Author Topic: CCDev to CCiCAP to CCtCAP Discussion Thread  (Read 516234 times)

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 539
« Last Edit: 09/16/2014 02:27 PM by Chris Bergin »
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 162
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1319
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 202
  • Likes Given: 277
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #2 on: 05/04/2012 06:58 PM »
It appears that the Atlas 5 has made another solid launch, completing  payload orbit at 12:56 EDT. That's 30 in a row!

Offline beancounter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Perth, Western Australia
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 162
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #3 on: 05/07/2012 02:33 AM »
It appears that the Atlas 5 has made another solid launch, completing  payload orbit at 12:56 EDT. That's 30 in a row!

Yes a very reliable vehicle.  Now they just need to work on reducing costs so they can compete internationally - that's assuming they actually want to compete.
Perhaps they're quite happy with the status quo!
Beancounter from DownUnder

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2943
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 661
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #4 on: 05/16/2012 11:57 AM »
The NASA Advisory Council's Commercial Space Committee recently held a meeting (May 1, 2012) to get updates from various NASA Centers on their commercial space activities.  Responses to five key questions were requested:

1. How is the Agency’s commercial space strategy message being perceived at the Center?
2. What is the Center doing to promote it?
3. What are the Center’s plans for transitioning from the Shuttle and Constellation programs to the new Agency direction that includes commercial space, and how are those plans progressing?
4. How is the Center addressing excess capacity issues?
5. Do you have any concerns or issues with transitioning to the Agency’s commercial space strategy?


Glenn, LaRC, JSC, FAA and Commecial Crew Program (CCP) gave presentations which have just been posted and can be found here:
http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/library/nac/commercial_space.html

I didn't see anything super-exciting on a first quick scan, but I expect there are a few little nuggets tucked away with a more careful read.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 778
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #5 on: 05/16/2012 06:55 PM »
Thanks. Usually, the most interesting information is in the meeting's minutes but they have not yet been posted.

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16961
  • Liked: 1055
  • Likes Given: 471
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #6 on: 05/17/2012 06:27 PM »
Not sure if this is the best thread, but ongoing telecon in case anyone interested wasn't already aware:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/may/HQ_M12-085_Garver_Comm_Spaceflight_Telecon.html

More of an overview of things than specific policy details so far.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2012 06:29 PM by psloss »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16961
  • Liked: 1055
  • Likes Given: 471
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #7 on: 05/17/2012 06:52 PM »
Not sure if this is the best thread, but ongoing telecon in case anyone interested wasn't already aware:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/may/HQ_M12-085_Garver_Comm_Spaceflight_Telecon.html
Audio is attached; however, I missed the introductions at the beginning.

Volume level is a little high...
« Last Edit: 05/17/2012 06:53 PM by psloss »

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 539
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #8 on: 05/17/2012 07:14 PM »
Not sure if this is the best thread, but ongoing telecon in case anyone interested wasn't already aware:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/may/HQ_M12-085_Garver_Comm_Spaceflight_Telecon.html
Audio is attached; however, I missed the introductions at the beginning.

Volume level is a little high...

Thanks.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Online Confusador

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 198
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 176
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #9 on: 05/18/2012 12:07 AM »
Not sure if this is the best thread, but ongoing telecon in case anyone interested wasn't already aware:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/may/HQ_M12-085_Garver_Comm_Spaceflight_Telecon.html
Audio is attached; however, I missed the introductions at the beginning.

Volume level is a little high...


Indeed, thank you.  Not really anything new in there: discussions of the goals of commercial spaceflight, the uncertain budget situation, and some cheer leading for Saturday.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 778
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #10 on: 05/18/2012 01:46 AM »
Some of the answers by Greason were pretty interesting. He said that he didn't like the idea of having only one provider or a leader and follower. He didn't think that it respected what the Augustine committee had in my mind when they proposed commercial crew. The fact that the leader follower option is used by the DOD didn't impress him. He said that the DOD's program weren't exactly a model for success. He said that he would prefer to have more than 2 providers in order to have real competition in order to avoid providers taking turns and acting like a bi-poly.

On whether NASA should allow space tourists to fly to the ISS. He said that if they don't, the commercial crew providers could try to sign agreements with other ISS operators (he probably meant Russia). 

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3187
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1571
  • Likes Given: 138
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #11 on: 05/18/2012 06:25 PM »
During the NASA C2+ pre-launch press briefing held today Ms Shotwell stated that with current envisioned funding (specifically mentioned the funding level that Congress is proposing for 2013) the first manned flight of DragonRider would be ~mid 2015. That is if they get the contract for CCiCAP and the follow-on contract as well, a total of 3 years from now.

NASA representative reiterated their NET 2017 expected date. I believe the 2017 date is NASA being conservative about it over the fact that SpaceX may not be on NASA contract and that other providers have more technical hurdles to accomplish to get to a manned launch. Also slips happen for various reasons and even SpaceX’s date of mid 2015 is seen as optimistic.

The question is has SpaceX improved their capability to predict the schedule or are they still (all evidence currently points at them being very optimistic) picking the earliest possible and not the earliest probable? And has NASA access to the full range of SpaceX prediction data that they then use to derive a conservative date?

Offline krytek

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 536
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #12 on: 05/18/2012 07:08 PM »
During the NASA C2+ pre-launch press briefing held today Ms Shotwell stated that with current envisioned funding (specifically mentioned the funding level that Congress is proposing for 2013) the first manned flight of DragonRider would be ~mid 2015. That is if they get the contract for CCiCAP and the follow-on contract as well, a total of 3 years from now.

NASA representative reiterated their NET 2017 expected date. I believe the 2017 date is NASA being conservative about it over the fact that SpaceX may not be on NASA contract and that other providers have more technical hurdles to accomplish to get to a manned launch. Also slips happen for various reasons and even SpaceX’s date of mid 2015 is seen as optimistic.

The question is has SpaceX improved their capability to predict the schedule or are they still (all evidence currently points at them being very optimistic) picking the earliest possible and not the earliest probable? And has NASA access to the full range of SpaceX prediction data that they then use to derive a conservative date?

An interesting comment Gwynne made was 2015 is not the most optimistic date, can be achieved even if failures happen along the way.
Quote from Gwynne: "It's a though business".

Anyway, multiple crewed flights in 2015 is awesome.

Online JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Liked: 349
  • Likes Given: 500
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #13 on: 05/18/2012 07:11 PM »
Also keep in mind that the 2017 date is for NASA certified flights and the briefing made specific mention of non-certified manned flights are possible ahead of that.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3187
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1571
  • Likes Given: 138
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #14 on: 05/18/2012 08:41 PM »
Once the milestone schedule is released for the winning CCiCAP contractors then, if SpaceX is one of them, the realisticness of 2015 for manned flight will be revealed. Unfortunately we'll have to wait until August to find out.

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 148
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #15 on: 05/18/2012 09:56 PM »
Does anybody happen to know off-hand about how successful the various CCDev competitors have been at meeting their milestones on schedule? Have there been any missed milestones yet?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 778
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #16 on: 05/19/2012 12:33 AM »
See this chart which is released at the same time as the 60 day report:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/639717main_CCDev2_Public_20120417_508.pdf

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22327
  • Liked: 608
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #17 on: 05/24/2012 11:28 PM »
Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but is there anything legally  preventing Lockheed from submitting it's own CCP proposal?
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #18 on: 05/25/2012 04:41 PM »
Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but is there anything legally  preventing Lockheed from submitting it's own CCP proposal?

Other than the fact that the deadline past, nothing.  it is likely they are involved in some of the submitted proposals if not all by themselves.

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12849
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3607
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: CCDev to CCiCAP Discussion Thread
« Reply #19 on: 05/25/2012 05:09 PM »
Not sure if this is the best place to ask, but is there anything legally  preventing Lockheed from submitting it's own CCP proposal?

Other than the fact that the deadline past, nothing.  it is likely they are involved in some of the submitted proposals if not all by themselves.

Lockheed Martin is heavily involved in the ATK/Astrium Liberty proposal.  The Liberty spacecraft appears, essentially, to be "Orion Lite", outfitted by Lockheed Martin, with final assembly at KSC alongside Orion.

 - Ed Kyle

Tags: