Commercial Crew Flights in 2018?
NASA’s Commercial Crew Program Target Flight Dates
“The next generation of American spacecraft and rockets that will launch astronauts to the International Space Station are nearing the final stages of development and evaluation. To meet NASA’s requirements, the commercial providers must demonstrate that their systems are ready to begin regular flights to the space station. Two of those demonstrations are uncrewed flight tests, known as Orbital Flight Test for Boeing, and Demonstration Mission 1 for SpaceX. After the uncrewed flight tests, both companies will execute a flight test with crew prior to being certified by NASA for crew rotation mission. The following schedule reflects the most recent publicly-releasable dates for both providers.”
My take-away from this is, I am waiting (im)patiently until February 2018 for the first (uncrewed) flight (DM-1). Then we could conceivably, if everything goes well, have a crewed SpaceX flight and an uncrewed Boeing flight in the same month in the summer! Exciting times.
Along these lines, does anyone know what Mr Musk actually at the ISS research and development meeting last week? I’ve seen several reports, and most are vague or contradictory. Wired seems to have the most content
https://www.wired.com/story…
But I’m not sure how much is what he said, and how much is their interpretation. It includes things like no propulsive landing for Dragon 2 (and by implication, no Red Dragon missions), an expectation that the first Falcon Heavy launch won’t make orbit, and suggestions that a lunar base might be a step on the way to Mars. Was anyone there in person, or better, is there any transcript or written statement from Mr. Musk or SpaceX?
According to the chatter in the NSF forum. The Red Dragon is no longer being work on by SpaceX. Mainly because NASA got cold feet over propulsive landing with Dragon 2. That means SpaceX have to fund the Dragon 2 propulsive landing system by themselves just for the few Red Dragon missions. So not economically variable.
SpaceX is working on plan B. De-scope the ITS architecture with smaller BFR booster and BFS spaceship/tanker to do the Mars precursor missions in lieu of the Red Dragon. According to Elon Musk on twitter SpaceX is looking at a 9 meter diameter BFR booster design in the Nova class. Plus a reusable mini-BFS spaceship that can land about 50 tonnes on the Mars surface, probably no earlier than the 2020 launch window.
According to NSF forum chatter. The mini-BFS could be used as a reusable heavy Lunar lander, orbital propellant depot, reusable LEO ComSat constellation launcher and reusable large GEO ComSat launcher. But is too small as a colonial transport to Mars.
If SpaceX is doing the smaller ITS design. It will eventually replace the current Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy with a fully reusable two stage launcher.
Chatter. NASA is still interested in Red Dragon.
Guess they will have to wait for the mini-BFS as robust Martian lander at NASA Ames.
SpaceX is only configuring the Dragon 2 for Oceanic splashdowns.
Some of Jim Green’s presentations were a bit guarded and wait-and-see. Since he runs the PSD, I’d say NASA’s enthusiasm for Red Dragon isn’t all I’d like it to be. If they aren’t paying for it, they’re glad to help with navigation and downlink; if they become more confident it will happen and be successful, they’d be glad to supply instruments.
This is what he said: The propulsive landing for Dragon 2 has been eliminated. The Super Dracos will remain on the crew versions of Dragon 2 for abort purposes, but will be removed for Dragon 2 cargo missions. All Dragon 2 missons will land in the ocean. Red dragon has been cancelled. They are going to build a much smaller version of their Interplanetary Transport System (ITS), previously to transport 100 people, now, somewhat smaller (no details yet but I expect instead of 100 tonnes to mars more like 50). Diameter of their next Big Rocket will now likely be 9 meters (instead of 12 meters). He is indicating it will be built in his existing factory, so Hawthorne I guess.
There are certainly u-tube videos of his statements, but you will have to find them among the other speeches etc.
Well, the Wired story does say, “He later tweeted that SpaceX would still land with propulsive thrusters on Mars, but with a larger spacecraft.”
I’m not sure what that means. It could mean a completely different spacecraft rather than a Dragon. It could mean a the modified Dragon you suggest (legs deploying from the sides) would be too massive for a Falcon 9 crew transport, and the Mars landings would involve a different (new) version of a Dragon. It could mean a whole lot of things. That’s why I was asking.
Surprise, surprise, surprise. No one can be surprised about this – “the best laid plans of mice and men”
The best laid plans evolve with experience. Or plans never survive contact with the enemy. Or something like that.
“I have always found that plans are useless but planning is indispensable.” Dwight D. Eisenhower.
“The propulsive landing system consists of the eight draco thrusters already installed for launch abort so there would be minimal additional cost.”
This is very true, in fact the only real additional cost would be any extras required to actually get a dragon to Mars. the most important point of Red Dragon has always been obtaining EDL data for landing large payloads on Mars, it doesn’t have to be pretty, and it doesn’t really need landing legs, it simply needs to get down reasonably intact, it isn’t going to be reused so a little damage to the fender so to speak isn’t a problem, I would guess unless the landing was seriously heavy or off kilter a dragon could easily touch down butt first with little damage to anything but the heat shield so having landing legs would really make little difference other than for testing a leg deployment mechanism, which for the ITS would be radically different anyway. To me this is exactly in line with the way Elon Musk thinks so it is entirely possible that SpaceX will still go down the Red Dragon route just without the expense and resourse demands of designing landing legs that will serve very little long term purpose.
Frankly I am confused. We witnessed SX’ ability to adapt when they added first one set of landing legs, and then another; and when they added those ‘vanes’ to steer the big booster, something I thought creative.
Shining this light on the latest announcement— by which I mean the light of demonstrated quick-thinking— abandonment of the Mars architecture takes on a huge dimension.
So a huge build up to last years reveal of ITS. And now it’s being cut…in half??….the whole system?? As my mother would say WTF !
I’d love some reasons as to why and the look and capabilities of this half scale system…also….is the half system only a stepping stone to full system….Elon needs to stop playing fast and loose with things
Disagree.
Mr. Musk is doing exactly what NASA cannot do: change direction when failure is obvious.
Ok…I can see your point I think….are you saying that his original plan was just too big??? Too many people and cargo on too big a ship? Was it just not doable at that scale? I had assumed that before unveiled…the plan had been totally hashed out and found to be doable
Totally hashing things out in advance isn’t necessarily a good idea. You never really consider everything, especially things which are uncertain without more experience. But trying to consider everything does mean you spend a huge amount of time and money on paper studies.
Sometimes it’s better to simply pick the approach which seems best and get to work. If it works, you’re in good shape. If it doesn’t, you have learned something, can put together a more viable plan B, and are better off than you would have been if you’d spent the time studying option.
Agreed. SpaceX and BO are using this approach. The traditional providers use the NASA approach and are paid accordingly.
Cheers
I’d point out that the conclusion we are seeing— namely, SX completely buttering NASA’s toast in the booster arena— were far from a foregone conclusion when commercial crew was initiated.
There were many naysayers. An argument could be made that the end result might have been completely different.
As it turned out, if one views the past 15 years or so of NASA and SX history as a sort of competitive race, SX wins. They win by superior and audacious application of technology, in part.
They also win because they took a huge risk. NASA was hobbled from the start.
But NASA also gets a huge win that is overlooked: foresight.
Note that this is how iterative development is done in the tech world, so this would be SOP for Musk & Company. They figured out that smaller was better – for a host of reasons, I’m sure, that likely included fiscal as well as technical considerations.
I think it’s more likely they realized going directly from Falcon Heavy/Red Dragon to BFR/ITS was just too big a step. Combined with a likely divergence between the Dragon 2 and Red Dragon designs.
No, just the lack of demand.
He designed a system to take a million settlers to Mars. But the reality is that Planetary Protection standards won’t allow more than a handful of researchers until it is determined there are no Martian lifeforms to be endangered by the contamination that would result by hordes of humans being dumped on its surface.
I’d imagine that Planetary Protection would fall off the table in the face of a fully capable Mars fleet. As I have said before, money has momentum.
Maybe. But some of the scientists wanting to protect their research may call on the environmental movement for help. The environmentalists have deep pockets as well.
This has come up before, in a different context, and the environmental movement may not be excited or as deep-pocketed as you might think.
There was a proposal, eventually adopted, to add a couple of “Specially Protected Areas” to the Antarctic Treaty’s environmental protocols. Someone in the Bush (Sr.) administration strongly objected, noting that they locations were in the Dufek massif. That would be confusing George Dufek, an admiral in charge of the Navy’s antarctic support program, with an US company with interests in mining.
The environmentalists (other than the scientists who proposed the addition) didn’t really notice. Somehow, I don’t think accidentally sending some e coli to Mars will get much attention either.
Given how completely _any_ human landings on Mars violate current planetary protection rules, I’m still waiting to hear how NASA will relax them. Some possibilities might allow a million settlers as easily as six astronauts. For example waiving all rules within a small (e.g. 100 km radius) area, and insisting on no visits at all to special protected areas. But I agree that the lack of revised, planetary protection rules is a problem for Mr. Musk’s current (or is it former?) plans.
I take your point about Planetary Protection … however NASA is not a regulatory agency. It is presumptuous for them to assert that authority (admittedly, they can probably get away with it)
I’m not sure this involves regulatory powers. As far as NASA is concerned, planetary protection rules are about compliance with an international treaty. I think the FAA (which is a regulatory agency) would require NASA signing off on compliance before approving a launch.
Again, you probably are correct … but why would the FAA ask random-federal-agency if it is OK to fly to topeka? Is your rice adhering to the non-invasive species regulations? Did you file all your OSHA paperwork on the guys that painted your office?
NASA’s planetary protection protocol applies to its missions … it’s completely illegal mission creep to assert that the decisions of the the few folks involved with PP at NASA should apply to all Americans.
Note, I’m not actually arguing the merits of PP. I’m just saying that NASA doesn’t have the authority just because it’s the gov’t.
I’m sure that many readers are rolling their eyes right now, thinking who cares. I get that. But there are other issues that NASA will attempt to insert themselves into; such as flying space tourists. NASA is not a regulatory agency.
It’s not random. And it is SOP: in my own work arena -land development- agencies routinely pass applications among themselves. As citizens it is exactly what we want government to do — cooperate.
Do you want the gov’t to stop you from getting on a flight (TSA) if you made a mistake on your tax forms? I don’t. I don’t want one aspect of obscure, non-legally decided, regulations to be enforced by every other gov’t interaction I have.
Not over taxes. But there are laws about importing certain animals (or agricultural products which may contain insects) into the United States. If Customs and Border Protection decided they didn’t know anything about biology, and weren’t sure which products those laws applied to, I wouldn’t mind if they consulted the Department of Agriculture.
Similarly, if the FAA and State Department have a legal obligation to make sure a launch complies with Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty, and decided they don’t know anything about planetary protection, I’d expect them to consult some other government agency who did know about it. Other than NASA, who would that be?
I understand that point of view. We’d expect that a fishing permit issued by the US gov’t would abide by the rules set by our treaties with other nations.
By extension, the FAA wants to abide by the OST. NASA’s view of PP amounts to excluding anything remotely biological from an entire planet … that’s a standard that is not even possible, and that they routinely rationalize violating themselves for their missions. They are deeply, philosophically in contradiction between absolute preservation and observation and study.
I don’t see that they are fair and disinterested arbiters of permission to land on extraterrestrial bodies.
Personally, I’m counting on interested parties, not disinterested arbiters. I agree that the current NASA requirements are extreme, occasionally inconsistent, and even sometimes physically impossible to comply with.
John Rummel, formarly NASA’s planetary protection officer, once noted that sterilization procedures don’t kill the most robust or durable bacteria, so we may just be selectively breeding for bacteria which are more likely to survive in extreme environments like Mars. (He also noted, privately, the “Planetary Protection Officer” had a really cool, Buck Rogers sound and it was nice that he could put it on his business cards…)
There happens to be an influential congressman who is _very_ interested in Europa. At some point, I expect him to notice the price tag associated with an Europa lander and how much of that price tag comes from planetary protection requirements. At that point, he may write some “guidance” into NASA’s next appropriations bill. Or just privately yell at the people involved.
In my googling on the the PP issue today, i noticed that NASA has an open position for it right now. I think you could add that to your resume.
Certainly, higher levels of the the gov’t can order that PP be any level from “NO, you can’t go there” to “make it so”. That is the way of the world. Makes me rather irritated.
Surely poking into a sub surface ocean would be the most shocking of PP sins. However, that would be the most interesting science. Not in the card for this upcoming Europe mission, sadly.
No, but other agencies look to them for expert advice on space. If NASA tells the State Department that their Planetary Protection experts believe that the mission will violate Article IX of the OST then the State Department will accept that and issue a no recommendation to the FAA AST or any future agency that must approve such missions.
And yes, that is a possibility for tourists. If NASA were to say it didn’t believe a vehicle was safe for its astronauts to fly on then you would likely have the FAA AST take another look at it, as well as the private firms providing the required launch insurance. This is the danger in looking to NASA as a potential customer for space tourists flights. If they turn you down for safety reasons then others are likely to think twice about it.
And yes, this is different that NASA buying tickets on an airliner since an airliner has a specific process for certification. Since there is no process yet for certifying vehicles for commercial HSF it is vulnerable to such opinions by NASA. Of course if there was a process it would also need to be clear that once certified it would be deemed safe for any government agencies that use it as long as their use is within the certification’s limits of use. But for now it’s up for grabs.
Yes, that is correct. The FAA AST does require compliance with all treaties the U.S. has ratified before it is able to grant a license.
No they are not, but the FAA AST must survey government agencies before issuing a launch license to see if they have any issues that must be addressed, especially in regard to compliance with the space treaties the U.S. is a party to.
In this case Planetary Protection comes under Article IX of the OST so the State Department would need to sign off that the requirements are satisfied, which they would determine by making inquiries to NASA’s Planetary Protection Office. If the Planetary Protection Office indicates the mission would likely be in violation of Article IX then the State Department would not sign off and FAA AST would not grant the launch license.
Now if a new regulatory office is created in the Department of Commerce as proposed, they would be the ones granting the license for the mission. But again, they would have to make sure the U.S. is in compliance with the space treaties the U.S. is a party to, so the same issue would prevent him from receiving the license.
Here’s the text from Article 9:
States Parties to the Treaty shall pursue studies of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, and conduct exploration of them so as to avoid their harmful contamination and also adverse changes in the environment of the Earth resulting from the introduction of extraterrestrial matter and, where necessary, shall adopt appropriate measures for this purpose.
Not very well defined, I think. “Harmful contamination” could be interpreted under a bunch of different value systems. Also, the scope is not defined. Harmful to who? or what? How exactly would you harm the lunar regolith?
In any case, I don’t see NASA as a disinterested party here. They have a stake in walling off access so that their planetary program can proceed at it’s current pace and course.
Article IX is pretty vague, but NASA’s interpretation of it has other sources. By general agreement, the signatory nations let the international Committee on Space Research (COSPAR) fill in the details. Well, some of the details. Even the COSPAR guidelines aren’t all that clear, and quite a bit of the details are still filled in by NASA (or ESA, or whoever in whichever country.)
As far as NASA not being disinterested, there are worse examples of this within the federal government. If, for example, you were to sue a federal agency for violating their own regulations, the court would probably insist on testimony from an expert on interpreting the regulation. By default, that means experts from the agency who wrote the regulations. Even though that agency is a party to the case.
Lawyers and bureaucrats don’t need a lot of wording to build their empires 🙂
The FAA AST exists simply because of this one line in Article VI.
“The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty.”
The OST, ensuring full employment for lawyers and bureaucrats since 1967! LOL
I’m saying that, as fcrary points out, Mr. Musk picked “… the approach which seems best and [got] to work”.
Much of what he is doing WRT Mars isn’t construction or rocket science. It’s experimentation; he’s modifying his plan as he sees the results of experiments. This is something that NASA cannot do, or do easily, particularly when there is SO much money already spent or committed, and because there is a huge amount of political momentum.
Did Mr. Musk find less demand, as Thomas argues?It’s so early in the game that demand will be hard to gauge. But I’m not a professor 🙂
[The loss of propulsive landing decrements the Index of Coolness, though].
I suspect like in other industries Elon Musk plans on sliding down the demand curve. His first Telsa was a very expensive sports car. Then it was followed by a less expensive luxury sedan. Now a delivery vehicle. He is sliding down the demand curve for electric vehicles.
In terms of Mars it will be government researchers, U.S. and foreign first. A market that will have no issue paying a $100 -200 million a seat to put their flag on Mars. Then pioneers funded by corporations perhaps at $5-10 million a seat, then individual settlers at around $500,000 or so.
Meanwhile you are building experience and expertise along the way.
I think I see a speed bump in that business plan. $200 million a seat for a government astronaut is fine, if someone can deliver on that price. So is $500,000 for a (moderately rich) settler, again if you can deliver on the price. But for the middle step, I don’t see why a corporation would be interested in the $5-10 million tickets. What return would they get on the investment?
Exhibit 1 – 9: Dennis Tito, etc, etc.
I don’t think Elon is that excited about selling seats, but he may have worked out the demand curve much like you guys have done here.
The price is just a WAG as is the shape of the curve at this point. But some will pay a higher price because they want to get a jump on competition and get there first to build the infrastructure that settlers will pay to use. Remember, Elon Musk insists he is in just in the transportation business so its up to others to add value at the destination by building facilities and industries there. This of course is the major weakness in his strategy, he needs someone to create the demand for him.
Orlando Florida was just a small town on the edge of a snake and alligator infested swamp until Mickey Mouse waved his magic wand to make it the center of the world’s theme park industry. Until then the only reason for anyone airline to fly there was to service McCoy AFB. Now its the 14th busiest airport in the world.
Elon Musk basically needs someone to wave a similar magic wand for Mars for his business model to work. The individuals that intend to wave that wand for Mars will be the ones that will pay the premium to get there first.
I don’t know your mother, but would she really say “wtf” ?
The 12m BFR was optimized for mass payload delivery, the 9m BFR is optimized for economics. By using the existing factory and pads, SpaceX avoids billions of costs and cut out a few years of development. Seems straightforward to me. The BFR-9m ship is biggest they can make with the existing factory, and launch on the existing pads.