The Year Ahead for NASA’s Commercial Crew Partners
By Douglas Messier
Managing Editor
With just over seven months to go, NASA’s commercial crew partners are racing to complete 14 remaining milestones in this phase of the competition to launch Americans into orbit on U.S.-built spacecraft.
The coming months will see SpaceX conduct to abort tests of its Dragon spacecraft and Sierra Nevada conduct at least one additional drop test of its Dream Chaser shuttle. Boeing will conduct three critical design reviews and a comprehensive safety review of its CST-100 spacecraft.
The three competitors have completed a total of 33 out of 47 milestones through the end of 2013. Several of these milestones have been completed but are awaiting acceptance by NASA. Once that is completed, the space agency will have awarded $892 million out of $1.167 billion in possible awards.
The competition is fierce, and with Congress continuing to cut NASA’s funding requests for the program, it’s not clear how many systems the space agency will be able to fund in the next round. NASA could down select to one partner, or perhaps provide full funding for one system and partial funding for a second.
Summaries of each company’s progress and remaining milestones are shown below.
SpaceX Commercial Crew Milestones Status
Milestones: 15
Milestones Completed: 11
Milestones Pending: 4
Funding Awarded to Date: $330 Million
Funding Remaining: $130 Million
Total Possible Funding: $460 Million
Of SpaceX’s four remaining milestones, two are abort tests that should be spectacular regardless of their outcomes. The first will involve a pad abort test of the Dragon sapcecraft for which SpaceX will be paid $30 million if it is successful. That test will be a precursor to an in-flight abort test that will also be worth a $30 million milestone payment.
SpaceX’s other two milestones include Dragon primary structure qualification testing and an integrated critical design review, which are worth a combined $70 million.
| REMAINING SPACEX CCICAP MILESTONES | ||||
| No. |
Description | Original Date | Status | Amount |
| 11 | Pad Abort Test. SpaceX will conduct a pad abort test of the Dragon spacecraft. The scenario where an abort is initiated while the CTS is still on the pad is a design driver for the launch abort system as it dictates the total impulse and also requires parachute deployment in close proximity to the ground. | December 2013 | Pending | $30 Million |
| 12 | Dragon Primary Structure Qualification. SpaceX will conduct static structural testing of all Dragon primary structure components to ultimate load factors, as applicable. This series of tests will validate the Dragon structure’s ability to maintain integrity during all driving load cases as well as verify the accuracy of math models used to analyze the Dragon structure. Individual tests will be designed to exercise all credible failure modes and minimum margin areas. | January 2014 | Pending | $30 Million |
| 13 | Integrated Critical Design Review (CDR). SpaceX will hold an Integrated Critical Design Review (CDR) to demonstrate that the maturity of the CTS design is appropriate to support proceeding with full-scale fabrication, assembly, integration and test. | March 2014 | Pending | $40 Million |
| 14 | In-Flight Abort Test. SpaceX will conduct an in-flight abort test of the Dragon spacecraft. The in-flight abort test will supplement the pad abort test and complete the corners-of-the-box stress cases. The in-flight abort scenario represents a Dragon abort while under propulsive flight of the launch vehicle during the worst-case dynamic loads on the CTS. | April 2014 | Pending | $30 Million |
| TOTAL REMAINING, OUT OF $460 MILLION: | $130 Million |
|||
Boeing Commercial Crew Milestones Status
Total Milestones: 20
Milestones Completed or Awaiting Acceptance: 15
Milestones Remaining: 5
Funding Awarded or Pending: $404.5 Million
Funding Remaining: $75.5 Million
Total Possible Funding: $480 Million
Boeing has five milestones to meet this year, three of which involve critical design reviews of the CST-100 spacecraft. The company will first conduct reviews of the spacecraft’s primary structures and software. Boeing will then establish and demonstrate a critical baseline design of the transportation system.
Boeing will also conduct a Phase 2 Safety Review of the crew transportation system to ensure that it meets all standards. This review, which is the company’s final milestone for this phase of the commercial crew program, is worth $10 million.
Boeing will also conduct a pilot-in-the-loop demonstration of the CST-100 spacecraft. That milestone is worth $13.9 million.
| REMAINING BOEING CCICAP MILESTONES | ||||
| No. | Description | Original Date | Status | Amount |
| 10. | Spacecraft Primary Structures Critical Design Review (CDR). A Spacecraft Primary Structures CDR confirms that the requirements, detailed designs, and plans for test and evaluation form a satisfactory basis for fabrication, assembly and structural testing. | October 2013 | Pending | $8.6 Million |
| 17. | Pilot-in-the-loop Demonstration. Boeing shall demonstrate key hardware/software interfaces for Manual Flight Control meets requirements, including operational scenarios and failure modes. | February 2014 | Pending | $13.9 Million |
| 18. | Software Critical Design Review. Boeing shall conduct a Spacecraft Software CDR. CDR confirms that the requirements, detailed designs, and plans for test and evaluation form a satisfactory basis for flight software development, verification, and delivery. | March 2014 | Pending | $15.1 Million |
| 19. | Critical Design Review (CDR) Board. Boeing shall establish and demonstrate a critical baseline design of the CCTS that meets system requirements. CDR confirms that the requirements, detailed designs, and plans for test and evaluation form a satisfactory basis for production and integration. | April 2014 | Pending | $17.9 Million |
| 21A. | Boeing Spacecraft Safety Review. Boeing shall prepare and conduct a Phase 2 Safety Review of the Commercial Crew Transportation System (CCTS) Spacecraft Critical Design Review (CDR) level requirements, system architecture and design, and associated safety products to assess conformance with Commercial Crew Transportation System certification process (CDR-level products). Focus is review of the updated hazard reports, hazard causes and controls, and specific safety verification methods to reflect the CDR level of design detail forthe CCTS Spacecraft Segment. |
July 2014 | Pending | $20 Million |
| TOTAL REMAINING, OUT OF $480 MILLION: |
$75.5 Million | |||
Sierra Nevada Commercial Crew Milestones Status
Total Milestones: 12
Milestones Completed or Awaiting Acceptance: 7
Milestones Remaining: 5
Funding Awarded or Pending: $157.5 Million
Funding Remaining: $70 Million
Total Possible Funding: $227.5 Million
To paraphrase Jerry Reed’s theme song from “Smokey and the Bandit,” Sierra Nevada has a long way to go and a short time to get there. The company has five key milestones to meet in the next seven months, including at least one additional flight test of its Dream Chaser lifting-body spacecraft.
Sierra Nevada conducted a drop test of the vehicle at Edwards Air Force Base in California back in October. The flight went well, but the left landing gear failed to fully deploy, causing the Dream Chaser test article to crash. The company has had to make repairs to the vehicle before flying again.
Although Sierra Nevada officials declared the test a success, it actually demonstrated the slippage in the company’s schedule. The test flight actually fulfilled a milestone in the company’s previous commercial crew agreement with NASA under the CCDev round of funding that nominally ended in 2012.
At least one additional flight test must be conducted under the current CCiCAP round of funding. That test had originally been scheduled for April 2013, but it has now slipped into 2014 due to delays and the failure of the landing gear during the first drop flight in October.
Other milestones include wind tunnel testing, risk reduction and TRL advancement testing, main propulsion and reaction control testing.
| REMAINING SIERRA NEVADA CCICAP MILESTONES | ||||
| No. | Description | Original Date | Status | Amount |
| 4. | Engineering Test Article Flight Testing. The purpose of these additional free flight test(s) is to reduce risk due to aerodynamic uncertainties in the subsonic approach and landing phase of flight and to mature the Dream Chaser aerodynamic database. A minimum of one and up to five additional Engineering Test Article free flight test(s) will be completed to characterize the aerodynamics and controllability of the Dream Chaser Orbital Vehicle outer mold line configuration during the subsonic approach and landing phase. | April 2013 | Pending | $15 Million |
| 8. | Wind Tunnel Testing. The purpose of this testing is to reduce risk on both the DC vehicle and the DC/Atlas stack by maturing the DC and DCiAtias aerodynamic databases, providing improved fidelity in Reynolds number effects and control surface interactions, and will help determine pre-CDR required updates to the OML or control surface geometry if required. | February 2014 | Pending | $20 Million |
| 9. | Risk Reduction and TRL Advancement Testing. The purpose of these tests is to significantly mature all Dream Chaser systems to or beyond a CDR level. | May 2014 | Pending | $17 Million |
| 9A. | Main Propulsion and RCS Risk Reduction and TRL Advancement Testing. The purpose of these tests is to significantly mature the Dream Chaser Main Propulsion System and Reaction Control System to or beyond a CDR level. Risk reduction and Technology Readiness Level improvement tests will be completed for these systems. | May 2014 | Pending | $8 Million |
| 15A. | Reaction Control System Testing — Incremental Test No. 1. The purpose of the test on this pre-qualification unit is to support eventual qualification/certification by testing the thruster in flight-like environments. | July 2014 | Pending | $10 Million |
| TOTAL REMAINING, OUT OF $227.5 MILLION: | $70 Million | |||
31 responses to “The Year Ahead for NASA’s Commercial Crew Partners”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I wish each company success this year. What I don’t understand is how SpaceX can be so far along and still be ‘equally'(?) in the running with the other two companies. Sierra Nevada is taking forever to get anything done and Boeing is doing… what? I don’t even know (and I follow this like a hawk). And here we have the Dragon capsule going up over and over. If anyone knows anything about this ‘competition’ that somehow ‘levels the playing field’ regarding these three ‘competitors’ please edumacate me…
“edumacate” XD. Well Boeing has said that there abort tests are going to take place in the next phase of CCP and that they expect there first flight will be in 2016. From my view it looks like Boeing is about a year to a year and a half off Spacex but about a year ahead of SNC,
NASA’s take is they think they will have a crew provider ready to go by 2017.
I think that SpaceX will be ready next year.
The question is, what will happen?
That’s a different perspective from what I look at it from, do you think it would be wise to have just one provider?
Do you think if Boeing was in Spacex’s position(in terms of price and schedule) that Nasa should just select Boeing? No because that would eliminate any pressure on Boeing’s contract bid’s.
“SpaceX are charging $133M per visit to ISS and return, Orbital are charging $225M per visit to ISS and trash burn” no that’s the wrong way of looking at it! Spacex>1.6 billion for 20 tons and Orbital>1.9 billion for 20 tons.
Spacex under Nasa’s original critera are only around 15 percent cheaper than Orbital. So in retrospect the two providers got a 50-50 share of cargo contracts because they were around the same price. With crew the providers don’t know how Nasa will contract it out. Since Nasa is the customer and if it determines that one provider is significantly cheaper then the other they can choose to go with just one contract or two with one larger than the other to reward the cheaper provider. The latter is how I think it’s likely will pan out.
Anyone else think disqus is broken I posted this to myself which was an accident i was meant to post it as a reply to Micheal so then I deleted it but it didn’t delete and now it say’s it was posted by Guest ?
yeah, something has been going on today with the formatting.
What browser are you using?
chrome
same here.
On both my Linux and Android systems, I saw formatting issues.
A similar dynamic is apparent in the cargo contract in respect to Orbital. SpaceX looks like a winner despite their own schedule slippage.
What I’d like to know is:
1. ) How many more milestones would Boeing need to catch up to SpaceX? and
2.) How much would that cost?
I think the answers to those questions are greater than zero. If that is the case then why even continue with Boeing at this point? It seems any funds going to Boeing at this point would be better served in the hands of SpaceX and SNC.
Boeing is further along than SNC, and NASA has said time and time again that it would like to have two providers, like it has whit the cargo providers so they can compete the crew contract’s
2 providers using different hardware to provide assured access if there is a problem with one system. Such as a design fault emerges or quality problems etc. As it is, a problem with Soyuz and no access to ISS.so NASA would like 2 different systems.
I would also like to see dragon work on atlas and other 2 work on f9/fh.
Dragon on top of an Atlas? Don’t hold your breath.
Oh, I am not holding my breath, but, I would still like to be see us have the ability to swap things out easily so that when the next accident occurs (and hopefully one will; otherwise, we are not pushing enough), we can take down a system and still replace it with another.
Pushing the envelope is desirable during R&D and during flight testing but not so much during an actual revenue-generating mission. Therefore I do not see much upside in having an “accident” occur during an operational mission. SpaceX has a low cost spacecraft already designed to fly on its low cost booster. I don’t believe there will ever be much incentive for them to consider flying on the much more expensive Atlas V. Not to mention the technical (and expensive) challenges of vehicle integration between the two different systems.
Mark Sirangelo of Sierra Nevada has already stated that the Dream Chaser is being designed to be “vehicle agnostic,” ultimately capable of flying on several different types of boosters. It would make sense to see Sierra Nevada eventually switch over to the much less expensive Falcon9/Falcon Heavy. Or, if their dealings with ESA and Germany eventually pan out, then perhaps one day on the Ariane 5.
“so they can compete the crew contract’s”
There will be no “competition”. Assuming either Boeing or SNC reaches flight status there will be a simple choice: pay what SpaceX asks or pay double that amount for one of the others.
With cargo, SpaceX are charging $133M per visit to ISS and return, Orbital are charging $225M per visit to ISS and trash burn.
That’s a different perspective from what I look at it from, do you think it would be wise to have just one provider?
Do you think if Boeing was in Spacex’s position(in terms of price and schedule) that Nasa should just select Boeing? No because that would eliminate any pressure on Boeing’s contract bid’s.
“SpaceX are charging $133M per visit to ISS and return, Orbital are charging $225M per visit to ISS and trash burn” no that’s the wrong way of looking at it! Spacex>1.6 billion for 20 tons and Orbital>1.9 billion for 20 tons.
Spacex under Nasa’s original critera are only around 15 percent cheaper than Orbital. So in retrospect the two providers got a 50-50 share of cargo contracts because they were around the same price. With crew the providers don’t know how Nasa will contract it out. Since Nasa is the customer and if it determines that one provider is significantly cheaper then the other they can choose to go with just one contract or two with one larger than the other to reward the cheaper provider. The latter is how I think it’s likely will pan out.
“no that’s the wrong way of looking at it! Spacex>1.6 billion for 20 tons and Orbital>1.9 billion for 20 tons.”
Well that’s a different perspective from the way I look at it.
Shotwell has said that she expects that they will easily exceed that minimum carry of 20 tons. Since Dragon has a theoretical up payload mass of 6000kg and down payload mass of 3000kg, it’s up to NASA to extract as much value as possible. I suppose we shall see where the true value balance lies when it comes time to extend contracts.
“Do you think if Boeing was in Spacex’s position(in terms of price and schedule) that Nasa should just select Boeing? No because that would eliminate any pressure on Boeing’s contract bid’s.”
Well we know what would happen to Boeing’s prices if there were a lack of competition. But, if you would be so kind as to offer your opinion: do you think that an elimination of competition would result in an increase or a decrease in SpaceX’s prices.
All of which is not really the point with regards to “competing for crew contracts”. Surely there can be little doubt that SpaceX will lower their prices as low as they can, so long as it does not affect their long term goals. ULA are only in it for the money. NASA would like to spend as little as possible, but is happy enough to fork out extra in order to ensure options.
“ULA are only in it for the money.” yes because the are a private company, there purpose is to make as much money as they can.
“do you think that an elimination of competition would result in an increase or a decrease in SpaceX’s prices.” No but Spacex is the exception.
What i’m trying to say is that Nasa should assume that if any private company was a sole source provider then they would charge as much as they can because they are a private company. What happens if Spacex is the sole provider and Elon gets hit by a bus(knock on wood) or sell’s the company, or even has lied all this time and jacks up the prices. haha
“What happens if Spacex is the sole provider and Elon gets hit by a bus(knock on wood) or sell’s the company, or even has lied all this time and jacks up the prices. haha”
Yup.
Prices would go to what the market could bear.
As it is, I suspect that Musk will raise prices so as to have more profits to invest into R&D.
Now this is a tricky issue. Raising prices to fund R&D for long term benefit seems reasonable enough, especially if your’e still the cheapest launch provider. On the other hand, what SpaceX/Musk really wants is an exciting space faring future and Mars colonisation. The only route to there is the cheapest possible access to space and a huge increase in rocket launch and space use. I think they will resist any price increase except as a last resort. Instead they will more likely make the most of the early reusability gains by reducing prices more slowly than they perhaps could. It’s a delicate line to tread,; they are not going to get to a Mars colony solely on the back of the satellite launch market. Their “business” model/intention is lost cost and high volume, so they need to encourage more and more participants into the space business as soon and as quickly as possible.
The number of milestones seem to be particular to each vehicle and company, so not sure that 1) is strictly the right question. Wikipedia states that Boeing’s total ask is $620.9M and SpaceX’s is $544.6M. I believe the figures in the article apply to CCiDev, which just takes them to the end of those stated milestones.
I am tempted to assume that for SpaceX, the difference between, the $460M at the end of CCiDev and the $540M total is accounted for by orbital test flights and perhaps production vehicle/s, though test flights may be an additional cost.
It might be plausible to assume that the wiki figure of $620M is Boeings total requirement too.
For SNC wiki says $362.1M, but from where they are now to an actual orbit ready vehicle seems quite a way off.
Anyhow, using the numbers from the article above, totals paid so far: SpaceX $330M, Boeing $404.5M, SNC $157.5M
Difference to completion based on wikipedia numbers: SpaceX $214.6M, Boeing $216.4M, SNC $204.6M.
It’s possible that SpaceX may be ready for missions after another $214.6M. Would Boeing be complete with another $216.4M ?; not so sure, but maybe. I guessing that SNC will need loads more than $204.6M to reach the finish line.
Commercial Crew allocation for 2014 is $525M + $171 to be justified by a cost/benefit analysis.
Here’s how I see it playing out:
IF SpaceX gets the pad abort test done successfully and Sierra Nevada gets another drop test successfully completed (all the way to touchdown/rollout/full stop this time!) before NASA makes its funding decision this summer…, SpaceX gets full funding and Sierra Neveda gets partial funding to eventually provide dissimilar redundancy. Boeing gets dropped as funding a second capsule gets deemed to be an unnecessary luxury in tight fiscal times.
BUT, if either SpaceX or Sierra Nevada can’t hit those above milestones in time, SpaceX and Boeing get funded (Boeing partially if it was Sierra Nevada that missed) to provide assured access and competition, while Sierra Nevada gets dropped as being too far behind.
Finally, if SpaceX were to have a major setback (such as a launch failure) before the funding decision is made, it could be Boeing fully funded, SpaceX partially funded and Sierra Nevada dropped.
I like it, but I know that Boeing has some massive lobbying going on.
I would be shocked if SNC is involved even if they are successful.
I disagree I think if Boeing doesn’t significantly fall behind then they will be half funded.
This has been said before “dissimilar redundancy” doesn’t mean picking a lifting body and a capsule you can have dissimilar redundancy with two capsules.
IMO Nasa would be wise to pick capsules over a lifting body because Beoing’s capsule could compete for future cargo and beo contracts but Dreamchaser being a lifting body would need significant re-engineering to compete for.
the lifting body will offer more volume over a capsule.
Where are the numbers for Dreamchaser?
A sphere would offer more volume for a given size. A lifting body would only offer more volume if it were larger….and heavier…..and more expensive. DC is a case in point at 16m3, 11,340kg and $111Gazillion. Generally, for a given, size, mass and cost, a capsule would offer more volume than a typical “lifting-body”.
the dream chaser is flattened out and has more surface area than does a capsule/sphere.
And I am sure that DC will be heavier (and probably more expensive; but, I think that is why they want more re-usability with faster turn-arounds than capsule ).
No doubt the capsules will offer more weight to the volume, but space is normally volume constrained anyways.
In the cold light of day savings will be sought and this all really looks like a “first past the post race” rather than a logical system development.
Each contender has it’s merit…
Boeing…capsule… a corporate entity with a superb track record and may have massive political clout.
SpaceX… capsule… the “Peoples champ” an up and coming star. A superb track record to date… but what will happen when (if) they trip up?
SNC… lifting body… the outsider, making use of NASA’s research, in my humble opinion the outsider.I do wonder if the recent ESA “partnership” announcement will influence the decision regarding SNC’s future.
I would love to see SpaceX and SNC progress but suspect it will be Boeing and SpaceX.