Author Topic: NASA Releases Draft RFP for CCtCap (i.e., Phase 2 of Certification)  (Read 94189 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
If they are really short on money for commercial crew. Perhaps, one option for CCtCap would be to go with SpaceX and Blue Origin (with reduced funding and a stretched timeline). It will be interesting to see if Blue Origin decides to compete under CCtCap.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2013 06:01 am by yg1968 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18197
  • Likes Given: 12158
I'm more of a SpaceX fan than a Boeing fan, but I really don't want to see an early down-select. I hope this means it will cause Boeing to lobby against early down-select.

Imagine how SpaceX would react if they got frozen out by Boeing. They'd probably fly next year just to show how wrong the decision was.

No, they won't. SpaceX is very good at making lot's of promises, but they have a lousy track record as to fullfilling those promises.
Even if a downselect to just one would be SpaceX I very much doubt SpaceX would be able to make the 2017 deadline.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
I think SpaceX could do it. If they had a splashdown and a hands-off NASA, I have no doubt they could hit 2017 for first orbital crewed flight. Actually, earlier.

The big difficulty is handling NASA's safety regulations and also the difficulty of docking with ISS.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
SpaceX is way ahead with their capsule.

Nobody has tested their LAS yet.

Boeing is ahead with their laucher until F9 v1.1 actually launches and then they'll be behind because they still need to develop DEC.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
SpaceX is way ahead with their capsule.

Nobody has tested their LAS yet.

Boeing is ahead with their laucher until F9 v1.1 actually launches and then they'll be behind because they still need to develop DEC.

We haven't seen semi-flight ready vehicles from any of the 3 competitors. Everyone is performing early testing using crude mockups. You can say that SpaceX's capsule is ahead, but don't base that on the current cargo Dragon. The new capsule is almost as different from the cargo capsule as the F9 V1.1 is from the V1.0, maybe more so.

The DEC work is being performed by ULA. I'm sure it will be done well before it's needed.

We still don't have any of the launch facilities updated to support crew either.

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
We haven't seen semi-flight ready vehicles from any of the 3 competitors. Everyone is performing early testing using crude mockups. You can say that SpaceX's capsule is ahead, but don't base that on the current cargo Dragon. The new capsule is almost as different from the cargo capsule as the F9 V1.1 is from the V1.0, maybe more so.

The DEC work is being performed by ULA. I'm sure it will be done well before it's needed.

We still don't have any of the launch facilities updated to support crew either.


I would disagree. The heart of the capsule is the pressure vessel, and that is the same. 80% of the reaction thrusters are the same.

"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9

I would disagree. The heart of the capsule is the pressure vessel, and that is the same. 80% of the reaction thrusters are the same.



The pressure vessel is just 1 line item out of thousands of components.

It might not even be exactly the same, since it needs to interface to a NDS hatch instead of the CBM. Different size openings and interfaces.

And not to mention that there is all new software to validate, again...

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Imagine how SpaceX would react if they got frozen out by Boeing. They'd probably fly next year just to show how wrong the decision was.

No, they won't. SpaceX is very good at making lot's of promises, but they have a lousy track record as to fullfilling those promises.
Even if a downselect to just one would be SpaceX I very much doubt SpaceX would be able to make the 2017 deadline.

Spite is an amazing motivator.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
We haven't seen semi-flight ready vehicles from any of the 3 competitors. Everyone is performing early testing using crude mockups. You can say that SpaceX's capsule is ahead, but don't base that on the current cargo Dragon. The new capsule is almost as different from the cargo capsule as the F9 V1.1 is from the V1.0, maybe more so.

The DEC work is being performed by ULA. I'm sure it will be done well before it's needed.

We still don't have any of the launch facilities updated to support crew either

I would disagree. The heart of the capsule is the pressure vessel, and that is the same. 80% of the reaction thrusters are the same.



No its not. Look at the milestones of the current contract. Pressure vessel proof and structural testing is one of the items. The new LAS puts some new structural paths that require a new design. And everything else is also improved. Their advantage is that every subsystem will be a second iteration of an already flying one. But you can't say that they have a better grasp of ISS than Boeing (they are the main ISS contractor).

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Imagine how SpaceX would react if they got frozen out by Boeing. They'd probably fly next year just to show how wrong the decision was.

No, they won't. SpaceX is very good at making lot's of promises, but they have a lousy track record as to fullfilling those promises.
Even if a downselect to just one would be SpaceX I very much doubt SpaceX would be able to make the 2017 deadline.

Spite is an amazing motivator.


So is a cattle prod.

If money was the issue, then why didn't the extra money added to the COTS program get SpaceX to the ISS sooner ? Perhaps having the assured CRS contract (and the pre-payments for future flights) actually reduced the pressure on SpaceX to deliver the product on schedule.

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 914
If money was the issue, then why didn't the extra money added to the COTS program get SpaceX to the ISS sooner ? Perhaps having the assured CRS contract (and the pre-payments for future flights) actually reduced the pressure on SpaceX to deliver the product on schedule.


Wasn't the extra money used for additional sub-system testing that NASA wanted? More testing = more time.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
If money was the issue, then why didn't the extra money added to the COTS program get SpaceX to the ISS sooner ? Perhaps having the assured CRS contract (and the pre-payments for future flights) actually reduced the pressure on SpaceX to deliver the product on schedule.


Wasn't the extra money used for additional sub-system testing that NASA wanted? More testing = more time.

The extra money was used to fund new milestones that should have been included in the original plan anyway. For instance, I suppose it could have been possible to attempt the COTS 2 flight without testing the solar panels on the ground first, but would that have been a wise development decision ?

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • Likes Given: 0
To move this discussion into a different direction, let me note that it is always important to see how the government is going to evaluate the various proposals. 

For this competition, buried deep in the verbage of section M, are the factors that will be considered most important.  For the first time in the commercial crew transportation development, cost is considered the most important factor, getting over half the points in the evaluator's scores.  Technical performance, including safety, gets less than one quarter of the total evaluation points.

So what do you think of that?

That is exactly what I would expect if I wanted one particular company to win the next round.
I'm more of a SpaceX fan than a Boeing fan, but I really don't want to see an early down-select. I hope this means it will cause Boeing to lobby against early down-select.

It would be great if we could have more than one company.  But the facts are that the funding is not there.  Any delay in down select will only add to delay before we get a new vehicle.  And waste money - the cost is not going to change dramatically down by having more than one company in the next phase.   NASA has already spent hundreds of millions that likely will never benefit the ISS or NASA and will never be regained by whatever cheaper the resultant winner can provide at, especially if we fund more than one in the next phase.  It is just the reality.  I understand the concern of putting all your eggs in one basket but I think SpaceX and Boeing have shown enough that it is a reasonable risk to take if we want to fly before 2018 or 2019.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
If money was the issue, then why didn't the extra money added to the COTS program get SpaceX to the ISS sooner ? Perhaps having the assured CRS contract (and the pre-payments for future flights) actually reduced the pressure on SpaceX to deliver the product on schedule.

I agree, which is entirely my point. SpaceX is going as fast as NASA will allow, without NASA in the way we'd see what pure motivation can produce. I've been criticized for being the only person to think SpaceX is going too slow - that's a half truth, I just think they could go faster. I think they think so too.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
We haven't seen semi-flight ready vehicles from any of the 3 competitors. Everyone is performing early testing using crude mockups. You can say that SpaceX's capsule is ahead, but don't base that on the current cargo Dragon. The new capsule is almost as different from the cargo capsule as the F9 V1.1 is from the V1.0, maybe more so.

I think "almost as different" is much too strong. There is a great deal of commonality there. Just as importantly, the team working on Crew Dragon is fresh from the experience of developing Cargo.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Quote from: NASA Commercial Crew Program
July  23, 2013 - CCtCap Pre-Solicitation Conference - NASA's CCP will host a Pre-Solicitation Conference and One-on-One sessions on August 1 and 2, 2013, respectively, at the Kennedy Space Center, Florida. The purpose is to present key aspects if the dRFP and solicit feedback from prospective Offerors to support NASA's development of the final RFP.
http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=157250
Source: http://commercialcrew.nasa.gov/page.cfm?ID=29

James Dean is at the CCtCap Pre-Solicitation Conference, today:

Quote from: Tweet from James Dean
Post-cert missions expected to rotate crews, but may have some overlap with Soyuz depending on timing, so could be different mission.

Quote
NASA: final RFP for next commercial crew contract phase expected in Oct; proposals due Dec.; contract awards July.

Quote
Interesting to hear talk of Flight Readiness Reviews at L-2 weeks...for missions that may be four years away.
 
Quote
NASA: This is really two contracts in one RFP -- there's an R&D element and a missions element.
 
Quote
CCtCap performance period runs July '14 through Sept. '17, duration depending on partner performance. Awards could run thru '20.
 
Quote
Reporters are allowed to attend but not record the proceedings after the introductory remarks.
 
Quote
Video shows first flight of every U.S. human space vehicle. Mango: People in this room will put the next human vehicle in LEO. (Applause)
 
Quote
Mango: won't predict budget; seeing more congressional support for commercial crew because it is showing progress.
 
Quote
Bob Cabana, Phil McAlister and Ed Mango have opened the CCtCap pre-solicitation conf. at KSC. "Want your feedback."

https://twitter.com/flatoday_jdean
« Last Edit: 08/01/2013 04:00 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
NASA reporting that it may go down to two competitors for next round.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/36559next-round-of-commercial-crew-round-likely-to-support-only-two-competitors

Quote from: SN article
“I don’t believe we are going to be able to carry three in the next round,” Phil McAlister, NASA’s director of commercial spaceflight development, told the NASA Advisory Council’s (NAC) Human Exploration and Operations Committee during a meeting at NASA headquarters here. “I think two would probably be sufficient to maintain competition.” [...]

Quote
“We’re saying at least one to the [international space station] ... in order to get certified,” McAlister said. “I anticipate all the partners will propose additional test flights.”
« Last Edit: 08/01/2013 02:58 pm by yg1968 »

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • USA
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 970
If money was the issue, then why didn't the extra money added to the COTS program get SpaceX to the ISS sooner ? Perhaps having the assured CRS contract (and the pre-payments for future flights) actually reduced the pressure on SpaceX to deliver the product on schedule.

I agree, which is entirely my point. SpaceX is going as fast as NASA will allow, without NASA in the way we'd see what pure motivation can produce. I've been criticized for being the only person to think SpaceX is going too slow - that's a half truth, I just think they could go faster. I think they think so too.
I don't disagree in theory, but the fact is, none of us know exactly how far along they really are and to what extent they will be able to accelerate after the LAS test at years end.

Take the recent realization that when they designed the octoweb, it allowed them to shut down 3 different Merlin assembly lines because now they have universal attach points. It was only a short time ago there was concern that the fairing was going to be an issue, now we find out they have a dozen already built and in storage with more on the way and everyone was asking about 2nd stage testing when it was already at VAFB.

My point being that we may be very surprised just how far along they are and how quickly they can accelerate if they receive a good portion of the down-select.

And if/when they are selected to take over Pad 39A, which I believe they will be, then they are perfectly positioned to prepare for Crewed Dragon infrastructure development.
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
If money was the issue, then why didn't the extra money added to the COTS program get SpaceX to the ISS sooner ? Perhaps having the assured CRS contract (and the pre-payments for future flights) actually reduced the pressure on SpaceX to deliver the product on schedule.

I agree, which is entirely my point. SpaceX is going as fast as NASA will allow, without NASA in the way we'd see what pure motivation can produce. I've been criticized for being the only person to think SpaceX is going too slow - that's a half truth, I just think they could go faster. I think they think so too.

Be careful what you wish for. They've only had two revenue producing flights (and those part of a larger contract) and have drastically increased workforce and production capability to meet the manifest demands in the past year. The money needs to come from somewhere.

The idea that NASA is slowing them down is nonsense. If they wanted to accelerate ahead of CCiCap milestones there is nothing holding them back. They are going as fast as funding and development permit.
« Last Edit: 08/01/2013 03:32 pm by newpylong »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
Article on today's conference on the draft RFP:
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130801/SPACE/130801019/NASA-space-industry-discuss-next-steps-commercial-crew-program

Quote
The competition is open, but boils down to three companies already developing systems with more than $1 billion in NASA support: The Boeing Co. and Sierra Nevada Corp., which plan to launch spacecraft atop United Launch Alliance rockets, and SpaceX. No other major launch provider appeared on a list of meeting attendees NASA provided.

Quote
Some industry representatives offered positive initial feedback about the contract’s attempt to build on a successful public-private partnership. “NASA’s made a great effort to try to make this both commercial and safe,” said Adam Harris, SpaceX vice president for government sales.
« Last Edit: 08/02/2013 02:08 am by yg1968 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1