four working versions right now.

 

[mongo]

I wonder if SpaceX will build another Crew Dragon 2 capsule? They have four working versions right now.

Interesting question. In March (post the February +3 bump), SpaceX said their plan was refurb, but they could make more capsules if needed.

Ignoring Inspiration 4, Axiom, and Polaris Dawn.

If four capsules can support 9 launches, that's 3 with 2 flights and 1 with 3.
Fourteen flights would then be 2 with 4 and 2 with 3.
Five Dragons makes it 4 with 3 and 1 with 2.

So NASA would only need to allow one additional flight per capsule to go with the current fleet. If they limit it to two reflights, SpaceX would need an additional shell. Haven't found anything regarding NASA limits on reuse .