Boeing and Space-X win NASA contracts for manned spaceflight

[Borgholio]

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/bo ... is-n204706

NASA is going back to the future with $6.8 billion in backing for Apollo-style spaceships designed by Boeing and SpaceX. Both companies have been given the go-ahead to build, test and fly their gumdrop-shaped "space taxis," with the aim of transporting astronauts to and from the International Space Station starting in 2017.

"Today, we're one giant leap closer to launching our astronauts from the U.S. on American spacecraft," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said Tuesday from Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Since the retirement of the space shuttle fleet in 2011, NASA has had to rely on the Russians for rides to the station, at a cost topping $70 million per seat. Tuesday's award is the latest phase in a years-long commercial effort aimed at fixing that situation — an effort that already has cost NASA $1 billion.

"The greatest nation on Earth should not be dependent on any other nation to get to space," Bolden said.

Boeing will get most of the funds for its CST-100 capsule, $4.2 billion, said Kathy Lueders, the head of NASA's commercial crew program. But SpaceX wasn't left out in the cold: Its crew-capable Dragon capsule won $2.6 billion from the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability program, known as CCtCap for short.

SpaceX has been launching uncrewed, cargo-carrying versions of the Dragon to the station atop its Falcon 9 rocket since 2012, but the Dragon V2 craft is being upgraded with all the safety features that NASA says will be needed for carrying astronauts.

Boeing has not yet built a flightworthy model of its CST-100 craft. The company's executives said they were relying on CCtCap funding to proceed with construction. But Boeing can draw upon decades of experience in spaceship construction — including its experience as prime contractor for the International Space Station. The CST-100 would be launched by Atlas 5 rockets from United Launch Alliance, a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

Both the CST-100 and the Dragon are capable of carrying up to seven astronauts, and both have a roughly conical look that's well-suited to the kind of atmospheric re-entry and ocean splashdown that astronauts experienced at the end of each Apollo moon mission. SpaceX is working on technologies that would allow for land-based touchdowns rather than splashdowns.

A third spaceship-builder, Sierra Nevada Corp., had proposed building a mini-shuttle with wings, known as the Dream Chaser. That company received more than $300 million from NASA during earlier phases of the commercial crew program, but lost out in the final round. In an emailed statement, Sierra Nevada said it was "disappointed" not to be chosen but commended NASA for its efforts and promised further comment later.

NASA officials declined to discuss in detail why they selected Boeing and SpaceX while passing on the Dream Chaser, but said it was a close call. "This wasn't an easy choice, but it's the best choice for NASA and the nation," Bolden said.

Lueders said the different amounts set aside for the two companies were based on the amounts proposed by the companies themselves.

"Both Boeing and SpaceX proposed to the same set of requirements," she said. "NASA awarded the contracts based on their proposals. It's two contracts to the same requirements."

The requirements call for the two companies to design, build, test and certify their spacecraft, climaxing with a test flight to the space station with at least one NASA crew member aboard. The companies would be paid as they complete each of five milestones over the next three years. Lueders said the contracts committed each company to fly two to six missions after certification. Each of those missions would deliver a crew of four plus cargo.

Each spacecraft would serve as an emergency "lifeboat" for the space station's crew for up to 210 days, Lueders said.

Bolden said the payouts would be dependent on receiving adequate funding from Congress. Lueders said the 2017 time frame for flying astronauts was NASA's goal, but not necessarily set in stone. "We will not sacrifice crew safety for that goal," she said.

Initial reaction to the awards was positive. Rep. Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who chairs the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, said in a statement that it was "a good day for our nation's space program and for all Americans." Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., rejoiced as well: "We're headed back to space and away from any reliance on the Russians," he said in an emailed statement.

John Elbon, Boeing vice president and general manager for space exploration, said in a statement that "Boeing has been part of every American human spaceflight program, and we're honored that NASA has chosen us to continue that legacy."

SpaceX's billionaire founder, Elon Musk, also said he was honored by the trust the NASA placed in his company. "It is a vital step in a journey that will ultimately take us to the stars and make humanity a multiplanet species," Musk said.

At the same time that NASA is working with commercial providers on space taxis for the station, the agency is also working on its own, more capable deep-space capsule known as the Orion. The Orion is due for its first uncrewed test flight in December, and it's expected to start carrying astronauts beyond Earth orbit in the early 2020s.

Bolden said the CST-100 and the Dragon would play essential parts in NASA's strategy to get to Mars and its moons sometime in the 2030s. "You can't get there if you don't have a robust low-Earth-orbit infrastructure," he said.

During Tuesday's briefing, NASA astronaut Mike Fincke said he was looking forward to getting a ride on the new spacecraft. He pointed out that they should also provide "a comfortable lift for those who are not [NASA] astronauts," including space tourists and researchers. Boeing, for instance, already has forged a deal with Bigelow Aerospace that may someday see private-sector travelers heading to non-governmental space stations aboard CST-100 capsules.

"They're going to be terrific machines," Fincke said.

And so it begins.

[K. A. Pital]

So, three years to make a ship that is just the same as all the other spaceships that existed before?

[Grumman]

Well I'd hope they represent an evolutionary advance even if they're not a revolutionary advance like the Space Shuttle was. Carrying four crew + cargo would make it bigger than the Soyuz, wouldn't it?

[K. A. Pital]

I know it is a bit more than in the Soyuz (though less than in planned Russian next-gen ship). Still, would it not be wise to concentrate on making a universal capsule at least, so that it could also serve as a Moon ferry or taxi?

[Grumman]

I know it is a bit more than in the Soyuz (though less than in planned Russian next-gen ship). Still, would it not be wise to concentrate on making a universal capsule at least, so that it could also serve as a Moon ferry or taxi?

Do you mean to lunar orbit, or to the surface? I would have thought the biggest difference for lunar orbit would be a more powerful launch vehicle, while landing would have substantially different requirements to trips to the space station, such that you'd be lugging around more weight than you need to.

[K. A. Pital]

I mean to orbit of course. As this seems to be the goal of the Russian moon program to have a similar craft built to only slightly different specs for both ISS/CSS crew rotation and Moon flights.

[Simon_Jester]

I think a big part of the goal is just to actually get some working capsules out there. Canceling first the Shuttle and then Constellation has left a major hole in US manned spaceflight capability, to the extent that the US cannot even put its own men into orbit on its own and has lacked that capability for years now.

So contracting with private firms to actually build and operate capsules intended for that role is sort of a precondition for anything else. Especially since NASA's current problem is that no one will give them any guarantees of funding for long-range planning, which means they can't design anything on their own. Boeing can spend ten years working on a space capsule to get it right; NASA may not be allowed to do so, and every year of delay makes the US's future prospects of manned spaceflight weaker.

[Borgholio]

The biggest thing I got out of this article is the fact that private companies will now be running regular manned space missions. Since the very beginning of spaceflight it has always been the government or military behind it, but now you have publicly traded corporations with the capability of doing what only NASA or the USSR could do 40 years ago. That in itself is historic.

[Titan Uranus]

Stas, from what I understand Space-X is supposed to do a test launch for a ~117,000 lb to LEO next year. That is about half the payload that the Saturn V could loft, and far more than anything we (mankind in this instance) have now.

I think that is something significant.

[Simon_Jester]

Although it is not, directly, a manned space achievement.

Stas's criticism is that these capsules do not represent a significant advance over existing art. My reply is that simply preserving the art we have is a serious concern for the US given the present (deplorable) state of the manned space program. Therefore, it is good that we seek to preserve this, and keep providing projects to maintain the knowledge-base we need to preserve this.

As long as there is no regress, progress will occur in due time.

[TOSDOC]

Although it is not, directly, a manned space achievement.

Stas's criticism is that these capsules do not represent a significant advance over existing art. My reply is that simply preserving the art we have is a serious concern for the US given the present (deplorable) state of the manned space program. Therefore, it is good that we seek to preserve this, and keep providing projects to maintain the knowledge-base we need to preserve this.

As long as there is no regress, progress will occur in due time.

Agreed. Combining past arts such as Apollo with today's technologies and miniaturization will help the program to evolve. Just don't stop going up.

The biggest thing I got out of this article is the fact that private companies will now be running regular manned space missions. Since the very beginning of spaceflight it has always been the government or military behind it, but now you have publicly traded corporations with the capability of doing what only NASA or the USSR could do 40 years ago. That in itself is historic.

Is this significantly different then handing out contracts to North American and Grumman for Apollo? Won't Boeing and SpaceX continue to operate their craft under NASA auspices?

[Borgholio]

Is this significantly different then handing out contracts to North American and Grumman for Apollo? Won't Boeing and SpaceX continue to operate their craft under NASA auspices?

Yes, because Apollo was a government run program even though the components may have been contracted out to private companies. What NASA is doing is giving private companies money to develop a commercial product that will do what NASA needs. Space-X will almost certainly use this capability in side projects not directly related to NASA. To put it more simply, Apollo was government manned spaceflight. Space-X is commercial manned spaceflight that just happens to do business for the government.

[TOSDOC]

So, instead of making a ship to launch from a NASA site, NASA is hiring a private corp to produce AND launch their ships, and to send up it's astronauts like it's currently doing with the Russians, just in our own backyard. Meanwhile the companies can sub-contract the development and even use them for other projects of their own.

What impact do you think this will have on NASA's infrastructure and preexisting facilities such as launch areas?

[Borgholio]

What impact do you think this will have on NASA's infrastructure and preexisting facilities such as launch areas?

I'm sure they will remain in use for government projects. NASA is still big on space exploration.

[Simon_Jester]

Neutral, I expect. Space-X launches out of Cape Kennedy (occasionally Vandenberg) because that's where the infrastructure is, so the facilities there remain just as necessary as they ever were.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

So, instead of making a ship to launch from a NASA site, NASA is hiring a private corp to produce AND launch their ships, and to send up it's astronauts like it's currently doing with the Russians, just in our own backyard. Meanwhile the companies can sub-contract the development and even use them for other projects of their own.

What impact do you think this will have on NASA's infrastructure and preexisting facilities such as launch areas?

None ... don't forget about Orion and the SLS. NASA isn't getting out of the manned spaceflight business. They're focusing on building a vehicle that can go more than a few hundred miles above the surface of the Earth.

[K. A. Pital]

Stas, from what I understand Space-X is supposed to do a test launch for a ~117,000 lb to LEO next year. That is about half the payload that the Saturn V could loft, and far more than anything we (mankind in this instance) have now.

I think that is something significant.

You mean redoing what has been achieved with boosters like Saturn V and Energia in the 1960s and 1980s respectively, both not just proven to work but also designed and tested to be man-rated rockets? I mean...

The only thing truly significant, which could alter space exploration as it is - which I see now - are the various SSTO projects, but so far none have advanced enough to matter. And, well, of course, if the Chinese actually deliver on the 130 000 tons to LEO promise with their rockets, that could also ressurect many projects that demand such an enormous rocket (Mars craft, heavier long-range interplanetary probes). Same goes for the SLS. That is also significant.

[Simon_Jester]

Stas, I repeat, preserving a capability and space launch program that is in danger of dying out is itself significant.

[Patroklos]

The model T and 2014 Camary do the exact same thing. I wouldn't call the continuum between them a technology stasis either.

All of these projects show a normalization of space technology and a maturity in the industry. At some point making cars faster or heavier lifting or even safer were no longer the hallmarks of it being a successful technology, it was its explosion in availability and widespread utility. That's what we are seeing here.

Also has anyone crunched the numbers for cost per launch between Apollo and Dragon? Between a Saturn V and an Atlas?

[phongn]

I know it is a bit more than in the Soyuz (though less than in planned Russian next-gen ship). Still, would it not be wise to concentrate on making a universal capsule at least, so that it could also serve as a Moon ferry or taxi?

That's the goal for the Orion capsule, but that's also considered overkill for the job of shuttling people up to LEO. Project Constellation proposed using Orion for ISS missions, but the program was cancelled (and apparently ran into a ton of development hell problems) and NASA decided to get out of the ISS resupply/remanning business and contract it out.

The only thing truly significant, which could alter space exploration as it is - which I see now - are the various SSTO projects, but so far none have advanced enough to matter. And, well, of course, if the Chinese actually deliver on the 130 000 tons to LEO promise with their rockets, that could also ressurect many projects that demand such an enormous rocket (Mars craft, heavier long-range interplanetary probes). Same goes for the SLS. That is also significant.

Nothing short of a fully-reusable rocket will reduce the cost to space enough. TSTO reusability would be fine (and SpaceX has considered second-stage reuse).

As for SLS, I fully expect Congress to fund the rocket and not the payloads.

[Titan Uranus]

Stas, from what I understand Space-X is supposed to do a test launch for a ~117,000 lb to LEO next year. That is about half the payload that the Saturn V could loft, and far more than anything we (mankind in this instance) have now.

I think that is something significant.

You mean redoing what has been achieved with boosters like Saturn V and Energia in the 1960s and 1980s respectively, both not just proven to work but also designed and tested to be man-rated rockets? I mean...

The only thing truly significant, which could alter space exploration as it is - which I see now - are the various SSTO projects, but so far none have advanced enough to matter. And, well, of course, if the Chinese actually deliver on the 130 000 tons to LEO promise with their rockets, that could also ressurect many projects that demand such an enormous rocket (Mars craft, heavier long-range interplanetary probes). Same goes for the SLS. That is also significant.

Firstly, both of those required a concerted effort by the two most powerful nations on the face of the Earth, and Energia was never functional in the role of heavy-lift vehicle.

This one took far less time to develop with far less funding proportionally speaking.


The Long March 9, which I assume is what you are talking about is supposed to deliver 130,000 kg, not tons. More importantly, it is only in study while the Falcon Heavy is slated for launch next year.

I'm just wondering, would you say that early modern Europe's sewer systems were not progress because they had not yet reached the heights of the Roman Empire's systems?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Firstly, both of those required a concerted effort by the two most powerful nations on the face of the Earth, and Energia was never functional in the role of heavy-lift vehicle.

Technically, Energia was at least launched a couple of times successfully. It was Vulkan that was never launched.

In any case, the engines used for that rocket continue to exist in some form, such as the recent Angara I launch.

[Channel72]

I agree with Borgholio; the most notable thing here is that manned space travel is finally becoming commercialized, which up until now was a thing of science-fiction.

[Titan Uranus]

Firstly, both of those required a concerted effort by the two most powerful nations on the face of the Earth, and Energia was never functional in the role of heavy-lift vehicle.

Technically, Energia was at least launched a couple of times successfully. It was Vulkan that was never launched.

In any case, the engines used for that rocket continue to exist in some form, such as the recent Angara I launch.

It was launched, but it only successfully inserted the Russian shuttle (and therefore was not a useful heavy-lift launch). The other launch failed to achieve orbit.

Angara has a smaller payload than the Space Shuttle did and only uses some parts of the Energia design in any case.

[K. A. Pital]

Firstly, both of those required a concerted effort by the two most powerful nations on the face of the Earth, and Energia was never functional in the role of heavy-lift vehicle.

The launch failure does not mean the rocket was not designed to be functional as a heavy-lift vehicle. Since there were only two launches anyway.

The Long March 9, which I assume is what you are talking about is supposed to deliver 130,000 kg, not tons. More importantly, it is only in study while the Falcon Heavy is slated for launch next year.

LM9 is supposed to launch people as well. Is the Falcon Heavy?

I'm just wondering, would you say that early modern Europe's sewer systems were not progress because they had not yet reached the heights of the Roman Empire's systems?

No, I just note that the rockets are not fully reusable, and therefore we are largely covering the same road as already covered. Except now with private funds.

Nothing short of a fully-reusable rocket will reduce the cost to space enough.

Indeed, but nothing short of a very huge rocket can make Moon and especially Mars exploration easier, not to mention huge interplanetary ships. Orbital assembly is a possible way out, but sometimes the module just needs to be big and heavy, and removing some constraints may very well open new opportunities in the field.